No 'Vert, No Turbo

[Ddreder]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Oh goddammnit Toyota fucking everything up again, calling it now the '13s will only be worth $10k next summer as everyone jumps ship as they finally realize their sexuality: Miata or Mustang.

In 6 months we've gone from 20K to 17K..

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Ddreder

In 6 months we've gone from 20K to 17K..

Pretty standard depreciation.
If you bought this car as an investment you made a very poor life choice.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Ddreder

In 6 months we've gone from 20K to 17K..

Our cars are actually doing pretty good compared to some other coupes.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

If you bought this car as an investment you made a very poor life choice.

I bought this car as a CAPEX investment, and I think I made a very good choice considering how cheap it has been to operate.

Not all returns are capital gains, and not all investments are made for capital gains.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

I bought this car as a CAPEX investment, and I think I made a very good choice considering how cheap it has been to operate.

Not all returns are capital gains, and not all investments are made for capital gains.

Exactly, and as a CAPEX you expect and factor in the depreciation costs vs. the operational costs, overall efficiency and practical application of the purchase.
In this case operating costs are lower then many, the "equipment" is extremely efficient and the practical part is just pure fun!

Unfortunately all many people ever understand is the capital gains concept of an investment!

[BWilky]

I have been waiting to see what they may do for 2016...and throught increasing the engine size would make the most sense if no turbo...it would add extra torque which it appears it needs more then HP.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by BWilky

I have been waiting to see what they may do for 2016...and throught increasing the engine size would make the most sense if no turbo...it would add extra torque which it appears it needs more then HP.

Don't expect them to do what "makes sense" expect them to do what makes money!
You are more likely to see a turbo than a bigger engine (and fat chance on the turbo) as the car is designed and balanced for what it has now. You may be waiting a long time to see any significant changes.

[BWilky]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Don't expect them to do what "makes sense" expect them to do what makes money!
You are more likely to see a turbo than a bigger engine (and fat chance on the turbo) as the car is designed and balanced for what it has now. You may be waiting a long time to see any significant changes.

I am still planning on it....just was hopefull!

[totopo]

Originally Posted by BWilky

I have been waiting to see what they may do for 2016...and throught increasing the engine size would make the most sense if no turbo...it would add extra torque which it appears it needs more then HP.

extra torque requires stronger driveline components. Reliability expected out of a oem car is log orders above reliability out of aftermarket tuned cars. So don't say so-and-so gets xxxhp out of his car and it runs fine.

Don't say subaru can just plop in the sti turbo. Subaru and toyota don't have a 6-spd manual transmission for a rwd sports car that can take the torque. Also why I think any sort of bigger engine is unlikely. subaru doesn't have any rwd solutions.

Other than that, I bet a bunch of the joints and driveline pieces like the axle are barely rated for the torque they have now. Why you see those post about the busted axles.

Upping the power for a production car is not some simple thing as just dropping in a turbo. I bet those companies don't have a drop in solution for transmission and a lot of the downstream driveline components. Plus beefier versions of those would add really significant amounts of weight.

[beatgenie]

I'm kind of glad a turbo isn't coming out any time soon. It would make me want to trade mine in....trading in is kind of a hassle and I'd end up losing a lot of money since my FR-S will have depreciated in value a whole lot by then.

Maybe in 5 years I'll be ready

[civdaddy]

I don't care too much about more power. Would I pay more for a power bunp, yes. I just want these cars to be reliable at 100k+ miles. Itl be nice buying them for cheap and being able to drive the crap out of them relatively worry free. So wel see.

[Defuser]

Originally Posted by civdaddy

I don't care too much about more power. Would I pay more for a power bunp, yes. I just want these cars to be reliable at 100k+ miles. Itl be nice buying them for cheap and being able to drive the crap out of them relatively worry free. So wel see.

I concur whole-heartedly. Right now for me it is a fun, practical car. Diminishing the practicality in any way would not make me happy. Those who want more power/performance have options available to them.

I drive around 600 miles per week. I have the 125,000 mile warranty. Reliability is king.

[FR-Sizzle]

Originally Posted by phobos512

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/11/25/s...rbo-ruled-out/

Sorry, dreamers.

Thanks for reposting this for the 1000th time

[KNS]

Originally Posted by BWilky

I have been waiting to see what they may do for 2016...and throught increasing the engine size would make the most sense if no turbo...it would add extra torque which it appears it needs more then HP.

While many here are fine with the current power output, I think more prospective buyers would be attracted to a car with a bit more "ummph".

Not surprised about the drop-top. Convertible sales across all makes have been falling for a few years now.