BRZ/frs vs Toyota Altezza Beams

[Turbowned]

misedaithi, all I can suggest is, drive the two back-to-back and see which one you like best. Obviously not many people on here have experience driving a BEAMS Altezza. In the U.S. we're stuck with the mediocre 2JZ-GE powered Lexus cousin. I've seen some crazy tuned Altezzas running around Japan, and TRD made a lot of really cool parts for it back in the day. I think they're really great, but quite different. The age wouldn't scare me away from driving it daily; it's a Toyota after all!

[Dimman]

Altezza was the first 'spiritual successor' to the AE86.

IS300 is what happens when you give a highly competent sports sedan to an image-conscious luxury brand known for boring marshmallow cars.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Altezza was the first 'spiritual successor' to the AE86.

IS300 is what happens when you bring a highly competent JDM sports sedan to US Shores.

FTFY.

[Brian S]

I used to hate working on the top-ends of those yamahas slapped on yota blocks. People would rebuild or mess with their lotus's and bring them back to us when they realize they had no idea what they were doing. Itty biddy rocker arms where you need a microscope to try and measure clearences. Why I always got stuck with em who knows but I always ended up spending more time than needed on those things.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by misedaithi

Seems to me the frs doesnt offer much over this approx 14+ year old car apart from a coupe profile, 90kg weight loss, and a little better mpg.

Originally Posted by misedaithi

my point is the lack of progress since the launch of the altezza. This car offers little more than the altezza that could not be achieved by removing the back doors (weight reduction) and a marginally more efficient I4 engine.

From what I've read, the (dual VVT-i 3S-GE equipped) JDM Altezza RS200 from ~14 years ago seems very different than the JDM 86 today (mass and wheelbase converted for USDM readers):

car    lbs        wheelbase  yen (when new)
RS200  2950-3020  105"       2.5-3.3M
86     2624-2711  101"       1.9-2.8M

To be fair to the RS200, I'm not sure if that price included consumption tax, but it was definitely a larger, heavier, more expensive vehicle.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by mattles

Id like to point out that the FRS is a very low 2+2 sports car with a wonderfully smooth engine and sexy low nose/hood line. Whereas the IS300 is a fat, tall sedan that in the US is borderline ugly. The IS300 wasnt designed from the ground up to be a sports car, its just a sporty touring sedan -- apples to oranges.

So have you driven the 86? If so how would you describe the engine smoothness to other engines?

[Turbowned]

Still, you can buy 5 of them for what a new 86 costs... I think that's something you guys might've glazed over...

[mattles]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

So have you driven the 86? If so how would you describe the engine smoothness to other engines?

Its a boxer, meaning it has perfect primary balance by design but the secondary balance is not as close to perfect as say an inline6 or v12. Its is about as smooth as any low displacement inline6 or v12, though.

Its night and day compared to a high strung inline4.

I own an 86, and I would buy it over an IS300 any day, assuming both were brand new, 0 miles, etc.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by mattles

Its a boxer, meaning it has perfect primary balance by design but the secondary balance is not as close to perfect as say an inline6 or v12. Its is about as smooth as any low displacement inline6 or v12, though.

Its night and day compared to a high strung inline4.

I own an 86, and I would buy it over an IS300 any day, assuming both were brand new, 0 miles, etc.

Thank you good sir! You have answered one of my issues I have had with owning my RSX and Ichi answered the other one about the auto tranny. I believe I will fall in love with the car because I like my RSX(Not 100% in love with it more like 75%) but this is my problem with it

FWD(UNBALANCED)
Strunged out 4 banger with weak low end TQ
Automatic with terrible gearing and no rev-match feature.

The FRS/BRZ fixes all of that.

[mattles]

the FRS/BRZ is a slow bastard in a straight line too, almost identical quarter mile times as the type-s RSX

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Thank you good sir! You have answered one of my issues I have had with owning my RSX and Ichi answered the other one about the auto tranny. I believe I will fall in love with the car because I like my RSX(Not 100% in love with it more like 75%) but this is my problem with it

FWD(UNBALANCED)
Strunged out 4 banger with weak low end TQ
Automatic with terrible gearing and no rev-match feature.

The FRS/BRZ fixes all of that.

Is the tq curve really that much better than that of the rsx?

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by fatoni

Is the tq curve really that much better than that of the rsx?

Dyno shows a bit of richness before 3200 rpms than the RSX base I own. I need to drive the car to find out though.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Dyno shows a bit of richness before 3200 rpms than the RSX base I own. I need to drive the car to find out though.

I think you'll be disappointed by low end power, I think it's fair to consider the K20 (any K20) torque delivery to be superior to the FA20 as the dual cam profiles really help make the torque more consistent whereas the FA20 has nothing at all below 2000rpm...but the rest of the issues should be fixed.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Brian S

I used to hate working on the top-ends of those yamahas slapped on yota blocks. People would rebuild or mess with their lotus's and bring them back to us when they realize they had no idea what they were doing. Itty biddy rocker arms where you need a microscope to try and measure clearences. Why I always got stuck with em who knows but I always ended up spending more time than needed on those things.

???

You talking about 2ZZs? We're talking about 3Ss.