2013 BRZ vs. 2017 86 (Everyday Driver)

[LotsaMiles]

Originally Posted by unhappymeal

In my opinion, the torque dip is not a practical issue for acceleration. I think any sane person would just downshift and floor it if they truly needed to move. What I find is that it's an enjoyment or convenience issue. The engine just does not feel as linear or responsive as something like the K20, K24 or SkyActiv in the Miata. This is especially true when driving around town where you're unlikely to rev the engine out.

For me, it is very reminiscent of the power curve in my old Honda V45 magna motorcycle. At a certain point it is almost as if a turbo kicked in. It's quite exhilarating.

[LotsaMiles]

Originally Posted by guybo

What I find funny about ED is that they ALWAYS bring up the power. Yes, we know guys, everyone knows. But apparently ED finds something about this car to be pretty special because they won't STFU about it. From what I see on thier YT channel, they have videos about the 86 more than any other car. They throw it into comparos it should not be anywhere near (like a Lotus that costs 2x as much) or other videos not even about an 86.

For a car they claim has too little power, they rank it as the best car in a lot of comparos and compare it to much more expensive cars.

Remember Smokey and the Bandit? That Firebird weighed over 3,500 lbs and had only 185 BHP, yet it was considered a real muscle car. Though the torque was a bit more impressive.

https://myclassicgarage.com/marketpl...ntiac-firebird

My whole life I've been into handling more than power, and even then, with the six speed manual, I can coax more out of this thing than any car I've owned. When you use your gears properly, this car is amazing on the twisties and a joy to drive.

And these guys all agree:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xAVE6V7Zu4"]Toyota GT86 - The ultimate review (best of best reviews) 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by LotsaMiles

Remember Smokey and the Bandit? That Firebird weighed over 3,500 lbs and had only 185 BHP, yet it was considered a real muscle car. Though the torque was a bit more impressive.

Honestly, I don't know anyone that considers any sporty cars built by the Big 3 during the Malaise Era to be "muscle" cars. They were some of the worst cars ever built, and were only remotely powerful and fast if you threw away all the power robbing emissions equipment - which was/is illegal.

The 86 would embarrass Corvettes from that era.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by ~el~jefe~

What I noticed is not the torque loss, but the what-the-hell amount of torque at 2000-3000 rpm. It shoots me between cars if I am in 3rd or 4th gear. Not many cars rip through 1800-3500 as fast as my car. It then tables off for a 1000 rpm, and then goes psycho. if the car had worse low end torque people would praise it for its "great power band". This is how i see it, not that the dip is bad on my 2017 manual, but that low end is some sci-fi shit going on. it is a classy car to drive around a city or traffic due to that low and smooth power low down.

This is it, if it was entirely gutless below 4,500 rpm it'd be just another high-revving low torque NA car like an S2000 or RX-7/8 or even a 911 GT3 or Cayman GT4 and the bitching would be cut in half overnight.

Here's two dynos of a Cayman GT4, it's down 30-40 ft-lbs at ~3,500 rpm compared to peak at ~4,500 rpm, even WITH a header on the 2nd chart.








The 86 is down 20 ft-lbs off it's peak at fucking 2,500 rpm vs. 3,500 rpm and suddenly it's a piece of shit. Nevermind that it comes back stronger and flatter than ever from 4,500 rpm on up. Fucking hypocrites (not ED or anyone in particular). I like everyday driver for the most part, their 86 vs. RX-8 vs. S2000 video is great, but I really want this torque dip 'criticism' to die.

[LotsaMiles]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Honestly, I don't know anyone that considers any sporty cars built by the Big 3 during the Malaise Era to be "muscle" cars. They were some of the worst cars ever built, and were only remotely powerful and fast if you threw away all the power robbing emissions equipment - which was/is illegal.

The 86 would embarrass Corvettes from that era.

Exactly! But I think about that when I hear people say the 86 is underpowered.

i.e. it is all relative.

I remember reading a review in either car and driver or road and track about the "new" mustangs back some time in the 80's. The eurosnobs complained that it had "too much" power. I know the California highway patrol liked using them.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

This is it, if it was entirely gutless below 4,500 rpm it'd be just another high-revving low torque NA car like an S2000 or RX-7/8 or even a 911 GT3 or Cayman GT4 and the bitching would be cut in half overnight.

Here's two dynos of a Cayman GT4, it's down 30-40 ft-lbs at ~3,500 rpm compared to peak at ~4,500 rpm, even WITH a header on the 2nd chart.








The 86 is down 20 ft-lbs off it's peak at fucking 2,500 rpm vs. 3,500 rpm and suddenly it's a piece of shit. Nevermind that it comes back stronger and flatter than ever from 4,500 rpm on up. Fucking hypocrites (not ED or anyone in particular). I like everyday driver for the most part, their 86 vs. RX-8 vs. S2000 video is great, but I really want this torque dip 'criticism' to die.

First, an RX7 has torque all over the place thanks to it's sequential twin turbo set up.

And second, it's different when you have a torque dip from a powerful engine instead of one with merely adequate power rating. Yeah, even my Cayman has a noticeable torque dip in the mid-range. And I can definitely feel it. But I'm still accelerating at a pretty good clip if I'm on the throttle hard so it doesn't matter much.

A faster rate of acceleration from a more powerful engine means less time is spent in the torque dip. Less powerful engine means more time spent dwelling in the dip. So if you're pushing through the torque dip in a BRZ, esp with the AC on, it's considerably more noticeable. Sorry but that's the truth. Not an opinion formed to slam the BRZ. Just a factual statement.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

So if you're pushing through the torque dip in a BRZ, esp with the AC on, it's considerably more noticeable. Sorry but that's the truth. Not an opinion formed to slam the BRZ. Just a factual statement.

If you're "pushing through the dip" you should learn how to fucking shift, no different than an S2k or Cayman. It's a bullshit criticism.

[WolfpackS2k]

Good luck with that in 1st or 2nd gear.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

And second, it's different when you have a torque dip from a powerful engine instead of one with merely adequate power rating. Yeah, even my Cayman has a noticeable torque dip in the mid-range. And I can definitely feel it. But I'm still accelerating at a pretty good clip if I'm on the throttle hard so it doesn't matter much.

A faster rate of acceleration from a more powerful engine means less time is spent in the torque dip. Less powerful engine means more time spent dwelling in the dip. So if you're pushing through the torque dip in a BRZ, esp with the AC on, it's considerably more noticeable. Sorry but that's the truth. Not an opinion formed to slam the BRZ. Just a factual statement.

True, but the Cayman also cost twice as much as the BRZ. No car for 25k brand new will be perfect out of the box. It just depends on what your priorities are. If you crave torque you could buy a ecoboost Mustang, but you will have to compromise in other areas.


Things start getting a little more subjective when you start comparing 10 year old Porsches to brand new Subarus. I could have bought a used C6 Corvette for around the same price as my car and decimated 99% of the cars on the road, but it didn't check all my boxes. Relative to other new cars in it's price range, the BRZ's torque dip is not a huge drawback (for me anyways).

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

If you're "pushing through the dip" you should learn how to fucking shift.

There are only so many gears to shift.


Treat every situation like you're on a racetrack, solid advice.

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

. I could have bought a used C6 Corvette for around the same price as my car and decimated 99% of the cars on the road, but it didn't check all my boxes.

Just curious what boxes it didn't check?

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by dowroa

What I really got out of it, from Todd's perspective was "I made the right decision in moving onto a Lotus". That is a reaching assumption, but that is "validation-type" messages I generally have seen in their videos when his FR-S was compared to anything.

If that is the case then it strikes me as funny because the Elise with a 2ZZ has even less torque and power than a stock 2017 86. The difference is that you are carrying around about 700LBs less. But you are also giving up any type practicality let alone ease of entry. You can comfortably daily drive a BRZ or FR-S/86. Only a masochist would daily an Elise.

But whatever "checks the boxes"!

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Good luck with that in 1st or 2nd gear.

I have no problems with that in any gear that I've ever needed. If I'm bogged down in 2nd or 1st gear so is any other car that's torque challenged at low rpm. I've done a fair bit of autocross at this point, I've felt the pain of a 20 mph hairpin when I didn't downshift to first, I'm not denying reality, if I wanted to squirt out of a corner by stomping the pedal at 2k rpm I'd get something with 6-8 cylinders, not an RX-8 or GS-R or 86 or Elise. And guess what, the Cayman bogs just as much through that same 20 mph hairpin, it isn't magic.

That's my only point, this isn't some special criticism that makes this car any worse than any other car with lower torque at low rpm like your Cayman or GS-R. You found what's right for you in the bigger engine that delivers more torque across the board, the shape of the curve isn't really the problem as you full well admit in your post.

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

There are only so many gears to shift.


Treat every situation like you're on a racetrack, solid advice.

There are enough gears and a 3k rpm powerband, same as the Cayman GT4 dyno I posted and much better than some cars that manage to escape criticism like the S2000.

Treat every situation where you need all firebreathing 151 ft-lbs of torque like a situation where you need to choose the appropriate gear, like any other fucking car.

If you want 151 ft-lbs of torque at partial throttle at 4k rpm buy a Mustang or Cayman. Don't buy an 86 or S2000 or RX-8 or Elise. The only thing I want to point out is that this isn't some 'special' problem the 86 has.

Criticize it for low torque all day long, I won't write any impassioned speeches about that. But saying that the 'dip' is the problem imho is silly.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

Just curious what boxes it didn't check?

Mainly that it didn't have any room for a car seat in the back. When I bought my car 4 years ago I knew that my wife and I were going to try and have a baby in the near future. Now I have a 3 year old boy who loves driving in the car with his dad. Also, I'm not sure I could have afforded to keep replacing those meaty rear tires.

Originally Posted by Rampage

If that is the case then it strikes me as funny because the Elise with a 2ZZ has even less torque and power than a stock 2017 86. The difference is that you are carrying around about 700LBs less. But you are also giving up any type practicality let alone ease of entry. You can comfortably daily drive a BRZ or FR-S/86. Only a masochist would daily an Elise.

But whatever "checks the boxes"!

Before I bought my FRS I heavily considered an Elise and rented one for about a week to see what it was all about. I had owned a stripped NA Miata, so I figured it couldn't be much worse than that. The car itself was great, but incredibly cramped, especially in the footwell. The powerband of the 2ZZ means that the car didn't start feeling fast until over 5k and by that time you are probably close to earning a felony.


The Elise is a fantastic car, but gets a lot of attention (whether you want it or not) and it is near impossible to drive to the limit on public roads. My hat is off to anyone who can daily drive the Elise without eventually breaking down and buying a cheap Civic on the side.