Shopping between BRZ and MX-5. Can't get over torque dip.

[Tcoat]

LOL Now we are onto Civics.
We really do suck at selling these cars!

[PetrolioBenzina]

Originally Posted by JD001

There was a 'practical' purpose for the torque dip?

Yeah, to point out the people who could figure out how to drive around it vs. those who couldn't.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

LOL Now we are onto Civics.
We really do suck at selling these cars!

That's what we're good for.
We don't sell the 86/BRZ, we sell civics!

[PetrolioBenzina]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

LOL Now we are onto Civics.
We really do suck at selling these cars!

Maybe it was OP I heard the other day in the Type R.

[alphasaur]

I owned a supercharged NA and currently has a 17 86.

You can make the 86 as quick as the ND with an e85 tune (and still keep cal emissions intact?)

If you want to be squirrely get a downpipe.

You will never be able to make up the room deficit.

[bkharmony]

I think you should get the Miata.

[PetrolioBenzina]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

LOL Now we are onto Civics.
We really do suck at selling these cars!

No, nobody has recommended a Mustang yet.

[Oxyg3n]

If I never visited this forum I wouldn't even have known this car had a torque dip. Now that I know it's there, I still don't really feel it. What it feels like to me is just normal normal normal and then vtec at 4.5k rpm.

Sent from my SM-G9600 using Tapatalk

[PetrolioBenzina]

Originally Posted by Oxyg3n

If I never visited this forum I wouldn't even have known this car had a torque dip. Now that I know it's there, I still don't really feel it. What it feels like to me is just normal normal normal and then vtec at 4.5k rpm.
Sent from my SM-G9600 using Tapatalk

It's way more evident pre-17 MT and AT. Still nothing to complain about, except for all the complaining. What's funny is you rarely heard the AT dudes complain about it, while the MT "driver involvement" crowd couldn't shut up about it. Driving around the dip is/was the essence of "driver involvement".

[Oxyg3n]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

It's way more evident pre-17 MT and AT. Still nothing to complain about, except for all the complaining. What's funny is you rarely heard the AT dudes complain about it, while the MT "driver involvement" crowd couldn't shut up about it. Driving around the dip is/was the essence of "driver involvement".

Ah I see. AT owners probably don't worry about it as much since although they may theoretically be slower than MT, they may feel quicker around town since they don't keep losing power during an upshift, especially evident sometimes when I'm lazy shifting.

Does anyone else feel like they have to shift from 1st to 2nd really quick to keep up when your first in line at the traffic light lol.
Sent from my SM-G9600 using Tapatalk

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

LOL Now we are onto Civics.
We really do suck at selling these cars!

Either you get it or you dont. We shouldnt have to sell this car to anyone.

When / if we do we wind up with idiotic threads and people bitching more than the most cynical of current owners.

[Adam_L]

Originally Posted by KAuss

This is one of the reasons why I'm making the switch. However, that being said, I'm not blind to the fact that the MX-5 has 34.5 mpg compared to the 29 in the MT BRZ.

There are several members here, with '13-'16 model years, MT, that tend to average 31-32mpg at a low (usually 33-35mpg at best) , or even on longer drives 300+ miles, 95+% highway driving, some people have averaged 36-39mpg.

It all depends how heavy your right foot is, type of tires (and air pressure) used , and are you in the right gear given the rate of speed at the time ( faster you can get into 2nd- 3rd gear around town … the better, and obviously going 55+ mph the faster you can get into 5th-6th gear the better). Matching speed with the right gear is critical. …. but those three are critical in reaching a higher MPG.

[new2subaru]

Originally Posted by Oxyg3n

Ah I see. AT owners probably don't worry about it as much since although they may theoretically be slower than MT, they may feel quicker around town since they don't keep losing power during an upshift, especially evident sometimes when I'm lazy shifting.

Beats me. I drive an Auto and know the torque dip is there but it`s not like it in your face or anything UNLESS you pin the gas pedal. I`m not in the habit of doing that in the city. I really don`t see what all the complaining is about. It`s a phenomenal car for the money.



This car is plenty quick in my books.

[HKz]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

It's way more evident pre-17 MT and AT. Still nothing to complain about, except for all the complaining. What's funny is you rarely heard the AT dudes complain about it, while the MT "driver involvement" crowd couldn't shut up about it. Driving around the dip is/was the essence of "driver involvement".

AT never changed or got updated same for all MYs