(GR86) Second Generation FR-S/BRZ insider info...

[HKz]

Originally Posted by LimitedSlip

Okay, what is up with this. The top picture is the automatic console. The bottom picture is the manual. Why are we being penalized a cup holder for going with the manual? Maybe just pre-production differences? Obviously, they would be adding the cup holder for the final version, right?

maybe they figure it would be pointless to have a cupholder there since it could get in the way of shifting? the 3rd cupholder would be cool but not a biggie if we don't get it on MTs.. seems like they put some nice padding for your arm instead of the hard plastic we currently have between ebrake/spot for heated seats/cupholders..

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Ironically, I have a black FRS hoodie like that I wear all the time in the car. Bought 3 of them at the First86 event. Basically have worn them all out.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by wbradley

This in-

Toyota previews scowl grille, and reveals that they are getting the moustache this time.

Not sure why this keeps popping up.
The FRS had a visible crash bar under the grill the same as the camoed car does.




The facelifted 86 had an exposed mustache. It was just more eloquent and debonair than the BRZ one.

[LimitedSlip]

Originally Posted by HKz

maybe they figure it would be pointless to have a cupholder there since it could get in the way of shifting? the 3rd cupholder would be cool but not a biggie if we don't get it on MTs.. seems like they put some nice padding for your arm instead of the hard plastic we currently have between ebrake/spot for heated seats/cupholders..

Looking at it again, it's configured more like a big cubby that could pass for a cup holder. I see your point about having a Super Slurpy interfere with a 3>4 shift.

[TheDonEffect]

Originally Posted by LimitedSlip

Okay, what is up with this. The top picture is the automatic console. The bottom picture is the manual. Why are we being penalized a cup holder for going with the manual? Maybe just pre-production differences? Obviously, they would be adding the cup holder for the final version, right?

Man I hope so. I don't necessarily need it to hold a drink, I need it to have somewhere to put my keys down, or whatever small object I happen to be carrying that I don't want it rolling around on a seat, or a million other things we have these days like a parking garage ticket.

They're not in production yet, so I hope beyond hope that they keep the cupholder. It was really one of the biggest aggravations I had with the original car.

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by HKz

which parts look like a tiburon...? maybe glasses time..?

From the side, the taillights and the sloping rear trunk do look like a Genesis Coupe.

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The facelifted 86 had an exposed mustache. It was just more eloquent and debonair than the BRZ one.

Ooo.... which historical figure moustache inspired the current BMW front end then?

(maybe a little too on the nose?)

[wbradley]

Errol Flynn yes, uncle Joe Stalin definitely no!

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by LimitedSlip

Okay, what is up with this. The top picture is the automatic console. The bottom picture is the manual. Why are we being penalized a cup holder for going with the manual? Maybe just pre-production differences? Obviously, they would be adding the cup holder for the final version, right?

Could just be a preproduction oddity in an earlier version.

[DarkSideFRS]

in for the valve spring recall!

or rod knock. it's a subie motor after all

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

There is still a dip exactly where the old one was it just isn't as pronounced.

How do you know this? Perhaps I was thrown off by the fact the 2.4 achieves peak torque at 3,700 rpm versus 6,400 rpm for the 2.0. And that 3,700 rpm peak corresponds to the exact low spot in the 2.0's torque curve.

But after looking at a 2.0 dyno, I see the 2.0 produces about the same level of torque from 2,700 rpm to 3,200 rpm as it does from 4,500 rpm all the way to 6,500 rpm. I guess we’ll have to see a 2.4 dyno chart to determine if Subaru reshaped the torque curve in any meaningful way.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

Ooo.... which historical figure moustache inspired the current BMW front end then?

(maybe a little too on the nose?)

[wbradley]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

Ooo.... which historical figure moustache inspired the current BMW front end then?

(maybe a little too on the nose?)

Yeah, I'd like to know who did, too.


Why am I craving pastrami on a kaiser?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

How do you know this? Perhaps I was thrown off by the fact the 2.4 achieves peak torque at 3,700 rpm versus 6,400 rpm for the 2.0. And that 3,700 rpm peak corresponds to the exact low spot in the 2.0's torque curve.

But after looking at a 2.0 dyno, I see the 2.0 produces about the same level of torque from 2,700 rpm to 3,200 rpm as it does from 4,500 rpm all the way to 6,500 rpm. I guess we’ll have to see a 2.4 dyno chart to determine if Subaru reshaped the torque curve in any meaningful way.

Someplace in one of these threads is a picture of the dash with the torque graphics.
The dip is smaller but still there.