BRZ vs FRS - The Debate

[oldpueblo]

Originally Posted by TheSt|G

And it becomes quite clear right here why don't understand.

Manual has nothing to do with numbers, track times, or red light races.

You get my point I'm sure. The automatic is hardly this big numbing massive abstract layer between you and car where you can't feel/tell what's going on. I drove stick for years and somehow I manage to enjoy driving automatics still.

[TheRipler]

Were it not for the phallic nature of the manual transmission, I suspect massively superior transmissions would have been developed decades ago.

Alas, guys just like to row their sticks.

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I like you, you're old and you don't give a f*ck.

I'm slowly going your way lol

it does take time! i have to admit!

Originally Posted by fatoni

if the auto entirely misses the point are you saying that the whole point of this car is shifting? i was under the impression that its the handling that this car is about, which is not changed by the transmission.

this is correct! some may say the japanese installed the ''slush box" in a nod
to the people who want "convenience",but i don't believe this, because the ''slush" IS a "sweet" one!.car's really about handling,as you don't have a "ton"
of horsepower simply because it's NOT needed!

[TheSt|G]

Originally Posted by oldpueblo

You get my point I'm sure. The automatic is hardly this big numbing massive abstract layer between you and car where you can't feel/tell what's going on. I drove stick for years and somehow I manage to enjoy driving automatics still.

Whatever you want to call it, I find anytime I drive any sort of automatic I become distracted and disengaged from the experience. Sure the handling isn't too impacted(aside from the weight), but the overall experience is just that much more removed. Couple that with the speed and reliability penalty along with a higher initial cost and you have a setup that I simply can't understand the allure of.

[einzlr]

Originally Posted by TheSt|G

The BRZ/FRS/86 is the first full production car in years that I have wanted.

Me too :happy0180:

Originally Posted by TheSt|G

It's a giant middle finger to the horsepower war, weight gains, and computer driven performance of the modern sports car.

And all the crazy features adding weight, cost, complexity. Rain-sensing wipers, lane departure warning, backup camera - bah! Just give me a car that puts a grin on my face. I see this car as maybe not so much a middle finger as simply a "let them have their 600+ hp and 13 drive modes if that's what floats their boat and we'll build a car for the rest of us"

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Obioban

This would matter if you bought a car that was fast, so you needed to be in the correct gear to take the corner at optimal speed. But, the BRZ/FRS is slow, and the sporty nature of the car is the driving experience. Balancing three pedals, a steering wheel, and the shifter is exactly what the car is all about.

it makes more sense that you need to be in the right gear because the car is slow. you dont have that turbo generated flat tq curve. its a momentum car and being in the wrong gear kills momentum. sport cars arent about shifting imo. they are about driving.

[TheSt|G]

Originally Posted by fatoni

it makes more sense that you need to be in the right gear because the car is slow. you dont have that turbo generated flat tq curve. its a momentum car and being in the wrong gear kills momentum. sport cars arent about shifting imo. they are about driving.

All cars are momentum cars. Anything in the wrong gear will be slower than the same car in the right gear.

[SkitterSkotter]

Somehow I managed to get 37.8 mpg on my last tank...While I did do quite a bit of highways driving, I also think I did between 15-20% in the city. I cannot get over how good of mileage this car gets.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by TheSt|G

All cars are momentum cars. Anything in the wrong gear will be slower than the same car in the right gear.

its more important to be in the right gear in some cars compared to others. cars like the mustang gt or the ms3 make a much smaller compromise when you arent in the optimal gear compared to cars like the frs or miata

[robo_robb]

I was on the fence for a while but ultimately went with the FR-S for a few reasons:

The styling and handling characteristics of the FR-S are the original Toyota spec. What Subaru did is take Toyota's vision and make it more Subaru-like. Hence the front-end styling (which I'm not a fan of) and the slightly less exciting nature of the suspension.

I know the following paragraph won't be popular with the Subaru fanbois, but it should be noted that although Subaru builds the car, they do so under direct supervision of Toyota. Subaru manufactures the car because it is financially beneficial for Toyota. To give Subaru credit, they did their fair share of engineering, but still had to answer to Toyota and its goal. We all know who the lead engineer is. It's fairly obvious which of the two companies put their driving ethos into the twins.

Also, frivolities such as climate control (which I always set to manual anyway), NAV, and heated faux-suede seats I don't care for.

HIDs would have been nice though.

[TheSt|G]

Originally Posted by robo_robb

Also, frivolities such as climate control (which I always set to manual anyway), NAV, and heated faux-suede seats I don't care for.

HIDs would have been nice though.

The nav(Pioneer) sucks, but everything else is a significant upgrade. Alcantara holds you better in the bends, auto climate means one less thing to get in the way of you driving, HIDs are just better, and red/orange gauges are much better for your night vision than white.

I also leave the seat heater in low to massage my back.

It's all worth 4lbs.

[Roadliner]

Originally Posted by robo_robb

I was on the fence for a while but ultimately went with the FR-S for a few reasons:

The styling and handling characteristics of the FR-S are the original Toyota spec. What Subaru did is take Toyota's vision and make it more Subaru-like. Hence the front-end styling (which I'm not a fan of) and the slightly less exciting nature of the suspension.

I know the following paragraph won't be popular with the Subaru fanbois, but it should be noted that although Subaru builds the car, they do so under direct supervision of Toyota. Subaru manufactures the car because it is financially beneficial for Toyota. To give Subaru credit, they did their fair share of engineering, but still had to answer to Toyota and its goal. We all know who the lead engineer is. It's fairly obvious which of the two companies put their driving ethos into the twins.

Also, frivolities such as climate control (which I always set to manual anyway), NAV, and heated faux-suede seats I don't care for.

HIDs would have been nice though.

Agree.
Its like building your home with a renowed home builder.
The architect drws out your dreams and the bricklayers, plumbers, landscapers carry it out. In the end, although I cant draw plans out like the architect, and heaven help me if I try to repair a leaking tap on my own, in the end the homes turned out the way I wanted it, not the way the others who actually built it wanted it.

Toyota could have gone with a small V6, an inline 4, fwd, but they decided that a purist sportscar using Subaru's architecture would be able to be priced for the masses. And it turned out to be nothing like Subaru would have built themselves.

[Shagaliscious]

I personally couldn't like the uglier front end of the BRZ enough to buy one. And nothing that the BRZ adds could make up for it, for me anyway.

[Vegas Racing]

So when the BRZ STI and FR-S TRD versions are released will we have this debate all over again? I am patiently awaiting those cars, I wanna see which factory tuner can do it better