FRS/BRZ vs. 2013 Civic SI

[clevrname]

I owned an 8th gen SI and I would take the high revving, torqueless K20 any day of the week over a K24. The car is no comparison to my FRS but it begged to be beaten and was a lot of fun for what it was. I hate the 9th gen civic, think its a waste.

[IloveBaldEagles]

This thread is like comparing two great songs. Highway to hell, and, Stairway to heaven. Both great, yet each has its own uniqueness.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

They don't market them much.. The GT-86 gets a bit more marketing outside the US, I'll admit. Outside of a commercial or two at launch, there wasn't much fanfare outside of driving magazines and websites.

If Toyota cared about the "sporty car" buyer at all, the FR-S would look rather different than it does. The tail-happy suspension, the skinny non-grippy tires that deliberately hold it back in comparison tests (but make it more fun to fling about), the emphasis on low-weight and driving focus, all point to a car intended purely for enthusiasts. Toyota intends this to be a niche car, much like the aformentioned MX-5. The Si appeals to - and is intended for - a larger audience.

ive seen more commercials for the frs than i do for any other car outside of the camry, tc, or corolla. i feel like that puts it up there. is it more targeted for normal drivers than the matrix which ive never seen an ad for?

regarding the looks of the frs, are you trying to say that "normal" drivers dont appreciate good looking, aggressive cars? do you think that "normal" drivers take the electronic assists off to actually put themselves in a tail happy situation? have you ever considered that the low grip antics are only half of the equation and maybe in an actual attempt to appeal to a broader market, they installed low rolling resistance tires for better gas mileage?

of course the civic is going to appeal to a larger market but that has no effect on who toyota is targeting. my guess is that over 99% of the frs running around (in america at least) spend most, if not all of their time performing mundane tasks just like the si

[MVJ1975]

Originally Posted by fatoni

ive seen more commercials for the frs than i do for any other car outside of the camry, tc, or corolla. i feel like that puts it up there. is it more targeted for normal drivers than the matrix which ive never seen an ad for?

regarding the looks of the frs, are you trying to say that "normal" drivers dont appreciate good looking, aggressive cars? do you think that "normal" drivers take the electronic assists off to actually put themselves in a tail happy situation? have you ever considered that the low grip antics are only half of the equation and maybe in an actual attempt to appeal to a broader market, they installed low rolling resistance tires for better gas mileage?

of course the civic is going to appeal to a larger market but that has no effect on who toyota is targeting. my guess is that over 99% of the frs running around (in america at least) spend most, if not all of their time performing mundane tasks just like the si

Of course they do, they're cars. I suspect there are lots of Caymans making grocery runs too, but I don't think Porsche designed them to do that. Speaking of that, Porsche runs ads for the Cayman, too. By "looks" I'm not talking about the styling, but rather the essence/features of the car.

The FR-S will misbehave with the nannies on with these tires, especially in the wet, so you're going to get low-grip antics whether you want them or not. Most definitely if you're new to RWD. Add in the basically useless backseat, the decidedly feature-free cabin, the need for 93 octane fuel (Si only needs 91), all point to a car that isn't going to win many comparisons in the eyes of an "average" driver, especially when you can get the Si in hatchback and sedan flavor. Toyota does care about those customers, as I said, it has the tC for them - the FR-S gets them in the door, and then they sell them the tC they really wanted. Honda used to have a pure-enthusiast car as well - the S2000.

Toyota certainly doesn't mind if non-enthusiast drivers buy the car, though. Money is money.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

Of course they do, they're cars. I suspect there are lots of Caymans making grocery runs too, but I don't think Porsche designed them to do that. Speaking of that, Porsche runs ads for the Cayman, too.

The FR-S will misbehave with the nannies on with these tires, especially in the wet, so you're going to get low-grip antics whether you want them or not. Most definitely if you're new to RWD. Add in the basically useless backseat, the decidedly feature-free cabin, the need for 93 octane fuel (Si only needs 91), all point to a car that isn't going to win many comparisons in the eyes of an "average" driver, especially when you can get the Si in hatchback and sedan flavor. Toyota does care about those customers, as I said, it has the tC for them.

Toyota certainly doesn't mind if non-enthusiast drivers buy the car, though. Money is money.

porsche very much targets "normal" drivers. there is way too much hype about rwd on this forum and my guess is that many people on this forum are experiencing rwd for the first time. all this talk about unavoidable low grip stuff is a bit extreme dont you think? we have had light weight, low grip cars throughout history without a problem and even today there are many "normal" drivers riding around in trucks (light weight, high tq, useless to no backseats). 93 isnt required either. there are many frs running around in socal where 93 isnt an option. very few cars cater to an exclusive enthusiast demographic and if they do, the most certainly do not come with the option for a slow, expensive, heavy, conventional automatic transmission and offer 30+ mpg

[MVJ1975]

Originally Posted by fatoni

porsche very much targets "normal" drivers. there is way too much hype about rwd on this forum and my guess is that many people on this forum are experiencing rwd for the first time. all this talk about unavoidable low grip stuff is a bit extreme dont you think? we have had light weight, low grip cars throughout history without a problem and even today there are many "normal" drivers riding around in trucks (light weight, high tq, useless to no backseats). 93 isnt required either. there are many frs running around in socal where 93 isnt an option. very few cars cater to an exclusive enthusiast demographic and if they do, the most certainly do not come with the option for a slow, expensive, heavy, conventional automatic transmission and offer 30+ mpg

Porsche does target "normal" drivers, but it doesn't do so with the Cayman. The Cayenne and Panamera are their "normal" driver cars - and IIRC they sell many more of them than any other model and keep the brand afloat.

Trucks have their own market. They haul things and have a large bed. Do you think Ford markets the F150 to soccer moms? I'm sure it doesn't care if they buy them, but it doesn't care what they want when it designs them, either.

Cars used to be mostly RWD, but they haven't been so in a long time. I'm not saying that RWD is somehow inherently superior to FWD, but it does behave differently. Modern drivers aren't generally used to it. I certainly wasn't.

The manual says 93. I feel bad for the CA people, but they have the government they elected.

The automatic isn't particularly slow. The only difference between it and the MT is that you can easily launch the MT. 5-60 times for both transmissions are basically identical. In Sport mode the AT would probably scare or annoy someone used to a lazier AT. If you cared about 0-60 and drag racing, why would you buy this car anyway? Besides, the Miata has offered a standard torque converter auto for years and I don't think anyone would say the Miata isn't a niche enthusiast's car. I seem to recall the NSX did too, and you don't get much more niche than the NSX.

I don't think I'm being particularly surprising or unusual when I say the FR-S is intended for enthusiasts. It may appeal to others, but that's a nice side effect. It's pretty clear when you look at the car and the sales targets Toyota and Subaru planned.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

Porsche does target "normal" drivers, but it doesn't do so with the Cayman. The Cayenne and Panamera are their "normal" driver cars - and IIRC they sell many more of them than any other model and keep the brand afloat.

Trucks have their own market. They haul things and have a large bed. Do you think Ford markets the F150 to soccer moms? I'm sure it doesn't care if they buy them, but it doesn't care what they want when it designs them, either.

Cars used to be mostly RWD, but they haven't been so in a long time. I'm not saying that RWD is somehow inherently superior to FWD, but it does behave differently. Modern drivers aren't generally used to it. I certainly wasn't.

The manual says 93. I feel bad for the CA people, but they have the government they elected.

The automatic isn't particularly slow. The only difference between it and the MT is that you can easily launch the MT. 5-60 times for both transmissions are basically identical. In Sport mode the AT would probably scare or annoy someone used to a lazier AT. If you cared about 0-60 and drag racing, why would you buy this car anyway? Besides, the Miata has offered a standard torque converter auto for years and I don't think anyone would say the Miata isn't a niche enthusiast's car. I seem to recall the NSX did too, and you don't get much more niche than the NSX.

I don't think I'm being particularly surprising or unusual when I say the FR-S is intended for enthusiasts. It may appeal to others, but that's a nice side effect. It's pretty clear when you look at the car and the sales targets Toyota and Subaru planned.

there are a lot of things im now too lazy to respond to but ill hit a couple i guess. first, i think we just have different definitions of certain terms and its causing a lot of confusion. second, the at is only close to the mt time from 5-60 because it has one instead of two shifts. the miata has sold nearly a million cars. thats indicative of having a broad market. niche or not, it doesnt mean its catered purely to enthusiasts. the nsx is from a time where there werent dcts. the nsx is also a supercar so much of its appeal is also prestige so they are targeted more toward people who can afford the car rather than people who want them.

you arent surprising saying its for enthusiasts. its surprising that you are saying thats all they are targeting.

[MVJ1975]

Originally Posted by fatoni

there are a lot of things im now too lazy to respond to but ill hit a couple i guess. first, i think we just have different definitions of certain terms and its causing a lot of confusion. second, the at is only close to the mt time from 5-60 because it has one instead of two shifts. the miata has sold nearly a million cars. thats indicative of having a broad market. niche or not, it doesnt mean its catered purely to enthusiasts. the nsx is from a time where there werent dcts. the nsx is also a supercar so much of its appeal is also prestige so they are targeted more toward people who can afford the car rather than people who want them.

you arent surprising saying its for enthusiasts. its surprising that you are saying thats all they are targeting.

The FR-S/BRZ is built to a price. I'm sure Subaru and Toyota would have loved to put a DCT in the car, but it wasn't in the budget, and the only fancy sequential automatic Toyota has is in the LFA. Even the IS-F uses a torque converter. The amount of time they've spent working on the 6AT and making it as little of a detraction from the car as possible instead of just dropping in a Corolla or tC autobox and calling it a day is pretty indicative of who they think is going to buy the car.

Look at the ads Toyota has put out - what do they show the car being used for? Hooning. Drifting. There's no mention of the backseat or any practical features. One commercial even alludes to the fact that it'll annoy your significant other with its immaturity. The car is marketed to people who enjoy the fun of driving.

Let's say you're an average "A to B" driver who wants a sporty inexpensive car. You don't care about FWD, AWD, RWD, or no wheel drive. You're comparing on specs, price, and practicality for a daily driver. What would make you choose the FR-S/BRZ over things like the Si, MS3, WRX, GTI, or Focus ST? Absolutely nothing. The FR-S is slower 0-60 and around a track. It has less interior room, and the interior is decidedly low-rent as compared to the GTI or MS3. There's no hatchback or four-door option. I'd suggest that the only thing that'd make you choose the FR-S over those cars is that it's more fun to drive, and if fun-to-drive is the reason you buy a car, well, you might just be an enthusiast.

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

The FR-S/BRZ is built to a price. I'm sure Subaru and Toyota would have loved to put a DCT in the car, but it wasn't in the budget, and the only fancy sequential automatic Toyota has is in the LFA. Even the IS-F uses a torque converter. The amount of time they've spent working on the 6AT and making it as little of a detraction from the car as possible instead of just dropping in a Corolla or tC autobox and calling it a day is pretty indicative of who they think is going to buy the car.

Look at the ads Toyota has put out - what do they show the car being used for? Hooning. Drifting. There's no mention of the backseat or any practical features. One commercial even alludes to the fact that it'll annoy your significant other with its immaturity. The car is marketed to people who enjoy the fun of driving.

Let's say you're an average "A to B" driver who wants a sporty inexpensive car. You don't care about FWD, AWD, RWD, or no wheel drive. You're comparing on specs, price, and practicality for a daily driver. What would make you choose the FR-S/BRZ over things like the Si, MS3, WRX, GTI, or Focus ST? Absolutely nothing. The FR-S is slower 0-60 and around a track. It has less interior room, and the interior is decidedly low-rent as compared to the GTI or MS3. There's no hatchback or four-door option. I'd suggest that the only thing that'd make you choose the FR-S over those cars is that it's more fun to drive, and if fun-to-drive is the reason you buy a car, well, you might just be an enthusiast.

I don't know about how other people shop for cars, but everyone has a budget and money talks more than comparison. I bought the FR-S not only because I wanted it, but it was the cheapest, by far of all it's competitors that I couldn't afford EVEN if I really wanted them (believe it or not the 2013 SI is more expensive than the FR-S right now here)...or else I'd have to go get a used one. I mean a cayman is very close to be a competitor performance/experience wise but nobody will cross shop them, the price gap is just stupid.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

The FR-S/BRZ is built to a price. I'm sure Subaru and Toyota would have loved to put a DCT in the car, but it wasn't in the budget, and the only fancy sequential automatic Toyota has is in the LFA. Even the IS-F uses a torque converter. The amount of time they've spent working on the 6AT and making it as little of a detraction from the car as possible instead of just dropping in a Corolla or tC autobox and calling it a day is pretty indicative of who they think is going to buy the car.

Look at the ads Toyota has put out - what do they show the car being used for? Hooning. Drifting. There's no mention of the backseat or any practical features. One commercial even alludes to the fact that it'll annoy your significant other with its immaturity. The car is marketed to people who enjoy the fun of driving.

Let's say you're an average "A to B" driver who wants a sporty inexpensive car. You don't care about FWD, AWD, RWD, or no wheel drive. You're comparing on specs, price, and practicality for a daily driver. What would make you choose the FR-S/BRZ over things like the Si, MS3, WRX, GTI, or Focus ST? Absolutely nothing. The FR-S is slower 0-60 and around a track. It has less interior room, and the interior is decidedly low-rent as compared to the GTI or MS3. There's no hatchback or four-door option. I'd suggest that the only thing that'd make you choose the FR-S over those cars is that it's more fun to drive, and if fun-to-drive is the reason you buy a car, well, you might just be an enthusiast.

this is my point. when things are built to a price, it is so that it appeals to your economy, not your enthusiasm. i would also like to mention that simply dropping a tc or corolla auto in the car likely would have happened if they werent designed for fwd layouts.

having fun driving isnt valued exclusively to enthusiasts. they use that to sell mazda 3s and dodge darts too.

[BRZerk]

I test drove a brz, 2012 civic si, and a focus ST.

BRZ sold me as soon as I sat in it. It is just in a completely separate class than an SI.

That and its 10 times more attractive.

[sf5]

I would love to test drive a BRZ/FR-S, but I couldn't really consider buying that car. I know it's RWD and looks way cooler than the Si, but the CHEAPEST you can lease one is $300 or more a month with at least $3,000 down.

I was able to pick up my '12 Si Coupe for under $220 monthly with only $2,100 down.

The Si isn't that far away from the BRZ, and if it was RWD it might well be better. I'll keep my 9th gen Si and pay a lot less any day even though the BRZ/FR-S is the better car.

If you're a serious sports-car "enthusiast," buy a 335 or 135 and never look back. This isn't the 90's anymore, and 200 horses in a new car doesn't cut it for an "enthusiast."

[Liebot]

Originally Posted by sf5

I would love to test drive a BRZ/FR-S, but I couldn't really consider buying that car. I know it's RWD and looks way cooler than the Si, but the CHEAPEST you can lease one is $300 or more a month with at least $3,000 down.

I was able to pick up my '12 Si Coupe for under $220 monthly with only $2,100 down.

The Si isn't that far away from the BRZ, and if it was RWD it might well be better. I'll keep my 9th gen Si and pay a lot less any day even though the BRZ/FR-S is the better car.

If you're a serious sports-car "enthusiast," buy a 335 or 135 and never look back. This isn't the 90's anymore, and 200 horses in a new car doesn't cut it for an "enthusiast."

Hey great first post!. How many "horses" would it take to "cut it" for an "enthusiast"?

[Chicago]

Originally Posted by LeeMaster

As for the new NSX and its "SH-AWD Hybrid" system, I dont think you have ever done research on it before nor have you ever driven one. You cannot tell us that this new NSX is not going to revolutionize the sports car industry much like the very first one that was released back in the early 90s. I shall hold you accountable for this quote and will show the world exacily what kind of s**t was coming out of your mouth on February 17, 2013 @ 10:19 PM.

LMAO!!