EVO: Subaru BRZ vs Subaru Impreza 2000 Turbo review

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

No, '02 WRX is totally different chassis than author test drove. First gen is '93~01 (in US) & Second gen is '02~'07 (in US). Chassis are totally different (even tho you can swap em out back & forth between them).
GC/GM/GF = 2,600lbs~2,850lbs
GB/GD = 2,965lbs~3065lbs

To clarify ichitaka05's post, the USA didn't get the WRX until the 2002 bugeye. When the WRX finally came out here, many of us were excited for the turbo and improved chassis stiffness, but also felt that the old 2.5RS was more fun.

Originally Posted by iLuveKetchup

The BRZ is far from a lightweight car, especially relative to its small size. I still don't see where all the weight is coming from. The twins hide it well.

I disagree.

The 2002 Civic Si with a 2.0L engine was ~2740 pounds, while being FWD and having fewer airbags. It was pretty close in size to the FT86 (the Si was taller and a bit longer; the FT86 is wider).

A Mini Cooper S with a turbo 1.6L is ~2670 pounds. It's FWD and smaller than the FT86.

An MT MX5 starts just shy of 2500 pounds, and tops out at ~2600 pounds. That car is significantly smaller than the FT86 (much shorter wheelbase) and doesn't come with a spare.

In some markets the FT86 is as little as ~2620 pounds. In the USA, we get them well equipped, and they're 2758-2776 pounds (for the MT).

[iLuveKetchup]

MX-5 significantly smaller? You would think the BRZ would weigh less because it doesn't need the extra chassis stiffening as in a convertible. A Lotus Elise, NA/NB Miatas are light cars. Not a 2750lbs BRZ.

[jer305]

Originally Posted by Deslock

To clarify ichitaka05's post, the USA didn't get the WRX until the 2002 bugeye. When the WRX finally came out here, many of us were excited for the turbo and improved chassis stiffness, but also felt that the old 2.5RS was more fun.


I disagree.

The 2002 Civic Si with a 2.0L engine was ~2740 pounds, while being FWD and having fewer airbags. It was pretty close in size to the FT86 (the Si was taller; the FT86 is longer and wider).

A Mini Cooper S with a turbo 1.6L is ~2670 pounds. It's FWD and smaller than the FT86.

An MT MX5 starts just shy of 2500 pounds, and tops out at ~2600 pounds. That car is significantly smaller than the FT86 (much shorter wheelbase) and doesn't come with a spare.

In some markets the FT86 is as little as ~2620 pounds. In the USA, we get them well equipped, and they're 2758-2776 pounds (for the MT).

Comparing FWD to RWD in regards of weight is kind of wrong man.

[Frost]

This review gives me headaches. I hear a lot of bitching really but nothing aside from its lack of power is truly explained. I know the car is low on power - it was told to us right off the bat so I am not expecting much. As neither an owner of the BRZ/FR-S I would say I am trying to look for information to scrutinize the car and welcome any truly unbiased reviews of this vehicle and EVO's comparo really doesn't help me at all.

Ironically, I am cross shopping the WRX with the BRZ given that the BRZ fully loaded comes in at 34-35k CDn and the WRX starts there. The WRX offers more functionality and also means I don't need two cars (BRZ + a daily driver) but at the same time I miss out on the fun factor. This review did nothing but tell me that the old WRX is POWAH and the BRZ needs more POWAH. It goes on very little substance on what other reviewers say it is such a fun car to drive.

MotorTrend's resident racer, Randy Pobst, summarizes the BRZ best when he said it is practically up there with the MX5 in terms of his favourite driver's cars. This is a guy racing cars where I'm sure POWAH isn't an issue yet he kept insisting on reminding viewer's of MT's YouTube channel "See the smile on my face?" everytime he drove the BRZ.

As far as I am concerned, the review by EVO is to be discarded as irrelevant since it carries nothing similar to all the other reviews. In a purely scientific sampling, if 9 independent sources tell you to go left but the 10th tells you to go right, you'd trust the 9. Hence, I discard EVO's review plain and simple.

Oh well.

[kayen]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

You're correct, you can't get GM/GC/GF chassis turbo here in US. Also you're forgetting that, GB/GD chassis were A LOT heavier
GC/GM/GF = 2,600lbs~2,850lbs
GB/GD = 2,965lbs~3065lbs



It's all depend. '02~'03 had EJ207 which a lot of owner complain it lack tq... but '04 they brought over EJ257 gave em decent push.

02-03 WRX had an EJ205, which was an Open Deck Non-AVCS Engine with Small Port heads and a Single Scroll Turbo. Japan had the EJ207 with AVCS, Big Port Heads and Twin Scroll Turbo's. Added a substantial amount of Low and Mid RPM Torque.

The EJ257 was created mainly for emission reasons, as they were not going to be able to keep emissions low and have the same output as the EJ207 was in Japan.

[zxzr750]

No I think he gets it; and so do I. I really love this car. It's probably the best vehicle purchase I have ever made. But In my opinion, what you have is a car with a stellar chassis matched with a not-quite so stellar of an engine. What this engine really needs is more refinement....
It's often I am asked to let someone to drive my car, to which I am often reluctant. Not because I'm one of those noobs who dont let people drive their cars. It's because the engine doesn't live up to the rest of the hype and I know it.

[tripjammer]

I disagree, with a Ecutek 93 octane tune and the Redline raised to 7800 RPMs, this car has plenty of power. You will get into the upper 5 secs range going this route. Sure you will never be as fast as a WRX or STI but you will get 30 MPG.

This car does not need 400 HP, it needs about 250 to 300 HP.
A proper supercharger is all it needs.

[Frost]

Originally Posted by zxzr750

No I think he gets it; and so do I. I really love this car. It's probably the best vehicle purchase I have ever made. But In my opinion, what you have is a car with a stellar chassis matched with a not-quite so stellar of an engine. What this engine really needs is more refinement....
It's often I am asked to let someone to drive my car, to which I am often reluctant. Not because I'm one of those noobs who dont let people drive their cars. It's because the engine doesn't live up to the rest of the hype and I know it.

An honest-to-God from the heart statement - I like!

Although to be fair, the engine is not a sole-purposed racing engine, they were going for economy, response and a few other things. Had they gone strictly race, it would be more in line of what you were hoping for.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by zxzr750

No I think he gets it; and so do I. I really love this car. It's probably the best vehicle purchase I have ever made. But In my opinion, what you have is a car with a stellar chassis matched with a not-quite so stellar of an engine. What this engine really needs is more refinement....
It's often I am asked to let someone to drive my car, to which I am often reluctant. Not because I'm one of those noobs who dont let people drive their cars. It's because the engine doesn't live up to the rest of the hype and I know it.

I was just about to say the same thing you posted. Why is folks on here bitching and complaining about the guy not being specific? I read the article and he mentioned all the other dynamical areas is great(gearbox/brakes/steering) except for the engine. These guys on this forum is just as touchy as any other forums I've been on.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by iLuveKetchup

How does have another 50hp/tq detract from it's characteristics. The BRZ is far from a lightweight car, especially relative to its small size. I still don't see where all the weight is coming from. The twins hide it well.

When increasing factory hp/tq, Toyota does not simply increase output and stop there. They beef up the chassis, drivetrain, brakes, wheels/tires, etc. Basically all components need to safely and reliably handle a higher rated load. Tada-san said it best: "We had a vicious cycle which we needed to avoid. More power, a turbo, more weight, more cost... We called it the devil's circle." People who wish this car came with more power are indirectly asking for more weight and cost. There are plenty of other options for that already on the market.

Why don't we see any econocars today that weigh the same as the original AE86? It's really no mystery. The hidden weight you are referring to comes from increased safety requirements (airbags, collision reinforcements, etc.). The 2005 MR-S was heavier than the 2000 MR-S because it had significantly more reinforcement bars. And number of airbags remained the same between those years. But in very recent years, the number of has gone up adding *way* more weight. The concept of lightweight even by 2010 standards is obsolete today.

[reni]

Next up, a comparo between the BRZ and a minivan. The minivan has more cupholders, so it is the clear winner.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

When increasing factory hp/tq, Toyota does not simply increase output and stop there. They beef up the chassis, drivetrain, brakes, wheels/tires, etc. Basically all components need to safely and reliably handle a higher rated load. Tada-san said it best: "We had a vicious cycle which we needed to avoid. More power, a turbo, more weight, more cost... We called it the devil's circle." People who wish this car came with more power are indirectly asking for more weight and cost. There are plenty of other options for that already on the market.

Why don't we see any econocars today that weigh the same as the original AE86? It's really no mystery. The hidden weight you are referring to comes from increased safety requirements (airbags, collision reinforcements, etc.). The 2005 MR-S was heavier than the 2000 MR-S because it had significantly more reinforcement bars. And number of airbags remained the same between those years. But in very recent years, the number of has gone up adding *way* more weight. The concept of lightweight even by 2010 standards is obsolete today.

The BRZ/FRS chassis was overbuilt to handle more power wasn't it? If so why would they need to beef up the chassis? Bigger brakes can also weigh a little bit more, lightweight 18x8 wheels can weigh less than stock and yes the engine would add some weight. Can 100 lbs really ruin a 2760 lb car? A Honda S2000 weighs that much and a Cayman base weighs 2,975+ lbs.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

The BRZ/FRS chassis was overbuilt to handle more power wasn't it? If so why would they need to beef up the chassis? Bigger brakes can also weigh a little bit more, lightweight 18x8 wheels can weigh less than stock and yes the engine would add some weight. Can 100 lbs really ruin a 2760 lb car? A Honda S2000 weighs that much and a Cayman base weighs 2,975+ lbs.

The S2K's weight can't be argued directly against today's standards because its safety standards are obsolete. The Cayman's bigger budget introduces way more variables (mid-engine inherently makes everything lighter/costlier). Plus both these cars only have 2 seats. S2K also had a bigger budget after inflation is factored. Too many variables make it hard to do a straight comparison.

On what factors did you calculate that 100 lb. figure? Saying every component was "overbuilt" is a somewhat blanket statement. Yes, some stock components may handle more power (engineers tend to spec out parts that can handle 1.x times to 10x its rated load depending on what the part does), but it only takes a few "weak links" to have a significantly reduced lifetime/high risk of failure in the nearer term. From an OEM perspective, things have to last a lifetime/way more than 100k miles. That's why econocars can be modded without breaking for years but maybe not for 200k miles versus stock. And this "over-engineering" factor compounds when you add 50 hp/tq; its hard to nail the increased weight figure unless you have access to engineering specs and do the full engineering analysis.

And I'm technically not qualified to say the stock car can't safely and reliably handle more power. Like you, I'm also speculating. But I can confidently say Toyota selected parts specified for the current output following Toyota/Subaru engineering standards. Weak/light parts kill reliability. Beefy/heavy parts kill mpg, weight, and cost (3 key aspects in this car's formula). They had to be very smart with their bill of materials and I believe they were. Toyota's core philosophy of muda (which I've had training on when I worked there) makes this very clear. Why pay for over-spec'd parts that will never be used to their potential and pass the buck on to customers hundreds of thousands of units over?

[iLuveKetchup]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

The S2K's weight can't be argued directly against today's standards because its safety standards are obsolete. The Cayman's bigger budget introduces way more variables (mid-engine inherently makes everything lighter/costlier). Plus both these cars only have 2 seats. S2K also had a bigger budget after inflation is factored. Too many variables make it hard to do a straight comparison.

On what factors did you calculate that 100 lb. figure? Saying every component was "overbuilt" is a somewhat blanket statement. Yes, some stock components may handle more power (engineers tend to spec out parts that can handle 1.x times to 10x its rated load depending on what the part does), but it only takes a few "weak links" to have a significantly reduced lifetime/high risk of failure in the nearer term. From an OEM perspective, things have to last a lifetime/way more than 100k miles. That's why econocars can be modded without breaking for years but maybe not for 200k miles versus stock. The "over-engineering" factor compounds when you add 50 hp/tq; its hard to nail the increased weight figure unless you have access to engineering specs and do the full engineering analysis.

And I'm technically not qualified to say the stock car can't safely and reliably handle more power. Like you, I'm also speculating. But I can confidently say Toyota selected parts specified for the current output following Toyota/Subaru engineering standards. Weak/light parts kill reliability. Beefy/heavy parts kill mpg, weight, and cost (3 key aspects in this car's formula). They had to be very smart with their bill of materials and I believe they were. Toyota's core philosophy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_%28Japanese_term%29 (which I've had training on when I worked there) makes this very clear. Why pay for over-spec'd parts that will never be used to their potential and pass the buck on to customers hundreds of thousands of units over?

Your first point sounds like some regurgitated marketing hype.

You make a good point regarding weight. Sad that we are in an age where 2750lbs is considered light.