EVO: Subaru BRZ vs Subaru Impreza 2000 Turbo review

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by iLuveKetchup

Your first point sounds like some regurgitated marketing hype.

Hmm... which part? That mid-engine inherently makes everything lighter/costlier? That 2 seats weigh less than 4? Inflation?

Or was it the 2nd paragraph about selecting parts with 1.x to 10x rating? Because I've had to spec out the bill of materials for engineering projects (in electronics) and we never spec'd to feed marketing hype. We spec'd based on calculations.

[iLuveKetchup]

ah... Sorry I meant to qoute your first post. You must have just posted & I replied. I have limited view on my phone. That is my mistake.

The marketing hype -- "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." Sounds like Toyota's convenient answer (or justification) for the BRZ's current hp/tq levels. I don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

[ashtray]

Show me where I can purchase that gen turbo Impreza for 1/10th the cost, in excellent condition.

I own a 2003 WRX. Cobb tuned (Stage 2 - 285hp). It will move. It doesn't drive or handle anything near as fun as the BRZ. Completely different cars. If the only complaint is the BRZ doesn't have enough hp, that's easier to fix than a car not handling well, or with poor steering, or vague shifter, or too high seating, etc.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by iLuveKetchup

ah... Sorry I meant to qoute your first post. You must have just posted & I replied. I have limited view on my phone. That is my mistake.

The marketing hype -- "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." Sounds like Toyota's convenient answer (or justification) for the BRZ's current hp/tq levels. I don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

Ohh, yeah it does sound like a statement engineered for PR. But in a way it's kind of true. I get that people want just a little bit more power for just a little bit more cost. Essentially, they're asking for another S2K or RX-7 or RX-8 which all cost more after inflation and before today's costlier safety requirements are added. So that somewhat validates the "more cost" part in Tada-san's statement which they tried to avoid.

They could have made this car a repeat of those other cars. But they'd be building towards a proven path of extinction. Why is this car dominating all the auto shows? Partly due to hype but largely because more people can afford this car than any of those defunct legends. It could also be that both Toyota and Subaru want to space this car spec-wise from the WRX STI and next Supra. So yeah, they want more money but they are also reaching out to and pleasing more enthusiasts.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by iLuveKetchup

MX-5 significantly smaller?

Yes, even the NC MX5 is significantly smaller. Narrower, shorter, smaller wheelbase, smaller cabin, no rear seat, smaller trunk. The Elise is even smaller than that, and had to get NHTSA exemptions in order to be sold in the USA.

Numbers only tell so much, but these give a good indication:

Car           BRZ  MX5(NC)  Elise
Width        69.9    67.7    67.7
Length      166.9   158.3   149.0
Height       50.6    49.4    44.0
Wheelbase   101.2    91.7    90.6

Having written that, I actually agree with you to a certain extent: RWD cars like the MX5 (especially older ones) and the Elise have a certain playfulness that's mostly absent in heavier car with a longer wheelbase. But the FT86 is closer than any other modern sporty 4 seater (the FWD Mini Cooper S gets an honorable mention, but it's smaller than the FT86 and almost as heavy).

Originally Posted by jer305

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

That's precisely my point. That the RWD '13 FT86 is about as light as the FWD '02 Civic Si is impressive.

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 don't mind his complaints about the engine. It's not the best sounding, smoothest, or most powerful motor (Subaru and Toyota went for low CoG, efficiency, responsiveness, specific output, etc).

But it's a question of emphasis. To me everything about the car is amazing (including throttle response) except for engine output, which is still good.

My biggest complaint about the article is that it compares an AT and MT (without really addressing that fact), and that EVO regurgitated it (without acknowledging that either).

[dammitcubs]

Originally Posted by Acree

I understand and to some degree, agree with his opinion.

At the same time, I think 6 more months and the aftermarket community will be able to far surpass the power characteristics of the Impreza Turbo motor. Header/Exhaust/Intake/Tune will give us all the power back that has been robbed from this motor in the quest for emission targets.

And above all, even with the torque dip, and coming from a 500+hp Evo 9, I still love this car.

-Acree

Since coming from the beloved EVO 9 (i used to have a EVO 8 and currently, own an EVO X). Your opinion does truly matter to me. How do you like this car compared to the EVO?

[SUB-FT86]

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. 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?

I was asking it as a question. I've seen articles saying the car was engineered to handle more power without upgrades. But I guess it's all hype though.

[ssteer]

I've wondered about the weight myself. Sitting across from the Subaru salesman at his desk, with him going on about light weight, I saw his all model cheat sheet. We looked at the weight specs. BRZ limited auto, 1276 kg. Impreza Limited auto, 1324 kg. (I'm in Canada, hence kilograms)

The point is this: a new Impreza with AWD, a real back seat, power rear windows etc. weighs only 110 lbs more than the BRZ.

I don't get it. There's something really heavy in the BRZ somewhere (sills for the convertible model?) that is just not apparent to me as a mechanical engineer. And it doesn't even have full steel inner fenders in the front. The Impreza does - our local dealership conveniently has a new Impreza hanging from the showroom wall, sideways, with roof to window, so that anyone interested (apparently only me and maybe two others according to the salesman) can gaze upon the mechanicals at head height.

Color me confused by the weight of the BRZ.

[altarr]

The day I decided to get the BRZ was the day I saw the Top Gear review.

For whatever reason, I tend to trust their reviews/commentary...and should I ever purchase a supercar, I will be sure to go to their review of it first.

The BRZ was one of the first cars I have seen them review that I would ever want to buy and JC gave it glowing marks. Only review I needed to be honest. But mix that in with the reviews from just about EVERY other car magazine/autoblog/whatever...it was a no brainer.

I wanted fun, speedy and something I could put a car seat in the back of...so I traded in the roadster for the 2+2....

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by ssteer

I've wondered about the weight myself. Sitting across from the Subaru salesman at his desk, with him going on about light weight, I saw his all model cheat sheet. We looked at the weight specs. BRZ limited auto, 1276 kg. Impreza Limited auto, 1324 kg. (I'm in Canada, hence kilograms)

The point is this: a new Impreza with AWD, a real back seat, power rear windows etc. weighs only 110 lbs more than the BRZ.

I don't get it. There's something really heavy in the BRZ somewhere (sills for the convertible model?) that is just not apparent to me as a mechanical engineer. And it doesn't even have full steel inner fenders in the front. The Impreza does - our local dealership conveniently has a new Impreza hanging from the showroom wall, sideways, with roof to window, so that anyone interested (apparently only me and maybe two others according to the salesman) can gaze upon the mechanicals at head height.

Color me confused by the weight of the BRZ.

Sort of a counter to that as Deslock mentioned:

Originally Posted by Deslock

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).

Now one reason the BRZ did that despite its heavier RWD drivetrain vs. FWD is its use of lighter steel and aluminum in certain sections. But both the Si and BRZ have "extraneous" performance bits which increase weight that econoboxes such as the current Impreza wouldn't have. But what gives the BRZ its heft over the current Impreza is its monstrously thickened chassis at key sections to increase rigidity.

2012 Impreza door sill vs. BRZ door sill:



There may be other beefed up sections which we don't notice (perhaps the transmission tunnel or laterally along the firewall or somewhere across the rear). The BRZ isn't all marketing hype; there's substance behind it (literally).

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Frost

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.

Can't let that one slide. The cheapest WRX here is over $3k more.

BRZ Sport-tech (U.S.: Limited): $29,295 CAD
WRX base 4 door: $32, 495 CAD

[Coheed]

Let's
see
them
on
the
track.

Then we can decide

[Roadliner]

This is why EVO is disapointed with the twins, or in this case with the BRZ.

When the IMPREZA WRX first came out, it EXCEEDED the expectations the motoring writers had of what a 4 door performance sedan could do for the price.

With the twins, EVO seems to be disapointed because the cars could have been much better with a little more power. They dont complain about the twins relatively poor finish, average refinement levels, pricing in the UK that puts them close to an Audi TT. What they seem to be getting at is that the twins could have been much beeter than they are, through more power.

You know, a performance car (or bike) feels so different when you have enough power to make tis chassis squirm powering out of bends on deserted country roads. They feel so different to how they feel commuting or even being driven quickly on city streets

At least, thats what I think.
Ive been reading EVo since their 1st issue with the silver Maserati 3200 on the front cover. Their word I respect more than any other mags

[ft_sjo]

My old MY99 UK Impreza Turbo would absolutely shit over my GT86 on any track or public road in every situation. It was completely stock apart from a thicker rear bar and some poly bushes in the right places to reduce understeer. A Type RA (JDM) or whatever with DCCD is even better.

However, the Impreza is not as cool, which is why I have a GT86 now. It's quirky and fun. It's not an all-out performance car.

But for £2k'ish for the Impreza, it's a LOT of car for the money. Pointless comparing to a low-power n/a rwd sports car though.