Anyone concerned with Consumers "not recomended rating"?

[regal]

Originally Posted by Alltezza

I think I was watching SUBARUWRXFAN on youtube and he said something about consumer report is basically a bunch of BS because they said the FRS has a better engine than the BRZ when they use the SAME engine lol

I know when I want to know about the specs on a car go to SUBARUWRXFAN's you-tube videos, I think consumer reports is wrong the frs must have a different engine if its on you-tube .

[BRZfan]

Answer: No. Also, you "wonder" too much...

Originally Posted by BRZnut

Just opened Consumer Reports and they have dropped the twins from recommended to not recommended. They also state the poor quality of the BRZ/FRS resulted in significant drop in the overall brand ratings of Subaru & Scion.

Any concerns? Comments??

From the posts on this forum, we saw it coming and we all knew the risk of getting a 1st year new model. I wonder if this will change the future of the twins, sale numbers, and their re-sale value.

[skye67]

Originally Posted by regal

Good point, but the guys drivig their WRX's and STI's hard have a huge support system in tuners who know how to correct the for emissions factory tune. They have the fluids down to a science. Just a lot more tribal knowledge. Also I'm guessing you didn't keep that STi very long?


What we have is a clash of Toyota vs Subaru buyer expectations. A Toyota buyer expects no engine problems for minimum over 200k miles. A Subaru owner usually expects having the engine pulled for something around 100k miles, but most trade-in before that..


Of course there are exceptions, I just wish Subaru built engines like they did before OBDII, those cars were strong and lasted for ever. And you are right the BRZ will probably hold resale much better than the Scion. Subaru vs Toyota buyer, they are different.

You know nothing of which you speak. One, many of the after market tuners for the WRX are now tuners for the FRS/BRZ. Two, where did you get your information on Subaru's have to pull their engines at 100k? My 2002 WRX had 175000 at the time it was wreaked in a accident.

[SpiralGray]

Originally Posted by regal

What we have is a clash of Toyota vs Subaru buyer expectations. A Toyota buyer expects no engine problems for minimum over 200k miles.

No, a CAMRY buyer expects that. When Toyota still made sports cars (i.e. Celica and Supra) they attracted a different group of buyers. The FRS is an attempt to lure some of those buyers back (which baffles me as to why they didn't badge it as a Toyota Celica in the US). Those buyers have a different set of expectations. You seem to assume that buyers are morons and if they're looking for a Toyota they'll take any Toyota.

[regal]

Originally Posted by SpiralGray

No, a CAMRY buyer expects that. When Toyota still made sports cars (i.e. Celica and Supra) they attracted a different group of buyers. The FRS is an attempt to lure some of those buyers back (which baffles me as to why they didn't badge it as a Toyota Celica in the US). Those buyers have a different set of expectations. You seem to assume that buyers are morons and if they're looking for a Toyota they'll take any Toyota.

There are still W10 MR2's on the road, they were bullet proof cars. The Celica was a sporty FWD , Toyota's last sports car was the MRS. It had some teething problems but the community figured out a simple fix. You are right that sports car buyers expect to tinker with their cars more but they don't expect blown engines.


As far as most of the problems were early on racers and autoxer's there's some truth to that, but enthusiast who have actually taken their car to the track are few and far between and most of them have traded back to S2k's, Miatas, and the elise by now.