Inside Line - BRZ Full Test Review

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Xlr8

The gearing on the Auto is much better for a daily commuter. If you don't insist on a standard transmission then the auto will make a much better daily driver. As far as back seat passengers go that will just be your call. Some who have sat in it say people can fit back there for short trips.

I agree on the auto for the DD, that's why I picked that option for my FR-S.

As far as the back seat, I looked at it when at the Atlanta Auto Show. Couldn't get in the car but the Booth Girl was a little taller than me (she was probably 5' 9" without heels, I'm 5' 7"). She got in the car and pulled it up into a driving position. There was definitely as much room between the driver's seat and the rear seat as in my wife's Mustang when I'm in it. My 5'10" 16 year-old sits back there all the time.

Would I want to ride from NY to LA back there? No, but I do think its usable. That will be part of my final decision though. Hopefully some of us 1st86ers will be able to confirm in two weeks.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by concept_cynic

I'm not doubting you but do you have a source for this info?

I can't find MT officially mentioning what they do for their tests. If any one can find that it would be great. R&T does roll out. I have heard MT do it as well but they don't publish their procedure. Makes you wonder. I like Insidelines as they are very clear how they test.

"We do, however, still follow the NHRA drag-strip procedure of a 1-ft. rollout, where the time it takes a car to travel 1 ft. is subtracted from the raw times (this ranges from 0.2 second to as much as 0.4 sec. depending on the amount of wheelspin a vehicle sees at launch). Why this 1-ft. distance? At NHRA drag strips, timing doesn't begin until the vehicle has traveled roughly one foot."

http://www.roadandtrack.com/special-report/how-we-test


The reason that 1 foot rollout matters is cause it can affect the times by ~0.3 sec

Although the rollout distance is typically only a foot or so of a quarter-mile, it can affect the elapsed time by as much as 0.3 second, and to the serious gearhead, that's an eternity.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...nce-of-rollout



From my opinion Edmunds/Insideline perform the most fair and realistic test of cars. Here is what they say regarding the roll out test for 0-60:

A Few Words About Rollout
The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process.

We believe the use of rollout for quarter-mile timed runs is appropriate, as this test is designed to represent an optimum drag strip run that a car owner can replicate at a drag strip. In the spirit of consistency, we also follow NHRA practice when calculating quarter-mile trap speed at the end of the run. So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster.

On the other hand, the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating.

Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.

http://www.insideline.com/features/h...nd-trucks.html

[scorcherjf]

If you think the RX8 was a dog until 7k rpm (where it's long past its torque peak) I think you'll be even more disappointed with the BRZ. The BRZ is slower both on paper and real-life tests compared to the RX-8 so lay off the kool-aid a little bit and try to look at it more objectively.

Originally Posted by Subaruwrxfan

Eh, I think of the BRZ as more of a lightweight than the RX8. The RX8 had the quirky back doors and was a bit heavier, at around 3,000 lbs. I always thought that car was underpowered. I think the BRZ will be different because it's significantly lighter, and doesn't have as high of a redline. The RX8 was an absolute dog until 7k.

The BRZ has a much more usable powerband and is more lean than an RX8.

Just my 2 cents.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

As far as the back seat, I looked at it when at the Atlanta Auto Show. Couldn't get in the car but the Booth Girl was a little taller than me (she was probably 5' 9" without heels, I'm 5' 7"). She got in the car and pulled it up into a driving position. There was definitely as much room between the driver's seat and the rear seat as in my wife's Mustang when I'm in it. My 5'10" 16 year-old sits back there all the time.

Would I want to ride from NY to LA back there? No, but I do think its usable. That will be part of my final decision though. Hopefully some of us 1st86ers will be able to confirm in two weeks.

See photos and comments #7, #8, #9.

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

Also, the car is marketed as having a usable back seat but according to the reviews it may be more for looks.

What's the source for it being marketed as a usable back seat rather than a tiny back seat only appropriate for kids or short adults?

I view this car as a 2+1 due to the lack of rear headroom and the lack of legroom behind the driver (but it can carry 4 in a pinch).

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

The 60 in 0-60 is an arbitrary figure, Toyota happened to say "let's not give a flipping shit about that benchmark time and gear it shorter" so it doesn't hit 60 in 2nd gear. The Sienna will not embarass it, the Sienna will trail behind until the FRS hits 59 and shifts.

I wonder how putting more weight in the back would affect it though, this is a somewhat front heavy FR, and a low center of gravity reduces weight transfer under acceleration.

0-60 isnt important but having to be perpetually between 2nd and 3rd during an autox kind of is for a car of this flavor. and i dont know how big a deal the low cog is for the acceleration.

[Subaruwrxfan]

Originally Posted by scorcherjf

If you think the RX8 was a dog until 7k rpm (where it's long past its torque peak) I think you'll be even more disappointed with the BRZ. The BRZ is slower both on paper and real-life tests compared to the RX-8 so lay off the kool-aid a little bit and try to look at it more objectively.

Lol thanks for the tips buddy, but I already preordered the BRZ. I'm far from "drinking the kool-aid". Before deciding on the BRZ I had been considering GT-Rs and the new GT500, so I'm all over the place. I've watched a lot of videos of people driving this car, so I can see how the car acts and accelerates and I think I'll like it. I settled on the BRZ because I'd rather not drop more than double the money on the GT500 or GT-R, but also because like many of the others here have been saying, I can drive it like I stole it without being a menace on the road. I think that will be more fun. Plus my friends all have the crazy fast cars, so when I have the need for intense speed, I'll just ride along with them.

[JohnnyR]

Originally Posted by Subaruwrxfan

Lol thanks for the tips buddy, but I already preordered the BRZ. I'm far from "drinking the kool-aid". Before deciding on the BRZ I had been considering GT-Rs and the new GT500, so I'm all over the place. I've watched a lot of videos of people driving this car, so I can see how the car acts and accelerates and I think I'll like it. I settled on the BRZ because I'd rather not drop more than double the money on the GT500 or GT-R, but also because like many of the others here have been saying, I can drive it like I stole it without being a menace on the road. I think that will be more fun. Plus my friends all have the crazy fast cars, so when I have the need for intense speed, I'll just ride along with them.

I don't know man, I don't know how you can throw this car in purchasing thoughts against a GT-R, GT500, or even a Boss. They're just on a completely different level, totally outclass this car.

I'm still set on a Boss/GT-500, but now I'll have to consider this car again for my daily beater. It's handling seems to be all that's cracked up to be. Decent MPG and fun sporty looks/handling would be nice. Plus, I can only imagine what numbers this car would pull with a real suspension/wheel/tire set up on it. It'd be kind of like my old Celica GT-S with the Hotchkis suspension how it pulled ridiculous numbers.

It just kills me that this thing was Turbo/SC from the factory. If it just had that extra 50hp and tq it would make it a real adversary on the tracks.

Also, at 25k with HIDs and Nav standard, it's a much wiser buy than the FR-S I feel.

[Capt Canuck]

Originally Posted by JohnnyR

It just kills me that this thing was Turbo/SC from the factory. If it just had that extra 50hp and tq it would make it a real adversary on the tracks.

If you enter a single-make racing series with the BRZ/FRS - assuming one comes along - then everyone will be in the same boat regardless of what engine fiddling is done.
If it's an open series, than it might not be a winning car.

[Subaruwrxfan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyR

I don't know man, I don't know how you can throw this car in purchasing thoughts against a GT-R, GT500, or even a Boss. They're just on a completely different level, totally outclass this car.

I'm still set on a Boss/GT-500, but now I'll have to consider this car again for my daily beater. It's handling seems to be all that's cracked up to be. Decent MPG and fun sporty looks/handling would be nice. Plus, I can only imagine what numbers this car would pull with a real suspension/wheel/tire set up on it. It'd be kind of like my old Celica GT-S with the Hotchkis suspension how it pulled ridiculous numbers.

It just kills me that this thing was Turbo/SC from the factory. If it just had that extra 50hp and tq it would make it a real adversary on the tracks.

Also, at 25k with HIDs and Nav standard, it's a much wiser buy than the FR-S I feel.

My problem with the GT-R is everybody I talked to said they were no fun, the insane speed and abilities of the car get old fast because the car does all the work for you. There's no driver involvement. Many people that I talked to sold theirs within a year of owning it.

The Mustangs would be absolute animals, which I can enjoy almost as much as carving up a backroad. Where I live though, there are tons of windy roads that I drive every day, so having a car that is referred to as "pure handling delight" sounds, well...delightful. I've consider Elises many times for this same reason, but I want something that has a bit more comfort and is much more safe if I'm gonna be driving it every day. If I lived in a place with nothing but flat, straight roads, then I would most likely be buying a Mustang instead.

Plus, with the money I'm saving by not buying a more expensive car, I can save more for the classics I wanna buy, a 1968 Mustang and a late-40s convertible, so it all works out.

[Want.FR-S]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I wonder how putting more weight in the back would affect it though, this is a somewhat front heavy FR, and a low center of gravity reduces weight transfer under acceleration.

Originally Posted by fatoni

0-60 isnt important but having to be perpetually between 2nd and 3rd during an autox kind of is for a car of this flavor. and i dont know how big a deal the low cog is for the acceleration.

fatoni, having a low COG has a small impact to weight transfer, but how much? For this car running at 2762 lb, with wheelbase of 2570 mm and 450 mm COG, under 1.00 G acceleration, the weight transfer to the rear is 334.5 lb. Suppose if the COG is at 500 mm (approx 2 inch higher), the weight transfer to the rear (both wheels) becomes 388.2 lb. That is ~54 lb out of 350+ weight transfer, out of a car weighted at 2762 lb. In other words, *not much*.

If you lower the COG, the reduced weight transfer is indeed there. However, you always need to ask the next question: by how much? before you can make meaningful judgement.

[zigzagz94]

All of this negative whining about underpowered disappointing 0-60 times reminds me of the 2008 WRX release. Maybe next model year Subaru will hit us with a surprise buttsecks extra 45hp to silence the numbers obsessed USDM market.

I'm perfectly fine with the current version though...

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by fatoni

0-60 isnt important but having to be perpetually between 2nd and 3rd during an autox kind of is for a car of this flavor. and i dont know how big a deal the low cog is for the acceleration.

Most cars top out at around 60 right? If this one tops out at 59, is that a difference that would matter? I don't know anything about autocross and what speeds they run at.

As for center of gravity, a lower center of gravity means front/rear weight distribution should matter a little more, but of course we're talking really small differences. I was more getting at the fact that the car has relatively little weight over the rear to begin with.

[catharsis]

Originally Posted by zigzagz94

All of this negative whining about underpowered disappointing 0-60 times reminds me of the 2008 WRX release. Maybe next model year Subaru will hit us with a surprise buttsecks extra 45hp to silence the numbers obsessed USDM market.

I'm perfectly fine with the current version though...

It would take forced induction to do that. Besides I think Subaru wanted to turbo this car all along. It was Toyota's idea to make it slow.

[catharsis]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Most cars top out at around 60 right? If this one tops out at 59, is that a difference that would matter? I don't know anything about autocross and what speeds they run at.

As for center of gravity, a lower center of gravity means front/rear weight distribution should matter a little more, but of course we're talking really small differences. I was more getting at the fact that the car has relatively little weight over the rear to begin with.

Having a long second gear matters a lot in autocross, you'll often hit 60 on the straights but don't go much faster than that. It means autocrosses will lose time either bouncing off the rev limiter or having to shift excessively.