Subaru previews next-generation BRZ, announces November 18th unveiling date

[Opie]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I see you changed a couple of your "confirmed" to "suspected". Thank you! Now those two line up with what I have been saying as well.
Still no points for the made by Subaru and built in Gunna plant since those were never in doubt by anybody other than that one dude.
You edited the specs on the engine? I don't recall that level of detail way back when you first showed this. Progressive editing is a foul since it does not show what your first thoughts were but what developed as things progressed.


I am totally guessing but think you may be just a bit low on the prices.

Everything below "Originally created on: 02/17/2020
Updates: 11/17/2020" came from a little birdie today...this bird is usually about 75% accurate.

Updated the lines above to reflect the "new" reporting

[Purist]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Any chance an auto rev matching toggle has been added to the MT?

Ew, gross.

[Quentin]

Ugh, 2880lbs is shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mazeroni]

Maximum Horsepower @ RPM: 221 @ 6000
Maximum Torque @ RPM: 193 @ 4400

???

Is that even possible in a relatively small NA engine? To get 221hp, I would think you need to rev to north of 7,000 and have a displacement of 3 liters or bigger to make that amount of torque.

The FB25 is making 182hp@5,800 and 176 lbft@4,400, for reference

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

Maximum Horsepower @ RPM: 221 @ 6000
Maximum Torque @ RPM: 193 @ 4400

???

Is that even possible in a relatively small NA engine? To get 221hp, I would think you need to rev to north of 7,000 and have a displacement of 3 liters or bigger to make that amount of torque.

The FB25 is making 182hp@5,800 and 176 lbft@4,400, for reference

Where are you getting these numbers?
must be leaking?

the Toyota dynamic force 2.5L makes 206hp @ 6600 RPM and 185lb/ft at 5000rpm so 193torque doesnt seem impossible to reach.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

Maximum Horsepower @ RPM: 221 @ 6000
Maximum Torque @ RPM: 193 @ 4400

???

Is that even possible in a relatively small NA engine? To get 221hp, I would think you need to rev to north of 7,000 and have a displacement of 3 liters or bigger to make that amount of torque.

The FB25 is making 182hp@5,800 and 176 lbft@4,400, for reference

FB25 is a lazy grandpa engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Ugh, 2880lbs is shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

isnt that about 100lbs more than the current one?


besides most compacts are around 3000lbs now so they're all fatties lol.

[C4RBON]

The current FA20 is getting 205hp out of 2.0L, for 102 hp/L, so 221 out of a 2.4L is actually a step back in power density (92 hp/L). The current engine is 156 lb-ft, or 78 lb-ft/L, which would equate to 183 lb-ft in a 2.4L engine.

Curiously, 221 hp at 6,000 rpm means it is making 193 lb-ft of torque at that speed; the same peak number quoted at 4,400 rpm. That would be a very flat torque curve for a small NA engine, or means we have another torque dip.

The numbers don't seem outlandish, but they also seem unusual. I'd say it is more likely we have 221 hp at 7,000 rpm and 193 lb-ft at 6,000 rpm.

[C4RBON]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

isnt that about 100lbs more than the current one?
...

Not even. Curb weight of BRZ Limited is 2798 lbs, and tS is 2833 lbs. Before I complain about any weight increase, I want to know where it came from. Some of it might be easily un-done (bigger 18" wheels, bigger battery, etc), some of it might be welcomed (reinforced front bumper support, larger bearings, bracing, etc), some might be safety/required (airbags/crash structures), and some might be a complete waste (large molded side skirts).

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by C4RBON

The current FA20 is getting 205hp out of 2.0L, for 102 hp/L, so 221 out of a 2.4L is actually a step back in power density (92 hp/L). The current engine is 156 lb-ft, or 78 lb-ft/L, which would equate to 183 lb-ft in a 2.4L engine.

Curiously, 221 hp at 6,000 rpm means it is making 193 lb-ft of torque at that speed; the same peak number quoted at 4,400 rpm. That would be a very flat torque curve for a small NA engine, or means we have another torque dip.

The numbers don't seem outlandish, but they also seem unusual. I'd say it is more likely we have 221 hp at 7,000 rpm and 193 lb-ft at 6,000 rpm.

It was suggested that the torque dip is still there, so it seems like they're trying to compensate for it with just plain old brute force.

The current FA20 makes what 156 lb/ft peak but in the dip it drops to around 115lb/ft.

so just throwing some basic maths out there, a 40ft/lb increase in torque could raise the dip level to around 150, so now the dip shouldnt feel so detrimental. I know it doesnt work that way, but a rise in the dip level will be an increase in power anyways so it wont feel so lethargic.

[PandaEighty-Six]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

It’s funny that you mention this. One of my friends has an s2000 that he bought used. We drive canyons together often and usually switch cars a few runs. This past weekend, he mentioned that driving my car (e85, coilovers, BBK, LWFW) has made him question whether he should have bought a new 86 instead. Doesn’t help that he’s had some used car issues like worn engine mounts, odd noises from the trans/diff, shifter feel, worn suspension, etc. Whereas I’ve had my car since new (about 8 yrs) and know it inside and out. Even with all the track miles on it, it’s been pretty reliable apart from consumables. I pretty much just get in and drive.

Definitely something people don’t really think about buying used. I feel like the longer you intend to keep a car and drive it hard, the more it makes sense to buy new for reliability and peace of mind.

Great comment. This is precisely why I chose to buy a used 2005 S2000 in 2014 as opposed to a (then) FRS. I liked both for different reasons but realized since the 86 was still in production and the S2000 had ceased production, it was better to get the S2000 then wait until it's even rarer, older and harder to come by new. I ended up having to sell it a few years later (finally got the refreshed 86 in 2018).

Ended up being a good choice, albeit if I waited longer, I could have sold the S2000 for an even higher amount (broke even on it, didn't lose any money as the valuations started going up). I suspect the 86 will end up in a similar situation at some point with its value going up as cars like it cease to exist or evolve entirely.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

It was suggested that the torque dip is still there, so it seems like they're trying to compensate for it with just plain old brute force.

The current FA20 makes what 156 lb/ft peak but in the dip it drops to around 115lb/ft.

so just throwing some basic maths out there, a 40ft/lb increase in torque could raise the dip level to around 150, so now the dip shouldnt feel so detrimental. I know it doesnt work that way, but a rise in the dip level will be an increase in power anyways so it wont feel so lethargic.

It drops like 15lbft, not 40.



My FR-S was 2750lbs. 120lbs weight gain is the wrong direction. I’d much rather they carved 150lbs out of the car than adding 15hp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spike021]

Originally Posted by C4RBON

They aren't looking for fair or critical reviews. They want people to regurgitate the marketing points and say how much fun they are having on their paid-for vacation with catered meals, surrounded by beautiful scenery.

I also hope some of the more critical youtubers are there, but I'm not counting on it. I think we need to wait for the cars to hit the press fleet before we get any reliable feedback, from C&D or MotorTrend comparisons, Everyday Driver, savagegeese, etc.

I personally think Everyday Driver is awful.

I unsubscribed from them when they had videos driving their orange FRS and actually showed the tachometer and what gear they were in while saying it was slow. Like in one clip they said it was slow while in 5th gear going like mid-40s MPH well below like 3000 RPM (or somewhere in that range) on a straight section (I think it was also on a bit of an incline but could be wrong). Basically the most obvious, slow way to drive it.

So I had said something about that in the comments and then their producer responded to me and basically kept repeating that they did it that way on purpose to show how slow the car is.

I was just like, if you're going to own this car and then feed the "twins are slow argument" by driving it inaccurately on film, then you've lost all credibility.

And FWIW I really enjoyed their videos up until they did that.

[Kiske]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I see you changed a couple of your "confirmed" to "suspected". Thank you! Now those two line up with what I have been saying as well.
Still no points for the made by Subaru and built in Gunna plant since those were never in doubt by anybody other than that one dude.
You edited the specs on the engine? I don't recall that level of detail way back when you first showed this. Progressive editing is a foul since it does not show what your first thoughts were but what developed as things progressed.


I am totally guessing but think you may be just a bit low on the prices.

The real bet isn't the specs. It the color of the inevitable 1st special edition (...and the 20 that follow.)