Car & Driver Comparison Test Review: Veloster N vs. GTI vs. BRZ vs. GR86

[TommyW]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I do to, and it's a lot less than 10hp...

.

Then you better have a word with your tuner

[bcj]

Originally Posted by ZDan

So you guys are being sure to PRE-complain about those complaints, before they even happen?!

Heck yah! If it's worth doing, it's worth doing preemptively!

[timurrrr]

Originally Posted by ZDan

So you guys are being sure to PRE-complain about those complaints, before they even happen?!

I guess simply complaining is not cool enough anymore

[Robertw]

There’s no longer a reason to “future” complain about the 2nd gens power because there’s an upgrade path at the dealership. If the GR86 isn’t enough, maybe the 2.0 Supra is, if that’s not enough, check out this 3.0 Supra. That wasn’t an option is 2013.

[mazeroni]

Originally Posted by Robertw

There’s no longer a reason to “future” complain about the 2nd gens power because there’s an upgrade path at the dealership. If the GR86 isn’t enough, maybe the 2.0 Supra is, if that’s not enough, check out this 3.0 Supra. That wasn’t an option is 2013.

Or a Mustang GT, or a Camaro SS, or a Challenger, or a 400Z, or a 240i... Did I miss any? There are a whole lot of powerful coupes out there if you are looking for more... provided you have the cash and want to deal with the size and weight.

But for $28K, I'm not sure what everyone is expecting.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by TommyW

Then you better have a word with your tuner

Pretty sure he got all he could out of it. We did I think 8 iterations. He's your tuner as well btw...

For sure it is easier to get bigger gains with a header/tune in a '13 vs. '17. Factory '17 header has 45mm primaries, bigger than many aftermarket headers including mine. My '17 stock dynoed 179rwhp while my bud's stock '13 did 165 same day same dyno (we ran them one after the other).

But either way, '13 with much bigger gains or '17 with smaller gains, neither is gonna be hitting 210rwhp with "header and a tune"

[TommyW]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Pretty sure he got all he could out of it. We did I think 8 iterations. He's your tuner as well btw...

For sure it is easier to get bigger gains with a header/tune in a '13 vs. '17. Factory '17 header has 45mm primaries, bigger than many aftermarket headers including mine. My '17 stock dynoed 179rwhp while my bud's stock '13 did 165 same day same dyno (we ran them one after the other).

But either way, '13 with much bigger gains or '17 with smaller gains, neither is gonna be hitting 210rwhp with "header and a tune"

Regardless, 10 hp gain is low, also depends on the type of dyno as there can be a lot of difference. You'd need to use the exact same dyno when fully stock and then when modded\tuned to get a handle on the actual differences. My butt dyno reads a lot more than 10 hp.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by ZDan

For sure it is easier to get bigger gains with a header/tune in a '13 vs. '17. Factory '17 header has 45mm primaries, bigger than many aftermarket headers including mine. My '17 stock dynoed 179rwhp while my bud's stock '13 did 165 same day same dyno (we ran them one after the other).

But either way, '13 with much bigger gains or '17 with smaller gains, neither is gonna be hitting 210rwhp with "header and a tune"

It is true that some '13 cars were not performing strong enough, but this does not mean that overall the pre-facelift car catalog numbers were overrated. Problem was with the valve design and the tighter clearances to get it right on a mass produced engine. So, there were bigger performance variations between the engines. When they realized this as a manufacturing issue, they revised the valve design to get more consistent performance numbers and better reliability. This explains also why some could see just a 5hp increase on '17 cars (actual catalog performance difference) and others a greater difference of up to 15hp.

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by ZDan

So maybe gen2 is even MORE faster than gen1? Or could Cammisa be 0.3 quicker in the gen1 as well?

He may not be the perfect example as we don't have many yet. The simple point I'm trying to make, is in a rear wheel drive car, or really any wheel drive car, tire grip is quite important for a metric like 0-60 and quarter mile. In some cases, it can make a drastic difference. That's all.

Originally Posted by ZDan

Most would say that +6mph in the 1/4 an around a second quicker is significantly quicker/faster. We were only expecting about half that.

For sure, but it goes back to my original point that isn't all just engine upgrade that is making that happen.

Originally Posted by ZDan

So you guys are being sure to PRE-complain about those complaints, before they even happen?!

I don't think anyone is complaining. I'm just surprised at the person/people that called out how the twins will be quicker on the road than a GTI or a Veloster N based on the given metrics. I made my point to back up why the twins aren't faster, and that's as far as I was going with it there.

Originally Posted by ZDan

I disagree. If anything, people will feel it more on a daily basis as the midrange is filled in so well, whereas at the track the drawback of the gen1 torque dip was barely noticeable because revs are always above that.

No, most people aren't going to flat-out max accelerate 0-60 or for 1/4-mile, but they'll still feel increased torque at any rpm. For sure the new car should feel a bit more "eager"

Never said the car wouldn't feel quicker and better on a daily basis. It will be great to us gen1 drivers who will feel the difference. But my point was yet again simple - those metrics do not qualify for daily drivers as no one is doing a constant dig or quarter mile run (at least they shouldn't be).

Originally Posted by ZDan

I'll probably swap over to new gen late '22 or early '23...

You might be ahead of me on that one. I may put a beating on my current one a little while longer. Maybe milk it out till a face lift comes around if there ever will be one.

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

I don't think so since your Gen1 doesnt make as much power. There aren't any Gen1s running 13.9 @101 with 215s street tires..

More like there aren't any gen1's with the setup I have going out to the dragstrip and bringing a professional driver with them that gets a few runs in and pulls off a time around that.

I can bring a couple of examples in that don't stray my point from the truth very far.

Fully stock BRZ with ONLY E85 pulls off 14.35 @ nearly 99 mph
https://www.delicioustuning.com/Stoc..._Breaks_200whp

Header back BRZ with E85 pulls off 13.58 @ 100 mph on Hoosier tires.

I know neither of these fit the bill for your particular case. But that is exactly the problem - no one is going out there to make that case and publishing it. You get whatever information you may find from random people that go out and give it a shot with random modifications, tunes, and tires. You will never get the consistent answer you are looking for.

But I'll agree on one thing. I do hope gen2 is at least a LITTLE quicker than my gen1. But from the racing videos I have watched so far and the data that's out there, I am not so sure yet.

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by timurrrr

There are a lot of variables when it comes to 0–60, and that's why @ZDan prefers the full quarter mile numbers, trap speed in particular.

Correct, except tires have become a big playing factor, even in those quarter mile numbers. Most modern calculators that you google now also include a section where you choose a street tire vs a racing tire for example.

Originally Posted by timurrrr

There will always be a faster car.
Go to a Lamborghini forum, and you will find people upset that some 7-seater SUV has a better 0-60 than their Aventador SVJ STO Performante (Model X).
Heck, even a non-EV Dodge Durango SRT Hellcat does 0–60 in mid-3's nowadays.

I think the real difference between 1st gen and 2nd gen is that with the 1st gen stock, even some "pure" enthusiasts sometimes needed excuses sometimes.
In contrast, the performance of the 2022's is on par with competition in the same price range, except for perhaps the EcoBoost Mustang.
For people who want significantly faster car (30%? 40%? when is it enough?), or better handling than the EcoBoost Mustang, they can go ahead and shop in the next price bracket.

And if you're reading what I'm saying, you probably understand that I 100% agree with what you're saying here. It's the same reason I own this car and love it and want nothing to do with boosting it. The reason for bringing my wagon example up is only to support the misunderstanding that gen2 is not going to beat a GTI or Veloster N on the street. I used the 5-60 metric to support this case.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by TommyW

Regardless, 10 hp gain is low, also depends on the type of dyno as there can be a lot of difference. You'd need to use the exact same dyno when fully stock and then when modded\tuned to get a handle on the actual differences. My butt dyno reads a lot more than 10 hp.

Of course the butt dyno is *notoriously* inaccurate, especially with different/louder noise inputs... I never expected more than 5hp peak to be perfectly honest. There's just not much to be gained, the car is already pretty well optimized for peak power at 7000rpm (esp. '17+). My bud who got header more designed for peak power for his '17 86 gained about 7hp vs. stock (186rwhp vs. 179rwhp). I got less than that, but *way* more midrange and also more vs. stock above and below 7000 peak power rpm, up to 7600.

As with the S2000, there's just not much to be gained with a header particularly vs. '17+ stock header. I would bet some headers *lose* power vs. stock '17+, same as with S2k.

[TommyW]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Of course the butt dyno is *notoriously* inaccurate, especially with different/louder noise inputs... I never expected more than 5hp peak to be perfectly honest. There's just not much to be gained, the car is already pretty well optimized for peak power at 7000rpm (esp. '17+). My bud who got header more designed for peak power for his '17 86 gained about 7hp vs. stock (186rwhp vs. 179rwhp). I got less than that, but *way* more midrange and also more vs. stock above and below 7000 peak power rpm, up to 7600.

As with the S2000, there's just not much to be gained with a header particularly vs. '17+ stock header. I would bet some headers *lose* power vs. stock '17+, same as with S2k.

I actually went to a CSG quieter exhaust after the header. I had a TRD on before that and with the header it was too loud for me and also for Laguna.

Theres a video by the guys that do the Everyday Driver series and he had an FRS and did header and tune and then FI later. He said it was a bigger improvement from stock to header and tune than from header and tune to FI. Regardless of numbers which are all over the place, The header and tune really woke the car up

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

The simple point I'm trying to make, is in a rear wheel drive car, or really any wheel drive car, tire grip is quite important for a metric like 0-60 and quarter mile. In some cases, it can make a drastic difference. That's all.

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

Correct, except tires have become a big playing factor, even in those quarter mile numbers. Most modern calculators that you google now also include a section where you choose a street tire vs a racing tire for example.

Again, trap speed is not strongly dependent on tires, particularly for a 14 lb/hp street car on street tires. But if you want same vs. same...
On the same tires (215/40-18 Pilot Sport 4), the new cars tested 7mph faster and 0.9s/1.0s quicker in the 1/4 vs. 2018 BRZ tS.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-drive-review/
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-gti-compared/