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

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I don't think you can expect to gain any hp in a '17+ "just with a plain tune", and my vastly experienced and well-respected tuner told me as much. The factory tune at 7000 rpm is pretty well optimized for power. My '17 with a midrangey 4-2-1 header and very well optimized tune made barely more than stock at 7000rpm (but *way* more midrange and didn't fall off as much from 7000 up to extended 7600rpm rev-limit), and my bud's '17 with a more top-end optimized 4-1 header and optimized tune made +7hp over stock (but way less midrange than mine).

Yep. That's why I said pre-facelift. After '17+ it was almost optimal..

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by Ernest72

Depends on your use. My 119 mile round trip commute 3-4 days a week would not be worth it with E85. Cruising at 75mph E85 does not do much. So I stick with 93, wish I could go to 87.

If this was a weekend car or I had a short commute I totally agree with you. I would never look at cost and go E85 all the time. It would be worth it.

Understood of course, and I do agree with that mentality. Funny thing is, my commute is 110 miles round trip 5 days a week and I still pump in E85 half the time. You're correct when you say it does not do much on cruising. But again, for me it's more of a smiles per gallon and having the acceleration when I want it. I just don't bother focusing on the losses as I know it is a trade off for the gains. But I can certainly understand why some folks may think as such.

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

You could gain in the old (pre-facelift) car 10-15hp just with a plain tune. I don't think it'll be the case with the new car , because the tune looks to be already optimized. So, you lose this power bump before going into headers or e85.

I would like to think no matter how optimized the tune is, there is still heavy emissions these days, so always a little room for good headers to gain a little power, and usually PLENTY of room for E85 to gain timing. Gen1 could gain up to about 30 degrees. There is pretty much a guarantee that if E85 gave people around 20whp for gen1, it will do about the same for gen2. Because a the stock engine is optimized for its own specs with 93 octane fuel, not for E85.

[Sport-Tech]

Well back on topic (the CD review, remember?) I finally got around to reading it and was amazed at how highly rated the twins were on the dimensions that count (see below). It got me thinking maybe I can forgo rev-matching on a MT after all.... but a few dealer calls later I can see it will be several months before a test drive is going to be possible, all incoming cars are pre-sold. So I guess by then I'll know what the new Z first drive reviews are saying and can make a more informed choice.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Well back on topic (the CD review, remember?) I finally got around to reading it and was amazed at how highly rated the twins were on the dimensions that count (see below). It got me thinking maybe I can forgo rev-matching on a MT after all.... but a few dealer calls later I can see it will be several months before a test drive is going to be possible, all incoming cars are pre-sold. So I guess by then I'll know what the new Z first drive reviews are saying and can make a more informed choice.

Did the review go into why they rated cargo space a 1? We have a whole thread here that proves cargo space is better than a 1.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Did the review go into why they rated cargo space a 1? We have a whole thread here that proves cargo space is better than a 1.

I did a week’s foodshopping plus some gift shopping at target a few days ago with all 4 of us in the car. It did great!

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Did the review go into why they rated cargo space a 1? We have a whole thread here that proves cargo space is better than a 1.

Bit of a joke but if the gen2 twins are a 1... what is the MX-5?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Frost

Bit of a joke but if the gen2 twins are a 1... what is the MX-5?

0

[CincyJohn]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

It's interesting to me that a lot of people look at E85 in terms of a way to save money. I have always looked at it as a modification in which you get what you pay for. Many people who do modifications on their cars spend thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, to make their cars quicker or better. E85, to me, is exactly that. You are getting a solid power bump, and you are paying the price at the pump for it.

I barely even pay attention to what the price is, let alone bother calculating whether I am saving or losing money. I fill it up when I am in the mood for the extra oomph. IMO, it has always been well worth it, regardless the cost. It's just a bonus to me that E85 is cheaper than 93 as I know I am going to be burning up more fuel anyway.

Nothing against all the folks who look at it in terms of cost effectiveness. It just comes as a surprise to me how many people actually look at it that way vs. just doing it for the power and smiles per gallon.

Well, first you need to know I am not flex fuel so switching back and forth is a considerable pain in the butt to me.

Second, while I am 99% confident this car can handle e85 100% of the time (may even be better than 93), I also think it probably isn't the worst idea to go back to running at least a few tanks of 93 now and again.

Third, you should now this is a daily driver that spends most of that 60 mile roundtrip daily commute on the freeway. Of course, I punch it and have fun whenever I can - but still.

Fourth, when e85 was $1.85 and 93 was $2.55, the mileage proposition was essentially a wash (I figure I get about 22 mpg on the e85 and about 30 on the 93 - it was almost identical).

Thus, now that it is winter-ish here, and e85 is $3.15 and 93 is $3.55, there is a pretty significant cost difference (e85 would have to be $2.60 for the mileage to be comparable).

So yes, it seems now would be the perfect time to switch back, at least for awhile. And it doesn't hurt that I won't have to stop for gas as much and/or plan out exactly where I need to get my gas.

Don't worry - I will be back on the e85 come spring/summer.

[ayau]

i'm kind of surprised CD was able to rate the BRZ 1 point higher than the GR86 in the objective tests. They're essentially the identical car and differences are just a matter of preference. In fact, the Japanese reviews showed the GR86 having faster lap times than the BRZ.

[CincyJohn]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Did the review go into why they rated cargo space a 1? We have a whole thread here that proves cargo space is better than a 1.

Shoot, the 4 straight 1s for interior stuff seems to be more than a little ridiculous. I get that those things are not on par with the other two, but none are sooo bad as to deserve 1s. It almost seems like the only reason they did it was to make it look like a semi-fair fight when it really seems like the twins would win in a landslide.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by ayau

i'm kind of surprised CD was able to rate the BRZ 1 point higher than the GR86 in the objective tests. They're essentially the identical car and differences are just a matter of preference. In fact, the Japanese reviews showed the GR86 having faster lap times than the BRZ.

They really just wanted a tie.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Spuds

They really just wanted a tie.

Probably true - they were just fortunate that the BRZ was a titch faster on the acceleration testing which gave them a cover for making that happen.

Had the testing been done in Canada though the BRZ would have won by 2 points, as the GR 86 would have received a zero for add-ons (no free track days here) and a lower score for price (2 grand more for the same thing).

Perhaps the biggest surprise for me on that table is the twins actually outscoring the GTi on ride quality. You'd have to think the VW would be a more comfortable commuter.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Did the review go into why they rated cargo space a 1? We have a whole thread here that proves cargo space is better than a 1.

They gave 1 with a max up to 5. Maybe there were too strict, but I wouldn't give more than 2.