OFFICAL "I've decided that the new BRZ isn't that bad looking" REGISTRY

[CLE_86]

I think Subaru did a nice job overall. There are things design-wise I like better about Gen 1, but this also fixes some of the things I didn’t overly love about my ‘14 BRZ (again design-wise). If the torque dip really is gone (or at least mitigated) I’ll get over any design reservations I have quickly. Overall, nicely done. Planning on ordering.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Ernest72

Don’t forget these as well:

Which oil is best for new gen?
Which brakes fit?
Which wheels fit?
What parts from the new gen fit on the old and vice versa?

It goes on and on.

You forgot:

"Can you see the brake pads without taking the wheels off?"

[ZDan]

I like it, a lot.

[imprezive]

I prefer the look of the 1st gen, but the 2nd isn't far behind imho.

[KR-S]

Count me as part of the "offical" registry of "It's not that bad."

But, like everybody else, I like our current generation better.

[Willpower]

[QUOTE=ZDan;3397587]I like it, a lot.

Clearly you have no taste however. You have a ‘17 PP and you had an S2000... ;p

[Willpower]

I’d probably be a lot better with it if it didn’t look like there’s a hockey stick glued below the door.

[extrashaky]

I need to see it in person.

It looked terrible in camouflage.

The pics in real paint colors look a lot better, although I'm still not a fan of the straight fenders.

I thought the Supra was a much more attractive car in person than in photos, so I'm making no decisions until I see one IRL.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

The pics in real paint colors look a lot better, although I'm still not a fan of the straight fenders.

'22 fenders are not straight. I've grown to not mind the little fender bumps on my '17, and even find them kinda cute in a pokemon-tryna-look-aggressive kind of way. But they are a styling gimmick, an effort to suggest LOWness and BIG wheels/tires that the car doesn't really have.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

But they are a styling gimmick.

Isn't about 90% of car design a styling gimmick of some sort? Otherwise, each class of vehicle would look exactly the same, whatever is most efficient.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Isn't about 90% of car design a styling gimmick of some sort? Otherwise, each class of vehicle would look exactly the same, whatever is most efficient.

For cars with beautiful and functional designs, no. Like the shape of the S2000's front fenders, they are nicely curved and flow around the wheel openings with minimal height and minimal clearances for wheel movement. The artistry of where the break lines are don't modify the functionality of the basic shape. Gorgeous, and functional. FT86 unnecessary fender bumps are in contrast non-functional and gimmicky. Though they do look kinda cool in a way. Just like the fender bumps on a 1971 AMC Javelin do. Meanwhile a 1971 Ferrari Daytona doesn't have this styling gimmick :hmm:

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

For cars with beautiful and functional designs, no. Like the shape of the S2000's front fenders, they are nicely curved and flow around the wheel openings with minimal height and minimal clearances for wheel movement. The artistry of where the break lines are don't modify the functionality of the basic shape. Gorgeous, and functional.

If I'm 100% honest, I'm not a huge fan of the S2000's looks so I'm not the best judge, but I do get your point as far as the fender designs. Overall though, the flat flying wedge convertible design just isn't my thing.

Originally Posted by ZDan

FT86 unnecessary fender bumps are in contrast non-functional and gimmicky. Though they do look kinda cool in a way. Just like the fender bumps on a 1971 AMC Javelin do.

The Javelin front fenders serve to balance out the rear arches, but yes both are pretty much just for looks, which I suppose in itself is a functional purpose, just not mechanical or aerodynamic function.

I wouldn't say they are non-functional on the 86. They serve the original design purpose of being a visual reference when driving and cornering. You would not have that with a flat fender. I find it very useful.

Originally Posted by ZDan

Meanwhile a 1971 Ferrari Daytona doesn't have this styling gimmick :hmm:

Doesn't the Daytona basically have a full fender "bulge" where the fender peak is higher than the hood? Seems like a variation of the same theme to me. I suppose there may be some aero functionality in the design. You can see what I'm referring to in the shot below, although this is a '73.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by ZDan

But they are a styling gimmick, an effort to suggest LOWness and BIG wheels/tires that the car doesn't really have.

My understanding is it wasn’t a styling gimmick but was designed that way to allow 3-4” deformation space between the hood and all hard points in the engine bay in response to Euro pedestrian safety standards implemented in 2010. The engine sits low being that the heads are on the sides so that wasn’t an issue but the top of the struts needed the fender arches. I suppose you could stylistically eliminate the arches by just having a higher hood all the way across but that’d be pretty ugly IMO.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

If I'm 100% honest, I'm not a huge fan of the S2000's looks so I'm not the best judge, but I do get your point as far as the fender designs. Overall though, the flat flying wedge convertible design just isn't my thing.

???!!
The s2000 is anything BUT a "flat flying wedge". The front fenders in particular are QUITE curvacous. Subtle double-curvature everywhere. Whereas the FT86s "curves" on the sides of the front fenders are largely single-curvature conical shapes basically.

The Javelin front fenders serve to balance out the rear arches, but yes both are pretty much just for looks, which I suppose in itself is a functional purpose, just not mechanical or aerodynamic function.

If we're going to call "just for looks" a function, then the very idea of "form follows function" loses all meaning. If it's a styling gimmick, let's call it that. Otherwise Supra fake vents are now "functional".

I wouldn't say they are non-functional on the 86. They serve the original design purpose of being a visual reference when driving and cornering. You would not have that with a flat fender. I find it very useful.

I don't find them useful at all. If you're using fender bumps as a reference, your eyes are not looking NEARLY far enough ahead!

Doesn't the Daytona basically have a full fender "bulge" where the fender peak is higher than the hood?

'22 BRZ has this too, look at my pics a few posts back.

What the new BRZ and the Daytona have in common is a continous *CURVE* from the windshield to the front of the car, uninterrupted by gimmicky styling bumps!

Seems like a variation of the same theme to me. I suppose there may be some aero functionality in the design. You can see what I'm referring to in the shot below, although this is a '73.

This bears a LOT more resemblance to the '22 vs. current-gen BRZ. Here's the '22 BRZ: