So before there was a BRZ, what was the equivalent?

[go2brz]

you are a contradicting, misinformed fanboy. in the same post you manage to criticize toyota for not selling many mr2s and then immediately praise subaru for having a niche market? this is subarus first sports car, dont fool yourself. you would be naive to think that toyotas downfall in f1 is a shame compared to the relatively small success of subaru in wrc and do i have to mention that toyota was a "force" in wrc too? in fact, they have more champoinships than subaru. toyota is one of only a handful of companies to actually make their own f1 cars. they have made more sports cars than subaru and nissan combined. calling a stock 240sx a pure handling car is a total joke and to say its better than anything toyota has ever built is ignorant. toyota owns a huge chunk of subaru and having two parts bins to pull from to keep costs down was a win win. its as simple as that.

i cant help but feel like you have never driven, let alone heard of the: supra, celica, mr2, gt2000, sports800, altezza, isf, corolla, chaser, soarer, starlet or any of the other stuff they are doing or have done. or any of thier successes in races like the rolex sports car series, f1 wrc, basically every endurance race, grand prix, jgtc etc.

dont get me wrong, i like what subaru has done as far as the philosophy of the company but compared to toyota there is no history to look back on.

You're very funny. The only fanboy is you trying to make believe that Toyota knows how to build a true sports car. It shows in everything you say. You seem to have a romantic notion of them, that is more in your mind than in reality.

I simply stated the facts about this car and where it's roots came from. Toyota simply bought the 20 percent of stock that Subaru bought back on their own from GM. They bought it as an investment to help their company. Subaru was glad to have the cash back and be rid of GM (who took Subarus and rebadged them as Saabs), but they knew that they needed a connection to technology from a larger manufacturer, and Toyota expressed interest, and Subaru accepted. The same reason Toyota invested heavily in Tesla's new battery technology, as they wasted a lot of money to build an entire factory capable of building only nickel cadium batteries that are basically already obsolete for the car industry. You should know some facts before you come back at someone who states only facts. I have owned more sports cars than you have owned any type of car most likely. I am a member of a vintage racing club, have rebuilt numerous classic sports cars, showed them, won trophys, and sold them for a profit. I have been involved with track events multiple time per year, and have previously done years of SCCA track and autocross events. So I speak not as a proponent of any one company, but rather a proponent of well balanced, designed and excuted sports cars, no matter who makes them.

As I said, answer this question with logic and truth and then we can truly talk facts:

If Toyota COULD build this car or any sports car that hits the mark so perfectly, then why did they not do it? You say they just dragged Subaru into making a car for them.....Your logic is so flawed it truly makes me laugh.

Enjoy your dreams. and keep sucking on the teet of a major international congllomerate that keeps failing at making a true sports car and excels in excellently engineered boredom. And don't throw out names of overweight bulky cars that have power and sporting styles to them like the Supra, but no real sports car substance. You just make your case worse. Because it is true that Toyota has made many attempts at making a "true" sports car. But you are one of the few who believe they ever really hit the mark.

Toyota's F1 car was totally designed by a German race tuner that Toyota bought and used to make big splashes in multiple venues simply to pull out quickly or fail outright as they did in F1. And yes, that failure tainted them quite a bit. They have a new LeMans project that looks promising, but only because they jumped in to take quick advantage of new rules for hybrid cars in Endurance racing. That is their first successful road racing program for a very long time. And they have unlimited resources if they have the guts to stick things out. So far they have never done that. I would not be unhappy to see them truly commit to a race series and stay with it long term, for the engineering benefits it can bring to the company, rather than outsourcing and learning nothing to change the culture of their development capabilities as a fully rounded and complete auto manufacturing corporation.

[BRZnut]

Originally Posted by jduffy

What was the equivalent to a BRZ before there was a BRZ?

Factor in rear wheel drive, good looks, low cost. The only car that comes up in my mind is the Nissan 240z.

Nothing was or will ever be equivalent!!!!

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by go2brz

You're very funny. The only fanboy is you trying to make believe that Toyota knows how to build a true sports car. It shows in everything you say. You seem to have a romantic notion of them, that is more in your mind than in reality.

I simply stated the facts about this car and where it's roots came from. Toyota simply bought the 20 percent of stock that Subaru bought back on their own from GM. They bought it as an investment to help their company. Subaru was glad to have the cash back and be rid of GM (who took Subarus and rebadged them as Saabs), but they knew that they needed a connection to technology from a larger manufacturer, and Toyota expressed interest, and Subaru accepted. The same reason Toyota invested heavily in Tesla's new battery technology, as they wasted a lot of money to build an entire factory capable of building only nickel cadium batteries that are basically already obsolete for the car industry. You should know some facts before you come back at someone who states only facts. I have owned more sports cars than you have owned any type of car most likely. I am a member of a vintage racing club, have rebuilt numerous classic sports cars, showed them, won trophys, and sold them for a profit. I have been involved with track events multiple time per year, and have previously done years of SCCA track and autocross events. So I speak not as a proponent of any one company, but rather a proponent of well balanced, designed and excuted sports cars, no matter who makes them.

As I said, answer this question with logic and truth and then we can truly talk facts:

If Toyota COULD build this car or any sports car that hits the mark so perfectly, then why did they not do it? You say they just dragged Subaru into making a car for them.....Your logic is so flawed it truly makes me laugh.

Enjoy your dreams. and keep sucking on the teet of a major international congllomerate that keeps failing at making a true sports car and excels in excellently engineered boredom. And don't throw out names of overweight bulky cars that have power and sporting styles to them like the Supra, but no real sports car substance. You just make your case worse. Because it is true that Toyota has made many attempts at making a "true" sports car. But you are one of the few who believe they ever really hit the mark.

Toyota's F1 car was totally designed by a German race tuner that Toyota bought and used to make big splashes in multiple venues simply to pull out quickly or fail outright as they did in F1. And yes, that failure tainted them quite a bit. They have a new LeMans project that looks promising, but only because they jumped in to take quick advantage of new rules for hybrid cars in Endurance racing. That is their first successful road racing program for a very long time. And they have unlimited resources if they have the guts to stick things out. So far they have never done that. I would not be unhappy to see them truly commit to a race series and stay with it long term, for the engineering benefits it can bring to the company, rather than outsourcing and learning nothing to change the culture of their development capabilities as a fully rounded and complete auto manufacturing corporation.

Subaru would have never built this car without the push from Toyota. It goes against their long standing design philosophy. When I went to the car's introductions at NAIAS and Chicago the Subaru representatives on hand did not even know how to explain why their company was selling a RWD car.

I will not bother arguing with you about whether Toyota can or ever did build a successful sports car. But, ALL sports cars are niche market cars.

By the way, prior to the BRZ, when did Subaru ever successfully build and market a sports car? And how many of those did they sell when you compare to the Toyota failed designs that you mentioned?

[Turbowned]

Originally Posted by go2brz

Enjoy your dreams. and keep sucking on the teet of a major international congllomerate that keeps failing at making a true sports car and excels in excellently engineered boredom. And don't throw out names of overweight bulky cars that have power and sporting styles to them like the Supra, but no real sports car substance. You just make your case worse. Because it is true that Toyota has made many attempts at making a "true" sports car. But you are one of the few who believe they ever really hit the mark.

Toyota Supra not a true sports car? MR2 not a true sports car? AE86 Corolla not a true sports car? 2000GT not a true sports car? Sports 800 not a true sports car? Celica GT-FOUR not a true sports car? What exactly then, might I ask, is a "true sports car" in your oh-so-expert opinion? Inquiring minds want to know.

Originally Posted by BRZnut

Nothing was or will ever be equivalent!!!!

You need to get out and drive more cars, sir.

[brewksy]

Originally Posted by go2brz

Stuff

Dude is trolling hard.

1) Toyota has and does build true sports cars. Subaru never has before the BRZ.
2) The number of cars you've owned or how many races you've raced doesn't make your argument any stronger. A veiled personal attack is just a personal attack and just makes you look petty.
3) You haven't provided a single argument against Toyota dragging Subaru to the table other than calling people liars, while the others have sources and interviews quoted.

Ignore button is close.

[Captain Insano]

How does anybody define a sports car?? I consider a high performance car a "sports car", but maybe I don't define it "right".

I am not taking sides and I definitely am not getting involved in this argument. But, but, I will say I disagree Subaru has never had a "sports car". I would definitely consider the STi a sports car. The day it arrived in the USDM it seriously woke up alot of US car mfg on how lacking their "sports cars" are.

If you look back it has all the roots of a sports car as well, based on WRC subaru homolugation cars, it evolved over many years, and was a budget minded, practical (4 doors), darn good track/dirt car. And has some incredible special versions even above STi (22B, Spec C, RA-R, etc...).

I think the twins were a partnership between the two companies. Both of them needed each other for various reasons. My opinion I will place into the argument and leave it at that.

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by Captain Insano

How does anybody define a sports car?? I consider a high performance car a "sports car", but maybe I don't define it "right".

I am not taking sides and I definitely am not getting involved in this argument. But, but, I will say I disagree Subaru has never had a "sports car". I would definitely consider the STi a sports car. The day it arrived in the USDM it seriously woke up alot of US car mfg on how lacking their "sports cars" are.

If you look back it has all the roots of a sports car as well, based on WRC subaru homolugation cars, it evolved over many years, and was a budget minded, practical (4 doors), darn good track/dirt car. And has some incredible special versions even above STi (22B, Spec C, RA-R, etc...).

I think the twins were a partnership between the two companies. Both of them needed each other for various reasons. My opinion I will place into the argument and leave it at that.

Everyone seems to have their own definition. One of the classic "sports car" definitions is a two-seat RWD roadster with a manual transmission. Using that definition, a true sports car must have an open top. But like I said, everyone has their own definition.

[whaap]

We all have different definitions of what a sports car is. For example, I can't buy the fact that a sports car has to be a two seater. Come on, a 911 isn't a sports car? How about the Scibaru twins? It's like the person that said pornography was hard to describe but we all recognize it when we see it.

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by Captain Insano

How does anybody define a sports car?? I consider a high performance car a "sports car", but maybe I don't define it "right".

I am not taking sides and I definitely am not getting involved in this argument. But, but, I will say I disagree Subaru has never had a "sports car". I would definitely consider the STi a sports car. The day it arrived in the USDM it seriously woke up alot of US car mfg on how lacking their "sports cars" are.

If you look back it has all the roots of a sports car as well, based on WRC subaru homolugation cars, it evolved over many years, and was a budget minded, practical (4 doors), darn good track/dirt car. And has some incredible special versions even above STi (22B, Spec C, RA-R, etc...).

I think the twins were a partnership between the two companies. Both of them needed each other for various reasons. My opinion I will place into the argument and leave it at that.

I agree the definition of sports car can vary. I would not call the STI a sports car. I would call it a sporty GT car. I would also classify the Supra as a sporty GT car. Some Japanese cars that I would classify as Sports cars are the 240-260-280Z,350-370Z, Rx7, 2000GT, MR2, MR-S, Miata, Rx8, s2000, NSX and Fr-S/BRZ. There are others that I have missed. Many of them were never imported to the US. Opinions may vary.

Even if we call the STI a sports car then Toyota has still produced many more models of sports car and has outsold Subaru as a sports car maker and racer by a vast margin. That was the point I was making.

[Captain Insano]

Agreed, Toyota has released many "sports cars" (or sporty, however you want to define). Only was mentioning that Subaru has released some sports cars or sporty cars because above some of the posts read like Subary has never released a sports car or sporty cars in general and aren't performance oriented. Subaru has a decent racing history in WRC and is pretty big in autocross and probably has some of the best from the factory rally platforms to develop on if you look at the non-WRC rallying and which cars are most dominant (subarus typically for many years).

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by go2brz

You're very funny. The only fanboy is you trying to make believe that Toyota knows how to build a true sports car. It shows in everything you say. You seem to have a romantic notion of them, that is more in your mind than in reality.

I simply stated the facts about this car and where it's roots came from. Toyota simply bought the 20 percent of stock that Subaru bought back on their own from GM. They bought it as an investment to help their company. Subaru was glad to have the cash back and be rid of GM (who took Subarus and rebadged them as Saabs), but they knew that they needed a connection to technology from a larger manufacturer, and Toyota expressed interest, and Subaru accepted. The same reason Toyota invested heavily in Tesla's new battery technology, as they wasted a lot of money to build an entire factory capable of building only nickel cadium batteries that are basically already obsolete for the car industry. You should know some facts before you come back at someone who states only facts. I have owned more sports cars than you have owned any type of car most likely. I am a member of a vintage racing club, have rebuilt numerous classic sports cars, showed them, won trophys, and sold them for a profit. I have been involved with track events multiple time per year, and have previously done years of SCCA track and autocross events. So I speak not as a proponent of any one company, but rather a proponent of well balanced, designed and excuted sports cars, no matter who makes them.

As I said, answer this question with logic and truth and then we can truly talk facts:

If Toyota COULD build this car or any sports car that hits the mark so perfectly, then why did they not do it? You say they just dragged Subaru into making a car for them.....Your logic is so flawed it truly makes me laugh.

Enjoy your dreams. and keep sucking on the teet of a major international congllomerate that keeps failing at making a true sports car and excels in excellently engineered boredom. And don't throw out names of overweight bulky cars that have power and sporting styles to them like the Supra, but no real sports car substance. You just make your case worse. Because it is true that Toyota has made many attempts at making a "true" sports car. But you are one of the few who believe they ever really hit the mark.

Toyota's F1 car was totally designed by a German race tuner that Toyota bought and used to make big splashes in multiple venues simply to pull out quickly or fail outright as they did in F1. And yes, that failure tainted them quite a bit. They have a new LeMans project that looks promising, but only because they jumped in to take quick advantage of new rules for hybrid cars in Endurance racing. That is their first successful road racing program for a very long time. And they have unlimited resources if they have the guts to stick things out. So far they have never done that. I would not be unhappy to see them truly commit to a race series and stay with it long term, for the engineering benefits it can bring to the company, rather than outsourcing and learning nothing to change the culture of their development capabilities as a fully rounded and complete auto manufacturing corporation.

toyota did build a sports car on their own. i named about a dozen of them. you keep contradicting yourself. toyota has unlimited resources but somehow they can build a sports car?

nobody cares what cars you have had. paris hilton has an lfa, that doesnt make her a voice of authority.

none of the "facts" that you state have anything to do with what you are trying to say. how do saab and tesla fit into this? here are some facts:

lexus won the 24hr at daytona in 2006-2008 (three consecutive years sounds like a commitment to me) and a couple years ago they won both the 300 and 500 jgtc classes. is six years ago too long ago for you? please tell me all about what subaru has done since then, or ever in fact.

toyota has more wrc wins than subaru. i would love for you to tell me just one competition where subaru is more successful than toyota.

at only 200 lbs heavier than the sti, the supra would pull .98g on the skidpad and thats with 15 year old tire technology. how well does the sti grip?

lets talk more about how toyota outsources everything and learns nothing because being the only car manufacturer with a crazy circular carbon fiber loom isnt going to change car culture in the least.

if toyota has never made a "true" sports car, neither has subaru.

[Turbowned]

^^ Amen brotha! ^^

[Gixxersixxerman]

I base a sports car as a car designed to be one.. Not a 4 door family sedan that has upgraded suspension and turbo (STI) (EVO)

Also.. I might be the only one, but before the twins, I feel the only cheap direct compression is the genesis coupe..

[brewksy]

Oi... my intention was not to start a "what constitutes a sports car" debate. It was merely to draw attention to the gross generalization the guy was using to create his own argument.

You can take either the broad or narrow definition of the word sportscar and Toyota has built more of them than Subaru (and has been more successful in every "sport" category than Subaru ever has). To remark any different in an argument is disingenuous. He stated:

...make believe that Toyota knows how to build a true sports car.
...a major international conglomerate that keeps failing at making a true sports car.
...no real sports car substance", and
Because it is true that Toyota has made many attempts at making a "true" sports car. But you are one of the few who believe they ever really hit the mark.

As claims that somehow Toyota was incapable of making a sportscar so that's why they needed Subaru to take the lead on showing them how. This assumes that Subaru has not only built a sports car to the same standard than Toyota, but also that they were more successful at doing it, which is untrue. If you assume Toyota has failed at making a sports car, then Subaru couldn't possibly be considered *better* at making a sports car.