5 Reasons You Shouldn't Care About Horsepower (As Much)

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I keep seeing this line of reasoning, and I find it a bit ridiculous. I.e., 240hp "wouldn't be enough", therefore 205 is "fine". There's no defined line of what is "enough" and if there was it would be different for every individual, and even for the same individual on different days.

If 205hp is "enough" for 50% of the people most of the time, then 240hp would be "enough" for a greater percentage of people, more of the time.

205hp is fine with me on the street, but I would like more at the track. 240hp would be objectively faster and for me in that context, "better". Of course there are other considerations, but to argue that any increase "wouldn't be enough" could just as well be applied backwards to make the argument that 150hp should be just fine, because "even" 205hp wouldn't be "enough"...

I like to drive fast on the track. Faster is more challenging and more fun. A stock FT86 is OK at the track but as we all know it needs a TON more front camber than you can get with the stock setup, and "balance" is objectively not that good at ~55/45. So even ignoring power, the car could stand to be improved...


So can I, that's why I bought one, and why I'm considering keeping it instead of the Cayman (assuming I do get rid of one of em). But it's not perfect, and for sure 240hp would make it more compelling for a greater number of people, including myself.

First off, I do think everyone's opinion is valid on this so if you think 240 hp would make the car significantly better for you to drive, then I'm not going to argue with you on that point. All I know is for myself, 200 vs 240 doesnt matter that much. Neither is what I'd call very fun in a straight line at this weight/torque level. Put another way, my car on 100 octane, header/exhaust and tune was equal to or slightly faster than a stock engine AP1 s2000 on a 80-125 mph straight on the track. I didn't find my FRS significantly more rewarding to drive at that power level at the street or track, but as I said, everyone's different so if 240 hp would do it for you, then I guess in your case that's the magic number.

As for balance, I was actually referring to handling balance not weight distribution. Its been a long time since I drove a stock alignment/tire car, but IIRC my FRS was really fun and adjustable at the limit in stock form. And of course we all know how good it is with a proper track setup.

[Pedro13]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The car could have 300HP and people would say it isn't enough and mod it for 600.
Are you trying to blame power for cars passing at 75mph? Is that the top speed you can get? Would more power help at all when doing 75? You do have a shift lever or paddles right?
DRIVE THE FUCKING THING!

I really like this quote from T coat. Still don't get it why people ask for more power...Unless you are a track addicted (I know some of the guys in this forum are), the rest of us just drive in a normal traffic cities/freeways/highways that unless you want to kill yourself (and potentially another innocent people), no need a car that have 500 Hp's. Have you seen how terrible some people drive on the streets? That is the reason that today's cars have all this electronic nannies and even with all this sh..t a lot of fatal accidents still happen... My point is why you need more Hp's for your daily commute? to run light to light? or to run like maniac on the freeway and be caught by the cops? in most of our Freeways/Highways the speed limit is 70Mph/120Km's...I understand that sometimes you need some power to pass a "turtle" on the road, but twins are more than capable to do that. Look what you wish for, otherwise the next gen of BRZ/86 will be a Sh..t CUV/SUV like the "New Eclipse"

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Pedro13

I really like this quote from T coat. Still don't get it why people ask for more power...Unless you are a track addicted (I know some of the guys in this forum are), the rest of us just drive in a normal traffic cities/freeways/highways that unless you want to kill yourself (and potentially another innocent people), no need a car that have 500 Hp's. Have you seen how terrible some people drive on the streets? That is the reason that today's cars have all this electronic nannies and even with all this sh..t a lot of fatal accidents still happen... My point is why you need more Hp's for your daily commute? to run light to light? or to run like maniac on the freeway and be caught by the cops? in most of our Freeways/Highways the speed limit is 70Mph/120Km's...I understand that sometimes you need some power to pass a "turtle" on the road, but twins are more than capable to do that. Look what you wish for, otherwise the next gen of BRZ/86 will be a Sh..t CUV/SUV like the "New Eclipse"

This mentality..... If you don't wish for more power, or need it in your daily commute you could have just bought the lowest HP / most reliable / most useful car there was instead of a twin.


Its part of the fun and the experience. More power is just an enhancement to that. (IMO)

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

First off, I do think everyone's opinion is valid on this so if you think 240 hp would make the car significantly better for you to drive, then I'm not going to argue with you on that point. All I know is for myself, 200 vs 240 doesnt matter that much.
...
everyone's different so if 240 hp would do it for you, then I guess in your case that's the magic number.

My whole point is that there isn't any "magic number". The point is that 240hp is objectively faster and for me better for having fun at the track. The notion that 240hp is still "not enough" and therefore no different from 205hp is what I'm arguing against.

I don't have a "magic number", and if I did it would be something like Mark Donohue's quote about how it's not enough power until I can sspin the tires at the end of the straight. I'm coming from a 550hp FD RX-7, so I fully get that 240hp isn't HUGELY different from 205hp. But it *is* a decent step in the right direction! For me, for the track. Again, for me, on the street, I'm OK w 205. Hell I was fine with my s2000 never running in VTEC on the street, so effectively that was maybe 150hp?

As for balance, I was actually referring to handling balance not weight distribution. Its been a long time since I drove a stock alignment/tire car, but IIRC my FRS was really fun and adjustable at the limit in stock form. And of course we all know how good it is with a proper track setup.

It's a fun car out of the box, for sure! But that front camber is woefully low... Also at the track it would benefit from better weight distribution. I would way rather have a shorter-wheelbase cab-rearward 2-seat 50/50 version than 240hp....

[bcj]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

If you don't wish for more power, or need it in your daily commute you could have just bought the lowest HP / most reliable / most useful car there was ...

You were reading my mind !!
I bought a twin! And for a reasonable price too!

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

This mentality..... If you don't wish for more power, or need it in your daily commute you could have just bought the lowest HP / most reliable / most useful car there was instead of a twin.


Its part of the fun and the experience. More power is just an enhancement to that. (IMO)

Or if you wanted or need more power there are dozens of cars you could buy. Both arguments are equally foolish and narrow minded

The statements of it is too slow for daily driving are dumb. You just have to actually drive it not just sit back and push a pedal.

[HKz]

the twins are all about the total package so of course if you individually cherry pick certain aspects to compare with other cars that focused more on outright performance than driveability/practicality sure it makes the twins look "weak"...


the most comparable coupe with similar packaging/pricing, at least in NA, was the 240SX (almost the exact same price after inflation)..I had one and I can easily say the twins are through and through better..beyond that what other cheap & lightweight RWD 2+2 have been produced in the past 30 years? people's expectations and comparisons are seriously mind boggling..

[new2subaru]

And the low HP talk continues...

If you want more power in your twin DO IT. There are many many many ways to add it.

I may do it myself one day but don't sit here and bitch about a car the IMHO is the best affordable sports car to come out in eons (Miata exempt) It's the only true comparison.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by ZDan

My whole point is that there isn't any "magic number". The point is that 240hp is objectively faster and for me better for having fun at the track. The notion that 240hp is still "not enough" and therefore no different from 205hp is what I'm arguing against.

I don't have a "magic number", and if I did it would be something like Mark Donohue's quote about how it's not enough power until I can sspin the tires at the end of the straight. I'm coming from a 550hp FD RX-7, so I fully get that 240hp isn't HUGELY different from 205hp. But it *is* a decent step in the right direction! For me, for the track. Again, for me, on the street, I'm OK w 205. Hell I was fine with my s2000 never running in VTEC on the street, so effectively that was maybe 150hp?


It's a fun car out of the box, for sure! But that front camber is woefully low... Also at the track it would benefit from better weight distribution. I would way rather have a shorter-wheelbase cab-rearward 2-seat 50/50 version than 240hp....

I think we're in agreement that 240 hp is better than 200, but where we differ is that for me, it's just not a significant difference. Whether 200 or 240, the car isn't going to be thrilling in a straight line (again IMO).

Like you, there are other things I'd much rather have than an extra 40 hp (like a sub 2500 lbs curb weight, for example).

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

The fact that it's hideous is only part of it. I'm also not a fan of manufacturers taking crappy econoboxes, putting turbos on them and trying to pretend they are sports cars. It's why I have no interest whatsoever in a Civic Type R or a Fiat 500 Abarth. It says to the world that the manufacturer wants a sports car in their lineup, but they're either too cheap or too organizationally stupid to develop one and think their customers are too dumb to know the difference.

To own one of those seems like it would make me complicit in a lie. Even if their customers are too stupid to know the difference, I don't have to be one of them.

That is a rather uncharitable way of looking at it IMO. A more charitable way is to recognise that some people want a quick, good handling sporty car but they need practicality too (useable back seats, a hatch and boot space) and they only have the budget or space in their garage for one car. For these people a hot hatch ticks all their boxes. Why hate on that? Aren’t more options for performance cars better than fewer? The existence of hot hatches doesn’t detract from dedicated sports coupes.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Red-86

That is a rather uncharitable way of looking at it IMO.

You're right. I'm not being charitable.

I see what you're saying about it being a compromise. I have driven compromises for years (and still do). The problem with a dressed up econobox isn't that it's a compromise, it's that the marketing and customers pretend that compromise turns it into something it isn't.

Charity is a response to poverty. Delusion or pretension isn't poverty. Someone who can afford $38K for a Civic Type R in order to pretend he's driving a sports car isn't likely to need the charity. Someone who is culturally impoverished enough to delude himself into believing he's driving a sports car probably doesn't deserve it.

So no, I'm not feeling particularly charitable about the posermobiles.

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Someone who can afford $38K for a Civic Type R in order to pretend he's driving a sports car isn't likely to need the charity.

Maybe he isn’t pretending anything but just wants a fast hatchback? What exactly is wrong with that? What is wrong with someone wanting a muscle car, or even a fast SUV? People like different things. I’m not a muscle car or SUV fan but I don’t insult those people or get offended because they prioritise different things to me.

Someone who is culturally impoverished enough to delude himself into believing he's driving a sports car probably doesn't deserve it.

Why do you care? You keep casting aspersions on people who have different priorities in a car to you. Why? Did some dude in a CTR gap you one night? Who cares? Diversity in the car world is good, it would be a boring world if everyone drove the same type of car! Drive your own ride and stop sweating it.

posermobiles.

Not only do I think that is unfair, but given how many people think the twins are ‘posermobiles’ because they are ‘too slow to be real sportscars*’ you should perhaps be wary of throwing stones inside glass houses.

*To be clear, I don’t think this (obviously as an 86 owner) but a lot of enthusiasts and forum heroes do.

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Why is it that in the one car where from the start they knew folks would care about HP did they decide that it was a one engine fits all solution? I'm not sure about Subaru, but doesn't Toyota offer engine options in just about every other model they build, except their two "sports cars"?

It is interesting. I think one possible reason is that even back in 2012, Toyota knew that the 86 would always be a budget/entry level sportscar. The Supra development story goes that at the 86’s launch, Tada was approached by BMW about a sportscar collaboration (which turned into the Zupra). If true, even then Toyota would have been thinking about vertical product placement, and where a more powerful sportscar would sit in relation to the 86 in the stack.

IOW, even then they were probably happy to leave sufficient HP space above the NA FA20 for a potential Supra in future. Imagine what an anticlimax a new 340 HP Supra would have been in a world where there was already a 300 HP 86 available that was lighter than the Supra could dream of? Doesn’t leave enough breathing space in terms of performance and thus product differentiation.

Having said that, I think 240-260 HP would have been more than fine and still leave a sufficient power gap to the B58 Supra not to be a rival. But, and here is the real problem for those like me wanting more factory HP in the next gen 86, the existence of that turbo 4 Supra with BMW’s B48 engine, which is only pushing out around 260 HP (officially), means that realistically Toyota are unlikely to allow a stock 86 to come too near that. Who would pay more for a heavier 260 HP Supra if you can have a lighter, nimbler 86 with 250 ish HP for less money? This is what really concerns me, that damn B48 Supra encroaches on the HP window people want the mk II 86 to occupy, and the product planners are unlikely to allow that. So I have a sinking feeling it will be a 5-10 HP bump if we are lucky. Hope to be proven wrong!

Edit - one thing that confounds my theory, and confuses me generally, is the base, detuned turbo 4 Supra in Japan that only makes 197 HP, i.e. less than the twins! OK, it has turbo torque, which makes it pull better down low, but still... why release a detuned 197 HP B48 Supra when you also have the 260 HP version available for not much more? It’s not like any versions of the Supra are inexpensive cars, and it can’t save the factory much in manufacturing costs (I imagine it costs almost the same to make both versions of the 4 banger Supra)! So why does it even exist in the lineup, with more weight and less power than the 86? If you wanted a 4 banger Supra, why wouldn’t you get the higher spec one for not much more, every time?

[86prime]

Isn't the new Supra already an anticlimax?

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk