Toyota Gazoo Racing + Subaru announcement for April 5

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Tires are not really holding this car back as far as 0-60 goes. And we already know what 215/40-18 Michelin PS4 tires do for BRZ acceleration vs. 215/45-17 Primacies:
2017 BRZ: 0-60 in 6.2 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.8 at 95mph on Primacies.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...l-test-review/
2018 BRZ tS: 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.9 at 94mph on PS4s
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-drive-review/


And it ain't the tires... Agree that the +23hp isn't nearly enough to account for 1 second quicker to 60, so if it really *is* 1 second quicker it's gotta be one less shift.

I suspect that Toyota marketing may be playing the age old bench racer game of using what numbers suit their case at that particular point in time. They have always pushed that the MT was someplace around 6.2 and ignored the 7.4 of the AT. Now all of a sudden the car is "faster" when it is 6.2 or does it go 5.2?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I suspect that Toyota marketing may be playing the age old bench racer game of using what numbers suit their case at that particular point in time. They have always pushed that the MT was someplace around 6.2 and ignored the 7.4 of the AT. Now all of a sudden the car is "faster" when it is 6.2 or does it go 5.2?

That makes some sense. Even with +23-27hp and no 2-3 shift required, a full second is a LOT. Maybe they "fixed" the lazy acceleration of the AT version...

[PulsarBeeerz]

They also are said to of made some suspension geometry changes. Lack of power wasn't the only reason it was slow off the line. All the factory anti-squat of the previous models makes getting off the line efficiently challenging. There's also the 30+lb/ft of TQ that keeps getting left out the conversation for some reason...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

They also are said to of made some suspension geometry changes. Lack of power wasn't the only reason it was slow off the line. All the factory anti-squat of the previous models makes getting off the line efficiently challenging. There's also the 30+lb/ft of TQ that keeps getting left out the conversation for some reason...

It isn't any suspension geometry change either... Like with the tires, for this car the effect is going to be minor. IMO a much bigger issue with it inherently having trouble getting off the line than tires or rear geometry is the 55F/45R weight distribution, but that's most likely unchanged.

Torque is fine as a means to make power. But yeah, there's more of it and there's no real dip any more. But again, not enough to account for a 1 second improvement in acceleration to 60. IMO it's gotta be either no 2-3 shift required, or it's the improvement of the AT model due to a much more performance-oriented automatic trans. Or it's not really 1-s quicker to 60... We shall see!

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Tires are not really holding this car back as far as 0-60 goes. And we already know what 215/40-18 Michelin PS4 tires do for BRZ acceleration vs. 215/45-17 Primacies:
2017 BRZ: 0-60 in 6.2 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.8 at 95mph on Primacies.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...l-test-review/
2018 BRZ tS: 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.9 at 94mph on PS4s
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-drive-review/

And it ain't the tires... Agree that the +23hp isn't nearly enough to account for 1 second quicker to 60, so if it really *is* 1 second quicker it's gotta be one less shift.

Well, I know we are talking about 0-60 versus 0-62 in the above articles and below, but apparently the last gen did 0-60 mph in 6.2 seconds and 60-62 mph in 1.2 seconds for a total of 7.4 seconds. If the new 0-62 time is 6.3 seconds then the 0-60 time might be 5.1 seconds like Tcoat said, or not like Tcoat said.

Kinda odd the Ts had a lower time, right?

https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/toyota/34997138.html

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Tires are not really holding this car back as far as 0-60 goes. And we already know what 215/40-18 Michelin PS4 tires do for BRZ acceleration vs. 215/45-17 Primacies:
2017 BRZ: 0-60 in 6.2 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.8 at 95mph on Primacies.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...l-test-review/
2018 BRZ tS: 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.9 at 94mph on PS4s
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-drive-review/


And it ain't the tires... Agree that the +23hp isn't nearly enough to account for 1 second quicker to 60, so if it really *is* 1 second quicker it's gotta be one less shift.

TS version is slightly heavier, has aero and 18” wheels, so not a apples to apples comparison.
If the 0-62mph is reduced by 1 second, I would expect to be from a conjunction of factors: tires (you do not know how much the grip difference would make with a higher torque), gearing, aero (drag reduction), weight distribution, suspension geometry.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Well, I know we are talking about 0-60 versus 0-62 in the above articles and below, but apparently the last gen did 0-60 mph in 6.2 seconds and 60-62 mph in 1.2 seconds for a total of 7.4 seconds.

I don't think the current car takes 1.2 seconds to get from 60mph to 62mph...
6.2 second 0-60 times we see are kinda cheating, they give themselves a 1 foot rollout.

The 7.4 seconds the press release references as 0-62 time, that must be truly from zero without a 1ft rollout, soft launch, or possibly it's an automatic? In that same 7.4-second run to 62mph they reference, I would bet they did not get to 60mph in 6.2...

Kinda odd the Ts had a lower time, right?

tS was 48 lb. heavier, and the data is in pretty coarse units, 6.2 seconds given could be 6.24, and the tS at 6.3 could be 6.25. Likewise for 94 vs. 95mph, could be 94.4 vs. 94.5. Anyway it's clear that the tS doesn't get any acceleration advantage from its PS4 tires, not enough to make up for it's modestly (+1.7%) greater weight anyway...

I have to be a bit skeptical of the Toyota press release claiming that big an improvement 0-62. But if it really *is* 1.1 seconds quicker to 60, a lot of that is likely not having to upshift to 3rd, that's ~0.5(ish) right there. And the rest due to better power/weight and no big torque dip.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

TS version is slightly heavier, has aero and 18” wheels, so not a apples to apples comparison.

Yes, *slightly* heavier, 48 lb., +1.7%, which theoretically should amount to something a bit less than 1mph slower in the 1/4. The argument had been that 215/40-18 PS4s would give a big improvement in acceleration vs. 215/45-17 Primacies, and that's exactly what's compared here. If the new car gets to 62mph 1.1 seconds quicker, it is not because it's on 215/40-18 PS4s vs 215/45-17 Primacies.

If the 0-62mph is reduced by 1 second, I would expect to be from a conjunction of factors: tires (you do not know how much the grip difference would make with a higher torque), gearing, aero (drag reduction), weight distribution, suspension geometry.

I'm saying that if it really *is* 1.1 seconds quicker to 62, the main factors are better power/weight, no torque dip (doesn't affect acceleration times from higher speeds but does for standing start), and ~half of that advantage from being geared taller enough that it doesn't have to upshift to 3rd to hit 62.
Weight distribution is going to be close to the same, other factors are minor...

Anyway, we'll see!

[Sasquachulator]

guys the 6.2 ish time bandied about (for the first gen) is the C&D number, not the official number.

After some searching i found that the official time is (way back for when the Scion FRS first came out)

Official 0-60 is 7.3 for 6MT and 8.0 for 6AT.
Official 1/4mi is 15.6 for 6MT and 16.1 6AT.

found it in this thread:
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5494

Sounds like this makes more sense if the official 0-100 is 7.7 or so.

I honestly thought ive seen 6.6 and 6.9 before but what do i know....the performance metric for this car is all over the place.

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Yes, *slightly* heavier, 48 lb., +1.7%, which theoretically should amount to something a bit less than 1mph slower in the 1/4. The argument had been that 215/40-18 PS4s would give a big improvement in acceleration vs. 215/45-17 Primacies, and that's exactly what's compared here. If the new car gets to 62mph 1.1 seconds quicker, it is not because it's on 215/40-18 PS4s vs 215/45-17 Primacies.



I'm saying that if it really *is* 1.1 seconds quicker to 62, the main factors are better power/weight, no torque dip (doesn't affect acceleration times from higher speeds but does for standing start), and ~half of that advantage from being geared taller enough that it doesn't have to upshift to 3rd to hit 62.
Weight distribution is going to be close to the same, other factors are minor...

Anyway, we'll see!

Your assumptions to say that the other factors are minor is based on the current torque x weight ratio, which is incorrect.
You would need to bump the GEN1 to this and then verify if the tires and suspension play a factor, as both may not be the bottleneck currently, but may become with a slightly power bump.

Yes, the main factor for the time reduction is the power bump, then the removal of the dip (it makes difference on both of the measurements here) and then other items.

When I mentioned TS, I also mentioned the wheel size (highr inertia) and aero drag.

Regarding weight distribution, this can get worse if they did not move the engine, as engine is heavier( Gen1 has about 5” of clearance on the bay, not sure if due to safaty factors, but it is ugly).

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I don't think the current car takes 1.2 seconds to get from 60mph to 62mph...
6.2 second 0-60 times we see are kinda cheating, they give themselves a 1 foot rollout.

The 7.4 seconds the press release references as 0-62 time, that must be truly from zero without a 1ft rollout, soft launch, or possibly it's an automatic? In that same 7.4-second run to 62mph they reference, I would bet they did not get to 60mph in 6.2...

tS was 48 lb. heavier, and the data is in pretty coarse units, 6.2 seconds given could be 6.24, and the tS at 6.3 could be 6.25. Likewise for 94 vs. 95mph, could be 94.4 vs. 94.5. Anyway it's clear that the tS doesn't get any acceleration advantage from its PS4 tires, not enough to make up for it's modestly (+1.7%) greater weight anyway...

I have to be a bit skeptical of the Toyota press release claiming that big an improvement 0-62. But if it really *is* 1.1 seconds quicker to 60, a lot of that is likely not having to upshift to 3rd, that's ~0.5(ish) right there. And the rest due to better power/weight and no big torque dip.

Did Toyota do a rollout test? If not then that could explain the difference in traction off the line and why the difference with the tires didn’t matter on their 0-60 between the Primacies and tS’ PS4s, but why it did make such a huge difference 70-0 with a 151 foot distance instead of a 164 foot distance, despite the extra 48lbs on the tS.

[WolfpackS2k]

30 years ago automakers put out conservative performance numbers for their cars. And it confused people when magazines (and people IRL) could do better.

Here we are 30 years later and...how is the same thing happening?!

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

30 years ago automakers put out conservative performance numbers for their cars. And it confused people when magazines (and people IRL) could do better.

Here we are 30 years later and...how is the same thing happening?!

We are more interested in debating the delta between the manufacturer’s numbers of the first gen and second gen. Either they were conservative and then they weren’t, so their numbers look better on the second gen or the car really improved by 1.1 seconds. If it is the latter then is it mostly the engine or mostly the tires or mostly one less gear to shift into or equally all three? Why was this discussion started? Because AnalogMan mentioned wanting to know what it actually feels like, which spawned comments that it might not be so great. Why? Because one less gear shift could improve times without much change in feel, and if someone already has PS4 tires then they might already have improved their 0-60 time. Maybe the 1.1 seconds is actually 0.3 seconds of actual improvement in acceleration.

The difference between manufacturers and journalists is actually not the focus of the debate, even if we are discussing the discrepancy.