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

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

Well it would be lighter and rev higher for sure. More power...IDK The FA24 is only 10whp behind full stock vs a K24A that with full bolt-ons makes 220whp.

it also makes a buttload more torque stock for stock.
a K24 at its highest rated torque makes 159 lb/ft at 6100 RPM and looks to be
(most configs seems to be around 140 lb/ft @ 4000rpm)

The FA24 is making 184 @ 3700rpm.

[Yoshoobaroo]

I’ll say this, I finally did a WOT 1st-2nd-3rd in my 2022 last night, and it doesn’t pin you in your seat the way a fat turbo 6cyl in a bigger car does, but I was caught off guard by how soon I had to shift up in both gears.

[TommyW]

I asked CSG Mike in another thread what he though about the performance difference was like between a tuned with header Gen 1 and a stock Gen 2 and he said it was pretty close.

[FrickingReallySlow]

Dude mentions lightweight flywheel on Gen2 from the factory? I didn't know that was changed. Is this true, I don't recall this being mentioned anywhere

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I don't think the standard tires are slower in a straight line.
2018 BRZ tS with Pilot Sport 4 tires did 0-60 in 6.3s, 1/4-mile in 14.9s @ 94mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-drive-review/
2017 BRZ with Primacies did 0-60 in 6.2s, 1/4-mile in 14.8s @ 95mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...l-test-review/

Trap speed in particular isn't as strongly correlated with tire grip as ET is anyway. The new car is legitimately ~6mph faster and upwards of a second quicker in the 1/4, that is a pretty big gain in performance, and more than anyone expected.

I'd say that's a pretty big delta, new car does 5-60 in 90% of the time the last-gen took. That's a bigger difference than 1/4-mile times (new car covers the 1/4 in about 94% of the time of last-gen).

I don't think stating actual measured performance new vs. old is overstating anything. New car is quicker, period. By a bigger margin than advertised or expected. Good news!

I really don't get all the weeping and wailing about *others* saying "it's too slow". Yeah, it's slowish for a sporty/performance oriented car. The new car is significantly less slow, which is a good thing if you ask me.

I don't think anyone is. We have acceleration data, we all know what it will do. Nobody is thinking it's now a supercar.

Being a bit quicker/faster does matter to a lot of us. And yeah, in the real world the driver should feel quite a bit more urge with throttle input what with +20% more torque most places and +30% or so in the midrange.

Long/short: it's a significant bump in performance, which a lot of people appreciate.

You are talking about tires not making much of a difference in your example. Yet with gen2, Cammisa pulled off a 0-60 in 5.6s with rollout, which is a whole 0.3s less than C&D managed with the better tires.

Your percentage relation that you make just goes to back up my point of the new car not being wonders faster than the old.

Never said it wasn't quicker or even a good bit quicker, I've admitted to the fact and absolutely love that part about it. I agree that it's a good thing that the new one is faster than the old. I was never about the "this car is too slow" life, I've loved my gen1 since the first day I sat in it. Nothing has changed there.

I feel like some on here are thinking it has become a supercar (not literally). Supercar enough to beat the GTI and Veloster N based on those 0-60 and quarter mile numbers that have been thrown out there.

I guess I may be misinterpreting what most people are saying on here then. Because it seems like many are using big words to talk about how much faster this second gen really is. But then again, i'm not disagreeing with the facts, the second gen is clearly faster, and by a good bit, just not something out of this world. I was more supporting Tcoat's reasoning for the future of complaints that will be coming. Because after all, it's not speed demon, and a minivan can still keep up with it no problem as I pointed out (and that minivan is due for a new gen soon). I was also rebutting some of the statements about this car being faster than the GTI and Veloster N purely based on 0-60 and quarter mile times. Again, these metrics are just not common for MOST users of this car on a daily basis. They only really count for those that race it. Otherwise I'm in agreement to the basic truths here - that this car is faster, and by more than expected/hoped. I am very excited for that and plan on keeping my gen1 when purchasing a gen2, just to have them both as a collection.

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by TommyW

I asked CSG Mike in another thread what he though about the performance difference was like between a tuned with header Gen 1 and a stock Gen 2 and he said it was pretty close.

This is based on the reference I was making. Doesn't blow my mind to think that my header-tuned BRZ with flex-fuel is probably about on par if not a bit quicker than the gen2.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

You are talking about tires not making much of a difference in your example. Yet with gen2, Cammisa pulled off a 0-60 in 5.6s with rollout, which is a whole 0.3s less than C&D managed with the better tires.

So maybe gen2 is even MORE faster than gen1? Or could Cammisa be 0.3 quicker in the gen1 as well?

I stick with C and D for some consistency, not because they're necessarily the "fastest" numbers.

Your percentage relation that you make just goes to back up my point of the new car not being wonders faster than the old.

Most would say that +6mph in the 1/4 an around a second quicker is significantly quicker/faster. We were only expecting about half that.

I was more supporting Tcoat's reasoning for the future of complaints that will be coming.

So you guys are being sure to PRE-complain about those complaints, before they even happen?!

Again, these metrics are just not common for MOST users of this car on a daily basis. They only really count for those that race it.

I disagree. If anything, people will feel it more on a daily basis as the midrange is filled in so well, whereas at the track the drawback of the gen1 torque dip was barely noticeable because revs are always above that.

No, most people aren't going to flat-out max accelerate 0-60 or for 1/4-mile, but they'll still feel increased torque at any rpm. For sure the new car should feel a bit more "eager"

Otherwise I'm in agreement to the basic truths here - that this car is faster, and by more than expected/hoped. I am very excited for that and plan on keeping my gen1 when purchasing a gen2, just to have them both as a collection.

I'll probably swap over to new gen late '22 or early '23...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by TommyW

I asked CSG Mike in another thread what he though about the performance difference was like between a tuned with header Gen 1 and a stock Gen 2 and he said it was pretty close.

From what I've seen, a good EL 4-1 header with a well-developed tune for it can be worth upwards of +10hp on a '17+. That's not going to touch a new one. I think you'd have to have full exhaust, intake(?), and E85 to come close, but based on what we're seeing seems like that would still come up short.

I mean, +30whp from a header and a tune, I just don't see that happenin...

[timurrrr]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

You are talking about tires not making much of a difference in your example. Yet with gen2, Cammisa pulled off a 0-60 in 5.6s with rollout, which is a whole 0.3s less than C&D managed with the better tires.

There are a lot of variables when it comes to 0–60, and that's why @ZDan prefers the full quarter mile numbers, trap speed in particular.

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

I was more supporting Tcoat's reasoning for the future of complaints that will be coming. Because after all, it's not speed demon, and a minivan can still keep up with it no problem as I pointed out (and that minivan is due for a new gen soon).

There will always be a faster car.
Go to a Lamborghini forum, and you will find people upset that some 7-seater SUV has a better 0-60 than their Aventador SVJ STO Performante (Model X).
Heck, even a non-EV Dodge Durango SRT Hellcat does 0–60 in mid-3's nowadays.

I think the real difference between 1st gen and 2nd gen is that with the 1st gen stock, even some "pure" enthusiasts sometimes needed excuses sometimes.
In contrast, the performance of the 2022's is on par with competition in the same price range, except for perhaps the EcoBoost Mustang.
For people who want significantly faster car (30%? 40%? when is it enough?), or better handling than the EcoBoost Mustang, they can go ahead and shop in the next price bracket.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

This is based on the reference I was making. Doesn't blow my mind to think that my header-tuned BRZ with flex-fuel is probably about on par if not a bit quicker than the gen2.

I don't think so since your Gen1 doesnt make as much power. There aren't any Gen1s running 13.9 @101 with 215s street tires..

[TommyW]

Originally Posted by ZDan

From what I've seen, a good EL 4-1 header with a well-developed tune for it can be worth upwards of +10hp on a '17+. That's not going to touch a new one. I think you'd have to have full exhaust, intake(?), and E85 to come close, but based on what we're seeing seems like that would still come up short.

I mean, +30whp from a header and a tune, I just don't see that happenin...

I have a header and a dyno tune by Zach and I'll tell you its a lot more than 10 hp.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by TommyW

I have a header and a dyno tune by Zach and I'll tell you its a lot more than 10 hp.

I do to, and it's a lot less than 10hp...

If header and tune are your only mods, no way you're seeing 101mph in the 1/4.

[sds]

Measurements from multiple, reliable outlets at this point have shown this is a 100-101 mph trap car. This points to a substantial power difference from a gen 1 car. There's no way around it.

Measurements from several dynos (including two from King motorsports) point to a ~210WHP dynojet (SAE) reading. This is in line with the trap speed indicated above.

Finally, anecdotal evidence from videos (including the "race" against the bolt-on 8th gen) simply add more to the mountain of evidence that the difference between the FA24 and FA20 is more than just 23-28hp.

Now onto speculation:
The Gen 2 (FA24) is underrated:
1. If it were not underrated, it would imply a RWD manual drivetrain loss of 8%, which is unheard of, and regardless, not in line with the drivetrain loss of the first gen car, which was in the teens (percentage wise). Nothing magical was done to the transmission and differential across generations to explain this discrepancy.

2. If the drivetrain loss was more along the lines of the first gen car, it would imply a crank rating of 240hp. An estimate of 240hp is also substantiated by the 100-101mph trap speed.

[alphasaur]

Trap speed is the most reliable way to consistently measure a cars power, and 6mph is strongly suggestive of the HP improvement being more than 23 crank horsepower.

edit: oops didn't see sds post which pretty much says the same thing