Sciaru BRZFRS (BreezeFrees)

[C-ZETA]

I can see Cali girls driving around these.

I don't know why but something about convertibles feminizes cars to me. Even convertible Ferrari's and Lambo's.

Convertibles are often associated in a more girly way, yes. But only the lighter stuff usually. The sportier convertibles can be owned by men - but men should only drive such cars with the roof down if other people aren't looking.

Of course, convertible models aren't the only thing that women can make look cooler, or even the highest level of such stuff.

 

[Nessy]

Iv'e never understood this whole: " Men driving a convertible with the roof down looks girlie" nonsense... Heh, maybe it's because where i'm from, we have a long history and fascination with open top sports cars.

I guess the real question is: Would you feel manly enough driving a 427 Cobra with the roof down?

 

[C-ZETA]

There are definitely exceptions, the Cobra is one of them. Obviously, all TVRs are another.

 

[homeforsummer]

Really not keen on how that convertible's looking. Maybe it's one of those things that look better in the flesh... and again, 4 seats.

Think it's the four-seat thing that's the issue. It takes some of the "sports car" element out of it. Makes it seem a bit more like this:

I'm not the type of person too bothered if a car I'm driving appears feminine to some (usually, I tend to find the people who say MX-5s and the like are "hairdressers cars" a bit dumb and oafish), but a convertible GT86 is a bit Barbie for my liking (the white paint in those images doesn't help).

I'm sure it'll be lots of fun, but the coupe looks better to my eyes.

 

[brianwong]

Hasn't the BRZ/FRS already been around for a long time? Just not as a Toyobaru car. If they still sold S2000s, I would totally take that over the FRS. The FRS offers nothing that a S2000 does not provide IMO.

 

[Omnis]

The FRS offers nothing that a S2000 does not provide IMO.

A roof.

 

[brianwong]

A roof.

You can get a roof for the S2000.

 

[RACECAR]

Am I the only one that looks at this and instantly thinks of the 2000GT from that one Bond Film?

 

[TilDawn]

Having it be a white convertible makes it look like a bath tub.

I'm only a fan of dedicated roadsters.

 

[Keef]

You can get a roof for the S2000.

For another $4000, sure. Even with the hardtop you still have a tinny, vibratey convertible structure underneath it. Have you ever driven one? The only thing the FR-S can't match the S2000 on is high-end power and immediate response, but then again, the FR-S is way easier to live with every day. If I truly want a hardcore feel I'll modify the FR-S and it'll end up miles better than a stock, used S2000 while still being easier to climb into, out of, and carry things in. And the roof is standard.

 

[Kent]

For another $4000, sure. Even with the hardtop you still have a tinny, vibratey convertible structure underneath it. Have you ever driven one? The only thing the FR-S can't match the S2000 on is high-end power and immediate response, but then again, the FR-S is way easier to live with every day. If I truly want a hardcore feel I'll modify the FR-S and it'll end up miles better than a stock, used S2000 while still being easier to climb into, out of, and carry things in. And the roof is standard.

I rarely get to do this so I had to take the oppurtunity and say...
Keef, I agree.

 

[Nessy]

Think it's the four-seat thing that's the issue. It takes some of the "sports car" element out of it. Makes it seem a bit more like this:

I'm not the type of person too bothered if a car I'm driving appears feminine to some (usually, I tend to find the people who say MX-5s and the like are "hairdressers cars" a bit dumb and oafish), but a convertible GT86 is a bit Barbie for my liking (the white paint in those images doesn't help).

I'm sure it'll be lots of fun, but the coupe looks better to my eyes.

Yep, it's definitely the 4 seat thing, and that Celica is a good example (context wise). I think it's hard to make a sporty 4 seater look good as a convertible, they just don't seem to gel well with me.

 

[Yauma9]

My biggest question is: Why make a 4 seater convertible out of the 86 when one of it's major criticism is the almost non-existant leg space for the back occupants?

If I could (because I would) buy a FR-S, I'd remove the rear seat to get more trunk space, and lighter weight.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Insurance purposes and probably uniformity in production lines. That, and really, you can never know when you'll need an extra set of seats for small people and kids...

 

[Joel]

Insurance purposes and probably uniformity in production lines. That, and really, you can never know when you'll need an extra set of seats for small people and kids...

Yeah that's a big part of it. Friend of mine's grandma has a Lexus SC460 and the back seats are symbolic.

 

[niky]

Plus, people can see the naff interior with the roof down

Ooh. Burn.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I got a chance to sit in one yesterday,and I must say, the seats and driving position are excellent. I didn't try the back, though, I didn't want to get stuck.

 

[brianwong]

For another $4000, sure. Even with the hardtop you still have a tinny, vibratey convertible structure underneath it. Have you ever driven one? The only thing the FR-S can't match the S2000 on is high-end power and immediate response, but then again, the FR-S is way easier to live with every day. If I truly want a hardcore feel I'll modify the FR-S and it'll end up miles better than a stock, used S2000 while still being easier to climb into, out of, and carry things in. And the roof is standard.

The roof adds rigidity last time I checked and the S2000 is more rigid than most hard tops. If no fixed roof automatically makes a car wobbly, then Koenigseggs must suck.

 

[Nessy]

The roof adds rigidity last time I checked and the S2000 is more rigid than most hard tops. If no fixed roof automatically makes a car wobbly, then Koenigseggs must suck.

Im not 100% sure i agree with that (bolded). Having owned an S2000, i can confirm it's quite a rigid car (obviously due to the X-frame), but can also confirm that it did squeak and vibrate a bit when driving with the roof up. I think a certain amount of scuttle/cowl shake will always be there (even if very slight), on all if not most convertibles. And, i think that's another reason i'm not wholly convinced of the Toysubions solution of having reinforced door plates... is it enough?
Having said all that, maybe they have made it rigid enough, as structural technology has moved on since the S2000, i mean, who would ever have thought Honda making the FD2 Civic Type R, 50% more rigid than the DC5 Integra Type R.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

The door plates probably won't be enough, I'd be shocked if they were.

 

[Crash]

The door plates probably won't make the car as rigid as the coupe, but it would help.

A well designed convertible can be more rigid than a poorly designed hardtop, but with all things being equal, the convertible version of a car available in a hardtop will likely be floppier at the same weight and without any structural reinforcements. The S2000 was designed as a convertible originally. The FRS/BRZ was not.

 

[Nessy]

I'm wondering, if when the Toysubion was conceived, they took into account their being a convertible somewhere down the line, and engineered the chassis to accommodate the extra stresses.

 

[RocZX]

Toyota FT 86 open concept

 

[Yauma9]

1. WHY is Toyota still calling it the FT-86?

2. Is it me or the interior changed? (3rd pic)

3. Too much negative camber on the rear wheels? [stupid thought: heavy roof?]

4. Ugh, white interior.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I like the interior changes a lot, it looks really good. The orange carpets don't work, though.

 

[RACECAR]

1. WHY is Toyota still calling it the FT-86?

2. Is it me or the interior changed? (3rd pic)

3. Too much negative camber on the rear wheels? [stupid thought: heavy roof?]

4. Ugh, white interior.

Because its only a concept. When it becomes a production car, it'll lose the FT and will likely get the GT treatment as the Coupe did.

 

[Endless-Wilso]

1. WHY is Toyota still calling it the FT-86?

2. Is it me or the interior changed? (3rd pic)

3. Too much negative camber on the rear wheels? [stupid thought: heavy roof?]

4. Ugh, white interior.

1. who cares

2. Iz you

3. Looks camber'd to me.

4. Eh its ok it has presence . (but those carpet's)

I like it.
The rear looks even more sexy !

 

[Bram Turismo]

I'm going to have a look at the GT86 tomorrow. I'd love to own one, but I'm just going to see what's what. Have a seat in it and find whether it's as comfortable as people say it is. I've always wanted an MX5 as I absolutely love these small, nimble, yet surprisingly quick cars but choosing between the MX5 and the GT86? I think I'll go for the Toyota. Or Subaru. Or Scion, whatever.

 

[Kamuifanboy]

Mixed feelings on the Convertible. I can't decide if it looks good or not. Which probably means it doesn't look good. Might grow on me though.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I'm not sure what to make of the idea. It was expected, but my enthusiast side is lamenting the fact it'll be a worse drive than the coupe thanks to the decapitation, and it'll definitely lose its low curb weight.

That being said... at the Autoshow a few weeks ago, I've definitely convinced the girlfriend that either the BRZ or a Miata are on the cards in a few years. This might be the best of both worlds; she loves the optional open-air approach of the Miata, but liked the increased roominess and trunk space (really) of the BRZ. She also loved that we wouldn't ever have to drive friends anywhere with a two-seater, and those back seats are pretty much just as useless .