- 2,112
- xNEVER-ONEx
Give the FRSBRZ more power and trust me this car becomes a desirable alternative. 200 HP is a joke in 2014, especially since you can at least 200 HP in just about everything now a days.
Sciaru BRZFRS (BreezeFrees)
- Thread starter Azuremen
- 5,612 comments
- 401,134 views
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,322
- United States
And most of those "just about everything" cars weight no where near what the FR-S weighs. I can have a blast in the canyons and on track in a FWD car with 150hp that weighs about the same. Hell my current car ('95 Infiniti G20) weighs about the same as an FR-S, and when I do my motor swap with cams, intake, exhaust and a tune I'll make about the same power N/A as an FR-S. The car will be a hoot, and I can't wait.
Bottom line, the car doesn't NEED more power to have fun.
- 2,112
- xNEVER-ONEx
A blast in the canyons is over played. 99% who buy cars do not drive through the canyons once a week, or do auto cross or have track days. If the "FUN" of this car can only be had in special areas of this world, then the car is then for a very limited amount of people. Its a great chassis, it looks cool and it handles like a dream, its just not very fast for this day and age. Of course those are my opinions and why I wouldn't buy the car, but I'm sure the power is plenty for many people.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,322
- United States
Well if people can afford a $25k car and want more power I'm sure they can spend another $5k and buy a turbo kit for it. Then again you could just spend $30k on a WRX instead. It's more practical for a daily driver anyway.
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
If it can exceed the highest speed limit, it's fast enough. Only fool wants more than that.
- 2,112
- xNEVER-ONEx
There you go. WRX is everything and more, and just for 5k more. Thats what people have been saying in this thread, the car is very awkwardly priced. In that same price range, you can faster, more practical cars for a little bit more. Now 5k is not really a inconsequential difference, but when you realize that in order to own a FRS/BRZ, you likely will need a second car (especially if you live in places where it snows), then the more practical WRX becomes the obvious choice.
The Citroen 2CV can possibly hit 70 MPH. I'm sure you'll have a blast with that. Though Chris Harris of /Drive likes it.
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
It doesn't need a ton of power to be fun. Light weight takes care of that.. And it will still ride better than most modern cars thanks to the hydraulic suspension.
dsgerbc
Premium
- 2,577
- dsgerbc
Sure, if you're a wuss, cannot drive, and unfamiliar with winter tires, or live in rural Canada (ok, steep hills on one's route is also a valid reason).
99% of people with high-powered cars only get to use that power in their own neighborhood (which they shouldn't), cause after that it's traffic all the way to work/school. Unless we're talking track days/weekend (canyon) runs again.
Last edited:
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
Oh please don't. The ignorance is just too much...
What if I want to be able to merge onto the highway with a full load of people and luggage in my car without slowing down everyone in the right lane?
What if I want to take my car to a track day? What's the speed limit at Infineon again?
What if I'd like to enjoy acceleration on an empty bit of road?
This is even ignoring how inefficient it would be to gear cars to top out at the spee
But of course everybody who would want to do any of those is a fool.
I don't see how having a car that is more powerful than necessary for road use is any more foolish than having a car with sports suspension for road use. If anything, sporty driving on public roads is more dangerous than speeding and quick acceleration on public road. It is easier to react to hazards in a car that is going too quickly in a straight line than in one that is the middle of a high G turn.
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
You could try predicting the traffic etc. Accelerate early enough instead of at the last moment. If you see red light ahead, don't slam on brakes too early but keep rolling and keep the momentum going.. You don't need much power for that.. But then again, US drivers ed doesn't include these things, does it..? It's 40$ and picture on card and you're good to go, from what I've seen from local traffic.
- 2,980
- The Ramapo Mountains
- jjaisli
No, that's not what I'm saying. At all.
Power is part of the package. And I won't say it isn't important. But the trend toward more and more powerful cars over the last say, 10 years has gotten ridiculous. The problem with just about every car over the last two decades is that they all weigh far too much. Granted there are reasons for that. And the added benefits of multiple air bags, improved safety structures and more rigid chassis all have obvious advantages. But at a cost Some mid sized 'family' cars now weigh close to two tons. I'd rather have a car that weighs 2700-lbs with 200-hp than a car that weighs 3800-lbs with 300-hp. The power to weight ratio is much more important than outright power. At least for me. But once you start pushing that much mass around, no matter how much power you have, it becomes a compromise.
Then it's a shame because people really ARE missing the whole point. What could be better than being able to push your car to it's limit and/or your limit in a safe and controlled environment?
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
Nice job ignoring the rest of the post, but your rebuttal is incomplete.
I don't always get to see the traffic that I'm merging into. I can think of five places within about 3 miles of where I live where this is the case.
If you still believe that more power than is necessary to achieve the speed limit is foolish, then you should also believe that suspension more than capable of handling a curve at the given speed limit is foolish.
Or maybe we could go back to the biggest problem with your post which is that some of us actually drive our commuter cars in dynamic environments.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Except that doesn't really reinforce what you said. What you said was:
Zenith illustrated several scenarios where this isn't the case, and none of them are mutually exclusive to the general good driving practice of keeping your eyes on the road ahead.
I am - as you've probably gathered during my time at GTP - not a huge speed freak. For me it is not a vital component in me enjoying cars.
However, I do very much enjoy fast cars and I'm lucky that I get a chance to drive them now and then. It's a nice counterpoint to the fact the car I actually own isn't that quick. And I certainly wouldn't begrudge others their fast cars, nor would I call them a "fool" for wanting a vehicle that exceeds the speed limit.
With the best will in the world, merging onto a highway, or overtaking, is much easier and safer in a car with comfortable levels of performance than it is in one that'll only just scrape the speed limit. That isn't to say that a slower car is dangerous (I've driven enough slow cars on fast roads to know that's the sort of bollocks perpetuated by people who've never driven slow cars in their life), but it's very much a scenario when having more performance makes life a whole lot easier.
To swing this back to the 86, it's not a car I'd consider to be "slow". It's certainly enough to have fun with, unless you live thousands of miles away from the nearest corner. But I can fully understand why those that don't live anywhere near a canyon road or similar may find it a little lacking in performance for the price.
- 11,916
- Marin County
Absolutely PATHETIC! If I ever wondered how the death of the classic sports car could have possibly happened, along come you four to 'explain it'. You should all hang your heads in SHAME!
The above was your response to 4 of us saying that FWD cars can be good. I don't think any one said that FWD is better on principle, but more that a properly setup fwd can be just as rewarding as a rwd car. How are we not to take your post as conveying, 'no fwd sucks and you guys do too.' Try to perceive your post as we might....
Look, I'm all for rwd. Like I said, I've got an RX-7 in addition to my Mazda2. The M2 is absurd amounts of fun in a tight city environment where it's more go-kart like nature and ridiculously short wheelbase make taking 90* corners obsene amounts of fun. In the same situation, the RX-7 feels a bit recalcitrant. It needs an open road with more complex series of corners to really work the chassis rather than point and shoot city driving. The M2 is enormously more practical to boot, with room for 5 and a fairly large trunk area.
RWD can do some things that FWD cannot, but FWD also has unique, desirable characteristics of it's own. To make an absolutist statement proclaiming one as superior to the other is ridiculous. Is an FR-S a better car than, say, a Hyundai Tiburon? Yes. Is an Integra Type R better than a Pontiac Solstice? Hell yes. In both cases, it has less to do with what wheels are being driven, and more to do with the effort of engineering that went into the design of the car.
I like the FR-S/BR-Z theoretically speaking, but I have gone to test drive one twice now and I cannot get past the absolutely abysmal engine. Hopefully the Nissan IDx will be better.
- 2,980
- The Ramapo Mountains
- jjaisli
@Eunos_Cosmo Fair enough.
My comment above with the emoticons was made somewhat tongue in cheek. I thought it was obvious, and even kind of funny, but perhaps it wasn't. In my post, I was partially lamenting the loss of so many traditional FR sports cars from years gone by:
- Porsche 924/944/968
- Toyota Celica/Supra
- Mazda RX7
- Alfa Spyder
And you can also add some quirky cars in there like the Mitsubishi Starion. Or makes that either don't exists anymore or have disappeared as a result of mergers, like Triumph or MG or Lotus or Austin Healey or AC. I could go on.
And in their place, we have, some sporty versions of various FWD platforms that started life as anything but sports cars. Sports cars, in the traditional sense, have all but disappeared. And I thought it was somewhat funny and a bit ironic to point out the almost total indifference the four of you seemed to display at this fact. So I'm sorry if this wasn't understood how it was intended.
As I've said, I've owned a lot of FWD cars over the years and I fully appreciate their benefits. I have one now as my DD. But in GENERAL terms, RWD cars make better sports car.
And FWIW, I fully agree with this. At least with the examples you gave. Unfortunately, there is less and less effort being put into the design of modern RWD sports coupes. One by one, they're disappearing all together. And it's not because of some inherent design flaw. But because they're just too expensive to design and produce compared to their small sales numbers. The fact that the 86 exists at all is a minor miracle.
I will say this. The engine in the 86 is in many ways a compromise. It's horizontally opposed design has obvious packaging benefits and allows for a very low center of gravity. It's relatively efficient. It's somewhat unique. But it doesn't excite. It doesn't sound wonderful. It's not that powerful.
However, with some small (non DOT approved) changes, it can be made a lot better. For one thing, I can tell you that mine loosened up considerably after break in. At around 1500 miles, it was suddenly MUCH smoother, much more eager to rev and much more enjoyable. But it has this odd and ungainly dip in the torque curve between 3500~4500 rpm. And I think it has a lot to do with why this car has a reputation for being so slow. Because contrary to popular belief, it actually has quite a bit of torque down low (that is to say, quite a bit for a 2.0 liter na engine). But right where you expect the power to start building, it suddenly falls flat. Only to come on again strongly after 4500 rpm.
However, a good cat-back exhaust, and good unequal length header and a good (and safe) ECU tune really do wonders. The torque dip is gone. Completely gone. It feels smoother, it sounds MUCH better and you have a clear and noticeable increase in power from around 4000 rpm right up through to redline. It's how this car SHOULD be from the factory. But I suppose it would never pass emissions requirements.
My comment above with the emoticons was made somewhat tongue in cheek. I thought it was obvious, and even kind of funny, but perhaps it wasn't. In my post, I was partially lamenting the loss of so many traditional FR sports cars from years gone by:
- Porsche 924/944/968
- Toyota Celica/Supra
- Mazda RX7
- Alfa Spyder
And you can also add some quirky cars in there like the Mitsubishi Starion. Or makes that either don't exists anymore or have disappeared as a result of mergers, like Triumph or MG or Lotus or Austin Healey or AC. I could go on.
And in their place, we have, some sporty versions of various FWD platforms that started life as anything but sports cars. Sports cars, in the traditional sense, have all but disappeared. And I thought it was somewhat funny and a bit ironic to point out the almost total indifference the four of you seemed to display at this fact. So I'm sorry if this wasn't understood how it was intended.
As I've said, I've owned a lot of FWD cars over the years and I fully appreciate their benefits. I have one now as my DD. But in GENERAL terms, RWD cars make better sports car.
And FWIW, I fully agree with this. At least with the examples you gave. Unfortunately, there is less and less effort being put into the design of modern RWD sports coupes. One by one, they're disappearing all together. And it's not because of some inherent design flaw. But because they're just too expensive to design and produce compared to their small sales numbers. The fact that the 86 exists at all is a minor miracle.
I will say this. The engine in the 86 is in many ways a compromise. It's horizontally opposed design has obvious packaging benefits and allows for a very low center of gravity. It's relatively efficient. It's somewhat unique. But it doesn't excite. It doesn't sound wonderful. It's not that powerful.
However, with some small (non DOT approved) changes, it can be made a lot better. For one thing, I can tell you that mine loosened up considerably after break in. At around 1500 miles, it was suddenly MUCH smoother, much more eager to rev and much more enjoyable. But it has this odd and ungainly dip in the torque curve between 3500~4500 rpm. And I think it has a lot to do with why this car has a reputation for being so slow. Because contrary to popular belief, it actually has quite a bit of torque down low (that is to say, quite a bit for a 2.0 liter na engine). But right where you expect the power to start building, it suddenly falls flat. Only to come on again strongly after 4500 rpm.
However, a good cat-back exhaust, and good unequal length header and a good (and safe) ECU tune really do wonders. The torque dip is gone. Completely gone. It feels smoother, it sounds MUCH better and you have a clear and noticeable increase in power from around 4000 rpm right up through to redline. It's how this car SHOULD be from the factory. But I suppose it would never pass emissions requirements.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
1) It's not a Mustang, so you don't look like a tool.
2) No matter how good the Mustang will be, I very much doubt that it will handle better than the BRZ (though as we've previously discussed, in some places the extra power is far more usable than the extra chassis finesse)
3) The BRZ is surprisingly fuel efficient, and so is probably significantly cheaper to run.
- 2,980
- The Ramapo Mountains
- jjaisli
Because this is the '86:
And this is the Mustang:
It has 100 hp more. But it also weighs 800-lbs more. That is a HUGE difference. (As you can see)
Besides, if you're GOING to buy a Mustang and really want to play into it's strengths, the car you REALLY want is the Shelby GT500. And that's going to cost you a LOT more.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Choice. Given what I've said above about FWD cars offering more bang per buck, that's not the be-all and end-all for me. I'd have the 86 over the 'Stang, because I prefer the small dimensions of it and I prefer the way it looks.
That said, once again, I can see why people with that sort of money to burn may well choose the Mustang.
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
I've always disliked Mustangs for the most part but Omnis has a point. It's hard to justify buying a BRZ in the current market considering how low the power output is on the car.
If the BRZ were equipped with the new WRX's engine it would change the game but for the mean time the BRZ is way down on my picks for best FR two door.
dsgerbc
Premium
- 2,577
- dsgerbc
I don't think IRS is that big of a deal, previous-gen Mustang handled pretty well without it. So the equation is basically the same, except that the Mustang in now new and much more good looking (IMO) than before. So, sure, it will dent BRZ/FRS sales, which are dropping anyway (which is normal for sporty coupes anyway).
Heck, I'm thinking of trading mine in, cause I'm bored with it already and Subaru is still dragging their behind with a few issues. Wanna get something with a V8 while I still can.
- 23,800
- Philippines
You can already get the Genesis Coupe in 2.0T for around the same price. That's already IRS, has an actual, usable back seat (just prop the hatch open if the guy sitting back there is over five feet tall... 
), a decent ride and lots of power with the potential for much more with a relatively simple reflash.
Its only fault, really, is it's not quite as engaging as the 86. The steering still isn't as good as the Toyobaru, and the rear end, while perfectly fine for executing low-speed drifts and dealing with daily use, is still too loose and unpredictable for track work (not to mention the fact that the GC feels as wide as a bus compared to the 86). But again, if we're talking about making minor modifications to make the car "work"...
), a decent ride and lots of power with the potential for much more with a relatively simple reflash.Its only fault, really, is it's not quite as engaging as the 86. The steering still isn't as good as the Toyobaru, and the rear end, while perfectly fine for executing low-speed drifts and dealing with daily use, is still too loose and unpredictable for track work (not to mention the fact that the GC feels as wide as a bus compared to the 86). But again, if we're talking about making minor modifications to make the car "work"...
- 11,916
- Marin County
I can even deal with the exterior of the Gencoupe. The interior....on the other hand....
It makes my skin crawl. Very poor design AND poor materials. The one-two punch.
It makes my skin crawl. Very poor design AND poor materials. The one-two punch.
