Is it just me? Subaru BRZ = Enthusiast's dream car

[felang]

I think it was this months issue of CAR or Top Gear that said it as well... can't remember which. I only remember that they were both $11. :hmm:

http://www.caranddriver.com/feature...on-and-contrast-feature-fun-all-around-page-2

 

[Imported]

I just saw one (exact color) at the Philadelphia Auto Show and it's just pure sex. The car sit extremely low as a sport car should. Interior material doesn't look cheap at all. The sport seat is phenomenal and the car come standard with a touchscreen GPS navi. I asked the Subaru rep and she said it should be ~$25k. And oh yea, if this car sit next to a 350/370z, it'll make the Nissan look like an overweight turd. That's how small the car is.

Uhh what? Have you compared the sizes? They're almost identical. I posted this in the other BRZ thread.. but here you go.

GT-86 / 370Z
Length: 166.7 / 167.2
Width: 69.9 / 72.6
Height: 51.2 / 51.8
Wheelbase: 101.2 / 100.4
Weight: 2700? / 3291
HP: 200@7k / 332@7k
TQ: 151@6.6k / 270@5.2k

But yes, the BRZ is almost 600lbs lighter.

I may be coming across a very cheap NISMO 370Z.. but I've added the BRZ to the list to be test driven.

 

[Throckmorton]

I've done a fair bit of playing around with this car in parking lots, etc, and the most "unsettling" thing about it is hitting a bump with the rear tires while going into a turn at the limit. Total lack of control and rubber screeching ensues.

When I said the Mustang would be better with IRS, some people on this forum argued that the solid axle is just as good as IRS and flamed me. So it should perform just as well as an IRS car when you hit a bump with a rear tire while turning. Only elitists think IRS performs better while steering and going over bumps. We know that because on a smooth track with no bumps, a Mustang outperforms an M3. Right? Right?

 

[Baked]

I got a reply back from the Hermosa Beach Subaru. $1000 deposit.

 

[ballmode]

what color you getting and what trim baked?

 

[foghorn67]

I got a reply back from the Hermosa Beach Subaru. $1000 deposit.

Do it, do it.

 

[Throckmorton]

I would get the Scion version since it's supposed to be set up for more neutral handling rather than understeer. I think it looks better too

 

[jlee]

This has been a business model for a long time. Lincoln VS Ford VS Mercury or Pontiac VS Buick VS Olds, or Cadillac VS Chevrolet are a prime examples.

They target slightly demographics and that audience is profitable today even if you only capture 1%

A more accurate comparison would be Geo/Chevy Prism and Toyota Corolla, since most of what you listed is lux vs non-lux.

Solstice/Sky GXP/Redline were different, with turbocharged vs supercharged, but there doesn't seem to be much difference at all between the Subaru and Toyota versions of this. Unless, of course, it's the lux vs non-lux issue - but in a lightweight sports coupe, that doesn't make sense either.

I would get the Scion version since it's supposed to be set up for more neutral handling rather than understeer. I think it looks better too

So buy a sway bar and fix it.

 

[Safeway]

Seriously, where would you fit a single turbo, let alone two turbos?

Look how much room it takes up in an S2000 ...

 

[Throckmorton]

Subaru themselves said there's no room for a turbo.

I don't really get the whole boxer engine thing. It's an inefficient layout that requires stacking components and puts sparkplugs out of reach. A V6 or I4 would allow components to be placed beside the engine. Yeah, I understand it lowers center of gravity, but I doubt it's that much considering the engine is only a fraction of the car's weight.

Also, the boxer layout forced them to use space saving struts instead of wishbones.

And no, a boxer is not balanced. The pistons on each side are offset from one another, so perfect balance is impossible.

 

[amdhunter]

I got a reply back from the Hermosa Beach Subaru. $1000 deposit.

Any hint at MSRP?

 

[Eli]

Subaru themselves said there's no room for a turbo.

I don't really get the whole boxer engine thing. It's an inefficient layout that requires stacking components and puts sparkplugs out of reach. A V6 or I4 would allow components to be placed beside the engine. Yeah, I understand it lowers center of gravity, but I doubt it's that much considering the engine is only a fraction of the car's weight.

Also, the boxer layout forced them to use space saving struts instead of wishbones.

And no, a boxer is not balanced. The pistons on each side are offset from one another, so perfect balance is impossible.

An engine weighs 200+lbs. That's not insignificant.

I think you're mistaken about boxer engines. They are not inefficient. They do have inconveniences though.

Boxer engines are dynamically balanced. They require no balance shaft or counterweights.

Boxer engines have been used in aircraft since their inception. They're a very reliable and powerful engine overall. Ferrari and Porsche definitely agree.

Besides, it's Subaru's trademark.

 

[GTaudiophile]

The Boxer engine element is irrelevant IMO. Subaru cranks out turbo boxers for their other cars like nobody's business. It's more a question of package management. Why didn't they leave room for an upgraded engine down the line? Maybe they did? Maybe the turbo boxer for the BRZ will be mated to a smaller displacement engine?

 

[Bignate603]

The Boxer engine element is irrelevant IMO. Subaru cranks out turbo boxers for their other cars like nobody's business. It's more a question of package management. Why didn't they leave room for an upgraded engine down the line? Maybe they did? Maybe the turbo boxer for the BRZ will be mated to a smaller displacement engine?

I would assume that they can't get a turbo in there because it's how it's mounted in the vehicle. The engine is mounted so low in the car that the top of the engine is at about the same level as most people's knees.

Then again, they may have some agreement with Toyota that they won't offer a turbo version.

 

[amdhunter]

I would assume that they can't get a turbo in there because it's how it's mounted in the vehicle. The engine is mounted so low in the car that the top of the engine is at about the same level as most people's knees.

Then again, they may have some agreement with Toyota that they won't offer a turbo version.

Damn. This would actually make some sense.

I just want to see an MSRP already... :'(

 

[Zargon]

This is how the M3 is. As long as you drain the oil first, it's not so messy...just a few drops.

One of the worst cars to change was my 1996 Saturn SC2 and my wife's 2000 Saturn SL2. Getting to the filter was simple, pop the passenger tire off and remove the inner fender liner. However, it was on an angle that retained oil in it. You had to angle it back down to get it out spilling oil on the center X-member and all over your CV joint boot.

The field fix was to cut an oil bottle open and put it under the filter, it would funnel the oil around everything and into the pan.

thanks for reminding me of the horrors of years of oil changes I did on my SC2......

 

[exar333]

An engine weighs 200+lbs. That's not insignificant.

I think you're mistaken about boxer engines. They are not inefficient. They do have inconveniences though.

Boxer engines are dynamically balanced. They require no balance shaft or counterweights.

Boxer engines have been used in aircraft since their inception. They're a very reliable and powerful engine overall. Ferrari and Porsche definitely agree.

Besides, it's Subaru's trademark.

This.

Besides being balanced, the boxer also allows for AWD setups extremely easily (hence all the AWD/boxer combinations) for Subaru.

For a handling car like the BRZ, center of gravity is VERY important. Its a great fit for the car, definitely.

It really doesn't sound like Subaru plans to throw a turbo in the BRZ anytime soon. Based on a lot of analysis from folks, and words from Subaru, fitting one in the existing car will be almost impossible. I don't know enough about the car layout, but the nature of how the car is may make even an egine swap difficult. Even with swapping an engine, it would change the handling quite a bit and a lot of suspension tuning/updates would likely be needed.

 

[overst33r]

Seriously, where would you fit a single turbo, let alone two turbos?

Look how much room it takes up in an S2000 ...

The WRX does it just fine with about the same amount of room.

Keep in mind, the S2000 you posted is a top mount kit, but they do make more compact kits (closer to exhaust for better spool) like this one.

 

[amish]

Seriously, where would you fit a single turbo, let alone two turbos?

why couldn't they put the battery in the trunk and that black box on the left (ECU and fuses?) where the battery was? that would free up a bunch of room for piping and put more weight in the back to help the distribution.

 

[HAL9000]

I normally hate Subarus but I love this..

 

[manimal]

Great post Eli

 

[PricklyPete]

Also, the boxer layout forced them to use space saving struts instead of wishbones.

Yes...it is a horrible setup that affects dynamic wanna-bes like the M3/3-Series. From my experience, you can make a perfectly awesome handling car with struts up front.

 

[PricklyPete]

I know everyone is wanting a turbo..but honestly I think I would be perfectly happy with a high revving, simple boxer engine that is easy to work on and fun to drive. This seems to be the ticket.

 

[Phanuel]

Turbo isn't what I'm really craving in this, but the stock HP/torque figures are so anemic that it's hard to get excited by the NA version of this car. Stick a flat 6 or a decently FI'd flat 4 in there and it'd be way easier to get excited.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2276979 There is Subaru's new 1.6T engine. You're telling me that they cannot fit that engine in that bay? Really? So they're getting another 100HP for the BRZ racecar from exhaust only pixies? Yeah? I call Bull.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a383/Kostamojen/IMG_5931.jpg That photo in particular is the 2.0 in front with the 1.6T behind it. WOW HOW CAN WE EVER FIT A TURBO ON A MOTOR OMGZ IT'S SO LARGERSSZZZ!?1

 

[jlee]

Turbo isn't what I'm really craving in this, but the stock HP/torque figures are so anemic that it's hard to get excited by the NA version of this car. Stick a flat 6 or a decently FI'd flat 4 in there and it'd be way easier to get excited.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2276979 There is Subaru's new 1.6T engine. You're telling me that they cannot fit that engine in that bay? Really? So they're getting another 100HP for the BRZ racecar from exhaust only pixies? Yeah? I call Bull.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a383/Kostamojen/IMG_5931.jpg That photo in particular is the 2.0 in front with the 1.6T behind it. WOW HOW CAN WE EVER FIT A TURBO ON A MOTOR OMGZ IT'S SO LARGERSSZZZ!?1

The issue is fitting the whole package in the engine bay, not physically attaching a turbo to the engine itself. You really don't sound very smart, despite your attempt at ridicule.