BRZ video

[BAC5.2]

The question was why would Subaru make a RWD car... not why would they offer a RWD vehicle in the US.

 

Why not?

 

AWD isn't a selling point to a large majority of people. What is a selling point, is not being FWD.

[fishbone]

Brand dillution. It's all about the image you build. Why do they have ads with such celebrities as Robert DeNiro in other countries but not here? It would alienate and confuse customers.

That's the leg that people who criticize their choice are standing on.

I think making the BRZ awd would have differentiated it nicer from the Toyota variant, would have fit better with Subaru's brand. However, two problems would have arisen: the car would have been a dog in a straight line and would have added to the final cost.

[whitetiger]

^more than that. making the BRZ AWD would have meant a total chassis redesign. putting the engine more forward to accommodate AWD and having the front suspension and hubs accept the front drive axles would prevent the car from being a cost effective variant. as most have said, the thing that would have differentiated it most would have been a turbo variant for the BRZ a la BRZ STi. At this point, to me, the BRZ/FR-s relationship is in substance no different than the Eclipse/Talon relationship back in the DSM days.

[whitetiger]

They BRZ doesn't replace the tC. It slots above it.

I know, i was explaining why its not a TC replacement.

[Guest]

Brand dillution. It's all about the image you build. Why do they have ads with such celebrities as Robert DeNiro in other countries but not here? It would alienate and confuse customers.

That's the leg that people who criticize their choice are standing on.

I think making the BRZ awd would have differentiated it nicer from the Toyota variant, would have fit better with Subaru's brand. However, two problems would have arisen: the car would have been a dog in turns and would have added to the final cost.

 

Corrected. This Subaru must be AWD nonsense can't die, and what worse does underline fundamental misunderstanding of AWD and it's shortcomings in handling.

[ehsnils]

Corrected. This Subaru must be AWD nonsense can't die, and what worse does underline fundamental misunderstanding of AWD and it's shortcomings in handling.

 

I wouldn't say that it's shortcoming, just that it's different from both RWD and FWD.

 

It also depends on the goal you have and the surface you are driving on. Hand me 4" of wet snow and we'll see...

[fishbone]

AWD is not a shortcoming in handling as a blanket statement. It depends and I will concede that maybe I used it in the wrong context, which this car would not be aimed at anything off-road, gravel, etc but tarmac.

Subaru = awd is not nonsense. It is a brand recognition they worked at establishing in the US market.

[boymk123]

too bad toyota bought them

[chutrain]

Wrong. A car with lots of plenty of power, that also handles well will get nearly universal praise so long as it doesn't have bad habits like randomly catching on fire, shedding parts, or costing $100K.

 

A car manufacturer still has yet to do this. A price that everyone can get in, quality interior that works and ergonomic, exterior where all surfaces are pleasing, an engine with the right amount of power, fuel efficiency, weight, drivetrain setup, etc. There are just too many factors that will have to be addressed to make a car that everyone likes. What's the sweet spot? You will get a different answer pretty much every time. Just like what is you favorite car?

 

It just surprises me that people are throwing judgement on a car that no one has test drove yet. How many have driven a car under 3000 pounds? A rev limit that will be easily raised another 800-1000 RPM from a chip/flash? Handling that will match some more pricier sports cars? A FR layout that doesn't push out like an AWD? All I am saying is people are looking at just numbers on a paper. Most have never experienced those things and are talking out of their asses and jumping on the bandwagon of knocking a what possibly could be a decent car.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love speed and power as much as everyone, but sometimes being able to drive with finesse is just as quick. And there are such things as having just enough power to not overwhelm the chassis. Those with track and autox time will know what I am talking about.

 

Another part that people may be missing is the engineering that went into it. Why the cost is probably where it is. This does not look like any Subaru motor layout that we have seen so far. The motor sits lower than supposedly a Ferrari 458 Italia. Re-engineering or creating a chassis from scratch costs money. Not sure how many parts are being pulled from the parts bin. No body panel is shared with any other car. Not sure how it handles, but if their lower motor layout and being pushed further back does improve a significant amount, it means less aggressive suspension upgrading to fully exploit the chassis. Where as another car may require more money to reach the same levels.

 

I want to see more in car reviews and videos before making any further judgement.

[BAC5.2]

too bad toyota bought them

 

Toyota doesn't own Subaru. They don't even own a controlling interest. They own a little under 20%, making them a major stakeholder but not the owner.

[BAC5.2]

A car manufacturer still has yet to do this. A price that everyone can get in, quality interior that works and ergonomic, exterior where all surfaces are pleasing, an engine with the right amount of power, fuel efficiency, weight, drivetrain setup, etc. There are just too many factors that will have to be addressed to make a car that everyone likes. What's the sweet spot? You will get a different answer pretty much every time. Just like what is you favorite car?

 

The Corvette did a fairly good job. Love it or hate it, it's a great car.

 

It just surprises me that people are throwing judgement on a car that no one has test drove yet. How many have driven a car under 3000 pounds? A rev limit that will be easily raised another 800-1000 RPM from a chip/flash? Handling that will match some more pricier sports cars? A FR layout that doesn't push out like an AWD? All I am saying is people are looking at just numbers on a paper. Most have never experienced those things and are talking out of their asses and jumping on the bandwagon of knocking a what possibly could be a decent car.

 

What good will raising the rev limit do, if you risk blowing the engine? Let alone making no torque that high (which Subaru's are known for).

 

I have driven a car under 3000lb, with a rev limit 1000rpm higher than the Subaru, handling second to none, and a power to weight ratio well below 10lb/hp. Do you know how you describe something like that? Magical.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love speed and power as much as everyone, but sometimes being able to drive with finesse is just as quick. And there are such things as having just enough power to not overwhelm the chassis. Those with track and autox time will know what I am talking about.

 

And for track driving, I might agree with you. But I'm not spending $24k on a brand new car JUST to drive at the track. There are MUCH better track cars for much less money, and they won't make you cry if you bin it.

 

Another part that people may be missing is the engineering that went into it. Why the cost is probably where it is. This does not look like any Subaru motor layout that we have seen so far. The motor sits lower than supposedly a Ferrari 458 Italia. Re-engineering or creating a chassis from scratch costs money. Not sure how many parts are being pulled from the parts bin. No body panel is shared with any other car. Not sure how it handles, but if their lower motor layout and being pushed further back does improve a significant amount, it means less aggressive suspension upgrading to fully exploit the chassis. Where as another car may require more money to reach the same levels.

 

What does that have to do with it being underpowered?

 

I want to see more in car reviews and videos before making any further judgement.

 

I'll save my final call until I actually drive the thing. I expect it to be everything I think it will be. Fun to drive, great handling, terribly slow. I'm just not interested in buying a slow sports car, no matter how fast it turns. My daily commute doesn't include the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca, or anything resembling the Carousel. The highest speed turns I encounter daily, are on-ramps. And 9/10 times, I'm behind someone.

 

If you are interested in spending $24k for a weekend car or a track car, then this might be perfect for you. But I'd rather my weekend car be fast, and my track car be cheap enough that I won't cry if I have an off.

[chutrain]

Haha. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this subject, Bac. This debate can go on and on,

but I'm getting tired of typing.

[fishbone]

too bad toyota bought them

Holding a minority stake is hardly the equivalent of "bought them". Did I miss some news here?

LE: Looks like BAC already touched on this.

 

The Corvette did a fairly good job. Love it or hate it, it's a great car.

The Corvette can hardly qualify at a price where "everyone can get in". In the segment it competes in, no doubt it's the best bang for buck bar none. But we are talking about cars around 20K here.

[Guest]

AWD is not a shortcoming in handling as a blanket statement. It depends and I will concede that maybe I used it in the wrong context, which this car would not be aimed at anything off-road, gravel, etc but tarmac.

Subaru = awd is not nonsense. It is a brand recognition they worked at establishing in the US market.

 

Yes, exactly. Ok, it's also not fair to say AWD always loses to RWD on tarmac. Super duper AWD cars like GT-R may have (and do have) advantage over similarly powered RWD cars, still, RWD on tarmac will be always more fun.

 

I am hyped about BRZ. I was wishing for more power, but now I am thinking the package as is may be actually perfect autox and even entry level track duty car. I was going to buy an Elise, but I may revise the plan.

 

Actually I'd buy FR-S, it will be cheaper, have less crap in it and I hate Subaru dealers, so I'd rather go buy Scion.

[whitetiger]

A car manufacturer still has yet to do this. A price that everyone can get in, quality interior that works and ergonomic, exterior where all surfaces are pleasing, an engine with the right amount of power, fuel efficiency, weight, drivetrain setup, etc. There are just too many factors that will have to be addressed to make a car that everyone likes. What's the sweet spot? You will get a different answer pretty much every time. Just like what is you favorite car?

 

 

i think the reason why there is so much discussion here is that we(generalizing) think that the sweet spot would be a BRZ with a wrx/sti powertrain, or at least a turbo one. the BRZ is(to me) a nice looking car inside and out, it has the right weight, layout and is priced significantly below the likes of the 370z and base vette or z4 and TT and boxter/cayman. so if it had 250-300hp and kept its weight/handling characteristics and was around $30k in price, i think we could all agree that would be the sweet spot.

[katalyst]

sweat spot indeed

 

edit: in my pants

[boymk123]

Toyota doesn't own Subaru. They don't even own a controlling interest. They own a little under 20%, making them a major stakeholder but not the owner.

 

20% seems to be a pretty big chunk of stock, BAC.

Yes, I never said they could change Subaru interest, but they sure can access Subaru technology to support their come-back 86. That's where the RWD being born

[BAC5.2]

i think the reason why there is so much discussion here is that we(generalizing) think that the sweet spot would be a BRZ with a wrx/sti powertrain, or at least a turbo one. the BRZ is(to me) a nice looking car inside and out, it has the right weight, layout and is priced significantly below the likes of the 370z and base vette or z4 and TT and boxter/cayman. so if it had 250-300hp and kept its weight/handling characteristics and was around $30k in price, i think we could all agree that would be the sweet spot.

 

Agreed. Closer to 300hp and I'd be happy.

 

If it had ~300hp and was ~30k, then I'd be interested in it.

[boymk123]

I bet Subaru will come up with a turbo charge version. Hell, they even turbo charged their station wagons

[whitetiger]

I bet Subaru will come up with a turbo charge version. Hell, they even turbo charged their station wagons

 

not anymore they dont, at least not in the USA:(

[Gelacy]

I bet Subaru will come up with a turbo charge version. Hell, they even turbo charged their station wagons

 

If it follows suit like the Mazda 3, I'm sure someone can justify the R&D up at SOA underwriting. However I do doubt Subaru could in the same fashion a Nissan CEO just says "my wife wants an AWD convertible for the winter."

[whitetiger]

Agreed. Closer to 300hp and I'd be happy.

 

If it had ~300hp and was ~30k, then I'd be interested in it.

 

 

yep, if there was a model like that id be preparing to sell my LGT to get one.

 

the DI on the BRZ also hurts its future "mod-ability".

 

 

the way it stands, with the power output/weight, the BRZ is kinda like subaru's version of a integra type R. kinda.....

[BAC5.2]

the DI on the BRZ also hurts its future "mod-ability".

 

Which is why the Genesis 2.0T R-Spec is a much better choice for the same price ($24,500). It's a no brainer.

[05LGTLtd]

I just sold my miata a month ago. The car was fun. A LOT of FUN. I miss it. P/w, 0-60, or many other stats are useful numbers but really they are just guides for me.

 

Part of why I liked the miata is that no one tried to red light rev you. Doesn't happen much in the LGT, but a few folks have tried to egg me on in the past. Sometimes it's nice to be below the radar in a "chick car" that is just a lot of fun. 0-60 seems to be everything in the us consumer market. Value wise may Americans will look at this car vs a mustang coupe and say "why would I buy a smaller slower car for more money?" And Mustangs will outsell the BRZ for sure, all day long. That doesn't mean this is not a car that can make you smile.

 

People throw around the term "sports car" quite a bit. I'm sorry, but miata's and BRZ's are not "sports cars", they are "sporty cars". There are lots of sporty cars, really there are not too many true sports cars out there. You gotta spend some cash to get a "sports car", your talking at least a vette's price tag.

[Stang70Fastback]

BAC, you don't have to be on a track to appreciate this car. I understand and enjoy the benefits that a powerful car can give you on public roads, but quite frankly, I have more fun on twisty roads than I do putting my foot down at the light. There are speed limits that unfortunately have to be followed, but luckily for me there are no speed limits denoting how quickly I can turn into my home street. You make an argument that the car might be fun at the track but that the track is only a portion of the time spent driving. I argue that the car can be just as fun off the track as a powerful car, especially since its only ON the track that you can take your 600 hp car up to 180.