BRZ Review -- After M3/CaymanS/S2000... [VIDEO]
06-29-2013, 05:02 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not exactly lightweight for a 2-liter 2-seat sports car... Convertible could be seen as a compromise, easier to get the same or greater stiffness/weight with a closed-roof structure.
- The [S2000] body is firmer,
Now, here's where I am disappointed and glad I bought my S.
- The FRS is not a Toyota. It's a cheap budget Subaru with the Toyota marketing machine. Right off the bat, I'm a huge Toyota fan. They claim the FRS has 86 heritage, and draws from the 2000GT. Funny, there is so little Toyota in the FRS. It's almost entirely a Subaru. That, to me, insults their own heritage and it takes advantage of people wanting to literally "buy in" to Toyota motorsports.
- The FRS is not a Toyota. It's a cheap budget Subaru with the Toyota marketing machine. Right off the bat, I'm a huge Toyota fan. They claim the FRS has 86 heritage, and draws from the 2000GT. Funny, there is so little Toyota in the FRS. It's almost entirely a Subaru. That, to me, insults their own heritage and it takes advantage of people wanting to literally "buy in" to Toyota motorsports.
- The interior. My god. I love the steering wheel. I love the simple gauges. I love the seats. But the cost cutting... where did $25k go in this car?
The interior and exterior were the only original parts that needed developing! The amount of hard plastics is more than the tC. The side mirrors are even plastic.
There are no steering wheel controls.
The doors are hard plastic except where your elbows may rest to make you forget it's plastic with a soft pad on top of it. The rear seats are literally a thin sheet of foam.
A lot of the things you're complaining about are IMO what make the car brilliant. No time/money/weight wasted on things that don't matter to me. For the interior, as far as I'm concerned if the steering wheel is great and the seats are great, that is 90% of what's important to me
06-29-2013, 05:38 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really do hope other manufacturers give Toyota a run for their money. If Honda jumps on it with what sounds like a k-series, 2+2 s2000 in the works then they will kill it. Of course, assuming it doesn't look like the concept I saw floating around somewhere.
06-29-2013, 07:24 PM
#23
Originally Posted by Bullwings' timestamp='1372541558' post='22638298
As i've been saying before. I hope this car lights a fire under the asses of all the other manufacturers out there and they realize that there is a market for this kind of automobile. Competition breads excellence and improvement.
06-29-2013, 08:14 PM
#24
Originally Posted by yoArdie' timestamp='1372556314' post='22638551
[quote name='Bullwings' timestamp='1372541558' post='22638298']
As i've been saying before. I hope this car lights a fire under the asses of all the other manufacturers out there and they realize that there is a market for this kind of automobile. Competition breads excellence and improvement.
As i've been saying before. I hope this car lights a fire under the asses of all the other manufacturers out there and they realize that there is a market for this kind of automobile. Competition breads excellence and improvement.
[/quote]
On the net, of course!
06-29-2013, 09:59 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ferrari812' timestamp='1372562694' post='22638643
[quote name='yoArdie' timestamp='1372556314' post='22638551']
[quote name='Bullwings' timestamp='1372541558' post='22638298']
As i've been saying before. I hope this car lights a fire under the asses of all the other manufacturers out there and they realize that there is a market for this kind of automobile. Competition breads excellence and improvement.
[quote name='Bullwings' timestamp='1372541558' post='22638298']
As i've been saying before. I hope this car lights a fire under the asses of all the other manufacturers out there and they realize that there is a market for this kind of automobile. Competition breads excellence and improvement.
[/quote]
On the net, of course!
[/quote]
Haha, yup, just random hearsay. Just hoping :]
06-30-2013, 04:01 AM
#26
It is about 100 lb. lighter-weight than non-CR AP2 S2000, while having a back seat.
Regarding compromise, *EVERY* car, including the S, is a combination of a HOST of compromises. A closed-roof coupe will be lighter-weight for the same stiffness.
So what? The car is what it is. A 2750 lb. rwd/lsd 2+2 coupe that handles great and is VERY fun to drive. That a bunch of fanbois are enthusiastic about the whole "86" thing doesn't detract on iota from what the car is. It's a great car, one that the market has been aching for for about 15 years, since the departure of the 240SX.
I couldn't care less if a lot of folks buy into the AE86 tie-in, even though the car is more of a modern iteration of an 80s rwd Celica, and even MORE so a modern iteration of the S13 240SX.
rwd cars are inherently more expensive to build than fwd cars. Add to that the limited market for a dedicated platform, and you end up with a car that's somewhat more expensive than its nearest fwd "equivalent" (in quotes because there is and can be NO true fwd equivalent!)
The entire inside and the entire outside of the car were the "ONLY" original parts that needed developing?! Yeah, that's not much...
Disagree. If paint isn't needed, it just adds weight and cost. I don't care at all if the mirrors are unpainted, and to be honest I hadn't even noticed! (just checked scion/subaru websites, looks like the mirrors are actually partly painted, part black)
*EVERY* car is a compromise. Including the "no-compromise" S2000.
S2000 "performance figure" not that remarkable either, really.
Storage: four wheels/tires, tools, and helmet all fit within a car that weighs *less* than the 2-seat S2000.
Doesn't make the car any less brilliant, in fact makes it MORE brilliant. In the same way that the all-strut-suspended 240Z was a BRILLIANT car. You don't need forged aluminum double-wishbone suspension to have fun and relatively lightweight rwd handling.
And that's enough for many of us!
You were complaining about things like flimsy rear seats that, if they'd made them BETTER (i.e., bigger/heavier) it would have compromised the car's mission of being a small(ish) lightweight(ish) rwd 2+2. If the S had back seats that were small and lightweight, you'd be praising the "no compromise" approach, but in the FR-S/BRZ you complain about them.
What are you adjusting with the steering wheel? Things that distract you from driving, most likely...
I just don't see this as a big deal. If having steering wheels makes the tC a better car to you, then we have very different priorities on what we like to see in cars!
*JUST* cost-cutting? You think there are no "cost-cutting" measures in the S2000? There are in EVERY SINGLE production car. "Cost-cutting" is a GOOD thing, it allows great cars to be built and sold for reasonable $$$. An S2000 with no cost-cutting would be a car that most of us never would have been able to own.
The S13 cost about $18k in 1989, if I recall correctly. What's that in today's dollars?
The FR-S/BRZ are *precisely* a modern S13 240SX. Which is a GREAT thing as far as I'm concerned.
Of course it is! They are not in business to build expensive cars and sell them for less than they cost to produce.
Which is why for most people, a Corolla makes a shit-ton more sense. I'll take 2750 lb. rwd/irs/lsd 2+2 for $25k over any other new car on the market.
Regarding compromise, *EVERY* car, including the S, is a combination of a HOST of compromises. A closed-roof coupe will be lighter-weight for the same stiffness.
Especially after attending 86Fest, I noticed most of the owners of these cars bought them because they wanted an "86." That may sound ridiculous, but seriously - you must see the excitement over owning a "hachi." I was not making this part up. The marketing worked.
I couldn't care less if a lot of folks buy into the AE86 tie-in, even though the car is more of a modern iteration of an 80s rwd Celica, and even MORE so a modern iteration of the S13 240SX.
Those parts and configurations aren't original or that expensive. it's not an exotic motor, not a revolutionary new diff. not a fancy driveshaft.
The interior and exterior were the only original parts that needed developing!
At least they put some paint on the s2000's mirrors. Next time you sit in an FRS, just glance at the unpainted plastic. It looks cheap to me. A good designer of anything, especially cars, usually finds a way to cover up something cheap.
The FRS is NOT a no-compromise car! It is full of compromise.
It has no remarkable performance figure, no remarkable storage,
Storage: four wheels/tires, tools, and helmet all fit within a car that weighs *less* than the 2-seat S2000.
and no remarkable components in any way.
It is just fun.
Where do you see "no compromise"?
The original tC (mine) cost $16,700 and had steering wheel controls. It's a parts bin thing. Question: how often are you compromised by steering wheel controls? Last I checked, not taking your hands off the wheel means you are more focused and less distracted.
I just don't see this as a big deal. If having steering wheels makes the tC a better car to you, then we have very different priorities on what we like to see in cars!
Same point as above. And in regards to lightness, I highly doubt another 1-2lbs on the door is going to impact performance. It's just cost cutting on Toyota/Subaru's end.
Thing is, I agree with you in terms of what matters in a raw sports car. But it sounds more like youre describing a car like your old S13, or a raced out miata. Both would have negligible interiors/quality but great driver feedback. And for WAY WAY less than $25k.
The FR-S/BRZ are *precisely* a modern S13 240SX. Which is a GREAT thing as far as I'm concerned.
It's gotta be a profit thing.
Also, I think people like us, enthusiasts, frequently forget that we aren't racing most of the time. We are living in the car and using it for things.
06-30-2013, 06:48 AM
#27
Registered User
There was one at the last Autocross I did (couple weeks ago). He was also in the novice class (it was my 3rd and his 6th), and he did very well in it (kicked my but by a fair margin).
He had put a set of track tires and wheels on, but other than that it was stock and seemed to preform better than it's stats would indicate.
I looked around it and sat in it. It's a really nice package.
He had put a set of track tires and wheels on, but other than that it was stock and seemed to preform better than it's stats would indicate.
I looked around it and sat in it. It's a really nice package.
06-30-2013, 09:05 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Especially after attending 86Fest, I noticed most of the owners of these cars bought them because they wanted an "86." That may sound ridiculous, but seriously - you must see the excitement over owning a "hachi." I was not making this part up. The marketing worked.
I couldn't care less if a lot of folks buy into the AE86 tie-in, even though the car is more of a modern iteration of an 80s rwd Celica, and even MORE so a modern iteration of the S13 240SX.
It has no remarkable performance figure, no remarkable storage,
Storage: four wheels/tires, tools, and helmet all fit within a car that weighs *less* than the 2-seat S2000.
and no remarkable components in any way.
It is just fun.
Where do you see "no compromise"?
The original tC (mine) cost $16,700 and had steering wheel controls. It's a parts bin thing. Question: how often are you compromised by steering wheel controls? Last I checked, not taking your hands off the wheel means you are more focused and less distracted.
I just don't see this as a big deal. If having steering wheels makes the tC a better car to you, then we have very different priorities on what we like to see in cars!
Same point as above. And in regards to lightness, I highly doubt another 1-2lbs on the door is going to impact performance. It's just cost cutting on Toyota/Subaru's end.
Thing is, I agree with you in terms of what matters in a raw sports car. But it sounds more like youre describing a car like your old S13, or a raced out miata. Both would have negligible interiors/quality but great driver feedback. And for WAY WAY less than $25k.
The FR-S/BRZ are *precisely* a modern S13 240SX. Which is a GREAT thing as far as I'm concerned.
Listen, in the end this cheapness thing does come down to your own level of expectation. If you don't think it's cheap for the money, there is no way I'm going to convince you it's cheap. As I stated in my last post, which you probably didn't catch, my only logical explanation for this epic cost cutting is to make way for future sports car projects by showing corporate it can be very profitable. That's that. I say it's cheap quality, you're fine with that. Our money speaks differently.
07-01-2013, 03:24 AM
#29
The beauty of it is that light weight doesn't have to be EXPENSIVE. Light weight can (and should) be LESS expensive. Less car = less weight. Give me rwd with cheapness and lightness! Sick to death of overwrought/overpriced/overweight "sports"/"sporty" cars...
I never use the word "bro" but I feel it's appropriate right now. Bro, are you driving 10/10ths all the time on the street?
Have you never thought it was convenient to just click a volume button right next to your finger instead of taking your hand off? And my point in the tC comparison was how cheap the part was to include. And also that the tC has a better set of materials inside.
Wow, well if $33k for an S2000 new was cost-cutted, color me shocked. I don't see any cost cutting compromise in the S, but maybe I haven't looked hard enough.
The S was extravagantly expensive new for the performance it offered. But today it makes tons of sense as a used car.
But yeah, the S was built to a price point, certainly wasn't a "no-compromises/no-expenses-spared" development program.
ANY car you or I can buy was developed with keeping costs contained foremost in mind.
Could they have made the FR-S/BRZ "nicer" and less "cheap"? Of course, and it would cost more money *and* would most likely weigh a more as well (see G37/370Z).
I was talking about price today.
Listen, in the end this cheapness thing does come down to your own level of expectation. If you don't think it's cheap for the money, there is no way I'm going to convince you it's cheap.
As I stated in my last post, which you probably didn't catch, my only logical explanation for this epic cost cutting is to make way for future sports car projects by showing corporate it can be very profitable. That's that.
I say it's cheap quality, you're fine with that. Our money speaks differently.
07-01-2013, 04:32 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all well done video! Great quality and presentation. I think this should be a trend among owners/enthusiasts of anything! And despite my opinions, it's awesome to see a driver out there enjoying a car.
As some points of reference for my opinions to come - I had and raced an first gen tC for 5 years, I've had my AP2 with very light modification for over a couple years now, tracked enough, experienced enough. Driven my girl's FRS quite a bit now and raced it a few times, sat with some friends who race their FRSes a lot, and I have a lot of thoughts on this. I actually wanted this car before it came out but settled on the S2000 because I didn't want to wait for it to come out finally. I must say, I'm happy I bought the S2000. Here's how I see it.
This may sound obvious, but the S2000 is definitely for a driver more than the FRS, since it has no real compromises as a driving machine useful for nothing else except speed, good noises, and top down weather.
- The engine is FAR more enjoyable and powerful, the transmission is smoother, and the dynamics are, out the factory, sharper. Less money needing to be invested in mods.
- The body is firmer, and I get more feedback from basically every aspect. It is visceral. It is special. This is the meaning of no compromise.
- The looks are timeless. Matter of taste, but I constantly get admiration for my car on the streets. Everyone always says they've always wanted one.
- It is reliable as hell. It is proven.
- I smile literally all the time, because everything feels on the driving edge. This is a good and bad sometimes.
I'm not saying the FRS has to have those things, but I'll get to that. As a daily driving machine to have fun with, the FRS wins easily.
- The initial turn in feeling from steering is FANTASTIC. But I did notice it goes away with larger wheels and tires.
- It has space for things like tires, and it can recline its seats for a nap. Instantly the better daily driver.
- Also, the seats are very nice and supportive! I wish the S2000 had cloth seats.
- Strangely, it inspires a lot of confidence in its softness at the limit.
- I love the side profile of this car. matter of taste?
- I also love that the fenders are pre-rolled and there is lots of room for a larger wheel.
- And finally, and most importantly, the FRS is a fun machine. It puts a smile on my face when I get on it because it is so loose and VERY controllable. You honestly feel like a hero driving this car sideways.
Now, here's where I am disappointed and glad I bought my S.
- The FRS is not a Toyota. It's a cheap budget Subaru with the Toyota marketing machine. Right off the bat, I'm a huge Toyota fan. They claim the FRS has 86 heritage, and draws from the 2000GT. Funny, there is so little Toyota in the FRS. It's almost entirely a Subaru. That, to me, insults their own heritage and it takes advantage of people wanting to literally "buy in" to Toyota motorsports.
- The interior. My god. I love the steering wheel. I love the simple gauges. I love the seats. But the cost cutting... where did $25k go in this car? The interior and exterior were the only original parts that needed developing! The amount of hard plastics is more than the tC. The side mirrors are even plastic. There are no steering wheel controls. The doors are hard plastic except where your elbows may rest to make you forget it's plastic with a soft pad on top of it. The rear seats are literally a thin sheet of foam. There are creaks and rattles everywhere. I don't care what everyone says about "it's all about the driving!" Last I recall, a steering wheel control saves you the effort of leaving the steering wheel. "But the rear doesn't matter!" yes, yes it does if you ever give anyone a ride. be prepared for unrivaled amounts of complaining.
- The engine is mediocre at best, nothing to complain about in regards to power. this whole "low CoG" thing is nice, but does not make up for what is turning out to be a noisy and unreliable motor. I'm pretty sure it's cost cutting again. Cheap o-rings, cheap fuel pump. Not enough R&D in this dept. I would bet they're going to have a recall soon. Also, there is engine "mush." The S2000 has extremely sharp engine response. The FA20 has a mush between the time you hit the pedal to the time the car responds and accelerates. new-car-itis?
- The tail lights fog for all the FRS owners I know.
- The shifter. It does not deserve the hype it gets. It's not bad, but not great. It is like a bolt action rifle in how it engages. I thought I liked this at first, but it makes things kind of... unpleasant... after a while. Especially when you want to downshift from 5 to 4 specifically. It. catches. every. time. unless you let it return all the way to neutral first. I read a review comparing it to the Civic Si. That's an insult to the Si. Honda makes precise and smooth shifters. This is too precise with no smooth.
$25,000, people, for a car with an original exterior, but mostly reused everything else. Where did the money go? And don't say "great chassis tuning" because it costs them nothing more than usual to do that. They changed their mindset in tuning, not the tuning method or components. Cheapness and marketing. That's my complaint. Cost cutting. Corner cutting. Covering their cutting with "but it's about the driving, and it's an 86!" campaign. Once the hype wears off, it becomes clear. If the car cost $20k-$22k I would have little to nothing to say.
TL;DR - cheapness and deceptive marketing make me glad I did not buy this car over an S2000. But mostly cheapness.
As some points of reference for my opinions to come - I had and raced an first gen tC for 5 years, I've had my AP2 with very light modification for over a couple years now, tracked enough, experienced enough. Driven my girl's FRS quite a bit now and raced it a few times, sat with some friends who race their FRSes a lot, and I have a lot of thoughts on this. I actually wanted this car before it came out but settled on the S2000 because I didn't want to wait for it to come out finally. I must say, I'm happy I bought the S2000. Here's how I see it.
This may sound obvious, but the S2000 is definitely for a driver more than the FRS, since it has no real compromises as a driving machine useful for nothing else except speed, good noises, and top down weather.
- The engine is FAR more enjoyable and powerful, the transmission is smoother, and the dynamics are, out the factory, sharper. Less money needing to be invested in mods.
- The body is firmer, and I get more feedback from basically every aspect. It is visceral. It is special. This is the meaning of no compromise.
- The looks are timeless. Matter of taste, but I constantly get admiration for my car on the streets. Everyone always says they've always wanted one.
- It is reliable as hell. It is proven.
- I smile literally all the time, because everything feels on the driving edge. This is a good and bad sometimes.
I'm not saying the FRS has to have those things, but I'll get to that. As a daily driving machine to have fun with, the FRS wins easily.
- The initial turn in feeling from steering is FANTASTIC. But I did notice it goes away with larger wheels and tires.
- It has space for things like tires, and it can recline its seats for a nap. Instantly the better daily driver.
- Also, the seats are very nice and supportive! I wish the S2000 had cloth seats.
- Strangely, it inspires a lot of confidence in its softness at the limit.
- I love the side profile of this car. matter of taste?
- I also love that the fenders are pre-rolled and there is lots of room for a larger wheel.
- And finally, and most importantly, the FRS is a fun machine. It puts a smile on my face when I get on it because it is so loose and VERY controllable. You honestly feel like a hero driving this car sideways.
Now, here's where I am disappointed and glad I bought my S.
- The FRS is not a Toyota. It's a cheap budget Subaru with the Toyota marketing machine. Right off the bat, I'm a huge Toyota fan. They claim the FRS has 86 heritage, and draws from the 2000GT. Funny, there is so little Toyota in the FRS. It's almost entirely a Subaru. That, to me, insults their own heritage and it takes advantage of people wanting to literally "buy in" to Toyota motorsports.
- The interior. My god. I love the steering wheel. I love the simple gauges. I love the seats. But the cost cutting... where did $25k go in this car? The interior and exterior were the only original parts that needed developing! The amount of hard plastics is more than the tC. The side mirrors are even plastic. There are no steering wheel controls. The doors are hard plastic except where your elbows may rest to make you forget it's plastic with a soft pad on top of it. The rear seats are literally a thin sheet of foam. There are creaks and rattles everywhere. I don't care what everyone says about "it's all about the driving!" Last I recall, a steering wheel control saves you the effort of leaving the steering wheel. "But the rear doesn't matter!" yes, yes it does if you ever give anyone a ride. be prepared for unrivaled amounts of complaining.
- The engine is mediocre at best, nothing to complain about in regards to power. this whole "low CoG" thing is nice, but does not make up for what is turning out to be a noisy and unreliable motor. I'm pretty sure it's cost cutting again. Cheap o-rings, cheap fuel pump. Not enough R&D in this dept. I would bet they're going to have a recall soon. Also, there is engine "mush." The S2000 has extremely sharp engine response. The FA20 has a mush between the time you hit the pedal to the time the car responds and accelerates. new-car-itis?
- The tail lights fog for all the FRS owners I know.
- The shifter. It does not deserve the hype it gets. It's not bad, but not great. It is like a bolt action rifle in how it engages. I thought I liked this at first, but it makes things kind of... unpleasant... after a while. Especially when you want to downshift from 5 to 4 specifically. It. catches. every. time. unless you let it return all the way to neutral first. I read a review comparing it to the Civic Si. That's an insult to the Si. Honda makes precise and smooth shifters. This is too precise with no smooth.
$25,000, people, for a car with an original exterior, but mostly reused everything else. Where did the money go? And don't say "great chassis tuning" because it costs them nothing more than usual to do that. They changed their mindset in tuning, not the tuning method or components. Cheapness and marketing. That's my complaint. Cost cutting. Corner cutting. Covering their cutting with "but it's about the driving, and it's an 86!" campaign. Once the hype wears off, it becomes clear. If the car cost $20k-$22k I would have little to nothing to say.
TL;DR - cheapness and deceptive marketing make me glad I did not buy this car over an S2000. But mostly cheapness.
Auto enthusiasts will justify anything the maker does...
