Yet another: Test Drove a BRZ Today

[JCH13]

pretty good article, v6 stang wins at willow springs but feels "fat" which can be resolved with bigger sways. BRZ/FRS are going to be great at the track with better tires, but would be better fit for autox until it gets a little beefier. Close times though, and the FRS/BRZ scored 1st and 2nd.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1207_high_performance_two_door_comparison/


edit: dealer near me said test drives are going to be available 15 June. I reserved a 2 hour slot with one. I'll see how it compares to the STI

I noticed that their driver liked the MX-5 the best, and noted that the Mustangs tires (optional equipment) were super sticky compared to the rest of the cars' tires.

So hard to do a good comparison when all the cars have different shoes...

 

[thedarkwolf]

You forgot to mention it was a turbo miata.

Alright. I went from a 5.0l mustang to a turbo miata and then to a regular miata so I did ease into it .

 

[Puddle Jumper]

pretty good article, v6 stang wins at willow springs but feels "fat" which can be resolved with bigger sways. BRZ/FRS are going to be great at the track with better tires, but would be better fit for autox until it gets a little beefier. Close times though, and the FRS/BRZ scored 1st and 2nd.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1207_high_performance_two_door_comparison/


edit: dealer near me said test drives are going to be available 15 June. I reserved a 2 hour slot with one. I'll see how it compares to the STI

Despite placing poorly in their ranking the Genesis 2.0 R Spec seems like the winner in that price range, the driver mentioned it felt sportier than the Mustang, it only lost by a fraction of a second on the track, and was $3k cheaper as tested.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

I noticed that their driver liked the MX-5 the best, and noted that the Mustangs tires (optional equipment) were super sticky compared to the rest of the cars' tires.

So hard to do a good comparison when all the cars have different shoes...

its still a great stock for stock comparison. most of the other cars had optional equipment, none of them offered optional sport tires. I'm sure you can upgrade any of those cars to make them perform better, this is simply "off the showroom floor" condition.

 

[JCH13]

its still a great stock for stock comparison. most of the other cars had optional equipment, none of them offered optional sport tires. I'm sure you can upgrade any of those cars to make them perform better, this is simply "off the showroom floor" condition.

You're right. The $2k performance option even puts the Mustang in the right price range, so it's not really 'unfair'.

 

[Arkaign]

Despite placing poorly in their ranking the Genesis 2.0 R Spec seems like the winner in that price range, the driver mentioned it felt sportier than the Mustang, it only lost by a fraction of a second on the track, and was $3k cheaper as tested.

That's a good catch, they've gone a long way in tweaking the Genesis a bit here and there since launch. I'm not sure I'd take one over the Mustang V6 though, you have a more complicated vehicle that probably means more maintenance, and the real-world pricing on Mustangs is pretty cheap now. OTD pricing is probably on par. I do think the 2.0R is a good deal though, better than the FRS/BRZ $ for $ by a fair margin, and I could be swayed if there are enough cheap tweaks (think JB4 for *35i, the various tunes for the VW/Audi 1.8t/2.0t, etc) to boost it up a bit.

 

[Arkaign]

pretty good article, v6 stang wins at willow springs but feels "fat" which can be resolved with bigger sways. BRZ/FRS are going to be great at the track with better tires, but would be better fit for autox until it gets a little beefier. Close times though, and the FRS/BRZ scored 1st and 2nd.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1207_high_performance_two_door_comparison/


edit: dealer near me said test drives are going to be available 15 June. I reserved a 2 hour slot with one. I'll see how it compares to the STI

Do you mean WRX STI? Holy jesus, that will be like comparing Betty White to Mike Tyson in a boxing competition. There's absolutely no way in the world to make up that differerence in power/grip/braking.

 

[amdhunter]

but its only 200hp, for $6k less I could have a 2013 Mustang with 316hp...

For $10000 less you can have an RX-8 with more horsepower, better styling and handling that the entire industry raves about.

EDIT: And usable back seats.

 

[Throckmorton]

I guess the BRZ/FRS is a good car for people who are OK with having slow cars their entire lives. I for one am tired of being slow, so if I'm buying a new car it had better be fast.

 

[Throckmorton]

pretty good article, v6 stang wins at willow springs but feels "fat" which can be resolved with bigger sways. BRZ/FRS are going to be great at the track with better tires, but would be better fit for autox until it gets a little beefier. Close times though, and the FRS/BRZ scored 1st and 2nd.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1207_high_performance_two_door_comparison/


edit: dealer near me said test drives are going to be available 15 June. I reserved a 2 hour slot with one. I'll see how it compares to the STI

Where are the solid rear axle fanboys?

The next-generation Mustang, due in a couple years, is rumored to be a lot lighter than this car. We hope that rumor becomes reality. We also hope Ford's icon finally loses its solid rear axle, as an independent setup would make the Mustang a more rewarding tool when exploring those last few tenths. With this current iteration, we experienced too many rear-end hops, skips, and bounces on the track and through the canyons.

 

[Doppel]

For $10000 less you can have an RX-8 with more horsepower, better styling and handling that the entire industry raves about.

EDIT: And usable back seats.

And hands on practice rebuilding a rotary engine

 

[HybridSquirrel]

Do you mean WRX STI? Holy jesus, that will be like comparing Betty White to Mike Tyson in a boxing competition. There's absolutely no way in the world to make up that differerence in power/grip/braking.

haven't you heard, the brz/frs is the car to end all cars! its the past car there is, nothing can compare!

I guess the BRZ/FRS is a good car for people who are OK with having slow cars their entire lives. I for one am tired of being slow, so if I'm buying a new car it had better be fast.

I can see who their target audience is, people who are looking at the mx5, but want something that looks nicer...but eh. unless it gets a beefier engine or drops in price I am probably going to stay away

 

[exar333]

For $10000 less you can have an RX-8 with more horsepower, better styling and handling that the entire industry raves about.

EDIT: And usable back seats.

The RX-8 costs the same...

 

[soccerballtux]

That's a good catch, they've gone a long way in tweaking the Genesis a bit here and there since launch. I'm not sure I'd take one over the Mustang V6 though, you have a more complicated vehicle that probably means more maintenance, and the real-world pricing on Mustangs is pretty cheap now. OTD pricing is probably on par. I do think the 2.0R is a good deal though, better than the FRS/BRZ $ for $ by a fair margin, and I could be swayed if there are enough cheap tweaks (think JB4 for *35i, the various tunes for the VW/Audi 1.8t/2.0t, etc) to boost it up a bit.

interior on new mustang superior IMO

 

[Throckmorton]

OK, I would choose the BRZ over a Camaro if it got 35/30 mpg and looked less anonymous.

 

[amdhunter]

The RX-8 costs the same...

Used market. They don't make the 8 any more.

 

[mwmorph]

Used market. They don't make the 8 any more.

There is no valid way to argue a used v.s. new car otherwise, there is no reason to even discuss new cars. Yes, used cars are better value, but that can be said for every new car.

 

[pauldun170]

I guess the BRZ/FRS is a good car for people who are OK with having slow cars their entire lives. I for one am tired of being slow, so if I'm buying a new car it had better be fast.

All cars are slow eventually.
There will always be something faster.

 

[Throckmorton]

All cars are slow eventually.
There will always be something faster.

I think we're at the peak of the horsepower wars right now. Family cars in 10 years won't have 600hp

 

[Howard]

oops

 

[JCH13]

I think we're at the peak of the horsepower wars right now. Family cars in 10 years won't have 600hp

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981

 

[mwmorph]

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981

The difference is human reaction times and the average driver. That, CAFE regs and the rise in price of oil.

1. The average drive just wont be able to use 600hp physically. Computers have reason to continue to follow this uptick, there are actual gains for the end consumer when increasing tech specs. Physics don't work that way. The sole purpose for SAE certified HP in a family car is acceleration and top speed. Once we get to a point, say under 10 seconds to 100mph, there will be little demand for increased acceleration and with speed limits around the world largely conforming to ~60-80mph, there is little need for higher top speed.

We could go to an unlimited speed limit system, but people have enough issues as it is in current society (though arguably excluding some societies like Germany) where people just are not safe at extreme speeds.

2. If we ever transition to a safe, autonomous driving system, even then something like 1000hp would be a waste because it starts to impact humans physiologically. To put it bluntly, it's just not comfortable to most people to go from a stop to highway speeds in 2 seconds as part of a daily trip over and over again year in, year out.

3. There's only so much you can squeeze out of thermodynamics. Even if we transition from a crude oil economy to something else, the usage rate would just be too high and expensive to maintain worldwide. If we hit say 90% thermodynamic efficiency with any fuel (the current average is somewhere around the low to high 30%). The only way that would be sustainable is with a truly renewable resource and you run into all the issues that you usually would with that even with a solar->water->hydrogen system cost, logistics or practicality wise for a 1000hp car that will be under WOT or agressive driving conditions.

4. We could do say 1000hp in a car that is driven conservatively, but then there's no point. It costs more to build a drive-train that is capable of that if you are not going to use it.


Will sports cars and enthusiast vehicles reach 600+hp commonly someday? Probably, but it won't be a commonplace thing in family vehicles.

 

[Doppel]

The difference is human reaction times and the average driver. That, CAFE regs and the rise in price of oil.

1. The average drive just wont be able to use 600hp physically. Computers have reason to continue to follow this uptick, there are actual gains for the end consumer when increasing tech specs. Physics don't work that way. The sole purpose for SAE certified HP in a family car is acceleration and top speed. Once we get to a point, say under 10 seconds to 100mph, there will be little demand for increased acceleration and with speed limits around the world largely conforming to ~60-80mph, there is little need for higher top speed.

We could go to an unlimited speed limit system, but people have enough issues as it is in current society (though arguably excluding some societies like Germany) where people just are not safe at extreme speeds.

2. If we ever transition to a safe, autonomous driving system, even then something like 1000hp would be a waste because it starts to impact humans physiologically. To put it bluntly, it's just not comfortable to most people to go from a stop to highway speeds in 2 seconds as part of a daily trip over and over again year in, year out.

3. There's only so much you can squeeze out of thermodynamics. Even if we transition from a crude oil economy to something else, the usage rate would just be too high and expensive to maintain worldwide. If we hit say 90% thermodynamic efficiency with any fuel (the current average is somewhere around the low to high 30%). The only way that would be sustainable is with a truly renewable resource and you run into all the issues that you usually would with that even with a solar->water->hydrogen system cost, logistics or practicality wise for a 1000hp car that will be under WOT or agressive driving conditions.

4. We could do say 1000hp in a car that is driven conservatively, but then there's no point. It costs more to build a drive-train that is capable of that if you are not going to use it.


Will sports cars and enthusiast vehicles reach 600+hp commonly someday? Probably, but it won't be a commonplace thing in family vehicles.

I agree with the bulk of this. Autonomous vehicles are the future and when they are here the rank convenience and safety of them will put performance at the bottom of the list even more so than it is now (even today most people don't care all that much about it).

There is also the ever-increasing difficulty with using these vehicles to their potential. Roads are more crowded and increased police presence and traffic cameras mean that we have faster cars than in the past but less opportunity to use them as they can be used.

MPG is finally going up a little, but gas is going up at a much faster pace, so we pay more.

 

[JCH13]

The difference is human reaction times and the average driver. That, CAFE regs and the rise in price of oil.

1. The average drive just wont be able to use 600hp physically. Computers have reason to continue to follow this uptick, there are actual gains for the end consumer when increasing tech specs. Physics don't work that way. The sole purpose for SAE certified HP in a family car is acceleration and top speed. Once we get to a point, say under 10 seconds to 100mph, there will be little demand for increased acceleration and with speed limits around the world largely conforming to ~60-80mph, there is little need for higher top speed.

We could go to an unlimited speed limit system, but people have enough issues as it is in current society (though arguably excluding some societies like Germany) where people just are not safe at extreme speeds.

2. If we ever transition to a safe, autonomous driving system, even then something like 1000hp would be a waste because it starts to impact humans physiologically. To put it bluntly, it's just not comfortable to most people to go from a stop to highway speeds in 2 seconds as part of a daily trip over and over again year in, year out.

3. There's only so much you can squeeze out of thermodynamics. Even if we transition from a crude oil economy to something else, the usage rate would just be too high and expensive to maintain worldwide. If we hit say 90% thermodynamic efficiency with any fuel (the current average is somewhere around the low to high 30%). The only way that would be sustainable is with a truly renewable resource and you run into all the issues that you usually would with that even with a solar->water->hydrogen system cost, logistics or practicality wise for a 1000hp car that will be under WOT or agressive driving conditions.

4. We could do say 1000hp in a car that is driven conservatively, but then there's no point. It costs more to build a drive-train that is capable of that if you are not going to use it.


Will sports cars and enthusiast vehicles reach 600+hp commonly someday? Probably, but it won't be a commonplace thing in family vehicles.

I repeat:

I guess your sarcasm meter is broken.

 

[mwmorph]

I repeat:

I guess your sarcasm meter is broken.

I think it is, but in my defense, it was posted at 2AM and the sun wont go down so i've been having ridiculous insomnia for a couple weeks now.

Taken a few days ago at 1AM