Pretty sure it started out with the FD RX7 back in 92 ^^

I had one and my head was barely above the door.

http://image.importtuner.com/f/27758...+side_view.jpg

*

Without the wing, lowered on wide 16's would look boss I think.

Don't love the look, it's certainly not beautiful, but it works well enough.

Consider:

FD RX-7 -- 11.2 lbs/hp (2830 lbs/252 bhp)

BRZ -- 13.4 lbs/hp (2689 lbs/200 bhp)

So we have a sports car that weighs less than an FD, with not quite as much oomph, but also won't blow up at 60k miles, either.

Not convinced yet?

In 1993 the RX-7 had a base price of $32,900, which adjusted for inflation would cost you around $49,000 today. The BRZ is expected to hit the market around $25,000.

90% of a stock FD's performance, with a motor that doesn't blow up, for half the cost? Yes please.

In for LSx swap.

HAHA, not sure if it will fit. I mean of course it will, they always do. But that would ruin the low center of gravity. Did we mention it has low center of gravity. Boxer engine placed low in engine bay makes for low center of gravity.

Gravity

Center

is

Low

(go read the press release...)

I think 245s on 17x9" wheels will look and fit just right on this.

You think the bolt pattern is stupid 5x100? Or did they man up and use 5x114?

LS ruins nothing. If the LS doesn't fit, the chassis was built incorrectly.

End of story.

Pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

I think this is something I'm going to work extra hard for. I want one of these, but I agree it needs some aftermarket help. Great updated platform to work with though, I think.

I am hesitant, perhaps its just because I can't get the Scion image out of my head. or perhaps because neither of these companies are well known for making great handling cars (some STi gens. are an exception), but I can't really make any claims until I get into it and drive it.

At this point, the styling is really disappointing from the concept. The whole car is angular and shapely, then they changed the concept lights to these rounded funky things that came out of an 04 STi and it messed it all up for me.

Hahaha

Now that I see it's the size of a NC I like it. Yay.

I'll have to see what the after market brings for this car, but right now I don't know if I'd go for a BRZ over an NC or not.

New "Spy" shots of the FR-S:

http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/as...539681ddcc.jpg

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...b4c572d702.jpg

I like it more then I thought I would.

The back of that FR-S looks like a cheap Aston Martin.

^Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

The several houndred million dollar question is, would you buy one new over one of these?
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2531/4...8ac_z.jpg?zz=1

No. The car is ugly as fuck.

http://jalopnik.com/5864045/scion-fr...os-and-details

This will be for sale right before I get out of college... wooo

Blue or Black BRZ = Want


Skip to 2:25 and you can hear the exhaust.

Because you think Miatas are "gay."
Because you want to carry your tools and track wheels/tires in the car without dealing with a trailer.
Because you don't like convertibles.
Because an NC PRHT can push $30k.

Those are a few reasons off the top of my head why people might make that choice. :)

Because boxer motor enables low center of gravity
Because it has a lower center of gravity than a Ferrari

BECAUSE RACECAR

Pretty sure you're still going to have problems bring wheels in the car, based on it's comparable size to the NC.

I think this car would be really fun on the track too with a build N/A flat 6 :giggle:

Food for though....


S2000: 237hp, 162tq, 2864lbs = 12.08 lbs per hp
ITR: 195hp, 130tq, 2639lbs = 13.53
RSX-S: 201hp, 140tq, 2840lbs = 14.13
Civic SI: 201hp, 170tq, 2877lbs = 14.31
GT86/BRZ: 197hp, 151tq, 2822lbs = 14.32
NC MX5: 167hp, 140tq, 2511lbs = 15.04
NB MX5: 142hp, 125tq, 2441lbs = 17.19
NA MX5: 133hp, 114tq, 2293lbs = 17.24


I'm more interested at this point learning what kind of suspension design it utilizes. Here's hoping for double wishbone all around...

They are quoting a curb weight of 2689 lbs now.

Do want!!!!! Price will kill it for me probably. Love the looks, especially in a dark silver color. Interior is probably like most new cars and too flashy.

Awesome, so that bumps it up two places. This car is looking more and more appealing. I wonder what a fully stripped out and caged car would weight?


S2000: 237hp, 162tq, 2864lbs = 12.08 lbs per hp
ITR: 195hp, 130tq, 2639lbs = 13.53
GT86/BRZ: 197hp, 151tq, 2689lbs = 13.64
RSX-S: 201hp, 140tq, 2840lbs = 14.13
Civic SI: 201hp, 170tq, 2877lbs = 14.31
NC MX5: 167hp, 140tq, 2511lbs = 15.04
NB MX5: 142hp, 125tq, 2441lbs = 17.19
NA MX5: 133hp, 114tq, 2293lbs = 17.24

To rival the s2000, you would need to squeeze 20whp or so out of the motor. That may be doable with bolt ons and a re-map. Hopefully COBB's accessport works with this and a map becomes available for exhaust/intake.

The RSX-S is another good comparison. Who wouldn't want to daily drive an RSX-S that had more torque, 150 fewer lbs, and RWD?

Let's just hope the aftermarket gets some serious power adders going early.

I don't think we will see many big builds right off the bat, as Subaru has a very good warranty. I doubt many people would want to jeopardize it. I have a feeling we will see a lot of exhaust/intake + acessport builds because they can be removed if there is ever a warranty problem.

I'm sure there will be turbo kits almost right away, but with the quoted 10:1 compression ratio I doubt we will see big boost builds unless an STI or EJ20 or similar gets swapped in.

Possibly. Fixed rear seats or fold-downs with cross bracing would likely have been better for chassis stiffness, but the Toyota group specifically said that's one of the reasons for the incorporation of the fold-down rear seats with the large pass-through.

I am sure that will depend on the size of the wheels and tires.

Looking at the NC, though, notice the space behind the seats and the "air" that will be enclosed via the FR-S fixed roof.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv...pfkto1_500.png

From MotorTrend.com:

Watch



I'll be waiting for the STI version. Which is sure to have a turbocharged motor with plenty of other add ons. I'm sure the price tag will be $30k+, but I think it'll be well worth it.

STI + 2700lbs + RWD = WIN

Not to mention I do like the styling of the BRZ as well.

Suspension info here (not double wishbone) ---> http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_artic...86fr-sbrz.aspx

MotoIQ says 12.5 compression...not 10 to 1

MotoIQ also says the 2622 lbs listed weight is a JP version that is dry. They expect US version to be ~90 lbs heavier. I think a 2700lb wet weight is still pretty decent.

MotoIQ does not mention Ultra Low Center of Gravity... :(

Low

Gravity

The low center of gravity thing is in the press release from Toyota. And they are the same chassis so I'd assume it's the same in the BRZ. My mistake on the motor compression. Sounds like it's a good candidate for a low boost Rotrex set up. Oscar should get on board with Cobb and build a bolt on kit with a Cobb acessport map. That would be the shit. And design it in a way that it can be removed without too much hassle for warranty and maintenance related work. I'd say 250whp and 200wtq would make a pretty damn fun daily driver :P...

Interesting... Subaru boxer with 'yotas direct injection system...

I think I read somewhere that they designed the car to be able to hold 4 wheels in the trunk or something.

I hate you. :vash:

lol, no camber adjustment in the front. 5x100 bolt pattern. new rear diff., brakes could be pulled from an impreza, so it might be set from the get-go there.

I know porsche/BMW use macpherson strut, but do we know if subaru can really get the same results? Not being an expert on this, but how do the subaru guys deal with positive camber once dropped? Or is the factory geometry setup well enough that you don't have to worry about that unless shlammed and frush!?

Any lowering solution for this car will come with camber plates. I've driven some BMW's and RSX's with McFuck suspension and they handled great (although they were not stock).

The thing that REALLY kills it is the 5x100 bolt pattern. Seriously... what the fuck.

Yes, I understand camber plates. The issue I am referring to is MacPherson strut setups will go from negative to positive camber depending on the angle made with the strut.

lowering the car will cause more static negative camber.

I am sad it does not have a double wishbone suspension, but I expected McPherson struts because it is cheaper and they did not have to design a whole new suspension. I will keep faith that they worked some magic on it.

Track - supposedly the diff is from the lexus is250 and similar cars.

I would have liked to see a 4x100 wheel pattern....

Not all strut cars require plates to adjust camber, depends how the strut is built. Normally you can just use camber bolts.

Genesis R spec comes with adjustable bolts from the factory. I doubt it will need a plate, could do slotted mount holes, like minivans or camber bolts. Plates arent all that common.

the camber curve changes as suspension compresses. sure static camber maybe more, but as you compress the suspension in a curve, you will lose negatie camber (in othewords the curve adds positive camber, in otherwords being low is bad)

In this picture, angle of the CA w/ strut determines the camber curve. I think its 90* is the maximum. Note the middle diagram, shows a positive camber curve as suspension compresses.
http://image.modified.com/f/17363281...on+diagram.jpg

Can we stop being blonde about this please? positive camber curve sucks. If a macpherson strut is lowered enough, it has it. That sucks, how do the subaru guys fix it?

They install top hats.

The only downside to McFuckstrut is on some cars you need to run huge amounts of static camber so you have enough on bump. On my friends BMW LS1 SPO race car, he runs something like 4* up front static for the tire to heat and wear evenly.

wow, that sounds like a fucked solution.

I was reading about ALMS BMW cars, apparently the GT3 BMWs petitioned the ALMS counsel to allow them to run double wishbone on the fronts instead of macpherson. An exception to the rule about it being the road car and all that jumbo.

Yeah he was considering doing the conversion, but it involves a half tube front end and a lot of money. The car is still lightning fast so I don't think he cares. It's a trailer'd track queen and dosen't see the road so the tires get no camber wear. I'll see if I can find a pic

Would drive:
http://hellafunctional.com/wp-conten...1/IMG_5979.jpg

SuperGT!

Very cool falcon, thanks for the input on this. I figured the solution would be some kind of control arm/strut angle modification, but I guess running more camber than needed is an easy way to do it.

Oh lawd... excellent post, would drool over again.

Yes, and one of the good things about top had camber adjustment, is the ability to change it quickly for street and track use. I use a very good alignment guy here in Vancouver who mainly works on Subarus. He has set up cars for friends for street and track use, and makes a mark on the top hat so you can add your camber for the track, then go back to less agressive for street use so you don't chew up your tires.

Sorry my writing sounds like engrish... travelling in Europe for the last 3 months and living in Germany right now has killed my english grammar and writing skillz... lol

On most macstrut cars you have a toe change with your camber adjustment, which is very much the case on subarus. I used to gain close to 3/4" of toe out going from min camber to max camber on my camber plates when I owned my wrx.

I was really bummed when I first learned this car would be powered by a boxer engine. From cylinder head to cylinder head on the ej20 and ej25 its roughly 32" wide. Of course they didnt design the front suspension to be unequal a-arm; the frame rails have to be so far apart for engine clearance that theres no room in the track width to have room for an upper a-arm. I wish Toyota just chose to put a 4 banger in this chassis with the exhaust ports on the passenger side away from the steering shaft and brake booster. With an I4 they could manufacture an Sti version without 3 foot long runners on the exhaust manifold, and you could easily change the spark plugs. I think Toyota could have had a much less compromised final product if they didnt cheap out and have Subaru design the drive train. I guess if I were to buy a 4 cylinder coupe Id pick up a nice used hyundai genesis coupe 2.0T over the brz and save a few grand.

Does the BRZ have McStrut fronts?

unfortunately yes

I have to ask, are MacPhersons really that bad? If you want an inexpensive sports car, you have to make some concessions.

Enjoy your positive camber on bump travel. And the fact that need eleventy million degrees of static camber for decent cornering.

You might notice I don't care much for Mcfailson suspension.

Lol... you and I seem to think much alike. That's why that BMW has like 4-4.5* of static camber.

I think MacPherson is a bit crippled in most applications, but lets not forget with proper tuning you can probably get a decent setup (ie, porsche, bmw). While it is not ideal, if the car is built from the ground up with macpherson in mind, and a specific ride height directly for performance, then it seems like its plausible to avoid the positive camber bump curve.

With that said, I don't expect that level of research and dedication to be applied in a <25k car, or even a <35k car.


BTW, the genesis coupe is also macpherson.

This car has got a LOT of attention in the UK car press over the last few months. It's apparently been designed to not have too much grip (hence the 215 tyres - which some journalists in the UK are saying are still unnecessarily wide), not too much power, and generally fantastic dynamics.
I think the reason it's perhaps been getting more attention in the UK than the US is probably because the UK car magazines are usually a lot more fussed about the subjective aspects of cars - the steering feel, etc - as opposed to the lateral-G and lap times that are focussed on in the USA.
I've yet to see a negative review of it from the UK press yet. For e.g. - http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...ota_gt_86.html

I'd probably want more power. But the rest of it sounds fantastic to me :D

Not really true. Jalopnik and Speedhunters have been drooling at the mouth at any mention of the BRZ or it's variants.

Fair enough, did not know that. I stand by my comments re. the differences between UK and US car mags though. Last time I went over the pond I naturally bought every car mag I could, and couldn't believe how different the US style of review was to that of the UK. 'Twas properly interesting :)
..that's off topic though!

I am just guessing here, but no one who calls themselves an automotive engineer would design the cars suspention to transition to positive camber in bump with the stock setup under normal conditions. I am not that well educated on McPherson struts (I have only done some work with our FSAE car - double wishbone F/R), but I do know that it would be ridiculous if the car would transition into positive camber with a stock setup. And I mean they designed this car to be a sports car and to see track time.

Now if you put on 275 wide slicks without changing the suspension settings, that goes out the window.

IIRC McQueerson is also cheaper to make?

It is getting a ton of attention in the USA from enthusiast groups like magazines (print and electronic) and online forums. There is an entire forum dedicated to the cars that sprang up when they were just concepts and there is a ~100 page thread on SupraForums, as one example.

I think you are absolutely right in how it is perceived from the potential owners on their sides of the pond, though. The UK, for example, has a lot of reasons why they might favor smaller, lower powered cars with a handling emphasis.

In contrast, there are logical reasons "muscle cars" flourished in the USA and why the Challenger, Charger, Mustang and Camaro can be successful here despite being the size of a small frigate. These include things like fuel costs and space. While not universal (I'm looking at you, Boston), most US cities were designed with cars in mind and have wide roads and ample parking for larger autos. Also, we are generally well-fed. :fawk:

I believe it is a combination of packaging and costs.