RE: Subaru BRZ v Toyota GT86: Delivery Miles
Discussion
chrispmartha said:
Would you really class the engine and its power as a minor aspect of a sports car?
Nope. But 0-60 is irrelevant once you're driving. GT86 is a quick car on the roads I drive for pleasure in the Brecons and Dartmoor. As quick and often quicker than my tvr was. A decent chassis, geo and setup is far more important to me.chopper602 said:
lankyarcher said:
May try to see what sort of deal I can broker! In reality, is there any noticeable difference between the GT86 & BRZ?
BRZ is the cheap cousin. No Bluetooth for example, poor stereo, even cheaper looking dashboard. Exterior, the nose is different, lights in different position. That is about it. They are all made in the Subaru factory and the majority of parts have 'Subaru' stamps on them.Edited by lankyarcher on Friday 27th February 07:43
Apparently BRZ is setup towards understeer and the GT86 is set-up towards oversteer.
Edited by chopper602 on Friday 27th February 08:26
chrispmartha said:
LordGrover said:
Genuine question; why?
Don't get me wrong, I liked the good push in the back I got from my TVR, but it's not a reason to dismiss a car on one minor aspect.
Would you really class the engine and its power as a minor aspect of a sports car?Don't get me wrong, I liked the good push in the back I got from my TVR, but it's not a reason to dismiss a car on one minor aspect.
If you think that a sports car has to hit a specific set of performance figures such as power output and 0-60 times, then no, of course it's not.
But I think what LG is getting at is why would you look at a car that has pretty much all the hallmarks of a decent sports coupe - good handling, low centre of gravity, comparatively low weight, RWD drive train with an LSD, and that offers a fun, entertaining and engaging drive - and then dismiss it because the engine doesn't produce X power, or wont hit a 0-60 time of Y?
If the car delivers all of the above, then yes, I'd say the engine/power output does become more of a minor aspect. The car should be considered as a whole, rather than dismissed because it does not have easily accessible power.
The problem is too many people make statements like "too slow", when what they mean is it's "not powerful". Take the car out on some decent roads and work the engine and it's bloody quick. yes, it takes a bit more effort than just stamping on the accelerator and riding a wave of torque, but surely that's all part of the fun, "sports car" experience?
The answer is finance.
There just isnt anywhere near the incentive being provided by Toyota/Subaru to make this car competitive or appealing and considering how such a large portion of new car sales are finance based in todays market, that probably explains the low sales numbers. The people buying them are the people who would have bought them anyway, the other missing chunk are people who would have bought them based on the £pcm figure.
There just isnt anywhere near the incentive being provided by Toyota/Subaru to make this car competitive or appealing and considering how such a large portion of new car sales are finance based in todays market, that probably explains the low sales numbers. The people buying them are the people who would have bought them anyway, the other missing chunk are people who would have bought them based on the £pcm figure.
unpc said:
I like the Elizabeth Duke analogy and that sums it up but I've just bought a car with the wrong badge (Mustang) so we'll see how that goes.
I actually just logged on to change that 
I love Toyotas - I've owned three and they've been brilliant. I wasn't saying that Toyotas were cheap tat - I was simply saying that it seems that a lot of buyers of £30k+ cars want to make some sort of statement.Conscript said:
If the car delivers all of the above, then yes, I'd say the engine/power output does become more of a minor aspect. The car should be considered as a whole, rather than dismissed because it does not have easily accessible power.
He point being people can dismiss a car for whatever reason they want, if someone is spending £25k on a car they will probably want it to tick all the boxes on the list, and this car clearly hasn't done that for a lot of car buyers.Would it have sold more with more power? who knows
Would it have sold more if finance/lease packages were competitive - I would say i'm 99% sure it would.
Conscript said:
Depends how you define sports car.
If you think that a sports car has to hit a specific set of performance figures such as power output and 0-60 times, then no, of course it's not.
But I think what LG is getting at is why would you look at a car that has pretty much all the hallmarks of a decent sports coupe - good handling, low centre of gravity, comparatively low weight, RWD drive train with an LSD, and that offers a fun, entertaining and engaging drive - and then dismiss it because the engine doesn't produce X power, or wont hit a 0-60 time of Y?
If the car delivers all of the above, then yes, I'd say the engine/power output does become more of a minor aspect. The car should be considered as a whole, rather than dismissed because it does not have easily accessible power.
The problem is too many people make statements like "too slow", when what they mean is it's "not powerful". Take the car out on some decent roads and work the engine and it's bloody quick. yes, it takes a bit more effort than just stamping on the accelerator and riding a wave of torque, but surely that's all part of the fun, "sports car" experience?
^^^^^^^If you think that a sports car has to hit a specific set of performance figures such as power output and 0-60 times, then no, of course it's not.
But I think what LG is getting at is why would you look at a car that has pretty much all the hallmarks of a decent sports coupe - good handling, low centre of gravity, comparatively low weight, RWD drive train with an LSD, and that offers a fun, entertaining and engaging drive - and then dismiss it because the engine doesn't produce X power, or wont hit a 0-60 time of Y?
If the car delivers all of the above, then yes, I'd say the engine/power output does become more of a minor aspect. The car should be considered as a whole, rather than dismissed because it does not have easily accessible power.
The problem is too many people make statements like "too slow", when what they mean is it's "not powerful". Take the car out on some decent roads and work the engine and it's bloody quick. yes, it takes a bit more effort than just stamping on the accelerator and riding a wave of torque, but surely that's all part of the fun, "sports car" experience?
I always like the saying its not how fast you go its how you go fast.
Mate has RS5 and Gt86 - GT86 anyday of the week unless we need 4 in the car and prob go in 2 cars
too much is made of 0-60. Car looks great and feels like it will be great and rewarding to drive.
Should also be cheaper to run on the track and around the twisty roads.
Add more power and these costs go up - GTR is a bargain car for the money/performance. But have a look at the running costs on or off track.
For me its just rear passenger space that's a problem as it should be the ideal weekday family/work workhorse and then a weekend warrior. Seems to fit inbetween the Lotus/Porsche/MX5 and GTi world.
Mates is a Giallo and for me the interior is really nice and ideal for the job and the cabin is a very nice place to be.
redlancer said:
Conscript said:
Depends how you define sports car.
If you think that a sports car has to hit a specific set of performance figures such as power output and 0-60 times, then no, of course it's not.
But I think what LG is getting at is why would you look at a car that has pretty much all the hallmarks of a decent sports coupe - good handling, low centre of gravity, comparatively low weight, RWD drive train with an LSD, and that offers a fun, entertaining and engaging drive - and then dismiss it because the engine doesn't produce X power, or wont hit a 0-60 time of Y?
If the car delivers all of the above, then yes, I'd say the engine/power output does become more of a minor aspect. The car should be considered as a whole, rather than dismissed because it does not have easily accessible power.
The problem is too many people make statements like "too slow", when what they mean is it's "not powerful". Take the car out on some decent roads and work the engine and it's bloody quick. yes, it takes a bit more effort than just stamping on the accelerator and riding a wave of torque, but surely that's all part of the fun, "sports car" experience?
^^^^^^^If you think that a sports car has to hit a specific set of performance figures such as power output and 0-60 times, then no, of course it's not.
But I think what LG is getting at is why would you look at a car that has pretty much all the hallmarks of a decent sports coupe - good handling, low centre of gravity, comparatively low weight, RWD drive train with an LSD, and that offers a fun, entertaining and engaging drive - and then dismiss it because the engine doesn't produce X power, or wont hit a 0-60 time of Y?
If the car delivers all of the above, then yes, I'd say the engine/power output does become more of a minor aspect. The car should be considered as a whole, rather than dismissed because it does not have easily accessible power.
The problem is too many people make statements like "too slow", when what they mean is it's "not powerful". Take the car out on some decent roads and work the engine and it's bloody quick. yes, it takes a bit more effort than just stamping on the accelerator and riding a wave of torque, but surely that's all part of the fun, "sports car" experience?
I always like the saying its not how fast you go its how you go fast.
Mate has RS5 and Gt86 - GT86 anyday of the week unless we need 4 in the car and prob go in 2 cars
too much is made of 0-60. Car looks great and feels like it will be great and rewarding to drive.
Should also be cheaper to run on the track and around the twisty roads.
Add more power and these costs go up - GTR is a bargain car for the money/performance. But have a look at the running costs on or off track.
For me its just rear passenger space that's a problem as it should be the ideal weekday family/work workhorse and then a weekend warrior. Seems to fit inbetween the Lotus/Porsche/MX5 and GTi world.
Mates is a Giallo and for me the interior is really nice and ideal for the job and the cabin is a very nice place to be.
Often slower cars are actually better to drive, because smaller tyres give you more progressive breakaway with a better ride and sometimes betetr handling. I much prefer the 320i to the 335i for example, and that's a great comparison because the rest of the car is identical in those cases.It's just too slow and doesn't sound any good when you extend it. A cooking Golf diesel in gear would show it a clean pair of heels. It's not like the Japanese can't make a decent mid range turbocharged RWD coupe - the NIssan S13 and S14 shows that. It doesn't need mega power, a LPT with 250bhp and a slug more torque would flatter the chassis and make it a far better car. Light boost pressure means decent response.
Neil G60 said:
It's just too slow and doesn't sound any good when you extend it. A cooking Golf diesel in gear would show it a clean pair of heels. It's not like the Japanese can't make a decent mid range turbocharged RWD coupe - the NIssan S13 and S14 shows that. It doesn't need mega power, a LPT with 250bhp and a slug more torque would flatter the chassis and make it a far better car. Light boost pressure means decent response.
b
ks.You get your Golf diesel and meet me up on the moors - 30 mile run.
We'll see who shows who a clean pair of heels.
LordGrover said:
bks.
You get your Golf diesel and meet me up on the moors - 30 mile run.
We'll see who shows who a clean pair of heels.
I had a dice with an A3 1.8T in torrential rain recently. On the straights, there was nothing in it to my surprise. On the corners, he left me for dead, as I was sliding around all over the place on my Prius tyres! I bet I had the bigger grin though...ks.You get your Golf diesel and meet me up on the moors - 30 mile run.
We'll see who shows who a clean pair of heels.
Neil G60 said:
It's just too slow and doesn't sound any good when you extend it. A cooking Golf diesel in gear would show it a clean pair of heels.
Outstanding. Criticises the car for being too slow and not sounding good, straight away recommends a 4-pot diesel as a comparison, as long as it's 'in gear'.
Edited by Conscript on Friday 27th February 13:49
I have a BMW E30 M3 for my weekend/track car and the GT86/BRZ is very similar in concept and execution...However, the E30 M3 is appreciating in value (a lot) whereas the GT86/BRZ is depreciating.
Given that both cost about the same and offer similar power and performance, I know which I'd choose to own.
Only If I was buying a new 2-seat hardtop coupe for this sort of money it would be a Z3M coupe with the S54 engine in RHD.
Given that both cost about the same and offer similar power and performance, I know which I'd choose to own.
Only If I was buying a new 2-seat hardtop coupe for this sort of money it would be a Z3M coupe with the S54 engine in RHD.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff