RE: Subaru BRZ MY17 facelift details
Discussion
daveco said:
untakenname said:
Four years on and still no substantial power update
The gearstick in the interior shots looks a bit wrong.
Much like the MX5, it's one of those cars with exploitable power at a reasonable price. I'm sure if they upped the power and kept it NA, the price would jump by a considerable margin as well. The gearstick in the interior shots looks a bit wrong.
If it had 250hp and wider rubber, would it be as enjoyable a car to find the limits of?
KTF said:
I believe from the other threads where this issue is raised, its down to the monthly PCP payments. For the same monthly cost as a GT86, you could get a Golf R or something like that.
Edit: As an example I found online.
Golf R:
Monthly Payments - 48 x £271.82
Customer Deposit - £6,800.00
From: https://www.inchcape-volkswagen.co.uk/offers/new-c...
Subaru BRZ:
48 monthly payments of £299.00
Customer Deposit £5,836.50
From: http://subaru.co.uk/offers/brz/low-monthly-payment...
As the owner of a BRZ and a Golf R, I can say if you really enjoy *driving*, get the BRZ. Edit: As an example I found online.
Golf R:
Monthly Payments - 48 x £271.82
Customer Deposit - £6,800.00
From: https://www.inchcape-volkswagen.co.uk/offers/new-c...
Subaru BRZ:
48 monthly payments of £299.00
Customer Deposit £5,836.50
From: http://subaru.co.uk/offers/brz/low-monthly-payment...
Edited by KTF on Tuesday 6th December 15:51
Alex said:
Ahbefive said:
These cars should have 250-300bhp. They would be proper fun then.
They're proper fun now.If it had a Honda R V-tech with around 200bhp it would be way more fun.
Basically the heart and soul of this car is dead, just a limp carcass to fling around.
Sooo.... Only fun in a hire car sense that you give this death everywhere, giggle that your taking the piss, give it back and and no more.
Modified versions.... Now there's a tasty prospect.
V10Ace said:
Maybe for you, but I and many disagree. It's not just because of the 200 bhp (which it doesn't even have) but more to do with the power delivery, nasty sound and slow to rev.
If it had a Honda R V-tech with around 200bhp it would be way more fun.
That's a fair point. The Subaru engine is not as bad as some people make out, but it is rather coarse and has a dip in the torque curve (which can be eliminated through mods).If it had a Honda R V-tech with around 200bhp it would be way more fun.
I used to have an Integra DC2, and there is no doubting the fact the engine was more characterful than the BRZ's. However, the flat four does give the BRZ a low centre of gravity which you can actually feel the benefit from when you push it through some corners.
Hellbound said:
Garybee said:
Interesting that they have felt the need to strengthen the block. Are these known for issues in that area?
Perhaps it's an early Easter egg for those who go down the FI route when modifying their cars. "Here's a stronger engine chaps..."Guvernator said:
It doesn't need 300bhp, at least not in this form. Sure release a turbocharged STi version for the power junkies but the standard car just needs a little lift.
230bhp, a nicer sound and a bit more urge in the upper rev range would transform this car. In fact I'm really surprised Subaru and Toyota don't offer factory backed tuning packages like the one you can get from Cosworth for those that want it. If this is a car ripe for modifying then I'm not sure why they don't cash in on some of that demand.
Mine runs 216 bhp with a flatter torque curve and is just about right I think. You have enough power to light the tyres up if you want to, but without it being a chore to drive because you're just wheel spinning the whole time.230bhp, a nicer sound and a bit more urge in the upper rev range would transform this car. In fact I'm really surprised Subaru and Toyota don't offer factory backed tuning packages like the one you can get from Cosworth for those that want it. If this is a car ripe for modifying then I'm not sure why they don't cash in on some of that demand.
kambites said:
WCZ said:
that's my only basis (that and I believe a new performance car should be able to out accelerate a 520d)
It's not a performance car; it's a sports car. There is cross-over but they aren't the same thing and a car can be either without being the other. I can imagine it feeling a bit lacking on a big open track like Donnington, though. I suspect no more than 1% of them will ever see a track in the hands of their original owner.
Also real world a BRZ can out accelerate a 520d; the 0-62 times look worse than they are because you have to upshift at 60 mph. Actual 0-60 is more like 6.5s; quarter miles are just under 15s in the manual.
Times from here: https://www.0-60specs.com/subaru-brz-0-60-times/
V10Ace said:
Maybe for you, but I and many disagree. It's not just because of the 200 bhp (which it doesn't even have) but more to do with the power delivery, nasty sound and slow to rev.
If it had a Honda R V-tech with around 200bhp it would be way more fun.
Basically the heart and soul of this car is dead, just a limp carcass to fling around.
Sooo.... Only fun in a hire car sense that you give this death everywhere, giggle that your taking the piss, give it back and and no more.
Modified versions.... Now there's a tasty prospect.
Absolutely spot on. Unfortunately emissions regs have pretty much killed off fun revvy N\A engines so we end up with this tepid power delivery rather than the fireworks you expect from a car which looks like this. It even has a flat spot right between 3-4krpm which funnily enough coincides with the rev range where a lot of the emissions testing is carried out. If it had a Honda R V-tech with around 200bhp it would be way more fun.
Basically the heart and soul of this car is dead, just a limp carcass to fling around.
Sooo.... Only fun in a hire car sense that you give this death everywhere, giggle that your taking the piss, give it back and and no more.
Modified versions.... Now there's a tasty prospect.
Ved said:
Emanresu said:
Why do you say MY17? It sounds so gay. Just tell it like it is, 2017. Instead of trying to be sc3n3 y0.
It stands for Manufacturer Year, you moron. It's been also been used to describe Subaru production years since before you were born - likely 2001.Alex said:
Ahbefive said:
These cars should have 250-300bhp. They would be proper fun then.
They're proper fun now.Edited by Ahbefive on Tuesday 6th December 22:03
Glasgowrob said:
i don't understand why they can't just stick a turbo on it give it 300 horses and watch them sell like hotcakes
I would imagine that the Toyota and Subaru marketing team have investigated this, crunched the numbers and come to the conclusion that it doesn't add up.The exchange rate probably plays a part as well.
Glasgowrob said:
i don't understand why they can't just stick a turbo on it give it 300 horses and watch them sell like hotcakes
It's a 1200kg-ish small car. 300hp doesn't make sense when a MX-5 is sold successfully with 130-160hp (good point made on that previously). You'll have to do a lot more than just 'stick a turbo on it'. I prefer it NA. But out of the box, I agree they aren't the most fun 200hp. More like 190hp, harsh pretty soulless engine note, and anemic just where it's supposed to be the strongest. But as mentioned, quite easily fixed and then they're great.
The MY17 supposedly has a nicer engine note out of the box.
thatsprettyshady said:
Ved said:
Emanresu said:
Why do you say MY17? It sounds so gay. Just tell it like it is, 2017. Instead of trying to be sc3n3 y0.
It stands for Manufacturer Year, you moron. It's been also been used to describe Subaru production years since before you were born - likely 2001.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff