z31maniac wrote: Pretty impressive, I'm still kind of disappointed by the HWY MPG's though. ALthough I'm guessing that's down to how it's geared?
That and i don't think i've ever seen a boxer get GREAT mileage.
z31maniac wrote: Pretty impressive, I'm still kind of disappointed by the HWY MPG's though. ALthough I'm guessing that's down to how it's geared?
That and i don't think i've ever seen a boxer get GREAT mileage.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:z31maniac wrote: Pretty impressive, I'm still kind of disappointed by the HWY MPG's though. ALthough I'm guessing that's down to how it's geared?That and i don't think i've ever seen a boxer get GREAT mileage.
I don't think it has anything to do with the engine configuration, really.
I am super glad that they didn't change the gear ratios to suit that silly 0-60 like some OEMs do.
Joe Gearin wrote: In 1986 a Corolla GTS had a MSRP of around $9,500.
Actually... the 1986 AE86 GT-S was quite a bit more... full boat models sold for $14k 
, totally stripped models* were a bit over $10.5 The cost was so high in 1986, that Toyota did the cheap routene in 1987 to try and get the price down. 1987 models came with SR5 like trim, they also came with lower cost interiors.
I am disappointed in the mileage... even my well tweaked 4AGE get nearly 32 mpg @ 70 mph
In reply to Knurled:
To paraphrase a very common saying on here.
Your arguement is useless without the freebody diagram.
(I will help you on this one) Your wrong. I said what I have said bacause I have done them (as well as other coworkers)-. The boxer also has no reason to "sit higher" The transmission is based on the crank centerline which had no reason to change because of inline, v, or flat opposed piston setup. The crank still needs to be out of the oil like in any engine configuration.
(For reference I took the manifolds into the equations)
Your right about the system but the system is designed on piece at a time with a common focus in mind. Not by just piece milling stuff together. (Wonder why many cars are crap and some are genius? Read that last part again)
If you don't think a couple of hundred lbs matter a few inches, why do we lower the vehicles? Why do we relocate the battery? Because it matters. A lot
Not trying to rant or thread jack but on a daily basis I watch thousands of dollars wasted because jackasses can state things that just aren't true as fact, because they "feel" that it was right. Speak with data.
The reason I am being the Pope is I don't want to have to argue as hard when I buy one used in 3 years. 
I don't understand the highway mileage disappointment. The rating is from the EPA under the current system. Almost nothing RWD under the current system is rated that high except the BMW 328i, Mustang V6, Genesis 2.0t.
The most-loved car on this site (Miata) has is rated at upper 20s highway.
Wants sporty performance-designed car, complains about gas mileage.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Wants sporty performance-designed car, complains about gas mileage.
because race car?
FlightService wrote: (I will help you on this one) Your wrong. I said what I have said bacause I have done them (as well as other coworkers)-. The boxer also has no reason to "sit higher" The transmission is based on the crank centerline which had no reason to change because of inline, v, or flat opposed piston setup. The crank still needs to be out of the oil like in any engine configuration.
As-practiced, there needs to be a certain amount of distance below the cylinder heads for the exhaust to depart. I know that in theory, the engines don't need to sit as high as they do. I'm just looking at what is actually being practiced. The oil pans cannot be very wide, or very long, so they must be deep in order to hold any appreciable amount of oil and still keep the oil level low enough that the heads can drain properly. (I seem to recall that oil drainback was a problem with my EA82 engined Subarus. Fog for mosquitoes in every long righthander. There was a factory fix involving hose rerouting, which kept the engine from sucking in the oil WHEN the head/cambox area would flood with oil)
If you don't think a couple of hundred lbs matter a few inches, why do we lower the vehicles? Why do we relocate the battery? Because it matters. A lot
I relocated my battery because there's no room in the engine bay once the radiator is upgraded....
On another forum, some peopel did some diging to find predicted prices to justify the outrage at the cost. What they found was...Car and driver predicted low 20s. Autocar predicted 23K range. A recent TTAC article with the chief engineer avoided pricing...all he said was 'affordable.
They had to go back to a 2009 Tokyo motor show article on Edmunds to find anything. Relevant quote:
But Toyota engineers really appreciate its low center of gravity, and that's the key here. One insider who has driven the car says it handles brilliantly. The stock engine also keeps the price down, with $25,000 or under the target here.
http://www.insideline.com/toyota/ft-...6-concept.html
I think people's expectation of low 20s was framed by internet rumor and magazine predictions. Just showing you that expectations weren't grounded in Toyota's claims/promises. Toyota just wanted it under $25k as far back as '09. And they seem to have achieved that. A new, lighweight sports car that cost the same as a semi well equipped econobox or existing sports car, and undercuts heavier, less capable sport coupes that only excel in hp. Still seems like a great idea and a good deal.
ProDarwin wrote: I don't understand the highway mileage disappointment. The rating is from the EPA under the current system. Almost nothing RWD under the current system is rated that high except the BMW 328i, Mustang V6, Genesis 2.0t. The most-loved car on this site (Miata) has is rated at upper 20s highway.
BMW 328i = faster, older design, heavier
Mustang V6 = faster, older design, heavier
Genesis 2.0t = faster, older design, heavier
You picking up what I'm putting down? This Toyobaru is a brand new, clean sheet design. They are quite proud of the small, lightweight car. It's pretty low on power. So, what gives...why wouldn't it set the bar on rwd fuel economy?
Bryce
Nashco wrote:ProDarwin wrote: I don't understand the highway mileage disappointment. The rating is from the EPA under the current system. Almost nothing RWD under the current system is rated that high except the BMW 328i, Mustang V6, Genesis 2.0t. The most-loved car on this site (Miata) has is rated at upper 20s highway.BMW 328i = faster, older design, heavier Mustang V6 = faster, older design, heavier Genesis 2.0t = faster, older design, heavier You picking up what I'm putting down? This Toyobaru is a brand new, clean sheet design. They are quite proud of the small, lightweight car. It's pretty low on power. So, what gives...why wouldn't it set the bar on rwd fuel economy? Bryce
Because it would be slower. I've got 5:1 odds that it's because of gearing.
You could apply your same argument to the Miata. The roots of the motor in the Toyobaru are similar in age if not older than the MZR in the Miata, and it still gets similar mileage.
But do we really need to argue about 1-2mpg? To keep it apples to apples, i don't believe all the cars mentioned take the same grade of fuel anyways.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Because it would be slower. I've got 5:1 odds that it's because of gearing. You could apply your same argument to the Miata. The roots of the motor in the Toyobaru are similar in age if not older than the MZR in the Miata, and it still gets similar mileage. But do we really need to argue about 1-2mpg? To keep it apples to apples, i don't believe all the cars mentioned take the same grade of fuel anyways.
A) I was referring to the 2012 BMW 328i (turbo 4 cyl)
B) See quote. If they really wanted to, a .6:1 or .5:1 final would probably correct any mileage issues. But really - its on bar with the best gas mileage offered by any RWD gasoline powered cars, so why not just be happy with that?
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Wants sporty performance-designed car, complains about gas mileage.
Because I remember reading an article saying something about mid 30s HWY.
3600lb, 305 hp mustang gets 30mpg. 2700lb, 200hp FRS gets ........30mpg. It does have 6 gears, but I'm not too concerned, wife won't let me get rid of the truck for one.
I agree with what was posted earlier, it's more about what the expectations were.
I remember the same hype about the Genesis, we had a friend that had talked with the local dealer, ready to put down a few G's as a deposit..............then 3400lbs for the V6 and he said, "NO thanks"
ProDarwin wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Because it would be slower. I've got 5:1 odds that it's because of gearing. You could apply your same argument to the Miata. The roots of the motor in the Toyobaru are similar in age if not older than the MZR in the Miata, and it still gets similar mileage. But do we really need to argue about 1-2mpg? To keep it apples to apples, i don't believe all the cars mentioned take the same grade of fuel anyways.A) I was referring to the 2012 BMW 328i (turbo 4 cyl) B) See quote. If they really wanted to, a .6:1 or .5:1 final would probably correct any mileage issues. But really - its on bar with the best gas mileage offered by any RWD gasoline powered cars, so why not just be happy with that?
I'm guessing you were wanting to quote Nashco? 
Funny, but with all the noise about this product being in limited supply and high demand, I have to say that I am disapointed at how easy it was to walk in to a dealer put down a deposit and get second spot on the list.
Where ae the hordes of people who paid just to get a spot in line with the Miata? Maybe I won't like the car but I can sell my placeholder?
NOt looking like it.
As to the design being all wrong with the CG being way out of harmony with the universal constants to produce a car capable of handling, need I refer y'all to the worst laid out car in all history of cardom that still goes around corners and has a large fan base....hint: the name has the same number you call for medical help after crashing it.
NOHOME wrote: Funny, but with all the noise about this product being in limited supply and high demand, I have to say that I am disapointed at how easy it was to walk in to a dealer put down a deposit and get second spot on the list. Where ae the hordes of people who paid just to get a spot in line with the Miata? Maybe I won't like the car but I can sell my placeholder? NOt looking like it. As to the design being all wrong with the CG being way out of harmony with the universal constants to produce a car capable of handling, need I refer y'all to the worst laid out car in all history of cardom that still goes around corners and has a large fan base....hint: the name has the same number you call for medical help after crashing it.
If you'd like it to be harder to get a car you like, i can... arm wrestle you or something before you go pick it up?
http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-subaru-brz-full-test-and-video.html
Gearing:
I=3.626,
II=2.188,
III=1.541,
IV=1.213,
V=1.0,
VI=0.767
4.1 Final
3050 RPM @ 70mph
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I'm guessing you were wanting to quote Nashco?
Yeah, I was using your quote as ammo and forgot to include his. Oops.
ProDarwin wrote: http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-subaru-brz-full-test-and-video.html Gearing: I=3.626, II=2.188, III=1.541, IV=1.213, V=1.0, VI=0.767 4.1 Final 3050 RPM @ 70mph
Yep, geared to hell and back... which also explains why a motor that revs to 7500rpms can't quite hit 60mph in 2nd gear.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Yep, geared to hell and back... which also explains why a motor that revs to 7500rpms can't quite hit 60mph in 2nd gear.
Ehhh, compared to most NA,high revving Japanese sports cars, it isn't that bad (Both my 2.5RS and S2000 are worse). I still want to see a more American approach of double-overdrive. Normal 1-5, ultra low OD 6th
ProDarwin wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Yep, geared to hell and back... which also explains why a motor that revs to 7500rpms can't quite hit 60mph in 2nd gear.Ehhh, compared to most NA,high revving Japanese sports cars, it isn't that bad (Both my 2.5RS and S2000 are worse). I still want to see a more American approach of double-overdrive. Normal 1-5, ultra low OD 6th
Well, when the 6th gear is still turning 3000rpms or over at 70mph... it's geared like crazy. Doesn't matter what other cars are like. I'd call them geared like crazy as well. 
NOHOME wrote: Where ae the hordes of people who paid just to get a spot in line with the Miata? Maybe I won't like the car but I can sell my placeholder?
Despite the amount of hype that the car is getting it seems like the only people really excited about it are people who remember the non muscle RWD cars of yore. Toyota has become an appliance dealer and, lets be honest here, the Scion brand is sort of looked down upon like it's a leper by most people.
That said the Fiat 500 sold 17,945 units in North America last year. It's not a giant commercial success but it's not exactly the flop it's being made out to be. The FR-S and BRZ have preorders for 9500 in North America alone (no figures for Japan or Europe yet) of the 100000 units slated for the entire 2013 production run. Toyota has effectively sold 9.5% of their total world wide production in North America without it even being on the market.
I'd say that's a pretty good reception. Give it a few months and the average person not just enthusiasts who browse care websites will warm up to it pretty quick I'll bet. I'm actually hoping that there will be one available to drive when I get back to the US later this year.
Interesting thread - I had always looked at this car more in the poor man's Exige category than something that would compare against a Mustang or Genesis. I think, in the latter sense, the car is suffering from it's low price.
Slap a different badge and ~15k more on the sticker and it would be hailed as brilliant for having only 200 hp. It would be hailed as a return to the elemental roots of the sports car and an uncompromisingblahblahblah.
I, personally, would have a BRZ before anything else in the $25k range. I mean, the thing pulled .92 G on narrow all-season tires and has enough power to be entertaining. Works for me.
The0retical wrote:NOHOME wrote: Where ae the hordes of people who paid just to get a spot in line with the Miata? Maybe I won't like the car but I can sell my placeholder?Despite the amount of hype that the car is getting it seems like the only people really excited about it are people who remember the non muscle RWD cars of yore. Toyota has become an appliance dealer and, lets be honest here, the Scion brand is sort of looked down upon like it's a leper by most people. That said the Fiat 500 sold 17,945 units in North America last year. It's not a giant commercial success but it's not exactly the flop it's being made out to be. The FR-S and BRZ have preorders for 9500 in North America alone (no figures for Japan or Europe yet) of the 100000 units slated for the entire 2013 production run. Toyota has effectively sold 9.5% of their total world wide production in North America without it even being on the market. I'd say that's a pretty good reception. Give it a few months and the average person not just enthusiasts who browse care websites will warm up to it pretty quick I'll bet. I'm actually hoping that there will be one available to drive when I get back to the US later this year.
I think the Fiat 500 and the BRZ/FRS are diametrically opposed. The Fiat I would put in the same category as smart: it's selling cuteness and that quick-wearing unique factor. Their first and second year sales will be as good as it gets. The Toyobaru, on the other hand, is selling substance over style (though it looks plenty nice).
Wow, you guys are a tough crowd. This is exactly the car many here have been whinning about not having. Here it is and complain complain complain.
And how many here have actually been shopping new cars lately? 24K is a freakin' steal.
Hyundai Genesis 2.0T R-Spec. Cheapest I could get at ALL was 25.7k without tax and title. I tried several dealers and no budging on the price. Nada, zilch. Said they could sell everyone they got. It was ok, nice driving, but had horrible feeling clutch and was plasticky inside and only ok steering feel.
Mustang: Finding one for the price you guys are throwing around with that equipment is difficult to be sure. Closer to 30k is more realistic unless you can find a dealer that will order one for you. They are marking these up too from what I could find. In fact, the last two Ford dealers I went to, of the 15 or so Mustangs that each one had, only one had a Mustang under 30k on the lot. The V8's started around 36k, and steering feel was marginal at best. It drove "big" and was only sort of inspiring. At least the V8 would do big smokey burn outs! I really wanted the Roush version that I drove though.
Even new Miatas are difficult to get at 24k unless you get one absolutely stripped (and once again find a dealer that has one or will order one), and that means no LSD. 25k-26k is more reasonable for one with the right boxes checked. They crest the 30k mark very easily if you want many options.
If I hadn't just bought a Cooper S (new price like mine: 28k with some options but no where near loaded) I would be all over one of these. HP numbers are just numbers. It's what a car does with them that matters. Look at BMWs, they usually never have the highest numbers for their class, and my old X1/9 would smoke cars with 4x the hp ratings on a regular basis autocrossing.
If it is anything like my old MR2's or the Supras we used to race, it will be a nice car. I'm looking forward to driving one. In the mean time, I applaud Toyota and Subaru for actually listening to a small number of people and producing the car.
You'll need to log in to post.
