I kid! I actually love how the STI/WRX looks -- both the sedan and hatch.

:icon17:

Very nice write-up. Unfortunately the closet I'll get to driving an old AE86 is via Forza or Gran Turismo :tup:

interesting write-up

Nice little article.

Reading the DYNO report comment section is depressing....

People are actually dismissing the car (FR-S / BRZ) solely based on a DYNO test which only confirms the cars 200hp rating. They compare to the GTI which is highly under rated@200hp and use its DYNO #'s as a reason to somehow justify to theirselves for why they think the FR-S / BRZ is "over priced" / not worth ~25K.

Their reasoning is that one can get a 300hp+ Mustang for the same price as if the #'s are the ONLY and or very most important/relevant reasons to purchase a particular sports car. I swear some folks have absolutely NO CLUE whatsoever.

And people wonder why cars such as the Honda S2000 are disappearing...This ridiculous obsession with test track #'s above all else is NOT good for the market. The way people just skip the actual reviews and go straight to the spec sheet/ test track #'s is very telling and depressing.

Folks are actually comparing the GTI to the FR-S / BRZ as if they're somehow even remotely a like. The argument goes something like "But the GTI cost about the same and is quicker to 60! so this means the GTI is the better buy.." This is the logic (sadly) most people apparently use when evaluating a sports car.

And then the same people wonder why Europe often gets dynamically superior automobiles of the same make while the U.S. gets the fast in a straight line but sucks everywhere else models. It's because this is what "you" are asking for!

It's a damn shame car companies can build a car (FR-S / BRZ) which deliver ~95% of the driving entertainment of a Porsche Cayman for 1/2 the price and yet people dismiss the car simply due to its 6.4 second 0-60 time. WTF is wrong with people? I mean it's dumb enough to dismiss a car before even test driving it.

In case anyone was wondering the FR-S DYNO results:

173Hp@ wheels
143Ft-lb.Tq@wheels

http://img.tapatalk.com/c6e4e870-bdb0-3961.jpg
So taking into account the typical ~ 15% drive train loss via RWD 173WHP is right in line with 200hp@crank.

The torque rating is actually a bit under rated seeing as the FR-S put down ~ 143WTQ. Also the torque curve is VERY broad which is very good for daily driving. You wont have to shift the hell out of it unless you want to. Plus you got to remember the car only weighs ~ 2770lbs so it really doesn't need a whole lot of torque.

There's some talk about a turbo version possibly coming out in the next year or so. However I don't think it needs anymore than 200hp unless perhaps you live at like 10000+ ft above sea level / way up in the mountains, etc. Plus I wouldn't want the weight distribution to lean any farther to the front with extra weight added via an FI kit.

All in all it really just depends on where you live as to rather or not the power would be an issue but for most 200hp in a sub 2800lb. shouldn't be an issue. It's still going to be quicker than 90% of the cars out there.

If you're into drag racing just race cars like the GTI, SI, Mini S, MX-5, etc. It should be just as fun as say having a BMW M3 and racing against a C63 AMG, CTS-V, Cayman S, etc. It's all relative.

Personally I'm not much into street racing but I've been in my fair share of drag races and understand the appeal. It's especially fun when you're driving a "sleeper" and blow the doors off a "sports car" that should be a lot faster than you.

If I get a BRZ I would just enjoy it for what it has been described to be, as in one of the most fun / rewarding sports cars to drive regardless of price. 28K fully loaded doesn't seem over priced in the least if the car turns out to be close to as good as its said to be.

So the 2010 VW GTI they DYNO'd put down ~ 200@the wheels which translates to roughly 235hp@crank when the typical 15% drive train loss via FWD is factored in.

So the real rating of VW's 2.0l turbo I-4 is closer to 235hp/240ft-lb.tq. This makes sense when you consider the GTI's curb weight ~3200lbs and acceleration #'s. Still the BRZ / FR-S weigh over 400lbs less and hence have roughly equal power to weight ratios of ~ 13.8:1.

I always thought that it was bizarre that the GTI could run the times it did with supposedly just 200hp but this DYNO result pretty much explains it. The HP/TQ figure VW uses actually turns out to be HP@the wheels. I wonder why they choose to advertise it under-rated so severely like that... Insurance maybe?

This kinda has me wondering about the new Golf R's power rating now... VW claims it makes 256hp/243ft.lb.Tq but seeing how under-rated the GTI's power rating it sort of makes me wonder. But then again they've tested it's acceleration and it posted times similar to an MS3's 5.5 0-60 / 14.0@100 quarter.

So when you consider the Golf R has AWD but a power to weight ratio a bit inferior (12:1 vs. 13.2:1) to the MS3 it's ratings may be about right or perhaps a little under-rated as well.

I remember the article commenting on the BRZ's consistency on the Dyno. And, frankly a loss of only 15% at the wheels is good -- it shows an efficient drivetrain. Didn't the Z lose closer to 17%

that graph needs another +100

I think someone is a fanboi and on the wrong forum looking for sympathy

:stirthepot:

:roflpuke2:

Who's the "fanboi" looking for "sympathy" you refer to? Explain

Yeah 173@the wheels is right in line with 200@ the crank so the FR-S / BRZ are making the claimed 200hp / 151ft lb. torque. The torque though is probably closer to 165-170 considering it put down 143ft-lb. @wheels.

It's just when you look at the GTI's DYNO graph it's deceiving as its severely under-rated. It's 2.0l Turbo 4 makes closer to 235hp not 200hp.

But in terms of power to weight ratios the FR-S / BRZ have roughly the same power to weight ratios as the GTI. I was just pointing this out in response to many of the ridiculous comments posted in the DYNO article.

The fact that it doesn't make much sense to compare the GTI with the FR-S / BRZ. The only things they really have in common is a similar MSRP and power to weight ratio.

So folks seemly don't understand the advantages of RWD vs. FWD; 53/47 F/R balance vs. 38/62; 2770lbs vs. 3200lbs; etc, etc.

But yeah it's good that they got very consistent #'s on the DYNO with the FR-S. I'm looking forward to testing out a BRZ limited with 6MT. I may very well have one in my drive way around September /October. If it turns out to be underwhelming (unlikely) I'll probably just get a new MX-5.

Typical drive train loss via FWD: ~ 12% / RWD: ~ 15% / AWD: ~ 20%

Ahh, so when I see more than 15% loss it's likely because the at-the-crank HP was overstated.