Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The BRZ is backwards. Toyota should have done the powertrain while Subaru did the rest. A turbo 3.5L, 4.7L or 5.7L would have been a lot better. As it is the car is underpowered.
Don't think a V8 would fit? Do a google search for LS swaps.
The car is very small and nimble. Those engines would be too big, and high, decimating the handling dynamics and low center of gravity.
Subaru has plenty of capable turbo boxers. One just needs to be dropped in.
To be honest, the 200 horsepower is plenty to be entertaining in the car as it is. It is light. My biggest like would be more torque, as it takes a decent amount of rev's to get to the powerband. Again, this is nothing a current Subaru turbo boxer wouldn't easily cure in a minute.
Yeah, the basic idea of the BRZ/FR-S was the return to the lightweight, medium powered RWD sports GTs of the past. It's on par with the RX7 TII, and the 944 (same weight, same size, same basic layout) and not the Supra or the like. Turbo kits are available if you want more power, but 200 hp is really plenty (the RX7 Turbo II was 185, and the 944 was similar). It's about balance.
Hah! Apparently we are the only ones that think so! I feel the Outback is now a crossover with the Forester being a SUV, when in the past the Forester was more the crossover size. All cars seem to have done this over the years and it's too bad. I felt they each had a great size for their respective markets. I don't even want something crossover sized. I have an old econobox hatchback and can still sleep in the back of it and go away for a week with everything packed in the trunk including bicycle gear. I would hate something bigger.
Today's small cars just seem super small. But I am apparently in a super minority.
Listen to this! When I was living on a very tiny income, I bought a used (only one year old) 1991 Ford Focus hatchback LOL! It was a GREAT little car. No power, true, but I am not looking for a powerful car, ever, in my life. That car was almost like having a 2002 Forester: It was small, cheap to maintain, the hatchback was great and it lasted for 11 more years with just basic repairs. Waterpump, tires, brakes, that sort of thing..
Yes but what we are saying is, the Outback has moved to that size and the Forester has gotten bigger. They each filled a niche back then. Now they are in different niches.
If I'd had a 1990s or early 2000s Outback, I would not have bought one in 2010-11 when they got so big.
Disagree. The current Outback is much larger than what I was saying I wanted. I saw it in the showroom, too.
We have the a 2014 Forester (current gen) and it definitely feels a lot bigger than previous gen we had (2010 Forester). I know interior size went up only a few inches but car feels a lot roomier.
And yeah, the best looking Legacy's were the 2005-2009
Yes but what we are saying is, the Outback has moved to that size and the Forester has gotten bigger. They each filled a niche back then. Now they are in different niches.
If I'd had a 1990s or early 2000s Outback, I would not have bought one in 2010-11 when they got so big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Anne
Disagree. The current Outback is much larger than what I was saying I wanted. I saw it in the showroom, too.
We may have confused each other! I was agreeing with you. I remember seeing the new Outback in 2010 or 11 and thinking it was monstrous. I actually thought it was a Forester until I looked at the badge. I was saying IF I had owned an older one when they were smaller, I'd never want one as big as I saw it then - 2 completely different cars IMO
Have they gotten even bigger since then?
I don't own any variant of it, I have a….. tiny Ford.
Look at an inline 4 or 6, or even a V engine, The pistons and block are vertically oriented . . .
OK, that's what I thought you meant but I wasn't sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
In the BRZ, however, the engine is centered on the front wheel centerline, so that you cannot have the front differential there, as there is a ****ing engine in the way. Drover, you know enough about cars to get this without having me explain it.
Calm down there, cowboy. I only asked for an explanation of what a "vertically oriented engine" is because a) I'd never heard that phrase or description before, and b) you claim one or the other is necessary for AWD packaging while Subaru employs neither, so I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant by "vertically oriented." I didn't need nor did I ask for a clinic on the packaging details of Subaru's drivetrains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Where do you put the front differential in this BRZ chassis, Drover?
I can't for the life of me figure out why you're asking me by name. Go back and re-read my post where I specifically point out packaging issues as one of the reasons why the BRZ is not a good fit for AWD. Maybe you should direct your question to the poster who actually is advocating for an AWD version, because I'm not that poster.
Subaru has already come out and said they can't do AWD in the car for the reasons Merc63 has stated. All their AWD systems would put the front diff where the engine now sits.
Either way, I think the car has been only a moderate success or perhaps even a failure. They aren't going to do a turbo. They aren't going to do a convertible. Crazy as it sounds, they were/are considering a 4-door version, but I'm not sure if that was serious.
Toyota probably should have done it from the ground up instead of trying to hack a Legacy platform into a RWD car and making it the spiritual successor to the EightSix. Then they wouldn't have put Subaru in the awkward position of selling a non AWD car. But being that they are Subaru's overlord they did it anyway. A new version of the BEAMS 3S or the 2ZZ in chopped down IS platform would have been a better choice I think - or at least more worthy of the name.
We may have confused each other! I was agreeing with you. I remember seeing the new Outback in 2010 or 11 and thinking it was monstrous. I actually thought it was a Forester until I looked at the badge. I was saying IF I had owned an older one when they were smaller, I'd never want one as big as I saw it then - 2 completely different cars IMO
Have they gotten even bigger since then?
I don't own any variant of it, I have a….. tiny Ford.
OK, I see! So wonderful about the tiny Ford!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
