turboswede wrote:
Xceler8x wrote: Jalopnik drives the Scion FR-S
....and I still won't read anything produced or shared on the Gawker empire.
Seriously, screw those folks. Jalopnik especially.
That's cool man. I respect irrational/rational grudges. 
If you're the patient type I hear a very well written, and highly respected, car mag is going to post a review either in their print mag or via their online web presence. I read in their forum that it may happen very soon. Come on back and get their two cents! I will.
e_pie wrote:
I hope it will be able to fit some 17" wheels. To hell with the prices on 18"+ tires, not to mention additional weight and MOI.
You're in luck: stock is 215/45R17 all around.
singleslammer wrote:
I read it the other way. The scion is setup for people looking for the rwd experience and the Subaru is for buyers used to awd understeer. Yes that is the same as above but marketing speak for scion is better.
so.. how soon till the kids stepping up from the Tc start wrapping the Scion version of the Toybaru around trees and putting them through hedges backwards?
I remember being on a Hyundai Forum where one of the kids went from his tiburon to a BMW.. he was back in a matter of weeks having wrecked the BMW and spouting off that RWD should be illegal because it is so dangerous to drive
mad_machine wrote:
singleslammer wrote:
I read it the other way. The scion is setup for people looking for the rwd experience and the Subaru is for buyers used to awd understeer. Yes that is the same as above but marketing speak for scion is better.
so.. how soon till the kids stepping up from the Tc start wrapping the Scion version of the Toybaru around trees and putting them through hedges backwards?
I remember being on a Hyundai Forum where one of the kids went from his tiburon to a BMW.. he was back in a matter of weeks having wrecked the BMW and spouting off that RWD should be illegal because it is so dangerous to drive
God that is precious, please link if you have it still.
T.J.
UberDork
4/25/12 5:27 p.m.
ShadowSix wrote:
mad_machine wrote:
I remember being on a Hyundai Forum where one of the kids went from his tiburon to a BMW.. he was back in a matter of weeks having wrecked the BMW and spouting off that RWD should be illegal because it is so dangerous to drive
God that is precious, please link if you have it still.
I would click on that link in a heartbeat.
LJD
New Reader
4/26/12 8:40 a.m.
Autoblog's take (http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/25/2013-scion-fr-s-second-drive-review/) seems more better.
T.J. wrote:
ShadowSix wrote:
mad_machine wrote:
I remember being on a Hyundai Forum where one of the kids went from his tiburon to a BMW.. he was back in a matter of weeks having wrecked the BMW and spouting off that RWD should be illegal because it is so dangerous to drive
God that is precious, please link if you have it still.
I would click on that link in a heartbeat.
I wish I could.. that is like 7 years ago
mad_machine wrote:
T.J. wrote:
ShadowSix wrote:
mad_machine wrote:
I remember being on a Hyundai Forum where one of the kids went from his tiburon to a BMW.. he was back in a matter of weeks having wrecked the BMW and spouting off that RWD should be illegal because it is so dangerous to drive
God that is precious, please link if you have it still.
I would click on that link in a heartbeat.
I wish I could.. that is like 7 years ago
That reminds me of an old fairly pompous article by a BMW driver who dramatically wrecks an acquaintances Omni GLH on a test drive. He supposedly hands the keys back saying something like "It doesn't handle as well as a my BMW"
There is a road test in MT on the BRZ.
7.0x17 wheels with 215/45R17 tires.
0-60 - 6.4
1/4 mile- 14.9 @ 95.
Price as tested. 28K est.
Just read the MT article, nothing revolutionary there...
It is somewhat surprising to me that the majority of commenters on every website but this one bitch and moan about the HP/TQ numbers.
Sure, I'd love another 50 or 100 HP, but power is easy to add. A light (relatively, this is no Lotus) stiff RWD monocoque, and a well developed suspension and steering system aren't.
Hopefully these morons don't scare off the tens of thousands of non-enthusiasts that Toyota/Subaru needs to make this thing successful.
0-60 in 6.4 is faster than I expected. I think that sounds perfect. Now if only I wasn't so damn cheap..
In reply to mad_machine:
Let them. I don't particularly mind a car that is "dangerous" because therefore prices tank and I have easy access to parts for when I inevitably break something on the one that I hope to buy in 5 years time or so.
Also, The Scion is more Drift yo! Just imagine my flat brim hat. Imagine it!
ShadowSix wrote:
Just read the MT article, nothing revolutionary there...
It is somewhat surprising to me that the majority of commenters on every website but this one bitch and moan about the HP/TQ numbers.
Sure, I'd love another 50 or 100 HP, but power is easy to add. A light (relatively, this is no Lotus) stiff RWD monocoque, and a well developed suspension and steering system aren't.
Hopefully these morons don't scare off the tens of thousands of non-enthusiasts that Toyota/Subaru needs to make this thing successful.
it's easy enough to read numbers on a page and make assumptions. People are used to 4000 pound monsters that need 300hp to get to 60 in 8 seconds
mad_machine wrote:
ShadowSix wrote:
Just read the MT article, nothing revolutionary there...
It is somewhat surprising to me that the majority of commenters on every website but this one bitch and moan about the HP/TQ numbers.
Sure, I'd love another 50 or 100 HP, but power is easy to add. A light (relatively, this is no Lotus) stiff RWD monocoque, and a well developed suspension and steering system aren't.
Hopefully these morons don't scare off the tens of thousands of non-enthusiasts that Toyota/Subaru needs to make this thing successful.
it's easy enough to read numbers on a page and make assumptions. People are used to 4000 pound monsters that need 300hp to get to 60 in 8 seconds
+1. Good to hear the overall driving experience is a great one. I am excited to take one for a ride at some point. The F/R split and low CG are intriguing.
mad_machine wrote:
it's easy enough to read numbers on a page and make assumptions. People are used to 4000 pound monsters that need 300hp to get to 60 in 8 seconds
In a year or two the thing will be boosted in some way, shape, or form. Then you'll see those power numbers climb pretty quickly. Toyota and Subaru have a long history of boosted motors. Why would they stop with this one as NA?
turboswede wrote:
Xceler8x wrote: Jalopnik drives the Scion FR-S
....and I still won't read anything produced or shared on the Gawker empire.
Seriously, screw those folks. Jalopnik especially.
I still read some, but I'm really disappointed with them lately. Especially Gizmodo. The whole site reads like it was written by high school students, especially considering about half the articles these days seem to be stoner crap. A good 2/3 or more of the articles I read on Giz are either written by somebody clueless about the subject, are hyping something that's not actually new, or have some egregious error (factual or in terms of writing) in them that would never have been allowed to hit print by any real editorial staff.
Jalop isn't far behind, which is too bad because they used to be a cool blog. There are still occasional good articles but there's a lot of crap. Most of the best content comes from the community, anyway, like the "Question/Answer of the Day" posts. I'm thinking about it, and realizing that I actually go there for the comment threads much more than for the posts themselves.
By the way, I do have to appreciate that shot of the cupholder icon on the FR-S. I really hope that the cup of water is a conscious Initial D reference.
ShadowSix wrote:
Sure, I'd love another 50 or 100 HP, but power is easy to add. A light (relatively, this is no Lotus) stiff RWD monocoque, and a well developed suspension and steering system aren't.
I think most of the complaint comes from the Subaru community in particular, who are used to being able to add 50hp with a downpipe and a free opensource tune. Adding significant power to an N/A 2L boxer is not particularly cheap.
I think if Subaru had put a small/light boost turbo in there, there would be no complaints if only because it would make it "easy" to do big-power upgrades.
That said, and coming from a VF52 WRX driver,, I would be more than satisfied PERSONALLY with the BRZ as-is. I'm not a big fan of turbos (even though I have one) and prefer a light car with N/A power to a heavy car with turbo. If I could get a N/A WRX that weighed 2400lbs, I'd be all over that :)
Nobody agrees with me on this, but I don't like the fact that the Subaru version exists. I liked that for a couple decades there, Subaru was all AWD, all the time. The BR-Z might be a cool, relatively quick car, but I just don't feel like it fits in Subaru's lineup.
So how long before a test of the FT-baru-86 and the Miata? They are obviously aimed at the 'driver' but differ by a roof and a back seat.
Hard to quantify fun to drive when they are both applauded for being awesome.
tuna55
UltraDork
4/26/12 8:19 p.m.
dculberson wrote:
0-60 in 6.4 is faster than I expected. I think that sounds perfect. Now if only I wasn't so damn cheap..
This (if real-live no BS rollout crap), and that 14.9 1/4 mile is pretty decent.
ShadowSix wrote:
Just read the MT article, nothing revolutionary there...
It is somewhat surprising to me that the majority of commenters on every website but this one bitch and moan about the HP/TQ numbers.
Sure, I'd love another 50 or 100 HP, but power is easy to add. A light (relatively, this is no Lotus) stiff RWD monocoque, and a well developed suspension and steering system aren't.
Hopefully these morons don't scare off the tens of thousands of non-enthusiasts that Toyota/Subaru needs to make this thing successful.
This is what i tell people why i have an S2 RX8 but i still get a stupid "WTF you have a slow car bro" look
Now i can only guess how sky high the insurance is going to be on these 2 vehicles......
