Sciaru BRZFRS (BreezeFrees)

  • Thread starter Azuremen
  • 5,604 comments
  • 378,549 views
Was hoping it would be a bit more unique to the Subaru version this time around. I don't hate it, but it leaves me feeling somewhat ambivalent. It also has some of the 2013 Viper styling forms in the lights and chamfering, which dates it quite a bit.

As a last hurrah for analogue sports cars, it's a bit 'so what' isn't it.
 
VXR
Was hoping it would be a bit more unique to the Subaru version this time around. I don't hate it, but it leaves me feeling somewhat ambivalent. It also has some of the 2013 Viper styling forms in the lights and chamfering, which dates it quite a bit.

As a last hurrah for analogue sports cars, it's a bit 'so what' isn't it.
Click to expand...
Only thing I can say about that is, it was initially meant to be tuned by the enthusiast community(the black bumper version was a surprise). The first car didn't knock anyone's socks off and this one doesn't seem to either. In the end, it's supposed to be a fun to drive car. I've never driven one on a track, but I guess the added power are what owners really want. That's the main tick in the box for this car.
 
I do prefer the Toyota basically because the concept of a rear-drive coupe as a Subaru makes no sense to me. That said, the concept of a Subaru engine in a Toyota also makes no sense to me. The car's design being mostly engineered by Subaru is the problem for me and the main reason I don't think I'll ever own one - long term reliability is Toyota engineering's strong point and the completely opposite for Subaru.
 
It's interesting that they decided to keep the same steering wheel from the updated GT86, Yaris GRMN and Yaris GR Sport.
Kind of like the Toyota more with a more fun design a bit more power and that it's going to be sold in Europe, and I just don't see it as a Subaru car.
I wonder if the tail pipes are still 86 mm in diameter. =)
 
Keef
I do prefer the Toyota basically because the concept of a rear-drive coupe as a Subaru makes no sense to me. That said, the concept of a Subaru engine in a Toyota also makes no sense to me. The car's design being mostly engineered by Subaru is the problem for me and the main reason I don't think I'll ever own one - long term reliability is Toyota engineering's strong point and the completely opposite for Subaru.
Click to expand...
I'm a manual car fan, and am looking for a new affordable manual car just for fun. I've heard this is a great drivers car. I was considering the new Toyota version, but I just assumed this was a reliable car. How is the reliability of the previous models? Any other newer manual RWD cars in the $30k range with good reliability?
 
Last edited:
Organ-Donor
I'm a manual car fan, and am looking for a new affordable manual car just for fun. I've heard this is a great drivers car. I was considering the new Toyota version, but I just assumed this was a reliable car. How is the reliability of the previous models? Any other newer manual RWD cars in the $30k range with good reliability?
Click to expand...
This will be better than most other things on the market for sure. Don't get me wrong, they're excellent cars in almost every way. I've got friends with 80,000+ miles on their first-gen FRSes and BRZs. But these days I'm a bit of a Toyota purist and I've had miserable experiences working on Subarus in the past. Even changing spark plugs was an absolute chore. Subaru has improved a lot of their design since then but it'll never be as simply as slapping an I4 into a sporty car and calling it good.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
I think a right-sizing of the engine would do nicely. A 2.5 liter with the same power but more low end torque would be such a great fit for the ZN6 chassis. The ND feels so punchy (compared to the ZN6) because the torque-peak-in-gear-to-weight-ratio (:lol:) is higher and at a lower RPM (4800 vs 6400).

*for below tq=ft/lbs - these numbers were derived by taking peak torque and multiplying it by the total gear ratio multiplication and then dividing by the curb weight
In the first 3 gears, an ND has 0.94tq/lbs, 0.55tq/lbs, 0.37tq/lbs, respectively, at peak torque (4800rpm).

By comparison, a BR-Z has 0.79tq/lbs, 0.48tq/lbs, and 0.34tq/lbs, in the first 3 gears, at peak torque (6400rpm).

You can see that in first gear, the ND has, practically speaking, nearly 20% more realized-torque accounting for weight and gearing despite a seeming deficit on paper. In fact the ND just about matches a circa-2000 Mustang GT in terms of how much torque you feel (using the above method, which I'll now call the butt-feel-apothegm) while being just about halfway between the ZN6 and Z34 370z for a more contemporary reference point.
Click to expand...

Thought I'd bring back my old post comparing the ZN6 cars to the ND and see how the new car stacks up on paper. Caveat: I can't find any definitive information on the gear ratios of the new cars, so I'm assuming the same as the most recent update with the 4.3 rear diff.

1st gear: 1.02tq/lb
2nd gear: 0.61tq/lb
3rd gear: 0.43tq/lb

Peak torque occurs at 3700rpm vs 6700rpm before.

Bottom line: The new car should feel much, much more punchier and eager than the 23hp gain would suggest. I'd guess it feels like a totally different car - the math suggests 2022 BRZ in 3rd gear could stay on the bumper of a 2021 BRZ in 2nd gear. I'm excited to try one out.
 
I just realized that the only reason the car probably has "more power" is because 228 hp is about 232PS.


Still, I think the Toyota looks a bit better.
 
Last edited:
Eunos_Cosmo
Thought I'd bring back my old post comparing the ZN6 cars to the ND and see how the new car stacks up on paper. Caveat: I can't find any definitive information on the gear ratios of the new cars, so I'm assuming the same as the most recent update with the 4.3 rear diff.

1st gear: 1.02tq/lb
2nd gear: 0.61tq/lb
3rd gear: 0.43tq/lb

Peak torque occurs at 3700rpm vs 6700rpm before.

Bottom line: The new car should feel much, much more punchier and eager than the 23hp gain would suggest. I'd guess it feels like a totally different car - the math suggests 2022 BRZ in 3rd gear could stay on the bumper of a 2021 BRZ in 2nd gear. I'm excited to try one out.
Click to expand...
You did that Miata math in June 2018...the US market got the 181hp engine for the 2019 model year. I assume you did the math for that engine but I'm just checking because I know the 181hp Miata was notably better than the older 86.

Also, you might want to adjust the torque math for the Miata. You quoted a peak of 151 at 4800rpm but the Wiki article says 4600rpm and The Drive and Car and Driver quoted 4000rpm in April 2020. It seems Mazda fattened the torque curve for the 2020 model year.

Edit: Has anybody noticed that the Subaru and Toyota both have the same 10-spoke wheels? They didn't even bother changing wheels?!
 
Last edited:
Keef
You did that Miata math in June 2018...the US market got the 181hp engine for the 2019 model year. I assume you did the math for that engine but I'm just checking because I know the 181hp Miata was notably better than the older 86.

Also, you might want to adjust the torque math for the Miata. You quoted a peak of 151 at 4800rpm but the Wiki article says 4600rpm and The Drive and Car and Driver quoted 4000rpm in April 2020. It seems Mazda fattened the torque curve for the 2020 model year.

Edit: Has anybody noticed that the Subaru and Toyota both have the same 10-spoke wheels? They didn't even bother changing wheels?!
Click to expand...

I want to say the original post was pre-facelift ND and pre-facelift BRZ-FRS, but I can't say for sure. I haven't driven an ND2, but even the ND1 feels far more peppy than the old BRZ. I think that was what I was trying to establish...even with only 151hp, the ND just felt way more eager than the flaccid FA20. I'm glad that Subaru went for displacement, I think the big motor will suit the car really well. 2 liters is just not enough to move 2800lbs with any enthusiasm, unless you can bolster the mid range with something like VTEC...or a turbo.
 
https://www.motoring.com.au/new-subaru-brz-gets-sti-performance-parts-129293/
subaru-brz-jdm-parts-iv.jpg
subaru-brz-jdm-parts-ii.jpg
subaru-brz-jdm-parts-i.jpg
subaru-brz-jdm-parts-v.jpg
 
Tornado
Is there an aerodynamic advantage of mounting a rear wing underneath the risers like that?
Click to expand...

Apparently so

In 2009 the ACO introduced new rear wing regulations in response to a spate of frightening yaw induced blow over incidents that seemed to increase in frequency during the 2008 season. At the September 2008 ACO press conference at Silverstone, the ACO's Jean-Claude Plassart reflected on the reasoning behind the changes, “Safety is important, we have invested a lot in the track, but (the) cars are going faster and faster, and this has created accident(s) and (this) has concerned us, we have to reduce the speed of the cars.” Ironically, Plassart added, ”And reduce costs, cars should be cheaper to build and cheaper to race.”

The rear wing changes were quite simple; a reduction in span from 2.0 meters to 1.6 and a shortening of wing chord from 300 mm to 250 mm. The rear wing changes weren’t necessarily a direct response to the yaw incidents; the changes were made more out of a desire to simply reduce cornering speeds in general as that was felt to be a contributing factor to the blow overs.

The immediate effect was a loss of total downforce and a not so insignificant change in front to rear aerodynamic balance. Between seasons development naturally produced balanced cars, but with slightly (perhaps) less downforce and slightly more drag. Or so that was the goal of the regulations change.

And ultimately you can't argue against the results; lap times did slow in 2009. Analyzing events that ran to full 2009 ACO regulations (Le Mans Series events, Le Mans, in addition to Sebring and Petit; events where full ACO regulations were adhered to) qualifying lap times increased an average of 2%. But then again, how much of that time increase could be attributed to the 10% power reduction the diesels earned for 2009? The narrow span rear wings, coupled with the 20 mm domed skids introduced at the beginning of 2009 as well, did seem to have a cause/effect relationship inasmuch as there haven't been any yaw induced flips since. But what was more influential, the narrow span rear wing or the 20 mm domed skid that increased ride heights significantly?

In direct response to the changed regulations, two new trends emerged with one driving the other. First, in order to recoup as much lost downforce as possible, aerodynamicists immediately began utilizing much more aggressive rear wing angles of attack in addition to more aggressive wing profiles and wing cambers. The second trend was in response to the first and ultimately was much more intriguing, if perhaps only initially. The intriguing bit was that nearly simultaneously, both Audi and Acura debuted their race cars, the R15 and ARX-02a respectively, with nearly identical specific details in the area of the rear wing. Instead of utilizing a conventional bottom rear wing mount, both cars arrived with top mounts for the rear wing mount, so called “swan neck” mounts. But how could two cars with completely divergent design philosophies come to the exact same design execution on one detail in a critical area? What was going on here, another Stepneygate?

Actually the answer was comparatively boring and quite simple. It turns out, as aerodynamicists started to go down the route of more aggressive rear wing assemblies, they stumbled upon one fundamental problem; flow separation in the area of the conventional bottom wing mounts. And apparently the solution was pretty universal, hence Audi designers using an Italian scale wind tunnel agreed with Acura designers using a digital wind tunnel.
Click to expand...

Bottom mount
RearWingCFD2009-SM2.jpg


Top mount
RearWingCFD2009-SM4.jpg


All that being said, I would guess that the Subaru wing is not really a real-enough swan neck mount (there is no separation between the riser and the leading edge of the wing) for there to be any benefits other than mildly looking like the one on the Porsche GT3.
 
Last edited:
05XR8
Only thing I can say about that is, it was initially meant to be tuned by the enthusiast community(the black bumper version was a surprise). The first car didn't knock anyone's socks off and this one doesn't seem to either. In the end, it's supposed to be a fun to drive car. I've never driven one on a track, but I guess the added power are what owners really want. That's the main tick in the box for this car.
Click to expand...

I appreciate what it does and is intended for, but I actually think it looks more dated than the first one.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the wing barely does anything on the Subaru. It's just something I've wondered about and this is the first official accessory wing I've seen that is shaped like that.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
Apparently so



Bottom mount
RearWingCFD2009-SM2.jpg


Top mount
RearWingCFD2009-SM4.jpg


All that being said, I would guess that the Subaru wing is not really a real-enough swan neck mount (there is no separation between the riser and the leading edge of the wing) for there to be any benefits other than mildly looking like the one on the Porsche GT3.
Click to expand...
The images do the talking but in general there are a couple principles that a swan neck avoids. Any time air flows past the joint of two surfaces, like the joint of a plane's wing and fuselage or of a wing mount and wing, there is increased friction, pressure, and drag in that local area necessitating a small fairing. But fairings increase frontal area which isn't a perfectly solution. On top of that, a car's wing will have a bracket or hardware disturbing flow on the low pressure side of the wing which is a no-no. The area rule isn't really a factor at road car speeds but you can see it on F1 and LMP cars - it's better to distribute the frontal area of an object evenly along its length rather than have it all show up at once (partly why the volume of F1 and LMP cars keeps fluctuating) thus wing mounts in front of the wing would be better than having them under the wing.

The swan neck eliminates that increased friction drag, smooths the low pressure surface flow, and allows flow to stabilize off the trailing edge of the mount. When we think about it now the idea is so obvious that it's weird nobody considered it until 2009 or so.
 
Last edited:
Tornado
https://www.motor1.com/news/499481/toyota-86-new-old-comparison/amp/

This doesn't line up exactly perfectly, but it's pretty good. Especially for the interior.
Click to expand...

I haven't really commented on the new 86 design. I feel like it's more cohesive than the BRZ and the most restrained Toyota design in years. I think I really like it. I think it will be one of those cars that looks miles better in person too when you can really appreciate the proportions. I'm not sure if I like it more than the BRZ or not. It's good to see that both of them look better and less busy than their predecessors. I've always felt like these cars were the perfect size for a sports car - not Miata tiny and not 370z bulky (realizing now that the 370z is somehow 2" shorter than a BRZ which is borderline mind blowing). Just an honest shape, an ode to the 90s.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
I've always felt like these cars were the perfect size for a sports car - not Miata tiny and not 370z bulky (realizing now that the 370z is somehow 2" shorter than a BRZ which is borderline mind blowing).
Click to expand...

TFW you first learned that the original Viper was actually basically identical in size to the C4.


05XR8
That side profile in white, looks like what would be a modern 924/944, in my eyes. Especially housing a flat engine.
Click to expand...
"Breaking news: Porsche clubs to allow BRZ owners to attend. 924/928/944 owners: Still banned."
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back