Sciaru BRZFRS (BreezeFrees)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Azuremen
  • 5,613 comments
  • 439,295 views
Zenith013
Important to note that they aren't charging you for not giving you A/C, they're charging you for the effort it took to engineer and tune a lighter, stripped model. Things like spring rates and damper rates need to change. They also need to change up the production lines to include the titanium parts or what have you.

They're still overpriced IMO, but this Top Gear logic of expecting to pay for the actual parts in your car and little more is dumb.
Click to expand...

He never asked if it made it faster or anything. He just asked about the aircon only.

He asked
eight6er
Who would charge more for no aircon?
Click to expand...

I made sure I added
Kamuifanboy
Based on just the Aircon missing. Porsche GT3 RS costs more with no aircon.
Click to expand...
 
Zenith013
Important to note that they aren't charging you for not giving you A/C, they're charging you for the effort it took to engineer and tune a lighter, stripped model. Things like spring rates and damper rates need to change. They also need to change up the production lines to include the titanium parts or what have you. A car without air con and a lightened version that doesn't have air con in it are two different things.

They're still overpriced IMO, but this Top Gear logic of expecting to pay for the actual parts in your car and little more is dumb.

EDIT: "A company like Porsche"? You mean every car maker ever?
Click to expand...

No I don't mean every car maker ever, Mitsubishi made RS versions of the Mirage ZR and Lancer evo, that are lighter with less equipment and cost a lot less than the average car did.

Yes I am aware of some of the differences between the 911GT3 RS and other models, but it's only because it's the only Porsche ever that I've had any interest in at all and I wasn't aware if aircon is standard or not in that car, as I don't care enough about the car to find out such things.
Well then they are not just charging for no aircon, so I take it nobody charges just to have no aircon.
 
Last edited:
YSSMAN
If they go about doing a Supra revival, I'd hope they do it in a manner similar to what was available in the mid/late '80s (ie, Celica-Supra) than the mad sports coupe of the early/mid '90s. I'd hope that Toyota would be smart enough to step away from forced induction and choose a six-cylinder powerplant. I'd hope for the rather powerful 3.5L V6 from the Camry, but that may be expecting too much.
Click to expand...

Azuremen
If they do a Supra, it will have to have 6 cylinders, as that was the basis for the split in the Celica and Supra line-up. Anything else would be sacrilegious, like putting the MR2 name on a FWD sedan or something.
Click to expand...

homeforsummer
It would almost certainly be turbocharged too. It's by far the easiest method we have currently of extracting decent power out of something without making it too thirsty. The brand new F-whatever BMW 328i has a 2.0-turbo that makes 242bhp, but also does 44mpg UK/almost 37mpg US average, which is frankly astonishing. You could be talking a 300+ bhp Supra that still does 30mpg, in theory. Turbochargers are the way forward for most cars.

Apart from the GT-86 which is all the better without one.
Click to expand...
If they do a Supra, it would undoubtedly have to compete against the 370Z. How they go about is up in the air, but natural aspiration isn't dead yet. Even so, it would probably be turbo since it's conveniently part of the family's history.
 
Keef
If they do a Supra, it would undoubtedly have to compete against the 370Z. How they go about is up in the air, but natural aspiration isn't dead yet. Even so, it would probably be turbo since it's conveniently part of the family's history.
Click to expand...

This. Just because they're related to Lexus doesn't mean the Supra would be a re-badged LFA. The car needs to appeal to past supra owners and enthusiasts. Making it a $100k+ supercar would be plain stupid.
 
I reckon it'd be pitched above the 370Z. Below the LFA obviously, too. Somewhere in between. I'd be surprised if it had less than 400bhp.
 
homeforsummer
I reckon it'd be pitched above the 370Z. Below the LFA obviously, too. Somewhere in between. I'd be surprised if it had less than 400bhp.
Click to expand...
The 370Z is still in the same market as the Mustang GT and Camaro SS.
 
Keef
The 370Z is still in the same market as the Mustang GT and Camaro SS.
Click to expand...

Less power but lighter though, I'm guessing? And less hp/$ too.

Judging by where the Supra was pitched back in the 90s (generally alongside the NSX and R33) I can't now see it being too far below the current R35.
 
I'd say mid to high 300s for it's hp. I really can't see Toyota going after the R35 with it.
 
squirlybmx
I'd say mid to high 300s for it's hp. I really can't see Toyota going after the R35 with it.
Click to expand...

Nor do I, but the R35 has 550-odd horsepower or something now. I reckon the Supra will have at least 400. Just a hunch. I can see more powerful versions of the GT-86 coming along at some point - probably between 250-300bhp, so a Supra would have to offer appreciably more than that.
 
homeforsummer
Nor do I, but the R35 has 550-odd horsepower or something now. I reckon the Supra will have at least 400. Just a hunch. I can see more powerful versions of the GT-86 coming along at some point - probably between 250-300bhp, so a Supra would have to offer appreciably more than that.
Click to expand...
I'd think the Supra would be above the Z and Genesis, but not as powerful as the GT and SS. Lighter than them. A more focused sports car. They would want to steal sales from Nissan and Hyundai, which could be easy, but doing it from Ford or Chevy is more difficult because of those cars' personality. Make it powerful to poach a few buys, but don't try too hard because you're never going to capture it.

Another possible market would be Porsche 911/Chevrolet Corvette. That could also lead into an upmarket model with which to chase the Turbo/GT-R. But those are some lofty goals and very expensive to achieve, so I would bet they focus on the 370/Mustang market.
 
Keef
Another possible market would be Porsche 911/Chevrolet Corvette. That could also lead into an upmarket model with which to chase the Turbo/GT-R. But those are some lofty goals and very expensive to achieve, so I would bet they focus on the 370/Mustang market.
Click to expand...

It's really hard to judge to be honest. It probably depends on price more than anything else. The American competitors represent excellent value for money so competing against them usually requires going higher-tech to make up for a power deficit.
 
I figure that, if I were Toyota, I'd grab the V6 from the Camry, let Lotus license out their engine tune from the Evora, slap a sticker price of $33K on the window and only give buyers one option... A navigation/sunroof package. Everything else is standard.

But what is most important?

12059105.jpg
 
I dont know if this has been posted yet this of course is in reference to the BRZ the title of the autoblog article is The Masters Of AWD Nail RWD


Autoblog wrote:
And that's why there's no turbo, and no plans to include one – the engine occupies the space where Subaru would normally bolt one on. They moved so many things around, we don't know why they couldn't have been just as creative with some forced induction, but the company's traditional placement of the intercooler atop the engine simply wouldn't have worked. Subaru plans a longer life-cycle for the car, six to seven years instead of four to five, and it was strongly hinted that we would see a power bump during a mid-cycle refresh – but not a turbocharged bump. We were told as well, though, that this engine will be the base of Subaru's next-generation turbocharged engine.
 
How about putting an intercooler in the proper place, where that gaping hole in the bumper is begging to have it.
 
How about just leave it normally aspirated like a proper performance engine?

Turbos are for tractors, dragsters, and Le Mans prototypes, in my opinion. Anything intended for sporting purposes on the road, I'll take a normally aspirated screamer, thank you very much.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
How about just leave it normally aspirated like a proper performance engine?

Turbos are for tractors, dragsters, and Le Mans prototypes, in my opinion. Anything intended for sporting purposes on the road, I'll take a normally aspirated screamer, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Eric.
How about putting an intercooler in the proper place, where that gaping hole in the bumper is begging to have it.
Click to expand...

I think both parties have merit. I just wanna drive the car and then decide what it needs or doesnet need. ( Just my opinion)
 
I absolutely loved my K20 but lets not be foolish, my turbo sti makes that k20 feel weak. Think its an ej257 but regardless of the name, the turbo is awesome.
If a brz sti was to use a turbo I would be confident in the perfrmance.
 
I don't think any sane person will argue that a n/a car will be typically faster than a turbo car. Most of the time they aren't. But what you get in return, if built correctly, is an engine...an engine full of character. Throttle response, linear delivery, SOUND. Normally aspirated performance engines are like refined pieces of art...whereas forced induction units frequently feel like just that, forced induction thrust devices.

There is a reason Porsche's top driver's car, the GT3, is not turbo.

Superchargers are a bit better. They don't deaden throttle response too much, and they don't ruin the exhaust note. A screaming twin screw blower is a pretty awesome thing. I'd like to own a supercharged 20b powered rx-7 at one point.

But I wont clutter this thread with my meaningless banter :)
 
Does this car really need more power than can fit in the engine bay with an NA? Yeah it's small, but with modern engines the way they are, it doesn't seem outlandish to get all the power the chassis can make use of with a naturally aspirated setup.

What ever happened to horsepower goals?
 
Kent
I absolutely loved my K20 but lets not be foolish, my turbo sti makes that k20 feel weak.
Click to expand...

Any turbo will do that. Even if you're making the same amount of horsepower, the surge you get from the turbo will make the car feel faster. In any case, I agree with the others that an N/A engine sounds better. And are we still arguing over whether or not the car has enough power? :dunce:
 
Zenith013
Does this car really need more power than can fit in the engine bay with an NA?
Click to expand...

The short answer is, no. Every review I've read so far has said "it's not particularly fast [nb - by modern standards, that is. 7 seconds to 60 is hardly tragic] but it's brilliant fun to drive".

The car has been designed from the outset to be fun at all speeds, when most modern cars need to be thrashed well beyond legal speeds before they start being fun.

It's just unfortunate that people seem incapable of separating the concepts of fun and speed.
 
homeforsummer
The short answer is, no. Every review I've read so far has said "it's not particularly fast [nb - by modern standards, that is. 7 seconds to 60 is hardly tragic] but it's brilliant fun to drive".

The car has been designed from the outset to be fun at all speeds, when most modern cars need to be thrashed well beyond legal speeds before they start being fun.

It's just unfortunate that people seem incapable of separating the concepts of fun and speed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sort of how like Clarkson described the MP4-12c and 458. fun.
 
homeforsummer
It's just unfortunate that people seem incapable of separating the concepts of fun and speed.
Click to expand...

So many people.
It looks plenty fast enough on paper to me, and I read some reviews that say it handles really well, gives great feed back through the steering and has great throttle response. But of course there will probably be plenty of people who will buy this and only care about making it faster in a straight line, completely missing the point of the car.
 

Latest Posts

Back