Sciaru BRZFRS (BreezeFrees)

[CodeRedR51]

Why does a manual trans car have a feet rest?

Every manual trans car I have ever owned has had a foot rest.

 

[RocZX]

Because you don't spend 100% of your time pressing the clutch, so it's nice to have a dead pedal to rest it on. Also useful for bracing yourself in hard cornering. My last couple of cars have had them and I couldn't go back to a car without one now.



The close up is showing an auto trans option. You'll notice the two full interior shots have a different shifter with no graphic to the side.

Really you don't push the clutch the whole time your driving because I do . It just looked odd I never saw or noticed a feet rest in a manual and with the auto trans I thouht that they had just added the clutch to "fake" manual trans.

Every manual trans car I have ever owned has had a foot rest.

My car does not have one not even does a few others I drove unless I never noticed it.

 

[homeforsummer]

Really you don't push the clutch the whole time your driving because I do

I tend to reserve pushing the clutch for when I need to change gear or when I'm starting/stopping. The rest of the time I use the handy clutch footrest.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I tend to reserve pushing the clutch for when I need to change gear or when I'm starting/stopping. The rest of the time I use the handy clutch footrest.

He lives in New York.

That's all they do is start/stop/change gears.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm surprised anyone gets out of neutral in New York.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> ...

Every manual trans car I have ever owned has had a foot rest.

^ Lucky you, my '85 Corolla GT-S doesn't have one. But my humungous size 13 foot arches to the firewall quite neatly as my G-to footrest.

-> And also the 1st-gen Honda Fit doesn't have a footrest those insane guys a Fitfreak.com fabricated one.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I've never found it too hard pressing buttons on the centre console anyway so never felt the need for steering wheel buttons. Current car has them for bluetooth controls and stereo - never used them.

But then, I rarely listen to music in the car anyway and never use the phone, so they're redundant.

An ergonomically designed car shouldn't really need wheel-mounted buttons.

Big reason it caught on is because manufacturers touted it to be a safer option of having your hands on the wheel while adjusting whatever that is on on the wheel.

I never really use the steering wheel buttons other than cruise control to be honest.

 

[boomee]

Manual is alot more fun and I stilll feel I have more control(IMO) of the vehicle I live near DC and have never owned an auto other than my wifes daily driver

 

[homeforsummer]

Big reason it caught on is because manufacturers touted it to be a safer option of having your hands on the wheel while adjusting whatever that is on on the wheel.

I know why they exist, I just don't like them I've never personally had any safety issues with using the controls already on the dashboard in my cars because I don't tend to adjust the radio or whatever in a situation that's likely to distract my attention from the road too much.

The only thing that needs to be on the wheel is the horn. Some manufacturers went through a stage of putting it at the end of a control stalk which was just bloody stupid, as it's much easier to whack the wheel if you need to get someone's attention than it is to find a small button on the end of your indicator stalk...

 

[Jondot]

I've never found it too hard pressing buttons on the centre console anyway so never felt the need for steering wheel buttons. Current car has them for bluetooth controls and stereo - never used them.

But then, I rarely listen to music in the car anyway and never use the phone, so they're redundant.

An ergonomically designed car shouldn't really need wheel-mounted buttons.

I'm inclined to agree, though for some things it is quite handy - climate control, for example. I can hardly operate those when I'm parked, let alone driving along at 70. 'course that's because they're a hideous collection of identical buttons in the first place, but I don't quite know how you get around that. Probably by binning the system and going back to good old fashioned dials...

 

[homeforsummer]

CAR Magazine has driven the FT-86

Biggest news? It could be called Celica in some markets, where the FT-86 name will mean very little. So we have a return to RWD Celicas

Driving impressions seem good. I'm really coming around to the idea of this car again, after going off it a bit after the disappointing FT-86 II concept at Geneva.

Autocar tests it too

1280kg, same tyres as a Prius (literally, in the case of the test car), 200hp, torsen LSD, 6-speed box, ESP can be fully switched off.

Toyota is after my own heart with this one, too:

“Sports cars have gotten boring,” Toyota says. “They’re only interested in going fast.”

Though someone does need to remind Toyota that while they've been fannying about making boring stuff Mazda has been producing the MX5 for the last 22 years, so not all sports cars are concerned only with going fast...

 

[JacoJa]

I don't think I've ever been so excited about a new car before... especially after reading those reviews. I'm a Celica nutter (owned three in the last year), so I personally hope it will be badged as a Celica to return the light-weight RWD image to its name.

The lightweight 'R' version sounds ideal for me. 👍 Thank you Toyota.

 

[homeforsummer]

Agreed, I'm a Celica fan too although I've not owned one, but it's very nice to know Toyota has produced something special again.

 

[RACECAR]

Toyota says Sportscars have gotten boring? Oh the irony

In any case, I'm happy to see they are finally making a passion car again 👍

 

[Skython]

The new versions are obviously completely different from the concept visually. Which is a shame because the angles on the concept looked brilliant. But then they made it a lot more curvy.

 

[eSZee]

They took away the boy racer look fast bits, yes.

 

[Skython]

They took away the boy racer look fast bits, yes.

What boy racer bits? the first concept just had better angles, now it seems to be softened.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> Hmm...

Japan - Toyota FT-86
North America - Scion FR-S or Scion fR
Europe - Toyota Celica
Global - Subaru BRZ

^ So far so good...

 

[homeforsummer]

They took away the boy racer look fast bits, yes.

I think he was referring to the very clean early concept:

...rather than the FT-86 II that they turned into a mess of odd creases.

The major visual changes between that first concept and the production car are the hips it's gained at the back and the higher front end, which is no doubt for pedestrian impact regs:

It's stayed pretty faithful though, which is great. And without the bodykit it should look even better.

 

[boomee]

hmm looks like i got some choices soon 2011 mustang gt with all the performance bits, 2011 sti hatch, used mazda rx8( rotary or ls1 swap) or scion FR-s( prefer the subaru BRZ at this point though)

 

[JacoJa]

Some stock pictures of the FT-86. Looks neat. 👍

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2075

 

[homeforsummer]

I think of the two I'd pick the Toyota, if it came down to personal choice. If only because by picking the (more powerful) Subaru you're going against the whole ethos of the car's design, which is that you don't need the extra power to have fun in it.

Edit: The un-kitted car looks much closer to the concept, especially in that red.

 

[Skython]

I think he was referring to the very clean early concept:

...rather than the FT-86 II that they turned into a mess of odd creases.

It's stayed pretty faithful though, which is great. And without the bodykit it should look even better.

You are 100% right. The first concept was a incredible thing to look at.

 

[GT Pro]

Can someone please inform me why the majority of auto makers reveal mediocre looking production models after all the praise they receive for brilliantly designed concepts?

Nissan did it with the Tiida, Lexus did it with the LF-A, Alfa with the Brera... and now this unintentional unveiling is properly saddening for me.

 

[homeforsummer]

It's hardly that bad is it?

 

[eSZee]

I think of the two I'd pick the Toyota, if it came down to personal choice. If only because by picking the (more powerful) Subaru you're going against the whole ethos of the car's design, which is that you don't need the extra power to have fun in it.

Edit: The un-kitted car looks much closer to the concept, especially in that red.

But what if the power subaru is giving is the right number to have proper fun while toyota is giving you what toyota is known for giving you?

I think he was referring to the very clean early concept:

Ahhh, then I agree.

 

[homeforsummer]

But what if the power subaru is giving is the right number to have proper fun while toyota is giving you what toyota is known for giving you?

The only two magazines who've tested the Toyota so far both say that the Toyota is great fun as it is (and welcome the fact that it hasn't been over-endowed with loads of power or fat sticky tyres), so I'm inclined to believe them.

The whole idea behind the FT-86 is that it's great in the corners, preferably sideways, so whether you have an extra 100bhp or not is largely irrelevant. An old MX5 is great fun with 115bhp. An MG Midget is great fun with 60bhp. An original Lotus 7 is great fun with 45bhp.

All extra power does sometimes is makes it a bit easier to lose your licence, and doesn't really add to the experience.

 

[niky]

More power means you need more grip and more brakes for safety's sake. More grip and more brakes means you need more suspension to allow both to work properly. More suspension means a stiffer ride, and less tractability over rougher surfaces.

It's a vicious circle. Change one thing and everything else has to change with it. Don't change everything else and you wind up with a car that's noticeably overpowered... what some would describe as the car's engine "writing checks that the suspension and brakes can't cash".

Those who've driven (poorly) modified cars understand this... more power isn't always a good thing, and it can sometimes ruin the sensitive balance a car has. A sweet, biddable, infinitely controllable car like the MX-5 can become a twitchy, frightening monster if given too much power.

 

[homeforsummer]

Also, as I think both those articles mention, is that all the things required for more power also result in more weight. Which then needs more power to overcome it, and again it's a big circle. With expense too, the Subaru will almost certainly cost more. And be more expensive to insure, and tax, and service.

I'm glad Toyota has stepped out of the horsepower war. Making a car that's fun at low speeds is far more impressive and far more important than giving one loads of power that can only be truly enjoyed at high speeds.

 

[RACECAR]

Can someone please inform me why the majority of auto makers reveal mediocre looking production models after all the praise they receive for brilliantly designed concepts?

Nissan did it with the Tiida, Lexus did it with the LF-A, Alfa with the Brera... and now this unintentional unveiling is properly saddening for me.

I haven't seen most of the cars you list, but I disagree about the FT-86. I think it really manages to keep true to the concept for the most part.