By on July 14, 2015

Subaru BRZ STI Performance Concept

It seems enthusiasts aren’t the only folks looking for a little more performance from the rear-wheel drive Subaru BRZ. Subaru of America COO Tom Doll would also like a little more performance — in terms of sales — from the sports car co-developed with Toyota.

Thankfully, he sees the best way to increase interest in the BRZ is to give us what we want.

Maybe.

Speaking on Autoline Detroit (via AutoGuide), Doll said: “We may have to do some things to (the BRZ) to enhance the driving performance a little more; take it up a little bit. Because I think that’s one of the learnings we’ve seen out of that vehicle, if it had a little bit more performance to it, it could really take up the sales level even more.”

Earlier this year, officials at Subaru confirmed a STI-branded BRZ would go on sale in the United States, but didn’t reveal specs or additions beyond the current car.

In addition to admitting the BRZ needs more performance — whether that means bumping up the power or giving the car some other tweaks — Doll also mentioned a second generation of the BRZ is still up in the air and wholly dependent on the intentions of executives in Japan.

A second-generation BRZ may also depend on Toyota. It’s been rumored the larger Japanese manufacturer is envious of the new Mazda MX-5 Miata — so much so that they’d be willing to use the architecture for the next Toyota GT86 and Scion FR-S. If that’s the case, don’t expect Subaru to follow suit.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

85 Comments on “Subaru of America COO: BRZ Needs ‘More Performance’...”


  • avatar
    jeanbaptiste

    Performance? What are they installing Jazz-hands in this thing?

  • avatar
    Pch101

    If they’re serious about the car having a future, then they’ll provide us Yanks with a more powerful standard engine, and provide different engine options for the rest of the world that account more for fuel economy/CO2 emissions and, as necessary, Japan’s displacement tax.

  • avatar

    THE BR-Z should have had twin turbos and been a 400HP (or better) car.

    It’s so PATHETIC watching these “professional reviewers” talk about how “they don’t need to go fast to enjoy the driving experience” as if Subaru slipped them a few thousand in cash to downplay the fact its power output SUCKED.

    I test drove the BR-Z the moment my Subaru got them.

    I’m like: This is the most overhyped piece of trash EVER.

    The interior was bland and it seriously felt like they wanted to build a GT-R for a 3rd the price.

    You really can’t overhype 200HP.

    The BR-Z and FR-S are very striking cars when you see them. Then you realize, they are glorified snails.

    The HYUNDAI GENESIS COUPE was ALWAYS the better option.
    A far more practical car in every way and far more exciting to drive.

    When you mention it: SOME IDIOT always wants to say: “awwwww but iiit doezn’t corner az well”…

    and that’s when I really lose it on em…

    • 0 avatar
      djsyndrome

      ” “awwwww but iiit doezn’t corner az well”…”

      Those people aren’t idiots; they’re absolutely right. You can’t fight mass, and the Genesis has almost half a ton more than the BR-Z.

    • 0 avatar
      Ihatejalops

      No. It just needs a 50 – 100mph bump. THat’s all. No body kit. Affordable horsepower that’s fun to drive. Maybe add in awd.

    • 0 avatar
      tedward

      I’ve got to disagree with you on this one. The brz weighs so much less than the Hyundai that they feel completely different on a windy road. The Hyundai is faster in a straight line but the Hyundai’s clutch, shifter etc, aren’t as good so it ends up being an interesting comparison. I personally think the gearbox difference alone would be enough to push me to the subie, but if I was looking at automatics it might be a different story.

    • 0 avatar
      BrunoT

      More caps please.

      You must be young. And not because of the immaturity of the rant. But you’re power spoiled. The car could use more power to make it more fun, but that’s hardly its most pressing need. My current car gets to 60mph in a little over seconds, but I use that power …..almost never. There are other cars on the road and you come off like an idiot flooring it from stoplight to stoplight and blazing around at max speed most places. I also owned two BMW 540i’s an E90 3 series, and an SUV with 325 hp, and an ’85 Supra. The Supra was just as fun to drive at 2600 lbs and 160 hp (8.1 seconds to 60) as the expensive 540i’s You just have to learn how to drive more than straight lines at the shopping mall parking lot.

    • 0 avatar
      dantes_inferno

      > When you mention it: SOME IDIOT always wants to say: “awwwww but iiit doezn’t corner az well”…

      You mean some idiot who complains that it doesn’t corner as well while texting at the same time.

    • 0 avatar
      Maintainer

      Keep in mind that the “enthusiasts” that were clamoring for this car also still have Study Hall and Homeroom every day.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Can’t believe how close the Genesis Coupe and the BRZ are on price. I would have assumed the Genesis was much more expensive.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      Given such a mouthful of highly subjective opinion, you have failed to demonstrate the existence of a 400HP car that’s not a heavy pig and costs under 30 grand. Have I missed something?

  • avatar
    djsyndrome

    I’m fine with the numeric horsepower as-is, but for god’s sake ship it with a new ECU that fixes the torque dip.

    • 0 avatar
      DevilsRotary86

      I agree. Personally I think the FR-S/BRZ are almost perfect as is. For better or worse though, the market at large doesn’t agree. I won’t comment if that’s good or bad, it just is.

      So yeah, I don’t think it needs more horsepower. I would rather it stay its light tiny self. Fixing the torque dip would be nice though, and I read recently on GRM that a light weight flywheel also livens up the car. I couldn’t believe the stock flywheel is 20.5 lbs! The 16lbs flywheel in my RSX-S is one of the great little things about my car.

      Really, I would be in an FR-S/BRZ right now, except for one problem. My RSX-S runs great, I am really happy in it, and I am too frugal to sign a new car loan when the current one runs great.

      • 0 avatar
        djsyndrome

        Keep the RSX and be happy that you own one of the last great Acuras. That car never gets enough credit.

        And yes, the flywheel *feels* heavy. Between that and the stupid clutch spring, I know exactly where my dollars are going the moment I cross 60k miles.

        • 0 avatar
          dantes_inferno

          I second that motion – keep the RSX. With the amount of gadgets automakers keep adding to their vehicles these days, the adage “there’s beauty in simplicity” gains even more traction.

      • 0 avatar
        BrunoT

        They could use a Mustang-grade interior and an optional turbo engine if that’s possible. And more attractive wheel options. That’s about it.

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      My theory is that the midrange was sacrificed for the upper end per the variable valve timing (within the boundary conditions of emissions, durability, etc.). The VVT on this engine basically has two stops… normal timing and advanced timing. That is why you see the double hump. They went a little aggressive on the advanced timing to keep the torque as the revs pushed out to 7000RPM but that cam timing position hosed the mid range. The gearing is aggressive enough that I don’t find myself in the dip unless I’m really not paying attention.

      The Lexus NX uses the same style oil control valve for the VVT, but it has 3 positions instead of 2. Normal, advanced timing, and retarded timing (simulated atkinson cycle). I think that Subaru will apply that wide angle VVT to help fill in that gap. It could be normal, advanced 1, advanced 2. Think of it like 3 phase AC. Assuming the crank, rods, and pistons are up to task, they could even give it a little more revs from the factory without making a huge valley at the mid range.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    I mean, how fast do you really want to hit potholes?

    • 0 avatar
      dantes_inferno

      > I mean, how fast do you really want to hit potholes?

      About as fast as those individuals who want to fork out $$$$ every year to replace the suspension.

  • avatar

    Sadly, if it was softer, it would be a much better car.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    300 hp would be just fine with that fairly lightweight chassis, let’s not get crazy children.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      Honestly it’d probably be fine with 250 or so, or even 220 if it had a better torque curve. The idea that a car like this can sell as a fun drive without crazy horsepower is a valid one I think, but I think they just shot too low and did it with an engine that requires you to rev too high. An engine that you CAN rev high and have fun is one thing, but needing to blow on up to 6000+ RPM just to merge onto the interstate is absurd in a modern car, never mind a “performance vehicle”.

    • 0 avatar
      BrunoT

      Youtube is full of amusing videos of these speed demons who have more engine than chassis and driving skill.

      • 0 avatar
        dantes_inferno

        > Youtube is full of amusing videos of these speed demons who have more engine than chassis and driving skill.

        You mean more engine than chassis, driving skill, and common sense.

  • avatar
    xpistns

    This is a really old argument.

    – The problem is that the FRS/BRZ looks like a serious sports car so people will expect it to perform like one. If you’re going to make mediocre power don’t put it in a pretentious car. Case in point: the Miata is not a pretentious car but makes (good enough) power for the visual statement it makes. The FRS/BRZ looks like a next generation Supra but performs more like a 4-banger Camry.
    – This is America. We like to drag race. I don’t want to get smoked by my buddy’s mom in her 273hp V6 Camry from the stoplight. More power please.

    No one would complain if this car followed the spirit of the original Corolla GTS which was a practical car turned up to 11. This is a serious (looking) sports car turned down to 4. They should have designed this thing to look more like the current Corolla but perform like a Supra. I think the Toyota executives were so much in love with the original 5-Axis concept (awesome design) that they didn’t care the car didn’t have acceptable hp for the American market.

    I drive an RX-8, love the Miata, and don’t mind the 200 HP in the FRS/BRZ–but I understand the market here a bit better than the people that brought this car to the American market.

    I don’t understand why they just don’t STI (read: turbocharge) this thing. Sure, it’ll upset that balance, but isn’t that the point? So go ahead an uprate the springs/shocks/swaybars/tires/brakes. Just do it. If it doesn’t go over 30k it’ll sell.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The car was designed for Japan’s expensive gas and a 2.0-liter displacement tax, not for us.

      • 0 avatar
        xpistns

        Thank you. They get gruel for breakfast then try to sell it to us. I actually like the looks of the new Corolla. if that were RWD with 200hp, I’d be all over it if I didn’t have the RX-8.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          I wouldn’t get offended. I’m just noting that there isn’t enough global demand to make too many variants of it. TMC makes a lot of cars that focus on American tastes, but this ain’t one of them.

        • 0 avatar
          BrunoT

          If my wife was 18 again, she’d be hanging out with her cheerleader friends at my house by the pool. The Corolla is a fwd car.

      • 0 avatar
        DevilsRotary86

        Which is one of the reasons that I love it. I have a thing for Japanese cars. I don’t want an Accord or Civic or Camry. If I wanted a car designed in America, built by Americans, and sold to Americans I would have bought a Focus. But I don’t want something American. When I buy an import I want something a little off beat and quirky. Something that doesn’t entirely make sense on the roads of Texas that I frequent. As far as I am concerned they can take one of their Japanese models, put the wheel on the left side, and put it on the boat and I will buy it.

        The irony is that as the Japanese car companies have become more successful it’s harder to buy an actual Japanese car.

        • 0 avatar
          hubcap

          ” If I wanted a car designed in America, built by Americans, and sold to Americans I would have bought a Focus.”

          I understand your point. The Focus, though, to my understanding, is a U.K./German car bought to the U.S. under One Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      “This is America. We like to drag race.”

      F*ckin’ A! You should see the Morticia Adams outfit I race in!

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Your friend’s mom sounds like a fun lady.

    • 0 avatar
      dantes_inferno

      > – This is America. We like to drag race.

      I believe those individuals are referred to as “cop magnets” or “organ donors”

  • avatar
    Brumus

    Forget the BRZ, when are they going to give the Crosstrek something vaguely approaching adequate power?

    • 0 avatar
      Nostrathomas

      If you want the performance version of the Crosstrek, you get the WRX or STI.

      • 0 avatar
        derekson

        He’s not asking for a performance version, he’s asking for a version with comparable power to competitors instead of being an underpowered dog. All they’d need to do is put the 2.5L in it instead of the 2.0. It doesn’t need to get a WRX 2.0T (although that option would be cool too.)

        Also you can’t get a WRX hatch/wagon anymore.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          You don’t even need a 2.5L…you just need a 2.0L with more than 148 frigging horsepower.

          Honestly, who makes an NA four with less than 75hp/liter anymore? Subaru…that’s who. And Toyota, in their POS Corolla.

          Even in an $18,000 Focus with steel wheels, you get a 2.0L with 160 hp. Not hard.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            The Civic has a mere 11hp more than the Corolla, and one foot pound more torque.

            Let’s not pretend there’s some sort of bright line of “awesome/suck” between the two, which are basically identical in every practical sense.

            “The power ratio!!!” is *utterly not* the market for any of those vehicles.

            (And the XV? Yeah, 148 hp out of 2L.

            A mere 2hp under the target 75hp/l.

            Waily! Might as well just give up, right?)

      • 0 avatar
        djsyndrome

        Please direct me to the nearest Subaru dealer that will sell me a new WRX or STI with a hatchback.

    • 0 avatar
      Chopsui

      Agreed. Such a great looking vehicle going to waste because of that boneheaded engine choice.

  • avatar
    hotdog453

    There’s zero chance they’ll give it 400hp, but I fail to see why they couldn’t make the fa20dit into it, like the aftermarket already has.

    http://www.carthrottle.com/post/this-300bhp-wrxengined-brz-is-the-car-we-wish-subaru-would-make/

  • avatar
    Drew8MR

    You guys are getting ruined by the horsepower wars. WRX levels of power would be more than enough,assuming reasonable gearing. My Evo VIII only pulled 215 on the dyno (conservative or accurate? who knows, but the tuner said that’s what all the VIIIs pulled on his rig) when it was brand new and it was plenty fast.

  • avatar
    joeveto3

    I’d like to see more torque. But more than that, a sunroof. I sit in it and it’s too closed in. It needs a sunroof option for those of us that like that sort of thing.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Needs more performance? Well no sh!t. Maybe I should be executive Vice President of the Americas for a car company.

    We knew that before this pile hit the showroom floor.

    Make it fast and it will have a chance to sell.

  • avatar

    The BRZ STI Performance concept that Subaru introduced at the NY auto show was mostly to sell aftermarket parts. Though they implied that it had the 350 hp turbo engine from the BRZ Super GT race car, and one of those engines was on display next to the car, when I checked out the interior, the gearshift said PRNDL so I doubt it had the race motor in it.

    I very much enjoyed the FR-S that I had for a week. While another 50 horsepower would transform it from a decently quick sports car to fast, I wouldn’t want to mess with the car’s balance. It was really a pleasure to drive.

    While I like naturally aspirated power, a bigger engine might upset the weight balance. I wonder how much a supercharger, mounted between the cylinder banks on the top of the engine, would change the weight and center of gravity of the engine.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      Ronnie,

      Take a look at the sprintex supercharger for these cars. As an aftermarket solution, it’s damn near perfect, can be had for $3500 with tuning, and installed in an afternoon with hand tools, replacing the factory intake manifold and looking damn near stock.

      It gives the car roughly 225hp at the wheels, which is ~260-270 at the crank. For an extra $1200, they offer an intercooled version that bumps it up to 290 at the crank, 250 at the wheels and ups reliability in high stress situations.

      I’ve been looking at them and other coupes recently recently, and a S/Ced 86 really seems like the next performance car to scratch my itch, though it’s in a close heat with a used 370Z.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        This sounds like what it should have come with from the factory. Heck Subbie’s claim to fame is: AWD and turbo. Given the torque problems of the current engine adding a turbo for a 75 HP boost would be near perfect. They need to trim about a second off its 0-60 time to make it feel fast… you know like an actual sports car. My wife’s Volvo can out run the car as is. Sure the BRZ will rule on a track with twists and braking zones, but when do you encounter those conditions? Oh that’s right – only at the track where guys are running striped Miatas (save MORE weight) or V8 Mustangs, Camaros or ‘Vettes that leave you in their dust regardless. It doesn’t have to that fast but it needs to move up into the Genesis Coupe / 370Z range to be respectable.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    “Cadillac need robust, large, torque rich V8s (or at least standard V6s) in every model, large, comfortable rear seats in every model, excellent interior and exterior fit, finish, trim, stitching & materials, stellar reliability & durability, a PLUSH ride in every model, bold, attractive but not gaudy exterior styling, a price point that undercuts German rivals and is no more expensive than more reliable better built Lexus, and a gauge cluster that looks better than the one from a 1989 Hyundai Pony Excel in every model.”

    – Captain Obvious

  • avatar
    RHD

    If the only comments posted here were by people who have actually driven a BRZ, there would be very few postings indeed.
    Sort of like Miatas, those who put them down have never driven one.
    So I won’t comment on its interior quality, cornering abilities or acceleration, since I could only repeat someone else’s second hand opinion, which would be rather pointless.

  • avatar
    runs_on_h8raide

    I’ve driven this car plenty of times. It is slow. I’d much rather have a used S2000 than a new BRZ. It needs 240-250hp for it to be the perfect affordable sports car that the press believes it to be.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    I think 200hps fine, the problem is you can get a 200hp Fiesta ST for less and still have a “slow but amazingly fun car to drive on a track”, or a Miata and own something with a legacy behind its title.

    Or if you really want that extra power you can get a WRX for similar prixing, same dealer. Comes with 4WD and extra doors too.

  • avatar
    Giltibo

    Want a clue?

    Look at the other end of the showroom!

    S T i

    iT’S NOT LIKE THE [email protected]#$% POWERTRAIN DOESN’T EXIST!

  • avatar
    geozinger

    LS or LT V8 FTW.

    There are folks out there that are already doing it.

    I think the disappointment with this car was the hype behind it at release. This thing (on this blog, even) was touted as the second coming. It hasn’t turned out that way.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    500ccs more displacement across the board for that FA engine. Yep, in the WRX too, and they could finally retire the ancient EJ in the STi. Super simple.

  • avatar
    shaker

    So, are there any aftermarket turbo kits for this car? You’d think that they’d be quite popular – unless the drivetrain isn’t strong enough.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      Its been said there isn’t enough space under the hood for a turbo, this is also why they haven’t tried out any other engines.

      They could be weak too, Baruth made an older post at his blog on track-day FRS’s that would break not long in, largely stock examples at that.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      There are several aftermarket SC options complete with tuning for $4500 and installable with hand tools in an afternoon. I know a guy who regularly tracks an Innovate/Sprintex one (twin screw variety blower) and it does just fine.

      Vortech, Kraftwerks, and Jackson Racing all offer compact Rotrex blower (looks like a turbo) versions as well at the same price point.

  • avatar
    7402

    They (Subaru/Toyota) should just follow MINI’s lead and market an “S” version that has about 25% more power (with a better torque curve) at about a 15-20% price premium. It’s probably not that hard to just pop in the version of the FA20 used in the Forester XT which weighs a lot more. Add a badge, and one distinguishing feature at each end like a hood scoop and a look-at-me spoiler. Give the base version softer suspension and the “S” version stiffer suspension with a standard lower profile tire and a brake upgrade.

    Done.

  • avatar
    wmba

    God knows how many cars I’ve driven in the past 50 years. This one stands out as the worst relative to expectations and pre-release hype.

    I’ve had the displeasure of driving three, an FR-S way back in May 2012 and two BRZ subsequently, the last two to ensure my initial reaction was correct. It was, unfortunately.

    Adding displacement won’t fix the thing – the uneven power delivery wouldn’t change. It needs a decent intake manifold redesign, since even a toddler can draw four pipes from a tiny plenum with no engineering knowledge whatsoever, and that’s what this thing has. Subaru apparently hasn’t a clue how to make a refined normally aspirated engine with an even power curve – I have a turbo one and it isn’t great either, but at least it’s not actively annoying.

    If the thing had a decent engine, lost some weight because it’s almost as heavy as a Civic for no known reason, it might sell.

    Since its introduction, not a penny has been spent improving the powertrain, not an hour spent on refining it. Its reliability has been awful. There is precious little about it to engender owner satisfaction because its noisy, unpleasant engine sound and weak torque on the street has nothing to recommend it, the gearbox action isn’t that great and the clutch pedal operation is just bad.

    Sales reflect reality. This thing is a t*rd, pure and simple and a pretty unprofessional job in this day and age. A Mazda3 walks over it for driver involvement on the street, and I’m sure the new MX-5 will beat it back into the further obscurity it surely deserves.

    No wonder Toyota wants to base the next one on the Miata. Duh.

    • 0 avatar
      djsyndrome

      “A Mazda3 walks over it for driver involvement on the street”

      Hyperbole levels at maximum.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        But the Mazda 3 uses racing car technology!

      • 0 avatar
        brenschluss

        It’s hyperbolic but true to an extent.

        When I test drove these cars they felt fine, but for the extremely unpleasant power delivery. But what’s “involvement,” anyway? I didn’t feel any more “involved” sitting at a stop light or going straight at 40MPH in this than in my own boring little pod.

        If you’re finding rotation or otherwise actually driving a car, I hope you’re fully involved in the process regardless of what’s being driven. I’m sure this is a better car than the Mazda3 or any other compact if you care only about behavior when cornering at the edge of traction, but I don’t think it’s so much more fun even in that situation that it makes up for the fact that it isn’t appreciably faster and can’t carry much stuff. That Mazda will also be plenty “involving” at its limit, plus it will carry $400 worth of Kirkland Signature, and you’re not giving up much shove.

        Give it another 50-odd HP, make sure the engines all stay together, and it’s a compelling lightweight sports coupe. Right now most people spend too little time experiencing slip angle to buy an impractical car that handles well but is neither fast nor a convertible.

  • avatar
    Nedmundo

    While the BRZ/FR-S could certainly use more power, IMO the main issue is torque. It simply needs more, without the torque dip in the middle of the rev range. The car is light enough that I suspect another 20 lb.-ft. would make a huge difference. A small turbo like the 1.6T in the Fiesta ST would be fantastic.

    Indeed, I recall that Subaru showed a 1.6T boxer motor a few years ago, and it might fit the bill. I wonder what’s become of that engine.

    BTW, I have tested an FR-S, and I simply loved it, even though it had an automatic. I was shocked that an automatic could fit that car so well, and I generally hate automatics. If I lived in the suburbs and had the space for an extra car, I probably would have bought an FR-S or BRZ by now.

  • avatar
    LS1Fan

    The dilemma with the BRZ/FRS is not the vehicles’ power. The problem is with their intended customers.
    This conclusion became clear to me after I saw a backwards-cap wearing moron on my trip home last week. The car he drove; a faded maroon 1990s Camaro Z28 with shiny & heavy Eagle 077 rims. Upon seeing my own 2002 example he hurled the car around urban traffic like a total arse.

    While I realize the members of TTAC are mature enthusiasts (snicker), the rest of the US driving public frankly can’t handle performance cars well. Don’t believe me? Call the insurance companies,and while you’re on hold for the stats department go search YouTube for ‘_insert your favorite performance car_ wrecks’.

    At the high end , the steep price for a performance car such as an AMG or Corvette acts as a small financial incentive to act right behind the wheel. At the proletariat level , neither the maturity or the skill exists in a mass scale for a firm to sell a 400 HP car without accepting the risk a LOT of them will end up at a wrecking yard.

    While historical cars like the Camaro and Mustang get around this by offering lower output V6s and pricing their go-fast models higher, for these ToyoBarus that business model doesn’t work.
    Their entire sales niche is ‘enthusiast fo-rehn car’.If they drop a 300 HP motor in them the price goes up, marginal revenue is unlikely to increase , and more cars are gonna get wrecked. Which means the insurance companies will whack them on the back end, and unlike Mr. AMG the buyers of these cars can’t afford sports car premiums. That’s why where I grew up at, the only folks driving brand new V8 F-cars were women and men who lied on their insurance forms.

  • avatar
    John R

    Just put the FA20F motor in there, find a place for the intercooler and be done with it.

    Oh, and ditch those Prius tires.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    I’m surprised no one has mentioned the price of these things. Has anyone noticed that the Scion version has climbed to within $25 (MSRP) of the BRZ ($25,670 vs $25,695)? It’s been creeping closer ever since the cars came out. At least the dealer might knock some cash off the BRZ that’s been on the lot for 4 months, and with better equipment (standard Nav, etc), the Subaru becomes the much better buy.

    Another thing is, you have to really really want one of these things to pay the premium. The interiors are just so awful in these things. They’d be great interiors for an ’88 Supra, but for cars that hit the road in 2012 they have no place in the market. And of course, no improvements are coming from the manufacturers. Primitive radio? Check. Terribly slow nav? Check. Tinny doors, Cobalt-grade plastics and knobs, and no controls on the steering wheel? Triple check.

    Seriously, go sit in a base, no options V6 Mustang with 100 more hp, and tell me you would rather pay two grand more to sit inside an FR-s. The Mustang is only retro on the outside, whereas Toyota/Subaru decided to go retro on the inside in the worst (and most authentic) way possible.

    At 20 grand, there might be a point to these cars. At $27K+ after taxes, forget it.

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    I can’t understand why someone would not want more power, it’s not like anyone is talking about putting a boat anchor iron block V8 in there that will ruin handling.

    Something like that’s in the current “base” Subaru WRX 2.0L turbo would be night and day and would not hurt the driving dynamics.

    Very few people want a sports car experience that only focuses on handling. A new Chevy Tahoe would blow the doors off this thing at the dragstrip, you can’t tell me that doesn’t make a “sports car” buyer consider other options.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • MoDo: GM would have walked once they saw that the company was essentially vaporware as well – it’s a...
  • SCE to AUX: “They aren’t – they were just willing to waste more of other people’s money.” When the 2009...
  • SCE to AUX: All EVs enjoy the same ‘big fat government subsidy’, and in that ecosystem, Tesla owns the...
  • SCE to AUX: I agree with you, krhodes1. But suppliers get very testy when they don’t get paid – just look...
  • HotPotato: As a former C-Max owner, I’m interested in the plug-in hybrid. But there are two kinds of...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States