|
ROFLBOT posted:...which is no different to many other consumer goods, for example PC hardware - theres always something better on the horizon, at some point you have to buy in. Any ETA yet on the new MX-5? Haven't heard anything from the Mazda salesmen at work yet, but I'll ask again tomorrow
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 04:33 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 05:33 |
|
|
Isizzlehorn posted:Point 4 and 5 will definitely happen with Subaru, it's a no-brainer to put the turbo'd FB into their brand new RWD sports coupe. Let the speculation begin! http://wot.motortrend.com/breaking-...-hp-143875.html
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 04:40 |
|
|
law abiding rapist posted:Ah that sounds reasonable, never trust Germans to design something simple and easy to use Put it this way: I didn't even know my WRX had automatic climate control until somebody pointed it out when they got into the car.  All you have to do is turn one or both of the dials on "auto" and it will do its thing. Alternatively, you can just move the dials where you want them. It is super simple and unobtrusive. edit: quote:Subaru recently announced the naturally aspirated FA20 should achieve 30 mpg highway. Five more horses and 20% better highway economy? Awesome! I wonder how many torks will be sacrificed and what the curve will look like though. I'm hoping they managed a sub-2000RPM spool with this engine. Edit 2: Mantle posted:Let the speculation begin! Finally, a RWD WRX   oRenj9 fucked around with this message at Dec 9, 2011 around 05:31 |
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 05:24 |
|
|
the FA20 has been confirmed as the engine for the new WRX, with a turbo charger. so there is literally this engine, with a turbo, in other Subarus. its only a matter of time before its in the BRZ.
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 08:19 |
|
|
law abiding rapist posted:Ah that sounds reasonable, never trust Germans to design something simple and easy to use Laserface posted:the FA20 has been confirmed as the engine for the new WRX, with a turbo charger.
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 08:27 |
|
|
japtor posted:buttons). How does anyone know that? No one's got their hands on one to find out
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 10:21 |
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:How does anyone know that? No one's got their hands on one to find out
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 13:45 |
|
|
Ouhei posted:Subaru has said something along the lines of there not being enough room behind the motor for the traditional turbo setups they do. Not to say they couldn't just make a front mount though. Don't the new Legacy's use a front mount?
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 15:38 |
|
|
It's nice that they confirmed a turbo FA20 as the next WRX engine, but it's all academic right now since that car is over a year away at this point. The new WRX won't be out until sometime mid 2013 so if we are going to wait on it to show up in the BRZ after the WRX, we are going to be waiting for a long time.
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 15:47 |
|
|
Here's some new reviews/impressions of the FR-S posted just recently: http://www.automobilemag.com/review...rive/index.html http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...st-drive-review Some first impressions from autoguide, a proper review will be posted tomorrow: autoguide posted:If you’re at all interested in the Scion FR-S/Toyota GT 86/Subaru BRZ then you’ve probably already read several reviews of some version of the car. Scion arranged for AutoGuide and a dozen other outlets to spend some solid time behind the wheel at Sodegaura Forest Raceway just an hour outside Tokyo, Japan. It wasn’t just a few minutes or the use of a handling course; those in attendance got plenty of seat time to get a proper feel of the brand’s new flagship machine.Along with one properly spec’ed-out Scion FR-S, there was a Euro-spec version (the very car used for testing on the Nurburgring), as well as two right-hand drive models – one a manual transmission, the other an automatic.Scheduled out into several lapping sessions we spent our first two track outings of the day getting accustomed to the course, and to driving a right hand drive machine. One thing that surprised us, and it’s something no enthusiast is going to care about, is just how good the 6-speed automatic is. Using proper steering wheel mounted paddle shifters, just a flick and it’ll gear up or down, with a speed unlike almost any auto-box we’ve ever tested. Then, we finally had our chance in a left-hand drive model. Until this point the massively hyped Toyota had impressed us, but hadn’t really wowed us. This we soon discovered was a direct result of not being as comfortable in a right-hand drive machine.Sliding into the actual Scion car, with the steering wheel now on the left side, familiarity quickly gave way to a feeling of driving bliss. No longer were the car’s much-touted handling dynamics in question. The Scion FR-S is pure and balanced, responding to inputs immediately, but smoothly. It is not, however, a raw driving experience, retaining a daily driving characteristic that Toyotas are famous for.Want more on the Scion FR-S? Watch for AutoGuide’s thorough review to drop tomorrow here. I've already gone through them, so I'll let you guys get to it. Most interesting is the repeated impression that the BRZ exhibits palpable understeer, whereas the FR-S does not. Edit: Oh hey look, the initial press briefing of the 86 translated (sorta): http://youtu.be/pbJQdPuhlrU Isizzlehorn fucked around with this message at Dec 9, 2011 around 17:26 |
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 16:58 |
|
|
I wonder if Subaru and/or Toyota will be voiding warranties for taking the car to the track. I remember reading that Subaru and Mitsu were quick to deny coverage if there was evidence of tracking WRXs and Evos. Given that the marketing for the 86 includes "you can fit 4 track tires in the back" I'd hope they'll be sensible about the whole thing... but probably not :/
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 21:14 |
|
|
Hog Obituary posted:I wonder if Subaru and/or Toyota will be voiding warranties for taking the car to the track. I remember reading that Subaru and Mitsu were quick to deny coverage if there was evidence of tracking WRXs and Evos.
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 21:18 |
|
|
InitialDave posted:What would this "evidence of track use" be, exactly? How do they magically differentiate it from hard road driving? Those rollcage attachment points they are including so you won't need to drill holes in the dash? They come with those "Warranty void if seal is broken" stickers placed over them!
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 21:55 |
|
|
Nice. I don't know if Subaru ever cared about you autocrossing or tracking the car (see: the SCCA memberships included in the first year of WRX's) they just didn't want to pay for a new transmission after you spent your weekends doing 5k clutch drops at the drag strip.
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 21:57 |
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:I don't know if Subaru ever cared about you autocrossing or tracking the car (see: the SCCA memberships included in the first year of WRX's) That's what he was referring to. Subaru offered SCCA memberships, but if you actually used them they would deny warranty service. Pretty clever way to get the people who would be racing their brand new Subarus anyway to fess up to it ahead of time so they could have their warranty work denied when stuff broke.
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 22:13 |
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:Nice. I was 99% certain that they were actually datamining SCCA as well to see if you'd tracked your car but maybe that was just Mitsubishi, not Subaru. The unfortunate reality is that manufacturers are taking advantage of readily accessible entry data to determine whether or not you have, in their eyes, "abused" the car. I know a guy who is paranoid of autocrossing his Nissan Leaf for that very reason.
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 22:17 |
|
|
Well there's at least one article in Autoweek about it: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20040705/FREE/407050725 quote:The buzz in online communities suggests Mitsubishi is cross matching names from its owner database with SCCA autocross results. Those who turn up on both lists are notified that their vehicle warranties are void, the online chatter claims. Miller says Mitsubishi wasn’t clear on how it learned of his autocrossing.
|
| # ? Dec 9, 2011 23:49 |
|
|
I don't really do it or not. I assume manufacturers are bound to do this sort of thing. But that journalist really missed the weaseling here:quote:Mitsubishi adamantly denies that it uses automated web search systems to look for Evolutions involved in race events."We don’t have people out there searching websites for names,"says Little. Like those articles, I am really surprised Toyota is making theirs less understeery. I hope the car on the whole is stable enough that kids have a blast with it and come away with the fact that it's a different than other cars.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 02:19 |
|
|
kimbo305 posted:I don't really do it or not. I assume manufacturers are bound to do this sort of thing. But that journalist really missed the weaseling here: I don't know... It says they deny using automated systems and that they don't have people searching. That kinda covers both cases, doesn't it?
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 02:40 |
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Like those articles, I am really surprised Toyota is making theirs less understeery. I hope the car on the whole is stable enough that kids have a blast with it and come away with the fact that it's a different than other cars. It's funny that in one of the first test drives the driver was complaining that after hitting the TSC button, the car would only give him a tiny bit of funny wiggle in the corners before settling back down. Then he realizes "Holy gently caress I have to hold this button down!" and doriftus through the track  .For the love of god, will scion tell us how much this thing is gonna cost already?
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 02:41 |
|
|
BoostCreep posted:I don't know... It says they deny using automated systems and that they don't have people searching. That kinda covers both cases, doesn't it? I read it as the journo inferred they don't have machines. Why didn't they just quote Little as denying both?
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 02:41 |
|
|
Isizzlehorn posted:http://www.automobilemag.com/review...rive/index.html quote:"And how will the drift FR-S differ from the production version?" we asked. "Well, of course we will put on huge rubber, and 200 hp isn't nearly enough for competition, so we'll have to turbocharge it," the California Drifter replied. kimbo305 posted:Like those articles, I am really surprised Toyota is making theirs less understeery. I hope the car on the whole is stable enough that kids have a blast with it and come away with the fact that it's a different than other cars. 
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 05:34 |
|
|
japtor posted:One thing I've wondered about, is there any particular reason to want or need turbocharging in particular vs supercharging? They have different performance characteristics. One difference is that there will be less throttle lag with supercharging because the forced induction is belt driven. Being belt driven means that you get more torque in the low rev range than with turboing. I think supercharged cars make for a better street driving experience because of the low end torque and throttle response.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 05:42 |
|
|
japtor posted:One thing I've wondered about, is there any particular reason to want or need turbocharging in particular vs supercharging? I feel like supercharging doesn't scale down as well compared to turbos, power to weight wise. They might do the trick air-to-liquid cooler built right into the manifold on top, but it'd be so small it still might heatsoak pretty quickly. I like superchargers, especially that Roots whine. But I doubt they'll put a Roots blower in.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 06:31 |
|
|
Biggest reason I can think of between supercharging/turbocharging is fuel cost. Turbocharging is much more efficient, but takes awhile to spool up and, thus, turbolag. Supercharging is plain-and-simple [more fuel = more power], but it's instantaneous from the start, so no lag whatsoever. That's the price you pay for performance. Of course, this sucker already gets 30mpg highway. Even with a supercharger it'll get decent mileage, probably better than an STI or an Evo (definitely better than an Evo). Oh yeah, the autoguide review is up now: http://www.autoguide.com/manufactur...video-1809.html tl;dr, already calling it an 'icon', interesting to note the automatic is basically the 8 speed ripped off the IS F and less 2 gears, which explains why it's so good. Isizzlehorn fucked around with this message at Dec 10, 2011 around 08:20 |
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 08:17 |
|
|
Turbochargers have one moving part in the entire system, and the simplest supercharger is going to have like 12 million parts [citation needed]. Although, the theme of this thread is goons preferring the more complicated options, so yeah supercharge.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 08:53 |
|
|
Piano posted:Turbochargers have one moving part in the entire system, and the simplest supercharger is going to have like 12 million parts [citation needed]. A supercharger requires 2 moving parts so....... It also requires no intercooler, no exhaust mods and mounts very easily on a boxer. So actually simpler option
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 08:57 |
|
|
Piano posted:Turbochargers have one moving part in the entire system, and the simplest supercharger is going to have like 12 million parts [citation needed]. A supercharger is actually really simple
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 09:02 |
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:A supercharger requires 2 moving parts so....... Pretty sure it's a lot closer to 12 million than 2.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 09:03 |
|
|
Piano posted:Pretty sure it's a lot closer to 12 million than 2. It has maybe one more moving part than the turbocharger itself, plus the belt.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 09:07 |
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:It also requires no intercooler, All the retarded "turbo lag" talk on what will be a tiny turbo if they decide to go that route reeks of Need for Speed Most Wanted bench racing.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 09:16 |
|
|
All that money spent on that M45 rebuild kit and they ripped me off something fierce apparently 
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 09:21 |
|
|
destructo posted:Neither does a turbo, You can reliably run no intercooler on a supercharger. Try that on a turbo and see how far that gets you - the supercharger adds very little in heat energy into the system. quote:All the retarded "turbo lag" talk on what will be a tiny turbo if they decide to go that route reeks of Need for Speed Most Wanted bench racing I really start to wonder sometimes if people actually understand throttle response and why even small turbos lack the instant snap of a NA or a supercharger. Throttle response actually is rather critical in extracting the most out of a chassis, rather than point and shoot turbos typically are. quote:Pretty sure it's a lot closer to 12 million than 2. You would be completely wrong, superchargers are very simple things.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 10:03 |
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:You can reliably run no intercooler on a supercharger. Try that on a turbo and see how far that gets you - the supercharger adds very little in heat energy into the system. You can reliably run a turbo without an intercooler. It does mean you get way more heat in the intake charge so you must run lower boost/lower compression/less ignition timing, but if it's tuned right and not detonating, then it's no less reliable. Of course it's suboptimal and it's definitely preferable to run an i/c, but in the 80's lots of OEM cars had no intercoolers and worked just fine (Porsche 924 turbo, Volvo 240 turbo, Mustang SVO/Merkur XR4ti, etc) I also ran a turbo setup on my Scirocco for about a year or so with no i/c and no problems.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 11:21 |
|
|
The SVO had a little topmount intercooler, hence the scoop on the roof.Piano posted:All that money spent on that M45 rebuild kit and they ripped me off something fierce apparently
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 16:19 |
|
|
Sorry, CT, you can't say a supercharger doesn't add heat energy. If you want to fit more gas into the same space, you're compressing it. If you're compressing it, you'll be heating it, there's no way around it. Yes, heat soak from the exhaust etc is a factor, but it's not the whole story. If they use a water-cooled turbocharger, that'll suck out quite a bit of heat from things too. I don't think intercooling is likely to be the issue anyway. Might need a reshaped front bumper, but I can't believe that they'd find it impossible to put a front mount in there.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 16:47 |
|
|
Isizzlehorn posted:Oh yeah, the autoguide review is up now: http://www.autoguide.com/manufactur...video-1809.html I didn't get a great feeling in the details from the review, but this bugged me: "Adding to the car’s functionality is a rear hatchback" I get if you didn't bother checking it out on the way to and from the hotlapping, but make sure you know what you're talking about if you're gonna fill it in. Though maybe they covered that in the video; I can't seem to get it to come up for me.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 17:08 |
|
|
kimbo305 posted:I didn't get a great feeling in the details from the review, but this bugged me: Yeah, I chalked that up to editor stupidity, as the review goes right on to commenting on the rear seats that fold down in order to carry a full set of racing tires and equipment. Seems the reviewer was too impressed by the drive to actually double check poo poo like that. Then again, if the FR-S did have a genuine hatch, and that was somehow overlooked by everyone except this guy, that would be a mind-blown event for sure. 0% chance of that happening, but one can speculate  .
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 18:49 |
|
|
Every shot of every version of the car shows it having a trunk. I think that's probably the only thing they did wrong - a hatch makes it that much easier to have as an only car.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 19:02 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 05:33 |
|
|
Piano posted:All that money spent on that M45 rebuild kit and they ripped me off something fierce apparently Depends on the supercharger, a turbocharger is literally a centrifugal supercharger that's driven by exhaust instead of the crank. M45s are a twin screw which have a bunch of gears and poo poo for the two counter rotating lobes.
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2011 21:30 |
|
