|
Phy posted:Upshift, upshift, downshift, downshift, turn to steering lock left, turn to steering lock right, turn to steering lock left, turn to steering lock right, mash brake, mash accelerator, turn key. That should be an actual sequence to unlock something.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Crustashio posted:That should be an actual sequence to unlock something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
Phy posted:Upshift, upshift, downshift, downshift, turn to steering lock left, turn to steering lock right, turn to steering lock left, turn to steering lock right, mash brake, mash accelerator, turn key. Dammit, beaten. I decided a couple years ago that I don't want to drop more than $25k when I replace the shitbox, but the more I read about this car, the more flexible I am when it comes to how often I care to eat out in a month. That said, I'm still cross shopping the Veloster Turbo, because I love liftbacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
grover posted:what sort of moron would design this car to hit the rev limiter in 2nd gear at 59.2mph? Someone who realized bench racing is for real morons only?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Someone who realized bench racing is for real morons only?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Someone who realized bench racing is for real morons only? I do have to say that I appreciated that little bit of no-compromises design.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Someone who realized bench racing is for real morons only? The decision to set the shift point at 59.2mph is ultimately going to hurt sales. Maybe just be a few %, but it's going to hurt sales. I would not be one bit surprised if we see the rev-limiter quietly get raised a few rpm in future test mules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Almost all speedos over read a few percent - I don't think anyone will actually realise they're just shy of sixty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
grover posted:You and I know it's irrelevant to real-world performance as everyone is going to shift right about that spot anyhow, but 0-60 is a standard benchmark of performance, and there's a big difference between 6.8 and 7.3 second 0-60 times. We're reading these articles now and know that a half second of that is due to shifting, but that's going to be lost on a LOT of consumers who are going to look at those numbers and think it's a half second slower than it actually is. That's a lot of words that tries to justify that anyone who wants a good HANDLING car will be into bench racing and it's nonsense. The BRZ is for people like me, not you. We aren't looking at the stupid stats, we are gobbling every word about how it corners and drooling. If you want to dick wave numbers, go get a Rustang, Subaru / Toyota dont care (clearly), dick waving bench racers arent getting their wallets out. People who want driving dynamics above all else are beginning to queue now. The MX5 isnt sold on worthless bench racing stats. It's sold on flinging it into a hairpin and it's worked for 20+ years. Guess what this car is sold on? If you want 0-60 (or care), this car is not for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:That's a lot of words that tries to justify that anyone who wants a good HANDLING car will be into bench racing and it's nonsense. The BRZ is for people like me, not you. We aren't looking at the stupid stats, we are gobbling every word about how it corners and drooling. If you want to dick wave numbers, go get a Rustang, Subaru / Toyota dont care (clearly), dick waving bench racers arent getting their wallets out. People who want driving dynamics above all else are beginning to queue now. That doesn't make him wrong. From a business standpoint it's still a stupid thing to do. And I don't know why you're attacking him for stating that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
grover posted:You and I know it's irrelevant to real-world performance as everyone is going to shift right about that spot anyhow, but 0-60 is a standard benchmark of performance, and there's a big difference between 6.8 and 7.3 second 0-60 times. We're reading these articles now and know that a half second of that is due to shifting, but that's going to be lost on a LOT of consumers who are going to look at those numbers and think it's a half second slower than it actually is. 0-60 in 6.8 seconds vs 7.3 seconds sounds like a lot, but in reality, it's one car length at the most. Even if that's important to you, most rev limiters have enough "flexibility" that 60 mph should be attainable if the limiter kicks in at 59.2 mph. Lots of manufacturers twist their 0-60 times with stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:The MX5 isnt sold on worthless bench racing stats. It's sold on flinging it into a hairpin and it's worked for 20+ years. Guess what this car is sold on? Except that most of the people buying the Miata aren't doing much more than flinging it through the starbucks drive through. It has that "cute affordable convertible" thing going for it to keep sales numbers up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
MrChips posted:0-60 in 6.8 seconds vs 7.3 seconds sounds like a lot, but in reality, it's one car length at the most. Even if that's important to you, most rev limiters have enough "flexibility" that 60 mph should be attainable if the limiter kicks in at 59.2 mph. Lots of manufacturers twist their 0-60 times with stuff like that. It still sounds like a huge difference to someone who doesn't know a whole lot about cars. It's the same sort of psychological effect that $499 vs $500 is. It's really only $1 but it makes it much more attractive to people. And even if the car isn't really for 'those people,' you should still understand that it's in your best interest for Toyota to sell as many of these as possible to promote a larger aftermarket and cheaper parts availability etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:That doesn't make him wrong. From a business standpoint it's still a stupid thing to do. And I don't know why you're attacking him for stating that. For a normal car maybe, but in this case he is dead wrong. BRZ buyers are not going to care because if they / we wanted 0-60 there's something called a WRX that'll fix that just fine for not much more. Or a Mustang. Take your pick. The fact is that the excitement about this car has had zero to do with it's acceleration quote:someone who doesn't know a whole lot about cars Not the target market. The target market knows what a racetrack is for
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:For a normal car maybe, but in this case he is dead wrong. BRZ buyers are not going to care because if they / we wanted 0-60 there's something called a WRX that'll fix that just fine for not much more. The target market is probably more 'people that want to imagine that they're going to go racing each weekend.' As much as you desperately want to believe that Toyota is making a car for a couple thousand people, they're not. Hardcore racers are not the only people they're targeting (and it would be stupid to do that) and the car would have never been produced if it was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:As much as you desperately want to believe that Toyota is making a car for a couple thousand people, they're not. Actually, by projected sales numbers, it appears that's exactly what they're doing...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
Does the general public really have a good strong standard of 0-60 times in their head? Off the top of my head, I could only tell you the 0-60 times of like 2 cars, one of which I own, and then the Ariel Atom. Do I need to go back to bench racing school?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:That doesn't make him wrong. From a business standpoint it's still a stupid thing to do. And I don't know why you're attacking him for stating that. It's seriously not really that big of a deal. There's several companies that have extremely successful sports cars that take 3 shifts to get to 60mph and are probably half a second slower than they could be because of it. If someone really cares that much about 0-60 there are several cars at that price range that are well into the low/mid 5s anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Piano posted:Does the general public really have a good strong standard of 0-60 times in their head? In my experience, absolutely not. Most people who don't know about cars are more likely to think something is fast in spite of its published numbers, not because of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Guys, only 14,000 of them are coming to the US this year and almost all of them have been bought up already. I highly doubt they're going to have any issues selling the remainder because they didn't make 2nd gear marginally longer. Edit: 14,000 including FR-S's
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
emoltra posted:almost all of them have been bought up already. Is this actually true, because I've not seen any numbers on how many orders they've already got. But, you're absolutely right, they're not going to have even one of these things sitting on the lot because 2nd tops out slightly under 60.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
With a sports car comes sacrifice. With the 370z you sacrifice being able to haul people or things. With the mustang you sacrifice maneuverability. With the BRZ, you sacrifice the ability to keep up with an f-150 in a strait line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Is this actually true, because I've not seen any numbers on how many orders they've already got. But, you're absolutely right, they're not going to have even one of these things sitting on the lot because 2nd tops out slightly under 60. Oh I'm not arguing (and I don't think Grover was either) that it's going to make a substantial difference in sales, it was more of a 'why wouldn't you increase it a tiny bit to make a few extra sales?' kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Is this actually true, because I've not seen any numbers on how many orders they've already got. But, you're absolutely right, they're not going to have even one of these things sitting on the lot because 2nd tops out slightly under 60. Yep, call your local Scion / Subaru dealer and ask how many of their allotted units are left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
emoltra posted:Yep, call your local Scion / Subaru dealer and ask how many of their allotted units are left. Weren't most of them getting like 3 at most? I doubt they've sold the entire production run yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Weren't most of them getting like 3 at most? I doubt they've sold the entire production run yet. In most cases dealers have sold 60% - 70% of their year's allotment, and this is before the MSRP has been announced (in the BRZ's case) and before any sort of marketing campaign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Powershift posted:With a sports car comes sacrifice. With the 370z you sacrifice being able to haul people or things. With the mustang you sacrifice maneuverability. I wonder what flaws the Evo and STI have by this logic. Closest I can think of is that they are based on lower market cars?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
BoostCreep posted:I wonder what flaws the Evo and STI have by this logic. Closest I can think of is that they are based on lower market cars? I might be totally wrong here, but weren't the EVO and Sti (initially) basically mass market version of already designed and produced rally cars? Makes sense to try to make some money when you've already invested the R&D and tooling. As far as I know, the 370z and the BRZ were not designed originally for motorsports and then sold to the public
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
BoostCreep posted:I wonder what flaws the Evo and STI have by this logic. Closest I can think of is that they are based on lower market cars? Understeer?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Understeer? Potentially, but with the Evo's SAYC and STI's DCCD that's much less of a problem than it used to be. Especially compared to their 90's counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Understeer?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 03:07
|
|
|
BoostCreep posted:Potentially, but with the Evo's SAYC and STI's DCCD that's much less of a problem than it used to be. Especially compared to their 90's counterparts. The US versions never got SAYC and most drivers worth a poo poo got rid of it as it hindered rather than helped. With that said, the Evo understeers like a pig unless you do a bunch of fun things to the suspension and suspension geometry. STi was much better in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Belldandy posted:The US versions never got SAYC and most drivers worth a poo poo got rid of it as it hindered rather than helped. With that said, the Evo understeers like a pig unless you do a bunch of fun things to the suspension and suspension geometry. Sorry, I was specifically referencing the Evo X with the SAYC comment. Most reviews of the newest generation Evo vs. STI stuff has the STI understeering considerably more than the Evo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
I'm surprised at how much better fuel economy the Auto gets vs. the Manual (28 vs 25 combined MPG). With $5 a gallon gas on the way, and surely $6 a gallon during the time I own the car, am I a bad person for even considering the auto? The videos featuring auto equipped cars didn't seem that bad. Right now I'm paying about 300 bucks a month on gas for my 07 Legacy (22mpg combined), an expense that I'd love to shave down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
smooth jazz posted:I'm surprised at how much better fuel economy the Auto gets vs. the Manual (28 vs 25 combined MPG). Didn't they change the way Fuel Economy is calculated a few years ago? Anyway I was also rather surprised at the difference between auto and manual, I feel like they flogged the engine a bit harder on the stick than they did with the auto.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
smooth jazz posted:I'm surprised at how much better fuel economy the Auto gets vs. the Manual (28 vs 25 combined MPG). Buy the manual, bike to work. Problem solved 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
smooth jazz posted:I'm surprised at how much better fuel economy the Auto gets vs. the Manual (28 vs 25 combined MPG). If you want to get an auto for the $400-450 per year you'll be saving in fuel, by all means, knock yourself out. Doesn't look like it's worth it to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Wait, what? Last I saw, the manual had better economy numbers. Edit: ooookay apparently I had them backwards? What the hell?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
BoostCreep posted:I wonder what flaws the Evo and STI have by this logic. Closest I can think of is that they are based on lower market cars? You sacrifice money. Lots of money. Especially for insurance. And also they look like econoboxes and have econobox interiors with worse ride quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Q_res posted:In my experience, absolutely not. Most people who don't know about cars are more likely to think something is fast in spite of its published numbers, not because of them. smooth jazz posted:I'm surprised at how much better fuel economy the Auto gets vs. the Manual (28 vs 25 combined MPG).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 07:09
|
|
