Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_pilot
Way to complex. This is supposed to be a grassroots sort of car, one that the average enthusiast can afford and bring to the track.
That's what the aftermarket is for, no? I'm sure within a year there will be a turbo version.
I'm willing to bet significant money that option was explored and decided against because it's a joint project. Toyota has to do some of the work, not just put different sheetmetal on a car Subaru developped. Plus with all the difference this car will have in terms of driveline, at what point does it make more sense to develop a dedicated platform instead of modding an existing one to the point it's unrecognizable?
|
I agree. I think the Toyota R&D budget sharing was too good to pass up, and so they wrote off an in-house-only AWD coupe, and we get the one non-AWD result with three different badges on it, instead of two different coupe products.
However, every indication suggests that a turbo is not on the docket in the near future. WRX's successor that is still at least a year away, will bow and get limelight for at least a year before BRZ gets a turbo, IMHO.
Maybe they'll try if the initial sales fall on their face like the Honda CRZ (which is getting in-house performance attention to try and recover), but I don't want to wish for that.
The dedicated platform for RWD is fine, and is a fine underpinning for the RWD coupe. But I was saying it doesn't make sense to go from
AWD -> RWD -> back to AWD again.
BTW, the Subaru transaxle (5MT or 6MT) could be adapted to be a rear 2WD transaxle, either at the end of a torque tube from a front-mid-engine, or with a rear-mid-engine. if the chassis were developed that way, I don't think it would be markedly more expensive anymore. Modern manufacturing can be more flexible, especially in a case that the chassis is not shared with other sedans or anything else.
My other point was that if Subaru had wanted an AWD coupe, they would have re-bodied Impreza, they would not add AWD back on to FT-86 after spending so much to engineer it out.
Quote:
And I've driven a Nissan 240SX through winters in Ottawa (one of the coldest national capitals in the world) and Thunder Bay (northern Ontario town). I never got stuck without doing something very silly and would go so far as to say it was more fun in the winter than the SVX, because the SVX has so much traction that to get it sliding takes sometimes dangerous amounts of speed.
If you need a machine that can handle a good Canadian snowstorm, hold big puffy winter jackets, and do other practical things then this is just not the car you want. If you want something that will be fun to throw through the corners and are willing to sacrifice some practicality then maybe it is.
|
Driving around a city in the winter is no light matter, but driving on rural roads miles from urban buildings or natural forest as wind-breaks, in a snow storm is not the place to be "throwing it through the corners." I don't screw around much in the snow when I need to be out in it, getting somewhere, or getting back home.
I still have that Miata, and it gets thrown through corners on T1-R summer tires in the warmer weather, where it belongs.
The FR-S/BRZ doesn't compel me to trade a paid-off miata. that is much more fun in the warmer weather, likely to be still lighter, with SLA suspension, rather than macPherson, and more appealing when the top gets folded down, in said warmer weather.
I am very glad that my SVX and my Miata are two different cars, for two different purposes, and as I said, if I had to have one, I'd want the AWD included. Think of it like the boy scout motto. Be Prepared. AWD is better preparation for when it isn't sunny, and isn't a big detriment when it is sunny.