BRZ vs. Focus ST

[OneTouch]

Just thought I'd share this comparison review, they've got some good pictures of the 2016 BRZ too (Canadian):

http://www.canadianautoreview.ca/rev...-focus-st.html

[extrashaky]

First line of the article:

"You have $30,000 in the piggybank and you are in the market for a sports car."

LOL no. The Focus is not a sports car. It's a $17K front wheel drive economy car with some sporty features added. You don't add power, sporty rims and body effects to something designed to be an economy car and suddenly get a sports car.

If you have $30K and are in the market for a sports car, you will not be looking at any version of the Focus.

[Timmy_Jones]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

First line of the article:

"You have $30,000 in the piggybank and you are in the market for a sports car."

LOL no. The Focus is not a sports car. It's a $17K front wheel drive economy car with some sporty features added. You don't add power, sporty rims and body effects to something designed to be an economy car and suddenly get a sports car.

If you have $30K and are in the market for a sports car, you will not be looking at any version of the Focus.

I absolutely love my FRS, and chose it over the FoST and FiST, however they are very very good cars. Great suspension, tons of power for the size...but I do agree, it isn't QUITE a sports car, but very close. Both the STs feel like you sit ON the car, rather than it is. It isnt a driving experience.

No doubt they are fast and with just a handheld tuner get quite a bit faster.

Your last line you say, 'any version of the Ford Focus'....the RS is coming to the states soon, although certainly won't be 30k, beware.

[perryair]

there's a different section of the forum to post things like this, just FYI.

also, really.. what is a 'sports car' anyways? anything designed to give you the feeling of spirited driving should fit the description, which while the foST may not handle like a brz it gives the turbo induced kind of stoplight to stoplight blast that a regular brz doesn't have (even though quarter mile times are similar). it's a perfectly good choice for someone who is willing to trade the 'riding on rails' feeling for some extra room and practicality.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by perryair

there's a different section of the forum to post things like this, just FYI.

also, really.. what is a 'sports car' anyways? anything designed to give you the feeling of spirited driving should fit the description, which while the foST may not handle like a brz it gives the turbo induced kind of stoplight to stoplight blast that a regular brz doesn't have (even though quarter mile times are similar). it's a perfectly good choice for someone who is willing to trade the 'riding on rails' feeling for some extra room and practicality.

The Focus is a hot hatch.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by perryair

also, really.. what is a 'sports car' anyways? anything designed to give you the feeling of spirited driving should fit the description, which while the foST may not handle like a brz it gives the turbo induced kind of stoplight to stoplight blast that a regular brz doesn't have (even though quarter mile times are similar).

Nope. Fast between stop lights does not make a sports car. A Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, but that doesn't make it a sports car. Slapping parts on a commuter to make it fast or improve handling does not make it a sports car.

A sports car is purpose designed from the ground up for handling performance and driving experience. That means if it's a sports car, there is no "economy" version that it's based on. There was no commuter version of the MGB or Trimph Spitfire. There was no commuter version of the S2000 or Miata. These were designed as sports cars from the very first drawings.

There's a market for fast cars based on commuters and economy cars, and some of them are pretty good automobiles. But that doesn't make them sports cars. An STI is an Impreza, which is a family car, not a sports car. An Evo is a Lancer, which is a commuter, not a sports car. I can build out an old Chevy S10 to rival any of them in handling, but doing so wouldn't make it a sports car.

Is there an economy commuter version of the BRZ? Nope. It was designed from the ground up to be a sports car.

Is there an economy commuter version of the Focus? You bet. Therefore, not a sports car.

They're not even remotely in the same class.

[perryair]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Nope. Fast between stop lights does not make a sports car. A Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, but that doesn't make it a sports car. Slapping parts on a commuter to make it fast or improve handling does not make it a sports car.

A sports car is purpose designed from the ground up for handling performance and driving experience. That means if it's a sports car, there is no "economy" version that it's based on. There was no commuter version of the MGB or Trimph Spitfire. There was no commuter version of the S2000 or Miata. These were designed as sports cars from the very first drawings.

There's a market for fast cars based on commuters and economy cars, and some of them are pretty good automobiles. But that doesn't make them sports cars. An STI is an Impreza, which is a family car, not a sports car. An Evo is a Lancer, which is a commuter, not a sports car. I can build out an old Chevy S10 to rival any of them in handling, but doing so wouldn't make it a sports car.

Is there an economy commuter version of the BRZ? Nope. It was designed from the ground up to be a sports car.

Is there an economy commuter version of the Focus? You bet. Therefore, not a sports car.

They're not even remotely in the same class.

I get what you're saying and yes in the classical definition of it, are. but given that we have the twins, Miata, a few Porsches and some exotic supercars and.. what more exactly?

having an elitist take on it might enhance street cred but in the real world, most people that buy the brz would consider plenty of cars that are sporting, including plenty of hot hatches and other non traditional sports cars. hell, I'd rather own a manual foST than an automatic brz but different strokes for different folks.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by perryair

I get what you're saying and yes in the classical definition of it, are. but given that we have the twins, Miata, a few Porsches and some exotic supercars and.. what more exactly?

having an elitist take on it might enhance street cred but in the real world, most people that buy the brz would consider plenty of cars that are sporting, including plenty of hot hatches and other non traditional sports cars. hell, I'd rather own a manual foST than an automatic brz but different strokes for different folks.

I don't think it's really about having an elitist take on it or about "street cred". It's more about having requisite specificity. Qualification for the category isn't merely "fun to drive", it has something to do with the initial design goal allowing for a higher ceiling of performance, agility, control precision (and therefore driver connectedness), usefulness in motorsports, etc. Hot hatches are definitely a blast (I own a 500c Abarth), along side my FR-S)), but their economy car roots limits them in terms of the above.

Personally, I think this blog's test was intended to say "if a person considers either of these cars, this is the one the writer prefers". The value of the comparison will always be up to the reader.

[JS + BRZ]

Those are some awesome pics.

A cool review too. I love FiST/FoST.

I have a thing for a hot hatch. Had a Mazdaspeed3 for three years. Fun but got old due to FWD platform. It was like three times faster than my BRZ, but my BRZ is 100000 times more fun to drive.

[why?]

Don't forget the Z. And frankly all the new muscle cars qualify now.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by perryair

there's a different section of the forum to post things like this, just FYI.
.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...36&postcount=4

Originally Posted by perryair

plenty of cars that are sporting, including plenty of hot hatches and other non traditional sports cars. hell, I'd rather own a manual foST than an automatic brz but different strokes for different folks.

Sort of summed it up yourself actually. "Sporting" is not the same as "sports car"

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by why?

Don't forget the Z. And frankly all the new muscle cars qualify now.

Z is only a bit more practical than a Miata and in some instances 500 lbs heavier than the 86...

Say what you will about the muscle cars and the performance numbers they lay down, it will never ever make up for the >800 pound weight penalty when it comes to hustling them around the track, I find no joy in fighting weight. I love momentum cars.



And credit to the Hot Hatches, they've kept the weight down on those with the Abarth, FiSt, Mini Cooper S and I'm sure a few others weighing in as light or lighter than the 86 and a good FWD setup can certainly turn as well as any RWD setup.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by why?

Don't forget the Z. And frankly all the new muscle cars qualify now.

The Z is a sports car despite being a fatass. It has sports car roots.

The muscle cars are mostly not sports cars. Chargers, Challengers and Camaros can be fast in a straight line, but they handle like shit. Ford keeps trying to make the Mustang into a sports car and not quite making it, although the Mustang people like to pretend they're driving sports cars. The only real muscle car that comes to mind that is also a true sports car is the Corvette, which has always had two wheels in each world. I suppose you could also put the Viper in that category, but it really starts to reach into the supercar realm instead.

Originally Posted by perryair

I get what you're saying and yes in the classical definition of it, are. but given that we have the twins, Miata, a few Porsches and some exotic supercars and.. what more exactly?

Yes, what more? That's part of the problem.

I grew up on the tail end of the affordable sports car era. In 1970 you could buy an MGB brand new off the lot for $3000, which equates to about $17K today. A $4500 TR6 was considered expensive, but that was about the same financial impact as a BRZ today. You had MG, Triumph, Austin Healey, Sunbeam, Fiat, Datsun, Alfa Romeo and even Porsche trying to get in on the affordable two-seater. Through the '70s a person of fairly modest means could afford an MGA, MGB, MG Midget, MGC, MGB GT, Spitfire, GT6, TR2, TR3, TR4, TR250, TR6, TR7, TR8, Stag, Spider (Fiat), Spider (Alfa), Sprite, 914, 240Z, 3000, X1/9 and several others I'm forgetting.

Jesus, look at that list. What the fuck happened to the affordable sports car? Yeah, what more exactly do we have today to take their place?

Fucking Civics. When the manufacturers stopped offering affordable sports cars, people took shitty economy cars and turned them into sports car substitutes. Those of us who had owned real sports cars laughed at the "tuners" pumping tens of thousands of dollars into their shitboxes. We kinda stopped laughing when we realized those shitboxes were all that were left in that market segment.

But we never accepted those shitboxes as "sports cars," because they aren't. It's not about being an elitist, because there was nothing whatsoever about an MGB, Fairlady Z or X1/9 that could be considered "elite." It's about recognizing a sports car for a sports car and turbocharged econobox as a poor substitute that will end up in the junk yard when the engine blows. No matter how much ketchup I put on it, tofu on a bun will never be hamburger. Ever.

So now these kids who have grown up not having any idea what a real affordable sports car is think a Mazda 3, Civic, Evo, Impreza, Neon SRT or Ford Focus fits the bill. They don't. They're just tofu with more artificial texture and flavor added.

[Thorpedo]

Great input @extrashaky. You seem to have a handle on what it takes to be a sports car. I've never really seen it put quite like that, but imo you nailed it.