A real live negative review!

[catharsis]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

shietze! That is the worst attempt at a horrible German accent I have ever seen.

Nice try though bro.



We're all maniacs for arguing about a car we haven't driven yet.

What econobox are you comparing it to? A Subaru WRX?

a camry for starters...

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by catharsis

a camry for starters...

A Camry V6 starting at 27k MSRP hardly qualifies as an econobox. No one's stopping you from getting a Camry if you think it's a better car :p

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by catharsis

a camry for starters...

That's not an econobox. Try again.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by 86fanatic

It's also sad to point out that only in the North American market was the engine changed. Japan and Europe still got the F20C engine in the AP2 chassis.

It really makes you wonder if people in North America can really handle the concept of a fun to drive car. So far all signs point to no, unfortunately for us real driving enthusiasts.

So you want to get mad at people for not liking a torqueless engine in a car they paid 33k for? Not everybody high revs in DD situations to get around. And I don't see how it makes somebody less of an enthusiast for liking the 2.2 over the 2.0 liter version in the same damn car. Just because it can't rev to 8800 rpms vs 8000 rpms that makes it less of a drivers car?

[86'd]

Originally Posted by catharsis

They actually did. from 2006 onward.

You're right. I just looked it up.

I knew 04-05 everyone got the AP2, we got the 2.2 but JP kept the 2.0. Then I just assumed that in 06 the JP kept the 2.0; I guess they didn't. lol.

[racerkyo]

Originally Posted by tranzformer

EVO + STI are heavier cars, boxier car design, with AWD and FI. This has a low cd, lightweight, no awd, NA with DI. Should be better than just 5 mpg combined than those.

S2000 AP1 is based on 1990s technology, redline at 8800rpm and was putting out 120hp/L which is still phenomenal. This car should do much better with new technology, DI, lighter weight, lower cd..etc.

RX8- Rotary engines are notoriously known for crappy fuel economy plus the 9000rpm redline. Heavier car, worse cd and piss poor mpg based on the rotary.

i guess i didnt think of it like that. your right. which kinda makes you wonder why the mpg is low then.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by racerkyo

i guess i didnt think of it like that. your right. which kinda makes you wonder why the mpg is low then.

Many of us wondered that as well. Most likely it is due to MT gearing as the AT does a bit better. Will just have to wait and see if real whorl driving does better.

Some will argue that the fuel economy it is due to the high compression. However Mazda has even higher compression in their new Skyactiv engines (13:1 vs BRZ 12.5:1). Others will say it is good for a sport engine (however the 2ZZ-GE was getting these numbers in the late 90s early 00s). With a low weight, low cd, small 2L NA engine you would expect higher mpgs.

[serialk11r]

There's not much to wonder, as has been said by countless people countless times, EPA testing can be very unrepresentative of real world conditions.

High compression is good for fuel economy. Sport engines don't actually lose very much efficiency either, the F20C for example has peak efficiency of 242g/kWh fuel consumption, which is quite good. The 2GR-FSE is something in the high 220s, I'd expect the FA20 to behave something like the 2GR as far as BSFC vs. BMEP/rpm goes. Manual transmissions get butt raped by EPA testing without goofy 1-4 forced shifts like GM has.

As Allch Chcar said, MPG is about driver control, ecomodders/hypermilers all use manual transmission despite the often shorter gears.

[JohnnyR]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

If they do release a higher rev version, expect even less low end torque.

Which they won't as they know the car is underpowered by many's standards for a vehicle today. They're scrambling to get a FI model out because they screwed up, and know it. They had a lot of strong talk early on and it caught the attention of the serious sports car fans and now it bit them in the ass because it's not a real sports car. They also loved touting it's a track car, but it lacks the power out of turns and for straights. Right now they're in full-on marketing mode though to sell what they got until then.

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

What econobox are you comparing it to? A Subaru WRX?

Probably not, if they did the WRX would be walking the BRZ. The BRZ is just as much an "econobox" as a WRX though. Both cutting corners here and there while trying to focus it's budget cap in certain areas and remaining as cheap as possible.

[serialk11r]

JohnnyR, they can shorten gears to get the acceleration back. Currently the FA20 makes 60% torque right above idle, and it climbs to 90% peak by 2700ish. If they let it rev to say 8500 and make max power at 8000rpm, it'll perhaps lose a bit of torque, but it gains 15% more revs to use so they can shorten final drive say 10% (and hopefully add a 7th gear or make 6th longer on the manual...) and deliver a net improvement in acceleration.

At 8000 it should be pumping close to S2000 levels of power, which I'd hope is adequate...

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

There's not much to wonder, as has been said by countless people countless times, EPA testing can be very unrepresentative of real world conditions.

Isn't that what I said?

Originally Posted by tranzformer

Many of us wondered that as well. Most likely it is due to MT gearing as the AT does a bit better. Will just have to wait and see if real whorld driving does better.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

As Allch Chcar said, MPG is about driver control, ecomodders/hypermilers all use manual transmission despite the often shorter gears.

That is only true to a certain degree. A car with crappy fuel economy, no matter how gentle you are still won't put out impressive numbers. It isn't a single factor that is involved. There are multiple factors of which driver is one, as well as the vehicle (engine design).

[dsgerbc]

Originally Posted by JohnnyR

They're scrambling to get a FI model out because they screwed up, and know it. They had a lot of strong talk early on and it caught the attention of the serious sports car fans and now it bit them in the ass because it's not a real sports car.

And you know this how? I'd buy that if there weren't thousands of pre-orders in Japan and people on this board were saying "f-it, I'm buying a Mustang/GC". If they were in trouble getting pre-orders for N/A version they'd be very tight-lipped about FI version in the future in fear of jeopardizing N/A sales even further. So, I think you're making stuff up.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by tranzformer

That is only true to a certain degree. A car with crappy fuel economy, no matter how gentle you are still won't put out impressive numbers. It isn't a single factor that is involved. There are multiple factors of which driver is one, as well as the vehicle (engine design).

Of course, but everyone is looking at the automatic and saying "hey these are good EPA numbers", and then turning to the manual and saying "wtf such bad mpgs". Same engine same car, only meaningful transmission difference is the last gear when it comes to mpg. It will definitely be harder to coax high mpg out of the manual transmission on the highway, no doubt about that. The auto has a solid 10% advantage at steady state operation.

My point in bringing up this all the time is that manual transmission is much more driver sensitive, and EPA test is a very non-fuel-economy-conscious way to be driving a manual transmission.

I'd bet money that in the real world, people will typically get something like 28-32 mpg average, unless they're getting too excited and speeding everywhere

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Of course, but everyone is looking at the automatic and saying "hey these are good EPA numbers", and then turning to the manual and saying "wtf such bad mpgs". Same engine same car, only meaningful transmission difference is the last gear when it comes to mpg.

+1. I agree with you. I don't think the manual numbers are "bad". Just wish the numbers were a little closer to the AT numbers. But I am betting the MT numbers will be better than they are claimed in real world driving (after the car is broken in).