Production of MR2 stopped in 2007; new car will be a coupé instead of roadster

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

No. If a company rep delivers a running test car and also provides them a company weight estimate, which the publication then identifies as company provided in their article, that is not heresay.

Then actually post that article, not the showcar you linked.

Motortrend, 1 month later, Dec 2011: 2700 lbs
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/subar...13-subaru-brz/

Car and Driver Dec 2011: 2800-2900 lbs
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review

Road and Track Dec 2011: 2770 lbs
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...-subaru-brz-1/

That is the first time journalists got their hands on a running production quality car, no earlier. That is the first reliable published weight and performance details, no earlier.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

No. If a company rep delivers a running test car and also provides them a company weight estimate, which the publication then identifies as company provided in their article, that is not heresay. The company is responsible for what they do and do not tell these publications, and a degree of truth in what they provide must be assumed. Just the same, the publications are usually pretty open about what is company provided information vs. what they infer from reviewing patents, hearing rumors, etc.


The engine one is a little more open to interpretation. I would however, challenge anyone on here to find an early article circa 2010-2011ish timeframe that contradicts anything I am saying.

You put far too much trust in the integrity and accuracy of what the car sites write! It just takes one site to make some shit up for the rest to use it as an actual company statement.
I counter your challenge with a request to show me one single OFFCIAL statement for 2010-11 where they said the car would be 2,500 pounds and have a WRX engine. Quotes by car sites do not count as official.

[WolfpackS2k]

Hey man, the FT86 concept car in GT5 only weighs 1000 kg.

That's concrete enough for us, no?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Hey man, the FT86 concept car in GT5 only weighs 1000 kg.

That's concrete enough for us, no?

Probably a more reliable a source than most clickbait sites!


They still lie though since my car doesn't respawn on the road if I crash it. Or does it? Maybe I should try.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

This article came out years after the initial ones. Earlier articles stated no specific power outputs. "next gen WRX engine" was what they were given from the manufacturer at that time.










I'm not sure you two are grasping the fact that "over-promise and under-deliver" is a figure of speech, and posting a bunch of dictionary definitions is not relevant.


It is a fact not open to debate that a representative from the manufacture gave motortrend that estimate, and knew when doing so that it was all but certain to end up in an article that the general public would see. A company rep that had already accessed a running test car stating 2500 lbs and ending up with 2700-2800 lbs is a little too far off to be considered a reasonable estimate. So once again, they would have been better off keeping their mouth closed.

So you still don't know what an estimate means? Jesus fuck, you are either a better troll that I, or you're just dense as hell.

EDIT: RE: Next gen WRX engine in the twins, does the "new" WRX engine not have the engine code of FA20? So there was some truth to the statement, just misleading

[D_Thissen]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

You put far too much trust in the integrity and accuracy of what the car sites write! It just takes one site to make some shit up for the rest to use it as an actual company statement.
I counter your challenge with a request to show me one single OFFCIAL statement for 2010-11 where they said the car would be 2,500 pounds and have a WRX engine. Quotes by car sites do not count as official.

He is probably using half ass websites for his sources. Definitely none with any credentials.

EDIT: Although, you could say the FRS/WRX do share the same engine. One just happens to be boosted

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by D_Thissen

He is probably using half ass websites for his sources. Definitely none with any credentials.

EDIT: Although, you could say the FRS/WRX do share the same engine. One just happens to be boosted

Among other things.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Probably a more reliable a source than most clickbait sites!


They still lie though since my car doesn't respawn on the road if I crash it. Or does it? Maybe I should try.

The GT5 & GT6 versions of the BRZ have 8,000 rpm redlines as well. Could you please verify that as well?

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

You put far too much trust in the integrity and accuracy of what the car sites write! It just takes one site to make some shit up for the rest to use it as an actual company statement.
I counter your challenge with a request to show me one single OFFCIAL statement for 2010-11 where they said the car would be 2,500 pounds and have a WRX engine. Quotes by car sites do not count as official.

Nope. A statement from a company rep to a publication is accurate enough to go off of. It is not a quote by a car site. It is a referral by the site cited as sourced directly from the manufacturer. You are wrong, which I'll admit doesn't happen often. Not everything that can be reasonably believed has to come out direct and on company letterhead.

Originally Posted by D_Thissen

He is probably using half ass websites for his sources. Definitely none with any credentials.

EDIT: Although, you could say the FRS/WRX do share the same engine. One just happens to be boosted

Didn't realize motortrend was a half assed website, or that you're apparently incapable of reading and clicking the link.

Originally Posted by Cole

So you still don't know what an estimate means? Jesus fuck, you are either a better troll that I, or you're just dense as hell.

EDIT: RE: Next gen WRX engine in the twins, does the "new" WRX engine not have the engine code of FA20? So there was some truth to the statement, just misleading

Please, try and explain to me how being that far off of an estimate from the manufacturer rep at that stage in the game is possible. We're a talking a potential double digit percentage of error, and a weight difference greater than a lot of major components, including a transmission.


The only reasonable explanation is either someone messed up big time or the rep just didn't know what they were talking about and should have kept it shut. If there's actually a good excuse out there, feel free to point it out.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

The GT5 & GT6 versions of the BRZ have 8,000 rpm redlines as well. Could you please verify that as well?

LOL Pretty sure some guys here have. It didn't turn out well for them.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

Nope. A statement from a company rep to a publication is accurate enough to go off of. It is not a quote by a car site. It is a referral by the site cited as sourced directly from the manufacturer. You are wrong, which I'll admit doesn't happen often. Not everything that can be reasonably believed has to come out direct and on company letterhead.



Didn't realize motortrend was a half assed website, or that you're apparently incapable of reading and clicking the link.






Please, try and explain to me how being that far off of an estimate from the manufacturer rep at that stage in the game is possible. We're a talking a potential double digit percentage of error, and a weight difference greater than a lot of major components, including a transmission.


The only reasonable explanation is either someone messed up big time or the rep just didn't know what they were talking about and should have kept it shut. If there's actually a good excuse out there, feel free to point it out.

The problem arises when we don't know what was really said by a company rep as opposed to what was misquoted, edited, misunderstood or just plain made up by the writers. We see "quotes" that are used time and time again by sites and depending on the topic they are twisted to mean what the writer wants them too. This is why I always want to see an official statement for any "facts" that these site spew out. If there is no official statement to back them up then they are just not reliable enough to use.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

Please, try and explain to me how being that far off of an estimate from the manufacturer rep at that stage in the game is possible. We're a talking a potential double digit percentage of error, and a weight difference greater than a lot of major components, including a transmission.


The only reasonable explanation is either someone messed up big time or the rep just didn't know what they were talking about and should have kept it shut. If there's actually a good excuse out there, feel free to point it out.

They were off by 10%, if they even gave 2500lbs "at such a late stage in the games" since, the links that @strat61caster pulled up (cheers m8) all say 2700 or above, and they were from 2011? Maybe you could pull up some sources that prove your claim, the more official, the better of course?

But fuck, being 10% off an estimate, damn, the world is probably going to end. You've never told someone you were going to be 10 minutes, but then were actually 9 minutes or 11 minutes? That's the kind of difference we're talking about here.

[D_Thissen]

'Though relatively low on torque, the FA20 is quick to rev and pulls the 2800-pound chassis around with no real flat spots in acceleration. ' - Motor trend 2011.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by D_Thissen

'Though relatively low on torque, the FA20 is quick to rev and pulls the 2800-pound chassis around with no real flat spots in acceleration. ' - Motor trend 2011.

Lies. What about the tq dip?