ProDarwin wrote:

Javelin wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: ST* trim this will be far faster than the Genesis. Weight is killer when you have tire/wheel limits. Based on specs I wouldn't be surprised to see it faster than the RX-8. I think it is a borderline STX overdog, assuming it can fit at least 245s on a 9" wheel. I don't know if it will have what it takes to move up to STU or somehow get thrown into STR.

With the newest shake-up of all of the classes and the very public building of different 302 Camaro's for STX, I doubt this will make it there. STR is a very, very real possibility. Stock would end up in what, CS with the MX5? It lands squarely in the new BSP as well.

STR (so far) is an inclusion-only class of all 2 seaters (ST Roadster), so I have my doubts they would put this there even if it is competitive. Its specs line up pretty well with a STX 325i. It will have a tad more peak power, weaker powerband, similar weight, better rear suspension. It is small though, and that is quite an advantage. Stock - no idea. I could see DS or CS. A lot will depend on tire fitment and what you can do with the alignment. Much harder to go off a spec sheet. Can't wait to see a few out there though. Could be a great enthusiast car with a huge following in a few years when they come down in price. Like an RX8 with double the gas mileage :)

You must not have seen the latest Fasttrack... ALL ST-classes now have inclusion lists. And STR is most certainly not all 2-seaters (oh, hello Porsche 944...).

Yeah, forgot about the 944. Maybe it will fall into STR then.

I did see the Fastrack. Remember, its still only a proposal (although very likely to be accepted). STX, STU and STC will still have the NOC rule, although Nationals/Tours/Pros will be inclusion only.

Wouldn't the 911 be a 4-seater in STR as well? Also some FC RX-7's came as 2+2's from the factory. Really, it's a stupid naming structure. The new classes look fun though. I like the ST "B-Spec".

More important to my interests though are the NA 8V 944 finally being separated in SP, moving to the new CSP.

HiTempguy wrote:

MitchellC wrote: It's lighter than my SVT Focus, with 30 more hp. It's going to be a fun car, and it's exactly the type of car I would like. Relatively simple (as far as amenities go), and it should be a fun driver. It's quite a looker, too, if I say so myself.

*ding* You basically summed it up perfectly with that comparison. People should kill for this car. I'll buy the Subaru version (unless the Scion is badass).

There is some potential that Scion will only make a "few" available to dealers... not sure if this is true or not, got it here - http://pstoc.org/board/viewtopic.php?p=70604#p70604 the poster works for Toyota

IF true, then the subaru version might be more available

Do we know when this is supposedly due for debut?

Same power/weight of an M50 swapped E30. But I hope better brakes.

oldeskewltoy wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

MitchellC wrote: It's lighter than my SVT Focus, with 30 more hp. It's going to be a fun car, and it's exactly the type of car I would like. Relatively simple (as far as amenities go), and it should be a fun driver. It's quite a looker, too, if I say so myself.

*ding* You basically summed it up perfectly with that comparison. People should kill for this car. I'll buy the Subaru version (unless the Scion is badass).

There is some potential that Scion will only make a "few" available to dealers... not sure if this is true or not, got it here - http://pstoc.org/board/viewtopic.php?p=70604#p70604 the poster works for Toyota IF true, then the subaru version might be more available

It might also be more expensive, if the rumor of the BRZ having "less than 300hp" is true.

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/rumors-could-the-subaru-brz-pack-more-power-than-the-toyota-ft-86-83811.html

I question if the limited availability is to drive up scarcity or if it is due to Scion having a one-price policy like Saturn used to have. I'm not totally familiar with Scion's sales policies but IIRC they typically encourage clients to order cars to their specifications.

Javelin wrote:

pinchvalve wrote: This is the non-turbo motor. How long do you think that Subaru will wait until it slaps a snail on that sucker?

According to all of the latest news, including from Subaru direct, never. Apparently their traditional design won't fit. This engine is also all-new so none of the past stuff bolts on. Also the chassis is too tight to do it and they wanted it to be "pure" anyways. I'm sure aftermarket companies will do it, but in reality you can turbo a rotary or anything else in the class as well. Fact is, it's a very low HP/TQ engine and it's going to be slow dead stock.

200 hp, 2600 lbs = dog?

That's a better power to weight ratio than a lot of Porsches from 20 years ago.

It is essentially a rwd Civic SI. People don't seem to mind that car too much. Exactly what I am looking for if they come in at Civic SI prices.

sanman wrote: It is essentially a rwd Civic SI. People don't seem to mind that car too much. Exactly what I am looking for if they come in at Civic SI prices.

That's sort of the point I believe. The rumored 25kish puts it squarely in MS3, Genesis coupe, Civic Si, and Miata territory. Of those the Miata and Genesis coupe are RWD so it had better at least match the performance of either of those.

That being said it would be a pretty awfully poor decision to bring something like this to market and not match the performance of those cars with all the hype this thing has generated.

Subaru just announced the BRZ STi concept. With a n/a motor, no turbo. In fact, the STi concept has no additional power at all...

my understanding is they are designing it so it's very easy to 'hop up'

If this is true, I doubt the factory power will remain the same for very long once in the hands of an enthusiast.

I thought I read that the new motor was designed to have the exact same mounting points and trans bolt pattern as an EJ-whatever, with the intent that WRX/STi swaps would be that much easier.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1112_2013_subaru_brz_prototype_first_drive/

A bit of Motor Trend for the palate. Some salt may be required, depending on your tastes.

ReverendDexter wrote: I thought I read that the new motor was designed to have the exact same mounting points and trans bolt pattern as an EJ-whatever, with the intent that WRX/STi swaps would be that much easier.

It's a lot more likely that Subaru didn't want to reengineer something that didn't need changing. Why purposefully change the bellhousing design? It would just cost more for them. I find it unlikely that there's a business case to be made for sti swaps at Subaru.

If this car doesn't cure world hunger, it's a failure. I hope it's good.

DoctorBlade wrote: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1112_2013_subaru_brz_prototype_first_drive/ A bit of Motor Trend for the palate. Some salt may be required, depending on your tastes.

Check the last bit. Annual production of 3000 units? That can't be right. Even the Toyota mrs sold more than that.

Keith wrote:

DoctorBlade wrote: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1112_2013_subaru_brz_prototype_first_drive/ A bit of Motor Trend for the palate. Some salt may be required, depending on your tastes.

Check the last bit. Annual production of 3000 units? That can't be right. Even the Toyota mrs sold more than that.

Oh that will make me sad....

MSRP of $25k, but dealer markup to $35k, anyone?

Dealer markups won't last forever. Ask the folks that paid 30k for a new 1989 Miata.

When they hit the lots, please report the stats. Speculation bores me.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Oh that will make me sad.... MSRP of $25k, but dealer markup to $35k, anyone?

Scion is fixed pricing.... can they do dealer markups?

I can appreciate the weight/packaging/cost arguement for a normally aspirated flat-4, but I can't understand why the engineers wouldn't push the displacement up to 2.5L to make around 250 hp and 210 lb-ft. That 25% bump in displacement/power/torque wouldn't cost a lot, but could mean a world of difference in the stock performance of a relatively light car. Come on, man!

ProDarwin wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Oh that will make me sad.... MSRP of $25k, but dealer markup to $35k, anyone?

Scion is fixed pricing.... can they do dealer markups?

Oh yeah, forgot it was being sold as Scion.

Tom Heath wrote: Dealer markups won't last forever. Ask the folks that paid 30k for a new 1989 Miata.

They made 50,000 of those.

Getting around fixed pricing is easy.

1- load up the dealer added options.

Or

2- sell it as a "demo" at whatever cost the market will bear.

LJD wrote: I can appreciate the weight/packaging/cost arguement for a normally aspirated flat-4, but I can't understand why the engineers wouldn't push the displacement up to 2.5L to make around 250 hp and 210 lb-ft. That 25% bump in displacement/power/torque wouldn't cost a lot, but could mean a world of difference in the stock performance of a relatively light car. Come on, man!

This is the main thing I don't understand either.