MM Static-Review: 2013 Subaru BRZ
04-07-12, 04:34 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
MM Static-Review: 2013 Subaru BRZ
Per both CL and non-CL request, a static-review of the Subaru BRZ.
IN A NUTSHELL: The 40-year-old Datsun 240/260/280Zs of the 1970s finally come back to life in an affordable version.
CLOSEST COMPETITORS: Scion FRS, Scion tC, Honda CR-Z.
OVERVIEW:
It is no secret, in the auto market and the auto press, that Toyota, in addition to the well-publicized problems it has gone through in the last several years with expanding too quickly, with financial problems (though it still has vast wealth/resources by the standards of most automakers), has had real and imagined engineering/safety problems, and quality/fit/finish issues in the assembly-plants. It has also been stuck, fairly or not, with a stodgy image for middle-aged and older people...somewhat like Buick, Lincoln, and Cadillac. So Toyota's present management has come to the conclusion, somewhat controversially, that it has to try and offer more so-called "exciting" vehicles to try and appeal to a younger age-group. Actually, the company, just a few years ago, DID have the 2-seat MR-2 roadster and small Celica sport-coupe, but decided to drop them from the American market after 2005. (So it makes you wonder if the company didn't bring at least part of the Grandpa-image on itself)? Well, of course, I myself don't believe in auto-images or stereotypes (never did, never will). But, that notwithstanding, my opinion is only one of millions, and, like it or not, many pundits, both in and out of the auto press, DO hawk the image of stereotypes, day and night, so we're stuck with them, fair or not.
So, like it or not, with the part-acquisition of Subaru several years ago, Toyota got access to Subaru's experience in flat-engine design (like Porsche), and AWD technology. Toyota management decided to do (unlike the former MR-2, Celica and the present Scion tC), an all-new, small, front-engine/rear-drive sports-coupe, somewhat along the idea of the old Datsun Z-cars of the 1970s. Unlike the present Nissan 370Z, these new cars were to be more affordable, and not run the 370's price. Subaru, using one of its flat-four engines, would design the drivetrain/chassis, and Toyota would do the body and interior. Engineers and designers from both companies worked closely with each other, so that the left-hand would know what the right-hand was doing, and vice-versa. Two similiar (but not identical) versions were to be done....a higher-priced one to sell under the Subaru nameplate, and a lower-priced one to sell under Toyota's own Scion nameplate (with Scion's no-dicker pricing, of course). IMO, this two-nameplate marketing-strategy is a mistake...I'll get into that in a minute.
As I write this (Easter weekend, 2012), advance-display versions of the Subaru BRZ are just starting to arrive at local Washington, D.C. dealerships, and the Scion FRS models should be following soon. My local Subaru shop (where I got my Outback) got a BRZ in a few days ago (a company-owned vehicle for display-only), and gave me a buzz, so I went up today to see it. As it was company-owned vehicle, on display outside under a tent/canopy, and had a number of people climbing in and out looking at it (like at the D.C. Auto Show in January), they weren't allowing test-drives, and wouldn't bend the rules even for me (which is unusual). But I didn't waste the trip...I got a good overall inspection of the car, inside and out, and decided to write up a static-review while I'm waiting to drive one.
The car is, of course, offered under two nameplates....the Subaru BRZ and Scion FRS...I'll concentrate, of course, on the Subaru version here. The BRZ comes in two basic versions, Premium and Limited, with a normally-aspirated Subaru 2.0L flat-four of 200 HP and 151 ft-lbs. of torque and a choice of close-ratio 6-speed manual or 6-speed Sport-shift auto-manual transmissions (same for the Scion, though the torque-peak n the Scion is at a slightly higher RPM). Base prices run from $24,930 to start on the base Scion FRS manual to $28,595 for a Subaru BRZ Limited.
I don't agree with Toyota's decision to offer the car in Subaru and Scion versions, for several reasons. First, though I said earlier that I don't agree with automotive images and stereotypes, Subaru has (very successfully) based its American-market image and marketing-force on strictly AWD vehicles, and the addition of a RWD sports-coupe may give the public a signal that the company may be moving away from AWD. I'm a firm believer that if you fine something that works, don't mess with it. Second, marketing a Scion version could (?) cause it to compete somewhat against its own Scion tC sport-coupe brother, though the tC is FWD and the BRS is RWD....two different set-ups. Third, if Toyota wants to modify its stodgy image and appeal to a younger crowd, then why not just market it in one version.......a Toyota, under its own nameplate? That, IMO, would make more sense. So, as I see it, it should have been marketed here as a Toyota....and, in fact, it IS marketed as a Toyota in some countries.
Anyhow, the BRZ I looked at today was an automatic version, without a price-sticker (company-owned cars don't have stickers), painted in what appeared to be the Galaxy Blue Silica...a nice medium, reasonably-bright blue, though not quite as bright as the WRX blue you see on the WRX and STi. The WRX/STi blue is available on the BRS, if desired, as is a bright red....the rest of the colors offered are the usual mortuary shades. Since there was no price-sticker, I could not list the usual price/options data like I usually do. And, of course, with out the price-sticker, the specific assembly-plant was not listed, though the factory-plaque inside the door-jamb indicated a Subaru plant (Fuji Heavy Industries) somewhwere in Japan (a "J" as the first digit of the VIN).
I also didn't waste the trip today in another way. I got into a nice conversation at the dealership with a middle-aged couple who was picking up a brand-new Forester...dark gray. They were also checking out the BRZ (not as a purchase, of course). We talked about the BRZ and the ins and outs of the present-generation Forester, compared to the last one. So, I looked over their new Forester for them, all washed/cleaned up and ready to go, just to make sure there weren't any problems...and lo and behold, the PDI guys had (once again) forgotten to bleed the tires. All four of them were still at 45-50 PSI, the way they usually come off of the transporter. Too-high PSI in the tires is probably the most common problem I see in brand-new cars when they are delivered. The dealerships SAY that they check the tires, but often, in fact, they don't....even though it's on the official PDI checklist. So, I asked them who their sales-rep was, went in and got him, reported the problem, and he took the car back to the service-bay just to make sure. Ten minutes later, he drove it back out to us, visibly embarassed, and said "Im sorry....you were right. The tires were indeed way up...now they are correct". So the couple got in, I gave them my usual complementary bottle of SCRATCH-OUT for their new car, they thanked me, and drove off....happy as a lark with their new car.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2013 Subaru BRZ
BASE PRICE: N/A (Company-Owned Vehicle)
($25,495-$28,595 on the web-site)
OPTIONS: N/A (this car had the sport-shift automatic transmisison)
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: N/A
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: N/A
DRIVETRAIN: RWD, 2.0L normally-aspirated Subaru Boxer flat-four, 200 HP @ 7000 RPM, Torque 151 ft-lbs at 6400 RPM, (This looks like a Honda-style high-RPM-peaker with comparatively low torque), 6-speed Sport-Shift automatic transmission, Limited-slip differential.
EPA MILEAGE RATING (Automatic transmission): 25 City / 34 Highway, 28 Combined
(Subaru has not yet put this on their web-site, but it is available from other sources)
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...conomy-ratings
EXTERIOR COLOR: The car I looked at appeared to be Galaxy Blue Silica, which is a nice medium-blue, not quite as bright as the WRX-Blue (which is also available).
INTERIOR: Black Cloth with Red Stitching and Silver-Metallic trim.
PLUSSES:
Reasonably-priced for a sport-coupe, especially the Scion version.
Handsome-looking exterior (IMO)
Relatively large brake rotors for the car's size and weight.
Good-to-excellent paint job.
Attractive (IMO) two-tone dark-gray alloy wheels.
Excellent underhood layout.
Solid side-mirror hardware.
Easy-to-lift lightweight aluminum hood.
Good stereo sound (but I've heard better).
Durable-feeling seat fabric.
Attractive VW GTI-style red interior stitching.
Nicely-done metallic-silver interior trim does not look cheap.
Solid, well-done shift-paddles.
Nice-looking silver-aluminum on gas/brake/dead-foot pedals.
Clear, easy-to-read, Porsche-style primary gauges.
Attractive, cleverly-designed shift-lever.
Nice fore/aft shift-lever motion, with no annoying zig-zags.
MINUSES:
May compromise Subaru's AWD U.S.-marketing/image.
Dealer-markups probably to be expected on early models from supply/demand.
IMO, should have been marketed as a Toyota.
Low-slung stance means difficult entry/exit for tall persons.
So-so exterior sheet metal solidness.
Doors/trunk close with a less-than-solid thunk.
Manual prop-rod for the hood instead of struts (the light hood helps, though).
Very low front air-dam invites damage from humps/curbs/road-debris.
No standard body-side mouldings for parking-lot protection.
Cheap-looking flat-black side window mouldings/trim.
Complex up/down motion of side-windows under mouldings with door opening/closure.
Difficult ignition key insertion/removal for large hands/fingers.
Munchkin trunk opening limits cargo-size.
So-so cargo-area trim level.
Temporary spare tire.
Hard-to-drop rear-seat.
Almost useless rear seat in the up position.
Cheap, thin headliner.
Thick but rock-hard sun visors.
Cheap-looking/feeling, Toyota-sourced climate-*****.
Sharp front seat side-bolsters much too narrow for wide torsos/rumps (yes, like mine).
EXTERIOR:
The BRZ exterior, IMO, is rather handsome, and, as I've indicated above, reminds me in several ways of the old Datsun Z hardtop sports cars of the 1970s. It's about the same size, shape, price-class (adjusted for inflation), and overall execution. The paint job was quite good....I'd say just short of excellent, with a lot of shine and just a small amount of orange-peel (I've already discussed the paint-colors above). Though Toyota designed the exterior, I couldn't tell if the actual exterior sheet metal used was Toyota or Subaru....both companes have been using rather thin sheet-metal on their latest products. The doors did not close with a particularly solid thunk, and the hood was very light in weight....felt like aluminum. Of course, the light hood was easy to lift.......more on that in a minute. The front air-dam was set very low (as it usually is in sports cars and sports coupes) which invites damage from humps, bumps, curbs, debris, etc....if you aren't careful. The car's overall low stance (again, common in sports cars and sports-coupes) means that tall persons and those with stiff arms/legs/joints make have some problems getting in and out. The twin outside mirrors were well-done, with strong, stiff housings and a crisp, slick, snap/swivel/lock action....they were part body-color and part flat-black. The side windows had cheap-looking/feeling flat-black trim and rubber mouldings around them. When the doors opened and closed, the power-windows jumped up and down (like with some convertibles) about an inch or so to fit them flush inside a small flange/lip on the moulding...that, of course, is one more feature on the power-windows to eventually break or wear out. I liked the two-tone dark-gray alloy wheels, which, IMO, looked rather classy, but I didn't find the outside trim very nice-looking. Most of it, except for a small amount of chrome around the taillights, was just a bunch of cheap-looking flat-black plastic. And, of course, the usual (for today) lack of body-side mouldings for parking-lot protection.
UNDERHOOD:
The underhood layout was very well done....one of the car's best features. My only complaint was the cost-cutting lack of struts and the use of a manual prop-rod, but the lightweight aluminum hood still made it easier,,...it didn't take much effort to hold it up. There is an underhood insulation pad, albeit a rather small one. The 2.0L non-turbo flat-four (one of Subaru's smallest U.S.-market engines) fits in well, sits low for a low-center of gravity (which improves handling), and has no annoying engine-cover to block access. The alternator, easily-reached is high on the front side of the engine...as is the oil filter, which is a snap. The battery is at the rear, on the left, but still easily-reached, with no cover on it. All dipsticks, fluid-reservoirs, and filler-caps are easily-reached.
INTERIOR:
The interior, overall, wasn't badly done at all, although some things inside were clearly too small for a person my size. Perhaps the biggest problem, for a guy my size, were the narrow, sharp front-seat-bolsters, which, of course, are common to many sports cars/sport-coupes. Those sharp, narrow bolsters noticeably dug into my big, wide torso and rump...and, as with most cars of this price-class, they are not adjustable to widen them out. Even a fairly thin young man, standing besides me, who sat in them, said they were just wide enough for him. But, otherwise, the front seats were impressive, with a durable-feeling black cloth and VW GTI-style red-stitching that carried over not only on the seats but on the leather-covered steering wheel, parking-brake handle, and some other parts of the interior. The big wide metallic silver-trim on the dash and some of the other parts inside contrasted nicely with the otherwise black interior, and unlike on some other Toyota-designed interiors, did not look or feel cheap. The inner door-panels had a variety of trim-surfaces and patterns, but generally had soft and/or padded surfaces. The upper dash, likewise, had a soft padded surface on it. The automatic shift-lever for the transmission was cleverly-designed to mimic the size and shape of the manual-lever......only the lack of H-pattern numbers on the **** and the PRND on the console next to it gave it away as an automatic. The shift-action of the lever was a nice fore/aft motion instead of the annoying zig-zags on most Toyotas and older Subarus. The stereo sound quality was generally good, though I've heard better. The big climate-***** were the same cheap-looking, flat-black, somewhat wobbly-feeling ones used in a number of recent Toyotas and Scions, but they were easy to see/decipher and adjust. The primary instrumentation was Porsche-style, with a larger tachometer directly in front of the wheel and a somewhat smaller speedometer immediately to the left. All of the interior hardware and switches (except for the climate-*****) felt solid and easy-to-work. The headliner on the ceiling was very thin and cheap-feeling. The twin sun-visors felt heavy and solid, but their thick surfaces were rock-hard and not pleasant to the touch. Legroom was fine up front, and, without a sunroof-housing (this particular car didn't have one) headroom was also OK, even for tall persons....unusual in small sports-coupes. Last, of course, the midget rear-seat was vittually useless for anything but a package-shelf.....but that, of course, is to be expected in this type of car. In fact, the Subaru people there said the only reason the car had one at all was for insurance reasons.....two-seaters, of course, all else equal, often get hit with higher premiums. Last, the ignition key was somewhat difficult for big hands/fingers to get in and out of the side-column-mounted ignition switch because of a hard plastic ridge on the upper-left console that partially blocked your hand. Look for some possible owner-complaints on that, and maybe a minor console-redesign in a few years.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The cargo area, IMO, was not particularly well-done, even by small sports-coupe standards. The Munchkin-sized trunk opening did not allow for very large packages or boxes to be loaded, though the use of articulated scissor-hinges helps some. The cargo area would have been better-designed, IMO, as a hatchback or liftback, but Toyota decided to use a small separate trunk-lid instead. Inside, the trunk floor is covered with a very thin, rough-feeling black fabric, and the walls with a substance that feels almost like stucco. Under the floor lies the usual temporary spare tire. To lower the small one-piece rear seat, you must stoop way down, reach inside all the way back inside the trunk to the seatback, pull a fabric hanging-strap down with one hand, and push with the other. Once down, the seats, of course, expand cargo space and make a flat floor, but the aforementoned small trunk-opening limits the size of what can actually be put in. And a transverse cross-bar, above the floor, seems locked in place.......perhaps to help bolster the rear-end frame/chassis rigidity. So, although you can carry some smaller things, don't expect this car to be like a Chevy Suburban.
ON THE ROAD:
Held, of course, for the upcoming test-drive (when possible).
THE VERDICT:
Again, I'll hold off with the final verdict until the test-drive of ther BRZ and possibly, the Scion FRS. But, as I noted above, on first inspection, this duo seems to be the answer for those who have been waiting decades for the old Nissan Z sports-cars of the 1970s to come back to life in an affordable form. The Nissan 370Z itself, of course, brings back some of the spirit of the classic 1970s models, but, of course, is now in a higher price-
range than the BRZ and FRS.
And, as always.........Happy Car Shopping.
MM
IN A NUTSHELL: The 40-year-old Datsun 240/260/280Zs of the 1970s finally come back to life in an affordable version.
CLOSEST COMPETITORS: Scion FRS, Scion tC, Honda CR-Z.
OVERVIEW:
It is no secret, in the auto market and the auto press, that Toyota, in addition to the well-publicized problems it has gone through in the last several years with expanding too quickly, with financial problems (though it still has vast wealth/resources by the standards of most automakers), has had real and imagined engineering/safety problems, and quality/fit/finish issues in the assembly-plants. It has also been stuck, fairly or not, with a stodgy image for middle-aged and older people...somewhat like Buick, Lincoln, and Cadillac. So Toyota's present management has come to the conclusion, somewhat controversially, that it has to try and offer more so-called "exciting" vehicles to try and appeal to a younger age-group. Actually, the company, just a few years ago, DID have the 2-seat MR-2 roadster and small Celica sport-coupe, but decided to drop them from the American market after 2005. (So it makes you wonder if the company didn't bring at least part of the Grandpa-image on itself)? Well, of course, I myself don't believe in auto-images or stereotypes (never did, never will). But, that notwithstanding, my opinion is only one of millions, and, like it or not, many pundits, both in and out of the auto press, DO hawk the image of stereotypes, day and night, so we're stuck with them, fair or not.
So, like it or not, with the part-acquisition of Subaru several years ago, Toyota got access to Subaru's experience in flat-engine design (like Porsche), and AWD technology. Toyota management decided to do (unlike the former MR-2, Celica and the present Scion tC), an all-new, small, front-engine/rear-drive sports-coupe, somewhat along the idea of the old Datsun Z-cars of the 1970s. Unlike the present Nissan 370Z, these new cars were to be more affordable, and not run the 370's price. Subaru, using one of its flat-four engines, would design the drivetrain/chassis, and Toyota would do the body and interior. Engineers and designers from both companies worked closely with each other, so that the left-hand would know what the right-hand was doing, and vice-versa. Two similiar (but not identical) versions were to be done....a higher-priced one to sell under the Subaru nameplate, and a lower-priced one to sell under Toyota's own Scion nameplate (with Scion's no-dicker pricing, of course). IMO, this two-nameplate marketing-strategy is a mistake...I'll get into that in a minute.
As I write this (Easter weekend, 2012), advance-display versions of the Subaru BRZ are just starting to arrive at local Washington, D.C. dealerships, and the Scion FRS models should be following soon. My local Subaru shop (where I got my Outback) got a BRZ in a few days ago (a company-owned vehicle for display-only), and gave me a buzz, so I went up today to see it. As it was company-owned vehicle, on display outside under a tent/canopy, and had a number of people climbing in and out looking at it (like at the D.C. Auto Show in January), they weren't allowing test-drives, and wouldn't bend the rules even for me (which is unusual). But I didn't waste the trip...I got a good overall inspection of the car, inside and out, and decided to write up a static-review while I'm waiting to drive one.
The car is, of course, offered under two nameplates....the Subaru BRZ and Scion FRS...I'll concentrate, of course, on the Subaru version here. The BRZ comes in two basic versions, Premium and Limited, with a normally-aspirated Subaru 2.0L flat-four of 200 HP and 151 ft-lbs. of torque and a choice of close-ratio 6-speed manual or 6-speed Sport-shift auto-manual transmissions (same for the Scion, though the torque-peak n the Scion is at a slightly higher RPM). Base prices run from $24,930 to start on the base Scion FRS manual to $28,595 for a Subaru BRZ Limited.
I don't agree with Toyota's decision to offer the car in Subaru and Scion versions, for several reasons. First, though I said earlier that I don't agree with automotive images and stereotypes, Subaru has (very successfully) based its American-market image and marketing-force on strictly AWD vehicles, and the addition of a RWD sports-coupe may give the public a signal that the company may be moving away from AWD. I'm a firm believer that if you fine something that works, don't mess with it. Second, marketing a Scion version could (?) cause it to compete somewhat against its own Scion tC sport-coupe brother, though the tC is FWD and the BRS is RWD....two different set-ups. Third, if Toyota wants to modify its stodgy image and appeal to a younger crowd, then why not just market it in one version.......a Toyota, under its own nameplate? That, IMO, would make more sense. So, as I see it, it should have been marketed here as a Toyota....and, in fact, it IS marketed as a Toyota in some countries.
Anyhow, the BRZ I looked at today was an automatic version, without a price-sticker (company-owned cars don't have stickers), painted in what appeared to be the Galaxy Blue Silica...a nice medium, reasonably-bright blue, though not quite as bright as the WRX blue you see on the WRX and STi. The WRX/STi blue is available on the BRS, if desired, as is a bright red....the rest of the colors offered are the usual mortuary shades. Since there was no price-sticker, I could not list the usual price/options data like I usually do. And, of course, with out the price-sticker, the specific assembly-plant was not listed, though the factory-plaque inside the door-jamb indicated a Subaru plant (Fuji Heavy Industries) somewhwere in Japan (a "J" as the first digit of the VIN).
I also didn't waste the trip today in another way. I got into a nice conversation at the dealership with a middle-aged couple who was picking up a brand-new Forester...dark gray. They were also checking out the BRZ (not as a purchase, of course). We talked about the BRZ and the ins and outs of the present-generation Forester, compared to the last one. So, I looked over their new Forester for them, all washed/cleaned up and ready to go, just to make sure there weren't any problems...and lo and behold, the PDI guys had (once again) forgotten to bleed the tires. All four of them were still at 45-50 PSI, the way they usually come off of the transporter. Too-high PSI in the tires is probably the most common problem I see in brand-new cars when they are delivered. The dealerships SAY that they check the tires, but often, in fact, they don't....even though it's on the official PDI checklist. So, I asked them who their sales-rep was, went in and got him, reported the problem, and he took the car back to the service-bay just to make sure. Ten minutes later, he drove it back out to us, visibly embarassed, and said "Im sorry....you were right. The tires were indeed way up...now they are correct". So the couple got in, I gave them my usual complementary bottle of SCRATCH-OUT for their new car, they thanked me, and drove off....happy as a lark with their new car.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2013 Subaru BRZ
BASE PRICE: N/A (Company-Owned Vehicle)
($25,495-$28,595 on the web-site)
OPTIONS: N/A (this car had the sport-shift automatic transmisison)
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: N/A
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: N/A
DRIVETRAIN: RWD, 2.0L normally-aspirated Subaru Boxer flat-four, 200 HP @ 7000 RPM, Torque 151 ft-lbs at 6400 RPM, (This looks like a Honda-style high-RPM-peaker with comparatively low torque), 6-speed Sport-Shift automatic transmission, Limited-slip differential.
EPA MILEAGE RATING (Automatic transmission): 25 City / 34 Highway, 28 Combined
(Subaru has not yet put this on their web-site, but it is available from other sources)
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...conomy-ratings
EXTERIOR COLOR: The car I looked at appeared to be Galaxy Blue Silica, which is a nice medium-blue, not quite as bright as the WRX-Blue (which is also available).
INTERIOR: Black Cloth with Red Stitching and Silver-Metallic trim.
PLUSSES:
Reasonably-priced for a sport-coupe, especially the Scion version.
Handsome-looking exterior (IMO)
Relatively large brake rotors for the car's size and weight.
Good-to-excellent paint job.
Attractive (IMO) two-tone dark-gray alloy wheels.
Excellent underhood layout.
Solid side-mirror hardware.
Easy-to-lift lightweight aluminum hood.
Good stereo sound (but I've heard better).
Durable-feeling seat fabric.
Attractive VW GTI-style red interior stitching.
Nicely-done metallic-silver interior trim does not look cheap.
Solid, well-done shift-paddles.
Nice-looking silver-aluminum on gas/brake/dead-foot pedals.
Clear, easy-to-read, Porsche-style primary gauges.
Attractive, cleverly-designed shift-lever.
Nice fore/aft shift-lever motion, with no annoying zig-zags.
MINUSES:
May compromise Subaru's AWD U.S.-marketing/image.
Dealer-markups probably to be expected on early models from supply/demand.
IMO, should have been marketed as a Toyota.
Low-slung stance means difficult entry/exit for tall persons.
So-so exterior sheet metal solidness.
Doors/trunk close with a less-than-solid thunk.
Manual prop-rod for the hood instead of struts (the light hood helps, though).
Very low front air-dam invites damage from humps/curbs/road-debris.
No standard body-side mouldings for parking-lot protection.
Cheap-looking flat-black side window mouldings/trim.
Complex up/down motion of side-windows under mouldings with door opening/closure.
Difficult ignition key insertion/removal for large hands/fingers.
Munchkin trunk opening limits cargo-size.
So-so cargo-area trim level.
Temporary spare tire.
Hard-to-drop rear-seat.
Almost useless rear seat in the up position.
Cheap, thin headliner.
Thick but rock-hard sun visors.
Cheap-looking/feeling, Toyota-sourced climate-*****.
Sharp front seat side-bolsters much too narrow for wide torsos/rumps (yes, like mine).
EXTERIOR:
The BRZ exterior, IMO, is rather handsome, and, as I've indicated above, reminds me in several ways of the old Datsun Z hardtop sports cars of the 1970s. It's about the same size, shape, price-class (adjusted for inflation), and overall execution. The paint job was quite good....I'd say just short of excellent, with a lot of shine and just a small amount of orange-peel (I've already discussed the paint-colors above). Though Toyota designed the exterior, I couldn't tell if the actual exterior sheet metal used was Toyota or Subaru....both companes have been using rather thin sheet-metal on their latest products. The doors did not close with a particularly solid thunk, and the hood was very light in weight....felt like aluminum. Of course, the light hood was easy to lift.......more on that in a minute. The front air-dam was set very low (as it usually is in sports cars and sports coupes) which invites damage from humps, bumps, curbs, debris, etc....if you aren't careful. The car's overall low stance (again, common in sports cars and sports-coupes) means that tall persons and those with stiff arms/legs/joints make have some problems getting in and out. The twin outside mirrors were well-done, with strong, stiff housings and a crisp, slick, snap/swivel/lock action....they were part body-color and part flat-black. The side windows had cheap-looking/feeling flat-black trim and rubber mouldings around them. When the doors opened and closed, the power-windows jumped up and down (like with some convertibles) about an inch or so to fit them flush inside a small flange/lip on the moulding...that, of course, is one more feature on the power-windows to eventually break or wear out. I liked the two-tone dark-gray alloy wheels, which, IMO, looked rather classy, but I didn't find the outside trim very nice-looking. Most of it, except for a small amount of chrome around the taillights, was just a bunch of cheap-looking flat-black plastic. And, of course, the usual (for today) lack of body-side mouldings for parking-lot protection.
UNDERHOOD:
The underhood layout was very well done....one of the car's best features. My only complaint was the cost-cutting lack of struts and the use of a manual prop-rod, but the lightweight aluminum hood still made it easier,,...it didn't take much effort to hold it up. There is an underhood insulation pad, albeit a rather small one. The 2.0L non-turbo flat-four (one of Subaru's smallest U.S.-market engines) fits in well, sits low for a low-center of gravity (which improves handling), and has no annoying engine-cover to block access. The alternator, easily-reached is high on the front side of the engine...as is the oil filter, which is a snap. The battery is at the rear, on the left, but still easily-reached, with no cover on it. All dipsticks, fluid-reservoirs, and filler-caps are easily-reached.
INTERIOR:
The interior, overall, wasn't badly done at all, although some things inside were clearly too small for a person my size. Perhaps the biggest problem, for a guy my size, were the narrow, sharp front-seat-bolsters, which, of course, are common to many sports cars/sport-coupes. Those sharp, narrow bolsters noticeably dug into my big, wide torso and rump...and, as with most cars of this price-class, they are not adjustable to widen them out. Even a fairly thin young man, standing besides me, who sat in them, said they were just wide enough for him. But, otherwise, the front seats were impressive, with a durable-feeling black cloth and VW GTI-style red-stitching that carried over not only on the seats but on the leather-covered steering wheel, parking-brake handle, and some other parts of the interior. The big wide metallic silver-trim on the dash and some of the other parts inside contrasted nicely with the otherwise black interior, and unlike on some other Toyota-designed interiors, did not look or feel cheap. The inner door-panels had a variety of trim-surfaces and patterns, but generally had soft and/or padded surfaces. The upper dash, likewise, had a soft padded surface on it. The automatic shift-lever for the transmission was cleverly-designed to mimic the size and shape of the manual-lever......only the lack of H-pattern numbers on the **** and the PRND on the console next to it gave it away as an automatic. The shift-action of the lever was a nice fore/aft motion instead of the annoying zig-zags on most Toyotas and older Subarus. The stereo sound quality was generally good, though I've heard better. The big climate-***** were the same cheap-looking, flat-black, somewhat wobbly-feeling ones used in a number of recent Toyotas and Scions, but they were easy to see/decipher and adjust. The primary instrumentation was Porsche-style, with a larger tachometer directly in front of the wheel and a somewhat smaller speedometer immediately to the left. All of the interior hardware and switches (except for the climate-*****) felt solid and easy-to-work. The headliner on the ceiling was very thin and cheap-feeling. The twin sun-visors felt heavy and solid, but their thick surfaces were rock-hard and not pleasant to the touch. Legroom was fine up front, and, without a sunroof-housing (this particular car didn't have one) headroom was also OK, even for tall persons....unusual in small sports-coupes. Last, of course, the midget rear-seat was vittually useless for anything but a package-shelf.....but that, of course, is to be expected in this type of car. In fact, the Subaru people there said the only reason the car had one at all was for insurance reasons.....two-seaters, of course, all else equal, often get hit with higher premiums. Last, the ignition key was somewhat difficult for big hands/fingers to get in and out of the side-column-mounted ignition switch because of a hard plastic ridge on the upper-left console that partially blocked your hand. Look for some possible owner-complaints on that, and maybe a minor console-redesign in a few years.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The cargo area, IMO, was not particularly well-done, even by small sports-coupe standards. The Munchkin-sized trunk opening did not allow for very large packages or boxes to be loaded, though the use of articulated scissor-hinges helps some. The cargo area would have been better-designed, IMO, as a hatchback or liftback, but Toyota decided to use a small separate trunk-lid instead. Inside, the trunk floor is covered with a very thin, rough-feeling black fabric, and the walls with a substance that feels almost like stucco. Under the floor lies the usual temporary spare tire. To lower the small one-piece rear seat, you must stoop way down, reach inside all the way back inside the trunk to the seatback, pull a fabric hanging-strap down with one hand, and push with the other. Once down, the seats, of course, expand cargo space and make a flat floor, but the aforementoned small trunk-opening limits the size of what can actually be put in. And a transverse cross-bar, above the floor, seems locked in place.......perhaps to help bolster the rear-end frame/chassis rigidity. So, although you can carry some smaller things, don't expect this car to be like a Chevy Suburban.
ON THE ROAD:
Held, of course, for the upcoming test-drive (when possible).
THE VERDICT:
Again, I'll hold off with the final verdict until the test-drive of ther BRZ and possibly, the Scion FRS. But, as I noted above, on first inspection, this duo seems to be the answer for those who have been waiting decades for the old Nissan Z sports-cars of the 1970s to come back to life in an affordable form. The Nissan 370Z itself, of course, brings back some of the spirit of the classic 1970s models, but, of course, is now in a higher price-
range than the BRZ and FRS.
And, as always.........Happy Car Shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-07-12 at 06:35 PM.
04-07-12, 05:50 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks. 
I had to go back, though, and correct a few small omissions and spelling/punctuation errors (probably while you were reading it). I added the details, for example, at the end of the INTERIOR part, of why the ignition key is hard for some people to insert and remove.
Yes, I'm looking forward to a test-drive, too. Let us know if/when you get a chance to drive one, and what it's like. I'm expecting a high-revving, Honda-style power-curve, quick steering response, flat cornering, great handling from the low center of gravity, and a firm, possibly harsh ride from the lack of suspension-travel and low-profile tires.
I had to go back, though, and correct a few small omissions and spelling/punctuation errors (probably while you were reading it). I added the details, for example, at the end of the INTERIOR part, of why the ignition key is hard for some people to insert and remove.
Yes, I'm looking forward to a test-drive, too. Let us know if/when you get a chance to drive one, and what it's like. I'm expecting a high-revving, Honda-style power-curve, quick steering response, flat cornering, great handling from the low center of gravity, and a firm, possibly harsh ride from the lack of suspension-travel and low-profile tires.
04-07-12, 06:31 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
04-07-12, 08:02 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I had a 1Gen IS300, and I could do some of the minor stuff underhood (it didn't have as many underhood covers as the 2Gen IS250/350)....but anything more than that had to go to the shop.
Trending Topics
04-07-12, 08:49 PM
#8
Dysfunctional Veteran
Those engine covers (minus the pretty blue and black one) would be off in an instant if it was mine. They would be left in the garage and reinstalled when car was sold/traded. If I am leaking something I have to be able to spot it before it becomes a torrent of coolant, oil or transmission/power steering fluid.
Thanks for the Review Mike! Great job as always!
Thanks for the Review Mike! Great job as always!
04-07-12, 09:10 PM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Those engine covers (minus the pretty blue and black one) would be off in an instant if it was mine. They would be left in the garage and reinstalled when car was sold/traded. If I am leaking something I have to be able to spot it before it becomes a torrent of coolant, oil or transmission/power steering fluid.
Thanks for the Review Mike! Great job as always!
I'll try for a test-drive as soon as feasible.
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-07-12 at 09:14 PM.
04-07-12, 09:21 PM
#11
Lexus Test Driver
Nice overall body shape, but nothing cutting edge or standout. The rims look especially non-sporty, with their thin, fragile, generic spokes better suited for a luxury sedan.
04-07-12, 10:17 PM
#12
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love your reviews mmarshall! Thanks as always! I do have one small request for you (something that seems to be missing in almost all reviews). Whenever there is a particular complaint or gripe (or conversely a positive point), I would love to see photographs of the exact subject (so the reader can make up their own mind). For instance, the "cheap" climate control ***** or the automatic shifter. In the first picture showing the HVAC stack, it looks to be a digital/**** setup. But then the pass through photo through the red car's trunk appears to be cheap Yaris ***** (probably is the Scion version). But great review anyway!
04-07-12, 10:31 PM
#13
Great review! I drove one a few weeks ago and it drives really nice, handles exceptionally well. Definately moddable as a lot of the STI components such as the brembos can be used on the car We just ordered a BRZ for the shop so hoping to get it by nov, my local dealer is only getting 30 for the whole yr
04-08-12, 05:31 AM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
great car. not really digging the interior though.
04-08-12, 06:06 AM
#15
Pole Position
Mike, I fail to understand why you didn't mention the Mazda RX-8 as a competitor. It's painfully clear that the BRZ engineers had the RX-8 in it's sights when it built this car. There is no closer competitor. CR-Z? Really? Otherwise, great review, thanks.