Close Topic Options

Who are you KT Takashi of the Akagi Red suns?

That wing doesn't look bad but I'd probably go wingless.

^ Maybe it would be decent on the STi version of the car namsayn?

I just read that the 2013 WRX is going to be powered by a turbocharged variant of the 2.0-liter in the BRZ/FR-S putting out approximately 270 hp... so the engine will clearly exist. Hopefully it will make its way into the BRZ/FR-S. There's no reason it wouldn't work. It might cause some competition within the company, but luckily the two cars are different enough that they won't cannibalize each other's sales.

http://wot.motortrend.com/breaking-news-ne...-hp-143875.html

Unless you absolutely have to have four doors, that would all but eliminate any desire to get a WRX over comperably spec'd BRZ. I don't think you'll ever see that trim in a pretty car for the same reason Mitsubishi killed off the turbo AWD Eclipse.

Unless the do an about-face and embrace the new design and ditch the WRX. But knowing stubborn Japanese designers/developers/anything, that will never happen.

That's great news. 260 hp in a BRZ would be just right, the engineers did say the chassis can take 50-60 more hp without any modification.

The WRX will also remain the choice for anyone who gets a lot of snow in the winter. There probably will never be an AWD BRZ as it's not feasible with the engine placement.

Well, I think *most* people who buy WRXs do actually need four doors... or at least wouldn't find only having two doors useful. I don't think there's THAT much overlap between the WRX and BRZ/FR-S crowd (unless they are planning on owning both simultaneously).

Mitsubishi didn't kill off the Eclipse GSX because of the Evo arriving stateside (as the second-gen Eclipse and its AWD turbo variant stopped being produced in 1999 while the Evo VIII didn't get here until spring 2003), though I'll admit there may have been some overlap had the GSX still existed. It was "killed off" since Mitsubishi wanted to take the Eclipse in another direction that they thought the consumer would like, though of course they ended up being wrong. The concept car design was right, but the production car sucked, and to cut costs (as opposed to preventing it from cannibalizing the Evo's sales), they put far less sporty engines from other Mitsubishis.

A more powerful BRZ/FR-S would be nice (and expected, as even Mazda made a more powerful version of the Miata before), though I think AWD not being in the BRZ wasn't even considered since an AWD system would add too much weight.

I dont see how a 2 door RWD will affect the sales of a 4 door AWD even with the same motor producing the same power. It will be more of a option, if your single in a snow free enviroment, you can get the BRZ, and if you got a kid and live in Iowa, the WRX would be your choice. Two diffrent cars with the same sportiness suited for 2 different crowds.

I keep forgetting that not everyone lives somewhere in which "winter" means 50º and a light wind and the sun shining.

/San Diego <3

I keep forgetting there are people that think you need AWD to drive through snow. What you need is snow tires. RWD is more fun in the snow anyway.

And on that note, it's still okay to have AWD even if you never see an inch of snow

Oh yeah, I don't want to imply that it isn't. I just laugh at people who have no idea how to handle snow.

I don't know how to handle snow. Then again, I haven't seen live snow in person in more than 15 years.

Thanks for your opinion.

Mine is that RWD is indeed fun. I won't say it's more fun than AWD/4WD (unless you are in a large open space with snow that isn't higher than the clearance of the car).

Also, snow tires + snow driving ability/experience. A snow driving newb will still be a newb despite drivetrain or tires.

I have to agree with you on the RWD is fun and that you dont need AWD if you got nice snow tires. But AWD + Snow tires in the snow is not only easier to get rolling if you live in hilly areas but you can whip through snow covered roads like no tomorow, which to me is more fun.

Shit son. I drive in the snow with an FR, with normal tires. come at me bro

Snow and FR = Fun, lots of fun actually.
Even an old Merc 200 N/A diesel goes sideways and feels somewhat fast in winter. It's pouring free horsepower from the sky!

But AWD on ice-track, win:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqlP6LC3nvk

But obviously a more suitable drivetrain and/or more suitable tires will help a newb drive more safely.

Which is precisely why snow tires should be made mandatory in the northern states by law, just like how Canada and Germany do it.

Last winter i was on good year regattas which is all season and the volvo did well, i was too broke to afford new tires. If snow tires were mandated id be screwed.

Well, when crossing into snowy areas, depending on the conditions, the CHP sets up checkpoints to verify that you either have snow tires or chains. When we went earlier this year in a friend's STI, they let him pass since he had snow tires and AWD, though they made sure that he had chains just in case (which he did). Apparently anything shy of those two things together required you to put on chains regardless.

fyi

Not all parts of Canada have that snow tire rule.

This post has been edited by WRX DEMON Type R on Dec 14 2011, 10:50 AM

That rule is such a load of.....


Really the chains are just there to slow you down.

Chains are illegal in Ohio, thank god.

Only the good ones.

lol.

It would be nice to bring it to everywhere in Canada, but it's a sad situation with folks who need cars to get around and can't find it feasible in their budget to get a set of snow tires.

If everyone in Canada could afford to buy their children an EVO and then purchase themselves an STi, it would be pretty easy to pass this kind of law.