Close Topic Options

You could consider it akin to the old 2+2 sports cars. The rear seats have always been laughable.

Yup.

It's probably done for tax issues as well. Kinda like the rear seats in a first gen TT.

Or even the RX-8 for that matter. I think the FC might have had the same problem.

I beg to differ, i sat in the rear of an RX-8 before and even that still has space for me to put my legs

This, i will have to amputate my passengers's legs to get them behind...

My previous car (Benz C-Class coupe) had much more legroom than this in the rear. Hell, even the VW Scirocco has rear seats that could be used by adults

I don't see why anybody would want to buy a 2-door sports car to hold 4 (or more) people. It's a sports car. One or two, or don't bother.

I always call the rear seat in 2-door sport coupes "monkey seats", because you'd have to be bananas (or about as small and lanky as a monkey) to actually fit back there.

Then I trolled everybody by buying a car that doesn't have rear seats.

I'm actually curious as to the rear headroom. I've noticed that in some car reviews (not FRS/BRZ specifically) that mention a lack of rear headroom to be an issue.

The 3 models I've had in my corolla at numerous points (yes, plural) beg to differ with many of the previous posts.

Ive been exceptionally thankful to have my rear seats in the rolla. Im 6'2 and can easily duck behind into the back so long as the driver moves forward a click or two. Its not "luxurious" for myself in any way shape or form, but in a pinch its proven to be ridiculously convenient. Shorter passengers tend to fit relatively fine. And this is assuming theres 2 back there- I actually find it pretty comfortable to be back there by myself buckled up sitting sideways in the seat. Course I can only get away with this because the rolla has a relatively flat bottom line giving it a fairly flat rear seat. You dont get that luxury in many rwd cars, and ths ft86/frs/brz looks like its no exception sadly.

Id like to know how far back the seat was in that photo- ie if thats a typical position for someone around my height, or if thats much further back than need be.

It was adjusted for my height (1.73m or 5' 8 in Church in England). I had to put it abit further back because the seats have horrible upper-leg/knee support

(not sure what u call it, but the seats do not have the ability to adjust the height of the front of the seat to support the upper-leg/knee area)

I suspect for someone of ur height u probably will have to put the seat all the way back.

That part, I can agree with. I'm not a tall guy at all, and even sitting in the FR-S with the seat moved forward to what I'm comfortable with, I don't think there was enough legroom behind me for anyone over 10 years old, at least comfortably.

My opinion is pretty much that. I have 2 (technically 4) cars. One has rear seats, one doesn't. One has rear doors, the other has a fastback hatch.

Sat inside an automatic one at CnC this past weekend. Im a portly guy with a 38 inch waist and I found the seats comfortable. Sure there was some minor pinching at the side bolsters but it didnt bother me. I found the seats more supportive than the Miata or S2000 (I always found myself sitting on the seat rather than in it on the latter car).

I was surprised to find that it also felt more spacious inside than the S2K, especially for your elbows. It had the perfect driving position, love to have one for a daily.

A common thing with the reviews is they make a note that you have to rev high to get it's max potential. Perhaps it's just me, but that part always seems to be put into this fidgety, bad light. I don't get it. Isn't that how most cars work?

(THIS POST WAS REMOVED BY REQUEST)

What the journos probably meant by that is in order to carry speed with the BRZ, you have to constantly keep the revs high due to the peakiness of the engine. Cars like the Integra Type R or Honda S2000 have to be driven in a similar fashion due to the peaky, low-torque motors in order to go fast. In a car like an AMG Mercedes or Mustang, you wouldnt need to do that thanks to the surging torque.

Difference in taste then, I suppose.

Not sure if this has been posted yet.

This post has been edited by DigiBunny on May 16 2012, 02:54 AM

Along the lines of what Fast said, while it's obvious that most (if not all) performance engines put out the most power at (or near) redline, they're likely referring to how in the lower rpms, it's not too sporty to the point where you really need to keep the rpms boiling to be having fun. It contrasts to larger displacement engines that still make their peak hp around redline, though their power delivery is still punchy a bit lower than that.

For example, my car gets max HP at 5,000 Rpm, redline is 6,000, but i still whip between gears because i have full torque from 1900-5000 rpm so i dont need to keep the revs high especially in lower gears because then my car will just be a shitshow.

The BRZ 's max power is closer to the redline and the torque range is also higher up in the revs, meaning it has no balls when your putting around.

Have you actually looked at an FR-S dyno?



It's nothing amazing, but it certainly isn't peaky, considering how max torque is hit under 3,000 rpm and is surprisingly flat (other than the intended dip around the ~4000 rpm range) for being an NA 2.0-liter four-cylinder redlining at 7500.

Conspicuous dip is conspicuous.

IIRC, this is due to the gearing?

Gearing wont have anything to do with it. Possibly some kind of variable valve timing trickery swap over or other similar system?

I would guess a version of Toyota's usual VVti.

I don't remember why, but on the FR-S/BRZ forums it had been discussed. I think someone said it may have been that way since that dip is around cruising rpms so it might have been done deliberately to help out with reducing fuel consumption, though the torque peaking before that obviously helps with driveability since it's not as if people normally redline when going to work.

That torque curve doesnt look too bad actually. I was expecting something similar to a high-revving Type R engine.

I still love my car though. Supercharger + turbocharger = peak torque from 1500rpm FTW

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/05/16/gazoo-r...er-toyota-gt86/

Power? anyone?

This post has been edited by Godarm on May 18 2012, 10:57 AM

My only complaint would be the lack of Carbon Fiber visible anywhere.

I could have sworn one of the things this car put so much emphasis on was being light.