Opinion: How Subaru and Toyota can save driving

[AF News Desk]

From time to time, the folks over at Jalopnik have some really good editorials regarding driving and its current state. Today is no different, with their recent article on the potential impact that Subaru and Toyota can have on the driving world with the announcement/unveiling of their upcoming models the BRZ and GT-86 (which are essentially the same car).

Before we get into my views on the topic, here is the story from Jalopnik:

Editor's note: They swearing has not been removed from the article as I do not believe in unnecessary censorship. - Swigz

Originally Posted by Wes Siler - Jalopnik, 12/12/11

Yes, Toyota and Subaru can… save driving

Lulled into stupor by your in-car DVD player and automatic butt massagers, you may not have noticed, but cars have gotten really, really boring in the last two decades. Sure, they're faster than ever — a 2011 Toyota Camry makes 21 more horsepower than a 1991 Porsche 911 — they're safer than ever and they're more luxurious than ever. But all the above have removed the whole purpose of cars: The driving itself. But change could now be on the horizon. Could a new product from the most beige of automakers forever restore the driver to his rightful place?

And I really do mean cars have gotten boring. Even equipped with a weekly rotation of the newest, most exciting cars on the planet and regular jaunts around the world to drive them on race tracks, I left as Jalopnik's road test editor last year, departing for the more involved climes of motorcycles. There simply wasn't a car on the market that was any longer capable of holding my interest; not when I could swap my driving shoes for a leather suit and actually be allowed to control a fast vehicle using only skill and physical inputs.

Don't believe me? Go bounce off the top speed governor of a CTS-V on the road. Rather than some feat of ridiculous human prowess, you just mash the pedal and point away from trees. Go drive an SLS AMG around Laguna Seca or, rather, sit along for the ride while the automatic transmission and undefeatable stability control do it for you. Hell, you can set lap records in a Porsche 911 GT3 RS all day long without really trying.

But that all changed a week ago when I walked into the reveal of the Scion FR-S here in Hollywood. The car in front of me wasn't about bullshit numbers that translate into very little experience. It wasn't about features and it wasn't about image. It's not designed to perfectly accentuate Mr. Bluetooth Earpiece's striped shirt or make Sally Homemaker feel rugged. Unlike literally every other car on the market in 2011, it's made to do one thing and one thing only. It's made to be driven.

There's been some bitching in Jalop circles that the Scion FR-S/Toyota GT 86 and its Subaru BRZ cousin don't make headline-grabbing power figures. To them, I say, who cares? I've driven the most powerful cars on the planet and been bored to tears doing so. The problem is, that with ridiculous power, comes ridiculous liability.

No automaker is free to allow mere mortals to exploit a 556 HP luxury car without intervention. And I'm not talking about just the electronic kind. Chassis on those cars are tuned for safety, not driver involvement. Stability at high speeds, not agility in tight corners. The hugely wide and extremely low-profile tires needed to put that power to the road grip like hell, but utterly refuse to slide in a controllable manner. Where's the fun when you only have two choices on the menu: grip or spin?

In fact, the whole concept that speed somehow correlates with what we want to do as drivers is completely erroneous. I'm not in this to read some number off a dashboard, I drive cars and ride bikes to develop new skills, then practice them. I drive to participate in a landscape and, occasionally, to scare myself.

The best driver's car I've ever owned was a BMW that weighed 2,813 Lbs and made 167 HP. The Scionotabaru weighs 2,689 Lbs and makes 197 HP. That's plenty for me. That I'll be able to drive it without playing into the ideas that our midwestern and southern readers probably have about me and my skinny jeans and that I'll be able to carry luggage and occasionally some buddies in the back seats just makes it that much better.

To put those numbers in perspective, a current BMW M3 weighs 3,704 Lbs. Over 1,000 more than the Subionta. Where's the fun in that?

That the GT 86/86/FR-S/BRZ was able to get down to such a svelte weight without the use of exotic materials is indicative of its appeal. It doesn't need a carbon fiber roof or magnesium wheels or drillium pedals in order to perform. Which means you'll be able to make it perform for just $24,000. That's less than a VW Golf TDI. You can afford this car. You can afford to crash this car and you can afford to repair it. That means you can afford to really, really drive it. Hard. You can afford to modify it. You'll probably be able to do the maintenance yourself, in your driveway.

When I walked into that FR-S unveil I saw a car that was small, a car that was practical, a car that was unassuming, a car that was RWD, has a manual transmission, a light weight and perfect weight distribution. I saw a car that I wanted, badly. For the first time in a long time.

I'm planning on buying a BRZ. How about you?

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ OUR VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

The dwindling appeal of the current auto offerings on the market it something that we've believed in for a while now but haven't really touched a lot on.

The angle at which Jalopnik approaches this topic is an interesting one to me, because it's not only on the overall look and engine performance of the car, but also the exterior/interior styling and how that impacts (or in this case, doesn't impact) the power to weight ratio of the car. Or there's the price point, which often scares people looking for a cheap, fun car away from making a purchase.

For the most part, I agree with what the Jalopnik boys are saying about the asscertion that these cars can save driving. Why? Because they are right: We need cars that we can drive the hell out of and still have the ability to maintain/fix as necessary. It's damaging to our hearts as enthusiasts to have to spend way too much for a car that has performance, but only if you can afford the steep prices of fixing something when it breaks - which defeats the purpose of having a fun car in the first place.

You know what I mean, right? You don't want to buy a car to have fun only to drive it on ultra-nice days at speeds that only approach 70 mph or 45 mph through town. You want a car that you can put the hammer down on and feel good about doing so. You want to know that if you break something, the parts will be available and they won't cost a ridiculous sum (and that you won't need three of them when you thought there was only the need for one).

Add to that the fact that you're not going to be driving something that's so heavy, if you hit a deer, you'll only notice a slight vibration and you've got a combination that's hard to pass up if you're looking for power and price.

Finally, I think it's a very valid point that when it comes to power, bigger isn't necessarily better. Just because you can pump out 500 horses from a sports car doesn't mean you need to - especially when significantly less will benefit your experience significantly more.

While my current budget for a new car is significantly lower than what the BRZ will start at, I can safely say that I would own one in a heartbeat, given the character it possesses.

What do you think?

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by AF News Desk

What do you think?

I think it's another retro throwback marketing trick.
A way to build a cheap car with high margins then sell it with a great story for the media to lap up.

I think it's aimed directly at males now in their mid 30s (like myself) who considered cars like the original AE86 to be the ultimate driving experience.
Light weight and under powered, yet agile and engaging to drive.
There is a whole stable of Japanese cars from the late 70s and early 80s that embodied the English and European ideals from the 60s and early 70s.

I remember those cars, I owned some of them, I loved them and I miss them.
Even the ones I never got to drive have appeal to me, often as much as the ones I did get to drive.
There is a whole generation who idolized these cars and I think Toyobaru is simply trying to cash in on us.
The same way Ford did with the Retro Mustang and GM did with the Retro Camaro.


I have a feeling this car will look the part and people will buy it all excited by it, but in reality it will be safe, the power delivery will gentle and the chassis will be direct enough to make you think your involved, but underneath it will be soft enough to keep you safe.
I think it will be well built, sound deadened and boring.


Most of all though, I really, really hope I'm wrong.

[scotttnz]

I hope you are wrong too Moppie!

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by scotttnz

I hope you are wrong too Moppie!

Hi Scott, could make a good replacement for the RX8

[ashusood]

its only provide information about both but not clear to decide which is better

[MagicRat]

This story is a rehash of an old, old automotive observation or complaint.

Anyone who read Road and Track, Car and Driver, Sports Car Graphic etc from 30 years ago would recognize this issue, Back then, enthusiasts recognized the sports cars of the early '80's were much faster and more competent, but simply less fun than the British and Italian sports cars of the 50's and 60's.

I have lots of car magazines from the 1950's that came to a similar conclusion. New cars of the mid-to-late 1950's were often fast, but too quiet, comfortable and safe to be real fun. Real fun was found in modding cars from the 1930's.

So, while I agree with the concept, it's nothing new, and leads me to the logical conclusion that the most automotive fun available is in driving the whiz out of a simple, primitive, easily-modded, poor handling ancient piece of junk with no roof

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

...............the most automotive fun available is in driving the whiz out of a simple, primitive, easily-modded, poor handling ancient piece of junk with no roof

Exactly!