I'm sure this has been discussed before, but why won't

>>17550424
>I think someone said they didn't want it cannibalizing WRX sales, but the WRX is a sedan/hatch, and the BRZ is a coupe. I don't see that there would be that much overlap between buyers there.

Welcome to automobile companies, they very often completely fuck over other vehicles just so that the certain flagship cars dont get potentially lose sales.

>>17550424
They don't want relevant torque.

>>17550424

Adding more power won't magically make the BRZ good or sell more. It would sell the same as it does now with about 10% opting for the turbo version. That's it. 10%. That's not worth the resources for such a meager gain.

>>17550433
The agreement is with Toyota people. They've had this in the past with the Wrx and the Evo

>>17550557
source: the great anonymous

toyota has a 310hp v6 in the camry

the toyobaru is meant to be a cheap slow shitbox

File: IMG_0043.jpg (91KB, 541x960px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 541x960px

>>17550557
False, far more people would consider it if it wasn't a rwd civic with less torque

>>17550579

It's basically like buying a brand new 240sx in 1996.

>>17550581
Except a 240sx didn't cost 30k new

It would still be a poor man's Cayman, but it could actually come close to a standard version Cayman then. It would also cost 6 or 7 grand more.

In short, it would still be awesome and a nice improvement over the N/A car. Most people don't know the difference between a 3 door hatch and a coupe, so it would probably steal sales from the WRX, being slightly cheaper while offering similar or better performance on dry roads.

>>17550584

With inflation they did, s14's were around 23k new, which is 35k now.

>>17550581
So 20 years from now, an untouched well maintained Toyobaru should be worth a tidy sum?