FR-S/BRZ vs. Genesis Coupe

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

First off this car(FRS) has a 53/47 balance in which a lot of other RWD vehicles have beaten or come close to. The Mx5 engine doesn't have a lower CoG yet it still has great handling so a flat engine seems to be a complete waste of time it seems. No one has mention this car being better than a Mx5 only saying it's a close match. In this day and age most sport coupes have stiff chassis already like when Hyundai made their coupe 25% more rigid than a e46 M3. Hell even my RSX is very stiff already. And about people only prioritizing weight? You must have missed a few threads where people were saying if the FRS is over 2800 lbs they could care less how it handles and they won't buy it. You might not be one of them but they clearly exist on this site.

i cant quite tell if you guys are arguing or not but i will say that the miatas, if not the engine itself, has a pretty low cog. i wouldnt be surprised if its lower than the cog of the frs

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

First off this car(FRS) has a 53/47 balance in which a lot of other RWD vehicles have beaten or come close to. The Mx5 engine doesn't have a lower CoG yet it still has great handling so a flat engine seems to be a complete waste of time it seems. No one has mention this car being better than a Mx5 only saying it's a close match. In this day and age most sport coupes have stiff chassis already like when Hyundai made their coupe 25% more rigid than a e46 M3. Hell even my RSX is very stiff already. And about people only prioritizing weight? You must have missed a few threads where people were saying if the FRS is over 2800 lbs they could care less how it handles and they won't buy it. You might not be one of them but they clearly exist on this site.

I respectfully disagree regarding the importance of the boxer.

Saying low weight is required != saying low weight is the only priority.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Driftster

The boxer engine is a nice touch, but it is in NO way a requirement at all..

As far as I can tell the only reason this car chose the box engine was because Subaru was due for a new engine and no better way to showcase/advertize the new engine than in a new vehicle..

Toyota has produced plenty of engines for the next few years, for them to retool an assembly line just to produce an engine that wouldn't see the engine bay of maybe 1 or 2 cars would be financially silly. Meanwhile subaru, which has been behind in the technology world by 10 years for the past...12-15 years needed a revamp and since they share engines over a wide variety of vehicles it makes alot more sense economically for subaru to be the company to produce the plant for this car...

This cars focus is CLEARLY "driving dynamic" not weight, not handling, because a car doesn't have to be light or carve corners in order to be responsive to the driver. The car has had a few targets to aim for on it's way to production, but since the onslaught of press releases started the focus of this car has steered away from nearly everything they promised prior to solely how it "Feels"

Putting a Boxer 4, or an inline 4 under the bonnet when all is said and done has such a inadmissible level of relevance to that goal it makes no sense to credit the engine on that achievement.


As for Genesis..I think it's a genius car.. Whether you like the front end or not is is by leaps and bounds a more all inclusive vehicle than the GT86.. The GT86 targets a niche market, that of the mx5 (hopefully price wise it does as well)

With it's limited/useless space, it's driving dynamic it's power being low along with its weight, but also it's factory options/standard features being so minimal to the point of including prius tires and advertising them as "prius tires".. It is DIRECTED at a very very small market, will it sell outside of that market? Of course..without question, the PR campaign going into this car rivals most gubernatorial candidates, it's going to sell to every telemarketing 23 year old to 50 year old men who still think they've "got it" simply because it's the latest thing on the shelves most people will be able to identify...

This is good for us because this also means there will be alot of dealer trade backs in the next couple of years resulting in 15-17k warranted price tags...

The Genesis though, has a useful back seat, a useful trunk.. It has the comfort and ride quality to be used by everyone, yet if you want more feedback sharper ride..It's a cheap car so you can spend $ on it to make it feel how you want...

So to summarize...The Genesis makes the better canvas overall, but the GT86 makes the better off the lot "i want to feel like i've got a fast car even if i don't" car.

but that, again, is only comparing the release spec GT86..no telling what the future holds

I have to agree with you about the canvas part. The GC does seem like it's more of a tuners car simply because of the high compression engine in the FRS/BRZ most likely being a bad thing against F/I lovers(Not me). But this car was never meant for F/I so I don't think a lot of owners would care about F/I. The GC on the other hand comes with a 2.0l turbo engine and Brembo brakes being offered at 24-25k so it definitely would benefit more from the tuners/aftermarket than the FRS.

[spin9k]

Originally Posted by Driftster

The boxer engine is a nice touch, but it is in NO way a requirement at all..

As far as I can tell the only reason this car chose the box engine was because Subaru was due for a new engine and no better way to showcase/advertize the new engine than in a new vehicle..

Toyota has produced plenty of engines for the next few years, for them to retool an assembly line just to produce an engine that wouldn't see the engine bay of maybe 1 or 2 cars would be financially silly. Meanwhile subaru, which has been behind in the technology world by 10 years for the past...12-15 years needed a revamp and since they share engines over a wide variety of vehicles it makes alot more sense economically for subaru to be the company to produce the plant for this car...

This cars focus is CLEARLY "driving dynamic" not weight, not handling, because a car doesn't have to be light or carve corners in order to be responsive to the driver. The car has had a few targets to aim for on it's way to production, but since the onslaught of press releases started the focus of this car has steered away from nearly everything they promised prior to solely how it "Feels"

Putting a Boxer 4, or an inline 4 under the bonnet when all is said and done has such a inadmissible level of relevance to that goal it makes no sense to credit the engine on that achievement.

Quite the conspiracy going on I guess, if the REAL reasons for the design of the car is as you say Nothing so much to do with making a sports car, but rather some confluence of needs from Toyota/Subaru marketing / production upgrades. Yea, I guess all the marketing is a cover when they speak about sports car design, not to mention physics of car handling is really a sham from those elitist shady engineers just trying to hold onto their jobs .

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by spin9k

Quite the conspiracy going on I guess, if the REAL reasons for the design of the car is as you say Nothing so much to do with making a sports car, but rather some confluence of needs from Toyota/Subaru marketing / production upgrades. Yea, I guess all the marketing is a cover when they speak about sports car design, not to mention physics of car handling is really a sham from those elitist shady engineers just trying to hold onto their jobs .

im a little drunk and text is really bad for representing tone but this car doesnt do anything exceptional. i think its a throwback to days when cars had character and the car was greater than the sum of the parts. marketing things like cog does seem like a marketing ploy for sure considering there have been cheaper cars with lower cogs in the past...its not revolutionary. simply a good car

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Driftster

I never said it was some cover up conspiracy... But the emphasis they put on the engine being crucial to this and that, thats why we chose this configuration is untrue to say the least..

From a financial point of view anything other than subaru handling the engine makes very little sendr.

From a mechanic point of view the emphasis on centrr of gravity is silly considering the emphasis they put on use exterior cusomization ie wheel diameter tire height etc...

The boxer configuration although being "flat" doesnt do a spectacular job or lowering center of gravity by a substantial margin....

This car could have been an i4 with similar variables but the production of a new i4 from toyota wouldnt have made nearly as much sense fincially as a new subaru engine for the fuji industries family

but the boxer motor does some good in making the car look sexy. the only thing that really bugs me about boxer motors is that the cylinder heads are far enough to make it twice the work to do cool things. the other is that i feel gravity always wears the rings in a kinda one sided fashion. warranted or not i dont know but its always in the back of my mind

[Spaceywilly]

From a mechanic point of view the emphasis on centrr of gravity is silly considering the emphasis they put on use exterior cusomization ie wheel diameter tire height etc...

The boxer configuration although being "flat" doesnt do a spectacular job or lowering center of gravity by a substantial margin....

I don't understand what you're saying here. Low CoG means less roll during turning, and having it closer to the firewall means the polar moment of inertia is closer to the CoG meaning it is more willing to turn. That's just the laws of physics and has nothing to do with FHI needing to update their line of engines.

If you don't think the boxer engine makes a difference in CoG, take a look at this page



This is on the stock suspension so with even a 1" drop it will be lower than all the cars on that list.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Driftster

The boxer engine is a nice touch, but it is in NO way a requirement at all..

I'm not sure if that's directed at me since I didn't write the boxer was a requirement, only that I disagree with with SUB-FT86's assertion that using "a flat engine seems to be a complete waste of time".

Originally Posted by Driftster

This cars focus is CLEARLY "driving dynamic" not weight

Weight directly contributes to driving dynamics.

Originally Posted by Driftster

it's going to sell to every telemarketing 23 year old to 50 year old men who still think they've "got it" simply because it's the latest thing on the shelves most people will be able to identify...

I don't know if it'll sell to those people any more than the Mustang, Camero, 370Z, and GC, but the FT86's primary market is people who want traditional sports car driving dynamics on the cheap, but need something more practical than an MX5.

I'm actually jealous of you and SUB-FT86 in a way; I wish I enjoyed driving cars like the GC as much as you guys because they're cheaper and more spacious. To each his own.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

I don't understand what you're saying here. Low CoG means less roll during turning, and having it closer to the firewall means the polar moment of inertia is closer to the CoG meaning it is more willing to turn. That's just the laws of physics and has nothing to do with FHI needing to update their line of engines.

If you don't think the boxer engine makes a difference in CoG, take a look at this page



This is on the stock suspension so with even a 1" drop it will be lower than all the cars on that list.

i might be wrong but body roll isnt as much of an issue when you have a good suspension design with a huge useable camber curve. no matter what the cog is the weight transfer and any rate of lateral acceleration is going to be basically the same.

of course those suspensions with a 1" drop will be lower than the frs again but you are ignoring roll centers so i dont know how much that will mean. and even if what youre saying is still favorable for the frs and its low cog, its more hype than anything. so its been compared to a couple cars favorably. i can tell you that there are hundreds of thousands of stock na miatas driving around with lower center of gravities...

[spin9k]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i might be wrong but body roll isnt as much of an issue when you have a good suspension design with a huge useable camber curve. no matter what the cog is the weight transfer and any rate of lateral acceleration is going to be basically the same.

of course those suspensions with a 1" drop will be lower than the frs again but you are ignoring roll centers so i dont know how much that will mean. and even if what youre saying is still favorable for the frs and its low cog, its more hype than anything. so its been compared to a couple cars favorably. i can tell you that there are hundreds of thousands of stock na miatas driving around with lower center of gravities...

Originally Posted by fatoni

but the boxer motor does some good in making the car look sexy. the only thing that really bugs me about boxer motors is that the cylinder heads are far enough to make it twice the work to do cool things. the other is that i feel gravity always wears the rings in a kinda one sided fashion. warranted or not i dont know but its always in the back of my mind

Originally Posted by Driftster

I never said it was some cover up conspiracy... But the emphasis they put on the engine being crucial to this and that, thats why we chose this configuration is untrue to say the least..

From a financial point of view anything other than subaru handling the engine makes very little sendr.

From a mechanic point of view the emphasis on centrr of gravity is silly considering the emphasis they put on use exterior cusomization ie wheel diameter tire height etc...

The boxer configuration although being "flat" doesnt do a spectacular job or lowering center of gravity by a substantial margin....

This car could have been an i4 with similar variables but the production of a new i4 from toyota wouldnt have made nearly as much sense fincially as a new subaru engine for the fuji industries family

You both sound you are on the same stuff, whatever it's called. When you can produce a cohesive thought once more, this might become interesting again, but until then....

[serialk11r]

I agree with SUB FT86 that weight is overemphasized on this forum. Personally I believe in the light, simple car philosophy, but people praise it for the wrong reasons. Lightweight does NOT mean better grip, it just means it's slightly easier to make the car grip better. What lighter weight means is easier on the gas, easier on the brakes, easier on the tires, but these rules can be broken too.

As far as the boxer engine goes, to me the boxer is the only thing that gives this car character. Ideally a car's center of gravity should be as low as possible; This car's design allows the lowest possible center of gravity for its engine and chassis size and design, which from a geek's perspective is really damn cool. Really what else does this car have?

As far as the Miata is concerned, that thing is pretty expensive, but then I am not into convertibles so I guess I can't appreciate that aspect.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I agree with SUB FT86 that weight is overemphasized on this forum. Personally I believe in the light, simple car philosophy, but people praise it for the wrong reasons. Lightweight does NOT mean better grip, it just means it's slightly easier to make the car grip better. What lighter weight means is easier on the gas, easier on the brakes, easier on the tires, but these rules can be broken too.

As far as the boxer engine goes, to me the boxer is the only thing that gives this car character. Ideally a car's center of gravity should be as low as possible; This car's design allows the lowest possible center of gravity for its engine and chassis size and design, which from a geek's perspective is really damn cool. Really what else does this car have?

As far as the Miata is concerned, that thing is pretty expensive, but then I am not into convertibles so I guess I can't appreciate that aspect.

when you say things like weight is overemphasized, it makes me wonder what you think isnt overemphasized. and those rules you spoke of cant be broken. i mean i kinda understand what you are saying but i disagree

[scwewywabbit]

if you want to drive a comfy, fairly luxurious coupe, then the Gen Coupe would definitely be the way to go. It's decked out, looks nice, and has a great ride quality. It's also fairly fun. Great, fun, daily driver.

But what I'm looking from the FRS / BRZ that the Gen Coupe doesn't have is the fun-factor. Before the FRS/BRZ I was seriously considering either the Coupe or the Honda s2000. The s2000 is a little rougher and much less practical than the Coupe, but oh-so-much fun. The transmission on the s2k itself is worth it.

Now the FRS/BRZ is out, I like that it's almost a hard-top version of the s2k. Similar handling characteristics, same transmission, without the possibility of getting a rip in the canopy. And extra backseat storage.

For s2k enthusiasts, the FRS/BRZ is a win! :happy0180:

[PAImportTuner]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

You must have missed a few threads where people were saying if the FRS is over 2800 lbs they could care less how it handles and they won't buy it. You might not be one of them but they clearly exist on this site.

You are confusing a 2800# with 200hp versus a 2200# car with 200hp

That's why some people wrote the car off, power not weight. WEIGHT is only a factor when power is low as in this case. If the car was 2200# and 200hp then guess what, 90% of those guys who wrote the car off wouldn't of.