follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook.
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Delicious Tuning
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB > FT86CLUB Shared Forum > FR-S / BRZ vs....

FR-S / BRZ vs.... Area to discuss the FR-S/BRZ against its competitors [NO STREET RACING]


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-16-2012, 10:14 PM   #57
7thgear
i'm sorry, what?
 
7thgear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Canada
Location: I rock a beat harder than you can beat it with rocks
Posts: 4,399
Thanks: 357
Thanked 2,506 Times in 1,268 Posts
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepGuessing View Post
Well considering some of the information thus far has been "lies of omission/exclusion" i'd be hesitant to just feed off of what's been said about the car just yet..


for 1, the Cayman's Center of Gravity is measured with it's stock wheels/tires..
That's a 17" wheel and a 55mm sidewall tire in the front and a 17" wheel and a 50mm sidewall tire in the rear, along with however much rake the car has.....Let's not forget the car has 5" of ground clearance..

The FR-S however has multiple wheel tire size options..

The GT86 RC for example, comes with 16" wheels, the BRZ with 17" wheels and 45mm sidewalls, the toyota 20 spokes are 18" wheels with 40mm sidewalls.. So that "Lower than the Cayman's center of gravity" varies substantially before the car has even hit the car lots.

I know thusfar toyota has said it's weight will start at 26xxlbs...But now that line has been blurred with the inclusion of the Toyota GT86 RC, which is the "26xx lb" model they were talking about.

So if the car with the factual "lower than cayman center of gravity" is ALSO the RC, then chances are every car with larger selection of wheels and tires doesn't quite fit the same claims.

As for the "If all things are equal i don't see why it couldn't corner as fast" by all things equal do you mean PURELY in the tires? or do you mean going through substantial measures to get the same generalized specifications from both...

Because then we're talking optimal suspension tuning for both, because the porsche is setup for tire preservation and guel economy (being a Base Cayman and not an S) while the FR-S is not as noted by the stock cast/camber...Then you have to factor in that the FRS stock suspension setup IS a compromise for performance and economy, which is why the negative toe under hard cornering is prevalent unless addressed...etc etc..

but if we're talking JUST equal tires? no..
suspension tuning on the porsche is no doubt superior, (in terms of damper valving and spring setup)

however Toyota isn't exactly the new kid on the block, and until you start getting into the really sticky tires and a need for aero, or you start completly redesigning the base car (ie, WRC) then the advantage of having superior dampers is not that great

dynamic alignment changes for the most part affect drivability, if you put the car on a skid pad it's not going to affect the overall grip, just the way you drive the car

so yes, if you put the FRS and Porsche on lets say a pair of RS3's or StarSpecs of equal sizes, i am confident the FRS will pull the same G's on a skidpad

where the porsche is most likely superior is prolonges cornering sessions where its ABS, brake package, and aero tricks will give it the edge.

in either case, even if a Cayman will out handle an FRS it will not be a surprise to anyone

but imagine the opposite...


let the fanboi in me glee in sushine happyness.. LOL

plus from my own personal experience of tracking shitty econoboxes, i know that there is often much hidden potential in a lighter car going up against a heavier car with more power.. but this is where the fun in driving is (at least for me)
__________________
don't you think if I was wrong, I'd know it?
7thgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:28 PM   #58
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '23 BRZ
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 4,575
Thanks: 1,372
Thanked 3,882 Times in 2,026 Posts
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSxJunkie View Post
I loved my GTOs. But they weighed 3700lbs and that was without heated seats, side impact airbags, or a sunroof. They were PIGS.
Yup, same weight as the E9x M3!

Quote:
And inside they were bigger than a new 6er.
But 500 lb. lighter!

Quote:
They also sit taller than the new Camaro and higher off the ground.
No freaking way. The top of the GTO roof might technically be taller, but the body line going from the nose/hood/lower-edge-of-greenhouse/deck is a LOT lower than the new WAY high blocktastic Camaros. The Camaro greenhouse is much more scrunched down and pinched, so technically slightly lower max height, but it's hood/fenderline/beltline are UP there!

Quote:
Great grand tourer, but certainly not low and sleek.
Relative to the Camaro, I'd say they are. Would be good to have an overlay...

Go here for R&T grid with Camaro: http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...d06531820e.pdf
GTO here (have to download to view: http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/ca...iac_gto_page_4

The GTO's nose, height of the hood above the front wheels, and lower edge of greenhouse are a good 3-4" LOWER than the new Camaro. GTO's decklid is maybe an inch higher, maximum height at peak of roof ~0.5" higher. GTO has a much bigger greenhouse, where the Camaro has a very high beltline with slits for windows.

The bottom edge of the rockers looks to be an inch lower for the GTO, ~5" vs. 5.9" for the Camaro.

Visually, to me the Camaro is MUCH bulkier with a much blockier front end, whereas the GTO *is* generally lower and more swoopily shaped, with a significantly lower and more raked front end.

The new Camaro looks like it could be the box that any previous gen came in! They got some styling details right (like the hips), but it's just too damn BIG.

Last edited by ZDan; 02-16-2012 at 11:45 PM.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 02:55 AM   #59
LSxJunkie
Douchebag
 
LSxJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 2014 Mustang GT
Location: NY
Posts: 1,047
Thanks: 283
Thanked 403 Times in 214 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepGuessing View Post
One thing i noticed is 90% of peoples opinions on vehicles are completely unrelated to driving/owning/dealing with on a day to day basis the vehicle in question..

I for one thought the GTO was gods gift to the American man when it debuted..Man how i longed for an Australian sourced RWD big v8 car that provided creature comforts without being a leather clad benz...

Then my good friend bought a GTO..and while it was a fantastic car and a WONDERFUL change from the American norm..His door locks worked 1/2 the time...Every part he wanted to upgrade outside of the exhaust cost 2x as much because the engine bay had 1/2 the room of the rest and he spent 1/4 of his ownership time in the garage bay being serviced..

AND this is from the tride and true can't go wrong GM formula..but somewhere in between Aussie and here the metric bolts got replaced with SAE and nothing fit right Lol..Well that's MY guess anyway..

The G8 fixed that but the GTO just scared too many people away imho..

But it's good to see someone with a reasonably good GTO experience as i still like the car, but if i were planning on getting a "daily driven" car of that nature...it'd be a camaro or G8 just based on the fact that it's had MOST of the kinks worked out state side.



ANYWHO back on to e46 and this car..COMPLETELY different venues...E46 is based on a 3 series which is a benz/audi competitor nuff said..
FRS is it's own car with nothing to be based on going up against miata's and introductory hyundais (and if Toyota would have you believe, caymans LOL)
I daily drove mine for two years. They were phenomenal as fun dailies. Both stick, second one had shocks, springs, bushings, sways and was a hoot. It required nothing but routine maintenance. The first one blew up a water pump and developed a body leak. I'm pretty sure that was a 3rd shift Friday car.

There were certain things that you had to just accept, like the obscenely slow steering (it had feel, but the rack was just too damned slow), and the archaic rear suspension and shit wheel width clearance. These were all things I had to work around

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Yup, same weight as the E9x M3!

But 500 lb. lighter!

No freaking way. The top of the GTO roof might technically be taller, but the body line going from the nose/hood/lower-edge-of-greenhouse/deck is a LOT lower than the new WAY high blocktastic Camaros. The Camaro greenhouse is much more scrunched down and pinched, so technically slightly lower max height, but it's hood/fenderline/beltline are UP there!


Relative to the Camaro, I'd say they are. Would be good to have an overlay...

Go here for R&T grid with Camaro: http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...d06531820e.pdf
GTO here (have to download to view: http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/ca...iac_gto_page_4

The GTO's nose, height of the hood above the front wheels, and lower edge of greenhouse are a good 3-4" LOWER than the new Camaro. GTO's decklid is maybe an inch higher, maximum height at peak of roof ~0.5" higher. GTO has a much bigger greenhouse, where the Camaro has a very high beltline with slits for windows.

The bottom edge of the rockers looks to be an inch lower for the GTO, ~5" vs. 5.9" for the Camaro.

Visually, to me the Camaro is MUCH bulkier with a much blockier front end, whereas the GTO *is* generally lower and more swoopily shaped, with a significantly lower and more raked front end.

The new Camaro looks like it could be the box that any previous gen came in! They got some styling details right (like the hips), but it's just too damn BIG.

An e92 M3 curbs in around 3570. A 2006 GTO curbs approx. 3725. More than 100lbs between the two.

In contrast, the Camaro has a curb weight around 3750.

The 2010 Camaro may be visually heavier, it is only half an inch longer and is half an inch shorter than the GTO. High beltline will do that. It's not for everyone. They have equal ground clearance (5.3"), but the Camaro has wheel arches that make 19s look small and the GTO had wheel arches that made 19s look big. Wheel arch size and tire to fender gap both have a huge impact on visual height, actual height notwithstanding.
__________________
Here - 2014 Mustang GT Track Package/Recaros - Koni Yellows, Boss 302 Springs, BMR SB041 Front Sway Bar, Boss 302 Rear Sway Bar, Boss 302 Wheels, GT500 Quad Tip Axleback, 2016 Legacy 2.5i Limited
Gone - 2010 RX350, 2006 GTO (2nd), 2007 RX350, 2008 IS250AWD, 2006 GTO, 2004 G35 6MT, 1992 SC400
LSxJunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2012, 04:47 PM   #60
blackmist27
Member
 
blackmist27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Drives: Subaru BRZ
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 55
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
hopefully i can get my hands on a BRZ and then i will let you know
blackmist27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 11:56 AM   #61
TheJuggernaut
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 4Gen 4Runner, BMW racecar
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 69
Thanks: 3
Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
[I've been typing into this off and on since the morning, so it turned out way more long winded than I thought it could... sorry about that]

At the risk of getting thrown under the bus along with him, I agree with ZDan. I do somewhat disagree about light and tossable being what defines a fun car but more on that in a minute. BMW is quite steadily losing touch with the enthusiast community, as he has spelled out quite thoroughly and accurately. And by enthusiasts I'm not referring to the admirers. Rather, those who call the ultimate driving machine bluff on the track (and I'm not saying this is definitive, just what I and I think most here would take it to mean). His point about the E36 being the last good track car BMW is painfully obvious in the paddocks of club races. Aside from a few exceptions, the only times you'll see E46s or newer being the basis of a racecar is when the series rules require a certain minimum vintage. Otherwise, the most successful BMW based cars on track are E36s and even E30s (on average the E36s are faster but the bigger dollar E30s with extra go - and nothing spectacular, just the S50B32 with 321hp - wipe the floor with anything short of a 700hp Trans Am car... so much for those semi-trailing arms being obsolete).

This isn't to say that you won't see E46s or E90s at the track, M or otherwise. Quite the contrary. But this isn't due to their superiority, this is just what people chose to buy and took it to a lapping day or HPDE. Ask any real racer (sorry Vin Diesel) who has extensive seat time in the full 3 series spectrum (or even all the way back to the 02) and you'll hear nothing but whining for the E46+. The way I've heard a few describe them is that it's the same as an E36 but heavier and... well, worse. Clearly, this isn't referring to unlimited budget race car builds, since Turner, Bimmerworld, Fall-Line or even BMW themselves have shown that the latest chassis is able to hang with or defeat anything in its class. But that's not particularly relevant to us.

The bottom line is that stock for stock, their cars are getting more luxury boat and less sports car. And I get it, it's a brilliant business move. Like Porsche, they've established glamor and legitimacy of the brand name with legendary performance and now they can make profitable cars which rich people can buy without worrying about also having to live with the unpleasant realities that come with daily-driving a true "enthusiast" car which cost luxury car money.

Now about the other thing, lighter and lower grip = more fun. I agree and disagree but this is definitely a personal thing, like dark vs milk chocolate. Stock for stock, in terms of absolute figures, the latest M car will shred the one that came before it, and cumulatively so for anything earlier. This, by the way, does not invalidate the point about them being more portly luxury cars than sports cars. You can put a big enough engine, big enough tires and brakes on a Grey Hound and make it destroy all around a track. That doesn't make it any less bus. For someone who hasn't tried a fast heavy car and fast light car on the track, it's probably impossible to explain but the difference is there and clear as night and day, even if the heavier car is faster.

I started driving on track in E34s, the ultimate being an M5 with a built motor (never dynoed but it would hang with E39 M5s bumper to bumper and reel in Carrera 4Ss), track suspension and sticky tires. I'm not the most aggressive driver but I don't remember ever being caught in that car on track, and this isn't due to my driving skill. Then I got a few rides in track prepped E30s and E36s and while these had at most as much brakes and grip as my M5, and except for the supercharged M3, slower in the straights, I saw what the hoopla was about. I know that gravity affects all masses equally but for some reason, I could still tell that the car is lighter. It's almost like you could feel that the suspension and tires didn't have to work as hard during the same direction changes, I'm not sure what it is.

So I got a clean stock E30 eta to play with. It was slow as sin and I had a blast in it. Over time though, I realized I missed speed and violence. So it went through a long progression of changes, from suspension and brake upgrades, large slicks, 3.2 M3 swap to now being fitted with 335/305 slicks and hopefully about a 900hp turbo motor.

This car and some others I've tried over the years on the track (everything from a rental 4dr auto Cobalt to dedicated track cars) have made me realize that there are 2 main types of fun on track. One is where you take a car with low limits, and dance on the edge of them (or even blatantly past, ie dorifto). Things don't happen fast enough to be terrifying but it's challenging and exciting. The other is you get something with limits that exceed or even far exceed the levels needed to tickle your prostate, and you go out and keep pushing the point at which you get scared. For me personally, I've realized that I'm more akin to Mark Donohue, with his saying that when you're able to leave two black marks from one corner to the next, only then you can say you have enough power. But I still see tremendous value in the other kind, and from time to time it's refreshing to drive a car you can toss around with a smile on your face and not all out white knuckle concentration.

Ok so that's my 0 cents on that but back to the original question... E46 M3 vs the 86

This is a very relevant question for me since I just answered it a few days ago. Well, more precisely, my wife answered it since we're looking for a track car for her.

When the 86 was first announced, I thought, what a perfect gift it is from Toyota - here we are looking for a fun rwd manual car for my wife yet uneasy about buying used and cringing at how much good cars with a roof which fit the bill cost new, and a manufacturer I respect is coming out with what appears to be an affordable, new (warranted) version of what we've been considering buying used. Then I heard that the US price is going to be in the order of 25k, which judging by WRX prices, would put it close to 35 here.

Suddenly, the choice wasn't so clear because this could fetch a pretty loaded new Mustang GT or a clean E46 M3 with a pile of cash left over. The Mustang's appeal was obvious, I'm a boy. The M3 is new enough to look current and prestigious and I'm not immune to a little hubris through status, especially for my wife. I wasn't reading between the lines when she told me she wouldn't mind either of those, particularly the M3. What she was actually saying is she doesn't want the Mustang and would prefer not to have the M3. In the mean time, I found some excellent examples including an Interlagos ZCP, and was preparing to pull the trigger instead of waiting for a 200hp compact Subaru Unicorn for 50% more money.

Then through a few thorough conversations, I realized (or rather, was reminded) that my wife is the other kind of fun enthusiast. She has no ambitions of doing powerslides in 5th and doesn't care how fast it goes from something to whatever, how much power it has etc. She wants a small, light, nimble car that will be easy to drive closer to its limits, headache free to own, oh and extremely cute. It was clear that this was still indeed a gift from Toyota, so we went and put a deposit down.

As an aside, before considering an M3, consider its cost beyond the purchase price. Most things have been mentioned here but more specific things to consider is that part of what's required to make a heavy car fast is that the supporting cast needs to be quite epic, including its pricetag. Even if you find one without a broken subframe or rtab mount issues, fixed VANOS, proof of regular valve adjustment and no rust, look into how much the service costs (including valve adjustment, suspension arms/bushings, brakes, clutch and tires... or hell even an oil change).
TheJuggernaut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheJuggernaut For This Useful Post:
amram (05-02-2014), usdmnotjdm (09-09-2013)
Old 02-24-2012, 12:26 PM   #62
SUB-FT86
86 Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Drives: 2013 Toyota 86 2.0T (Asphalt)
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 3,129
Thanks: 126
Thanked 527 Times in 296 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Juggernaut I love your post to death. The best read in months!!!!.
SUB-FT86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 01:47 PM   #63
TheJuggernaut
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 4Gen 4Runner, BMW racecar
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 69
Thanks: 3
Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUB-FT86 View Post
Juggernaut I love your post to death. The best read in months!!!!.
Thanks, much appreciated!
TheJuggernaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 02:29 PM   #64
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '23 BRZ
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 4,575
Thanks: 1,372
Thanked 3,882 Times in 2,026 Posts
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Holy crap, thanks for that post, Juggernaut! I had pretty much been convinced that NO one in these forums would even acknowledge that I might just have a point!

Here's to the success of the FR-S/BRZ, and to it lighting a fire under the arses of BMW, Nissan, Porsche, etc.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 02:59 PM   #65
SUB-FT86
86 Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Drives: 2013 Toyota 86 2.0T (Asphalt)
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 3,129
Thanks: 126
Thanked 527 Times in 296 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Holy crap, thanks for that post, Juggernaut! I had pretty much been convinced that NO one in these forums would even acknowledge that I might just have a point!

Here's to the success of the FR-S/BRZ, and to it lighting a fire under the arses of BMW, Nissan, Porsche, etc.
I don't think anybody was against what you stood for in a sports car. I think it was just a difference in priorities of a sports car was what made it seem like everybody was against you. We all like the idea of lightweight sports cars or we wouldn't be on this site.
SUB-FT86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 03:00 PM   #66
7thgear
i'm sorry, what?
 
7thgear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Canada
Location: I rock a beat harder than you can beat it with rocks
Posts: 4,399
Thanks: 357
Thanked 2,506 Times in 1,268 Posts
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUB-FT86 View Post
I don't think anybody was against what you stood for in a sports car. I think it was just a difference in priorities of a sports car was what made it seem like everybody was against you. We all like the idea of lightweight sports cars or we wouldn't be on this site.
is that why you firmly believe that a GC is an alternative to a FRS?
__________________
don't you think if I was wrong, I'd know it?
7thgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 03:08 PM   #67
SUB-FT86
86 Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Drives: 2013 Toyota 86 2.0T (Asphalt)
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 3,129
Thanks: 126
Thanked 527 Times in 296 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thgear View Post
is that why you firmly believe that a GC is an alternative to a FRS?
I never said it was. I even called the comparison retarded in that same thread. They are in two different size and weight categories but it doesn't mean that I only favor lightweight only. If you look in that thread I compared the FRS=S2K and compared the GC=350Z. Two different tools to the trade.
SUB-FT86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 03:20 PM   #68
SVTSHC
(ノಥ益ಥ)ノ
 
SVTSHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Drives: 2015 Series Blue BRZ
Location: Bronx
Posts: 1,393
Thanks: 930
Thanked 625 Times in 365 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thgear View Post
is that why you firmly believe that a GC is an alternative to a FRS?
I do; from a pricing standpoint. So is the v6 stang, WRX, Focus ST, and a few others. Likely the reason MOST of these comparison threads exist isn't because the cars are similar from a performance standpoint. It's because given that nearly everyone on this forum obviously has a soft spot for lightweight sports coupes, they want to see whether the differences between these vehicles are substantial enough to effect their decision to purchase AND whether or not those differences can be culled via the aftermarket. Taking a fast car that handles decently and making it handle well (regardless of weight) is typically easier and less costly than taking a decent car that handles well and making it fast (N/A).

Also Zdan I never said you DIDN'T have a point, I just said you're overly critical when it comes to weight. It's to the point where you seem to make a HUGE deal out of anything that weighs in excess of 3000lbs, without considering the practicality that comes with a larger vehicle. Like comfortable seating for 4-5 people. In addition to this if you've got a dedicated track vehicle then chances are you'll lighten it substantially ANYWAY; so that vehicle that started at lets say 3300lbs might end up being under 3k once you get rid of the glass, non-aluminum panels, spare (if you have one), grab lighter rims, passenger and rear seats and every other component that exists solely for creature comfort.
__________________

"Sweet Subaru, sweet Subaru, send your BRZ unto me, for the roads of the unworthy must be baptized in speed and glory." ~Zaku
SVTSHC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 03:32 PM   #69
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '23 BRZ
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 4,575
Thanks: 1,372
Thanked 3,882 Times in 2,026 Posts
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTSHC View Post
Also Zdan I never said you DIDN'T have a point, I just said you're overly critical when it comes to weight. It's to the point where you seem to make a HUGE deal out of anything that weighs in excess of 3000lbs, without considering the practicality that comes with a larger vehicle. Like comfortable seating for 4-5 people.
Like all the other BMW-apologist arguments, this one makes 3200, 3600, 4000+ lb vehicles from an "enthusiast" manufacturer seem not only inevitable but *laudable*.

A minivan is a much more practical 4-5 passenger vehicle than anything BMW makes. Not a great argument for BMW to abandon the 1- and 3-series to make minivans, IMO...

Quote:
In addition to this if you've got a dedicated track vehicle then chances are you'll lighten it substantially ANYWAY; so that vehicle that started at lets say 3300lbs might end up being under 3k once you get rid of the glass, non-aluminum panels, spare (if you have one), grab lighter rims, passenger and rear seats and every other component that exists solely for creature comfort.
This argument is LUDICROUS. As if once you start lightening a platform its original weight was irrelevant? If you want a lightweight track car, starting with an overweight pig is idiotic.

Utter B.S. Same effort in lightweighting to get an E46 below 3000 lb would have an E30 below 2400 lb.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 03:41 PM   #70
SVTSHC
(ノಥ益ಥ)ノ
 
SVTSHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Drives: 2015 Series Blue BRZ
Location: Bronx
Posts: 1,393
Thanks: 930
Thanked 625 Times in 365 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Like all the other BMW-apologist arguments, this one makes 3200, 3600, 4000+ lb vehicles from an "enthusiast" manufacturer seem not only inevitable but *laudable*.

A minivan is a much more practical 4-5 passenger vehicle than anything BMW makes. Not a great argument for BMW to abandon the 1- and 3-series to make minivans, IMO...

This argument is LUDICROUS. As if once you start lightening a platform its original weight was irrelevant? If you want a lightweight track car, starting with an overweight pig is idiotic.

Utter B.S. Same effort in lightweighting to get an E46 below 3000 lb would have an E30 below 2400 lb.
I can't deal with you anymore. You're a judgemental extremist that refuses to see the "compromise" in anything outside your own ideals. You pretend as though there isn't anything practical out there past 3000lb's now THAT's "LUDICROUS". What about lightening an average weight car is Ludicrous? A car doesn't NEED to be 2400lbs to perform superbly, and frankly many people ENJOY high horsepower mid-weight vehicles. And truthfully I don't consider something a "pig" or overweight until it reaches higher than 3800lbs, and I honestly could give less of a f*** whether or not YOU agree with that statement. Adding you to the ignore list now, your mentality and narrowminded view of the automotive world angers me.
__________________

"Sweet Subaru, sweet Subaru, send your BRZ unto me, for the roads of the unworthy must be baptized in speed and glory." ~Zaku
SVTSHC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.