|
FR-S / BRZ vs.... Area to discuss the FR-S/BRZ against its competitors [NO STREET RACING] |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
11-03-2011, 12:25 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Drives: none
Location: mars
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
FR-S vs 312 hp Camaro?
Saw the fr-s vs z thread and i wanted to know how will the fr-s compete with the heavy camaro?
|
11-03-2011, 12:27 AM | #2 |
Hot Dog
Join Date: Apr 2011
Drives: quicker than arghx7
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 1,316
Thanks: 103
Thanked 173 Times in 83 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
It won't. Nobody will be cross-shopping those two cars, especially once they realize how physically small the FR-S is.
__________________
"Wisdom is a not a function of age, but a function of experience."
Just Say No to unqualified aftermarket products. |
11-03-2011, 01:00 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Drives: N/A
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,380
Thanks: 2,205
Thanked 646 Times in 419 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
If you think the interior dimensions are any better, the rear leg room is 29.9 inches. The FR-S is 167inches long, 2700lbs(est from the JDM weight), <51 inches tall, and .27 Drag Coefficient. And there is still 27 inches of rear leg room. That should answer any questions you have. Now take your public flogging like a man . |
|
11-03-2011, 01:00 AM | #4 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Drives: none
Location: mars
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Thanks for an actual reply.
|
11-03-2011, 01:45 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Drives: N/A
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,380
Thanks: 2,205
Thanked 646 Times in 419 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
We heavily discourage newbies from posting new TOPICs until they get used to the forum. Saves space and no public backlash from reposting something we have a thread for.
For example, this post could have gone into the misnamed FR-S vs 370z thread since we are talking about comparisons there. You would have gotten some lame responses anyway but the responses would have been more positive than this. Please be sure to post in the introduction thread and try to stay out of trouble, okay? And welcome to FT86club! |
11-03-2011, 10:00 AM | #6 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Drives: 98 z28 but i miss my ae86
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 79
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
my wife wants me to get the new camaro (SS, mind you) over the FR-S because "its going to be tiny, you have twins to haul around!" so i can argue that its only 2 inches less rear leg room than the camaro! dont knock my wife's taste, either. when i met her she owned a 2002 rsx type S, loves G35's and IS250's. anyway, i remember when they (car and driver?) compared the V6 genisis coupe to the V6 camaro. pretty sure the hyundai won. and if that's the case... yeah. chevy is talking about the next camaro being "smaller and lighter". we shall see...
__________________
Sold my 94 S14 for a 1998 Z28 Camaro. Woops.
Springs, Shocks, Sways, Bushings Cam, Lid, magnaflow catback, BBK intake manifold, LS7 lifters, ECU tune. good for 400 hp. sure its fast, but it drifts like a boat. |
|
11-03-2011, 11:56 AM | #7 | |
Praise Helix!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Drives: Accord 2.0T, Silverado
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 2,859
Thanks: 428
Thanked 2,208 Times in 1,072 Posts
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
In fact, I know people that are looking in the low-mid 20s range, and both of these cars are on their interest list. |
|
11-03-2011, 12:51 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Drives: N/A
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,380
Thanks: 2,205
Thanked 646 Times in 419 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Not knocking your wife's taste. Those are plenty nice cars. I can't get past that old school style though. I would rather have a more aerodynamic car than an old school style. Plus the 3 american sports coupes are all midsize with the interior dimensions of a sub-compact. I can hope the next generations are smaller/lighter but they are already cramped to make room for those huge N/A engines. Most likely they will cut a few inches off the length and get back to 180" and cut a couple hundred pounds, still won't make them even close to sub 3100lb range. Obviously power means nothing to me, so I could care less about the GT/SS when the v6 is way more HP than I want/need. I was looking at an early 90's Mustang because they were hatch, 2850lbs, and had a 4 cylinder. 105HP . If you like the style and want the power it's kind of silly to even consider the new FT86. I wouldn't if I did. What do you think? |
|
11-03-2011, 01:33 PM | #9 | |
Hot Dog
Join Date: Apr 2011
Drives: quicker than arghx7
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 1,316
Thanks: 103
Thanked 173 Times in 83 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Simply shopping by price opens the doors for a boatload of cars. Nobody is seriously cross-shopping a base Camry to a MINI Cooper to a base F-150, even though their prices are virtually the same.
__________________
"Wisdom is a not a function of age, but a function of experience."
Just Say No to unqualified aftermarket products. |
|
11-03-2011, 01:35 PM | #10 | |
Praise Helix!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Drives: Accord 2.0T, Silverado
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 2,859
Thanks: 428
Thanked 2,208 Times in 1,072 Posts
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
|
Yeah Shin, get what you want, cause in the end you'll kick yourself if you don't. Been there, done that.
Tell your wife that if she wants you to get a Camaro so bad though, you're getting a ZL1. I believe both Ford and Chevy have said they're going to downsize their next pony cars. I say bring it on! Quote:
|
|
11-03-2011, 05:45 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Drives: '06 AM V8V Coupe
Location: United States of America
Posts: 5,279
Thanks: 285
Thanked 1,074 Times in 759 Posts
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
|
What do you expect, it has square ends, fake vents and bulging fenders lol.
Okay but to be fair, it's not that bad. The Miata is in that ballpark (although it's a convertible, that steeply falling ragtop causes a ton of drag). |
11-03-2011, 06:12 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Drives: N/A
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,380
Thanks: 2,205
Thanked 646 Times in 419 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Supposedly the new Mustang is 0.33, but I find that hard to believe. |
|
11-03-2011, 09:35 PM | #14 |
Hot Dog
Join Date: Apr 2011
Drives: quicker than arghx7
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 1,316
Thanks: 103
Thanked 173 Times in 83 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Remember that the coefficient of drag is only part of the total drag force equation. Frontal area and velocity are relevant too.
Drag Force = 1/2*air density*velocity squared*coefficient of drag*frontal area So, this means that even if a car has a huge Cd, if its frontal area is low, the total drag will be medium. Since the FR-S has a low Cd and a low frontal area, total drag is low. In the case of the Camaro, it has a medium Cd and a huge frontal area, so it's total drag is quite high. Put into more tangible terms, the FR-S, roughly calculated with 24 ft^2 frontal area going through 0 deg C air at 75 MPH will result in about 97 pounds of aero drag force. The Camaro, with roughly 28.1 ft^2 frontal area, results in 156 pounds of aero drag force; that's 60% more drag. Wow. Wanna go fast? At 120 MPH, the FR-S will have about 248 pounds force of aero drag, whereas the Camaro will have 398 pounds of drag.
__________________
"Wisdom is a not a function of age, but a function of experience."
Just Say No to unqualified aftermarket products. Last edited by Ryephile; 11-03-2011 at 09:51 PM. Reason: more accurate dimensions used for calculations |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Camaro ZL1 laps the ring in 7:41.27 | Sea1monkey2 | Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions | 7 | 10-07-2011 09:07 AM |