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

Go Back   Scion FR-S Forum | Subaru BRZ Forum | Toyota 86 GT 86 Forum | AS1 Forum - 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 11-05-2017, 09:01 AM   #113
dowroa
Old Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Drives: 2106 STi; 02 z06
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 220
Thanks: 346
Thanked 128 Times in 95 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Agree with alignment. I would like to see pyro data on those tires. If you are just on the outside edge of the tire with dynamic camber loss and no additional static negative camber ... then no kidding.

Still, Cayman is a A/BS car (same as a c5z06) with more adjustability, stock for stock, vs a DS 86-platform.

As in general, the limitation stock is camber.

To get some more useful data, why don't we look at the Nationals results from Stock and STX classes? These cars are prepped to a ruleset with good drivers.

Nationals Results: https://dk1xgl0d43mu1.cloudfront.net...pdf?1506006338

BS Cayman - 117.293
DS 86 - 119.566
STX 86 - 116.616


The only take away I have from that is a properly prepared 86 can pick up a lot of lateral grip. Apples and Oranges? Maybe. But STX trim isn't crazy, either.
dowroa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 09:47 AM   #114
venturaII
Only users lose drugs.
 
venturaII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Drives: All the time
Location: Shrewsbury upon Worcestershire
Posts: 1,537
Thanks: 667
Thanked 853 Times in 549 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
A Cayman S '14 model is more than 300 pounds heavier comparing to a 86/BRZ '14 model. This is based on curb weight according to EC standards. Not the 150 pounds you mentioned. The only way to achieve a smaller weight difference is by cheating like measuring the car without fluids etc. Additionally, the tests I provided seem to be pretty much consistent. Similar figures were reported in other cases. Do your homework better next time.

We already know the 86 ranges from ~2760 to ~2810 depending on options.


http://press.porsche.com/vehicles/20...ifications.pdf

2910lb for manual, 2976 for PDK, straight from the horse's mouth. The standard Cayman is even lower, at 2888. There's your ~150 pounds. Or are you now saying Porsche is cheating, and Toyota isn't?
__________________
"To know a thing well, know it's limits. Only when pushed beyond its tolerances will true nature be seen." Amtal Rule
venturaII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 02:23 PM   #115
86 South Africa
POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Drives: White Toyota 86 (Scion FRs)
Location: South Africa
Posts: 723
Thanks: 613
Thanked 258 Times in 191 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deep Six View Post
I'm not very familiar with skidpad testing but I am surprised that the tire upgrades didn't yield more significant improvements. Probably needed alignment and suspension changes to take advantage of the bigger, stickier tires.


Now as far as lap times go, I am certain that huge improvements can be made relatively inexpensively. I bought my car used from a friend of mine just as an experiment to see what could be done on a budget. Went to Roebling Road repeatedly to evaluate the progressive changes. This track is 2 miles comprised of primarily fast sweepers.


Completely stock with 10,000 mile Primacy's and upgraded brake fluid the car ran 1:30 and tires were the overwhelming limiting factor. Slow but it was fun.


Cheap coils, with moderate camber changes and 225 RS's yielded 1:26


Using 245 R7's, much more camber and zero rear toe along with header and E85 tune and the results were amazing. 1:20:4 which is really damn fast for a car spec'ed this way.


I think the cost of mods at that point was around $5K but the car could now more than hold it's own against Caymans and many others.


Nice example of go without the show
Tyres and suspension are often too under-rated, but also shows (in this case) how capable the chassis is. 10s a lap is really big improvement!
__________________
I like driving!
86 South Africa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 04:23 PM   #116
fatoni
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Drives: miata, mazdaspeed protege, ls430
Location: socal
Posts: 4,384
Thanks: 590
Thanked 1,424 Times in 777 Posts
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deep Six View Post
I'm not very familiar with skidpad testing but I am surprised that the tire upgrades didn't yield more significant improvements. Probably needed alignment and suspension changes to take advantage of the bigger, stickier tires.


Now as far as lap times go, I am certain that huge improvements can be made relatively inexpensively. I bought my car used from a friend of mine just as an experiment to see what could be done on a budget. Went to Roebling Road repeatedly to evaluate the progressive changes. This track is 2 miles comprised of primarily fast sweepers.


Completely stock with 10,000 mile Primacy's and upgraded brake fluid the car ran 1:30 and tires were the overwhelming limiting factor. Slow but it was fun.


Cheap coils, with moderate camber changes and 225 RS's yielded 1:26


Using 245 R7's, much more camber and zero rear toe along with header and E85 tune and the results were amazing. 1:20:4 which is really damn fast for a car spec'ed this way.


I think the cost of mods at that point was around $5K but the car could now more than hold it's own against Caymans and many others.
i think people often overestimate the power of tires. yeah its a very important aspect but it isnt going to erase some of the other problems. there was a video years ago how tires did more for a mustang than the frs despite the improvement to the mustangs tire being significantly less vast.
__________________
Drive upgrades. Don't buy them.
fatoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 04:43 PM   #117
serialk11r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Drives: 2000 MR2 Spyder
Location: United States of America
Posts: 5,047
Thanks: 248
Thanked 865 Times in 633 Posts
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by venturaII View Post
We already know the 86 ranges from ~2760 to ~2810 depending on options.


http://press.porsche.com/vehicles/20...ifications.pdf

2910lb for manual, 2976 for PDK, straight from the horse's mouth. The standard Cayman is even lower, at 2888. There's your ~150 pounds. Or are you now saying Porsche is cheating, and Toyota isn't?
Porsche IS cheating. If you go on a Porsche forum and look for threads where owners post weights for their cars, you'll notice not a single person's car comes much under 3000lbs wet when they put it on scales. I imagine the 2.7 car might have a chance at 2910lbs with a gallon or two missing from the fuel tank, manual transmission, 18" wheels, PCCBs, no PDCC, no PASM, no PSE, no parking sensors, basic seats, no heated seats.

However, as if they felt guilty about that, the engines seem to put out way more power than claimed, so at the end of the day it works out.

http://www.planet-9.com/981-cayman-a...981-weigh.html

First guy has basically no options on a Boxster S, and is only barely under 3000lbs without a full tank of fuel. Definitely over 3000 with full fuel. Cayman might come a tiny bit under 3000 with full fuel.

Last edited by serialk11r; 11-05-2017 at 04:53 PM.
serialk11r is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to serialk11r For This Useful Post:
nikitopo (11-05-2017)
Old 11-05-2017, 07:24 PM   #118
nikitopo
Senior Member
 
nikitopo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Drives: 2015 Subaru BRZ
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 2,757
Thanks: 1,664
Thanked 1,284 Times in 868 Posts
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Everyone is cheating and we don't live in a perfect world. Toyota seems that cheated too with the overrated 200ps catalog spec number. It is easy to certify an engine that has plenty of time on a test bed, using the thinnest and hottest possible oil, the least quantity of oil, the best available fuel and so on. Such an engine will output a number that will never see again in the real world. In my view this is more serious than hiding some weight from a car. Unfortunately, no one from Toyota can speak out officially and the revised car although much stronger had to get the 205ps catalog spec. Because they had to correct the original mistake. It is not yet what many people wanted (turbo), but overall a much better car doomed by the mistakes of the past.
__________________
A show car is not always a race car, but a race car is always a show car.

Last edited by nikitopo; 11-05-2017 at 07:36 PM.
nikitopo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2017, 10:36 AM   #119
Tcoat
He who smelt it...
 
Tcoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Drives: 14 FRS Hot Lava
Location: London, Ont
Posts: 54,755
Thanks: 48,704
Thanked 75,772 Times in 34,392 Posts
Mentioned: 2005 Post(s)
Tagged: 49 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
Everyone is cheating and we don't live in a perfect world. Toyota seems that cheated too with the overrated 200ps catalog spec number. It is easy to certify an engine that has plenty of time on a test bed, using the thinnest and hottest possible oil, the least quantity of oil, the best available fuel and so on. Such an engine will output a number that will never see again in the real world. In my view this is more serious than hiding some weight from a car. Unfortunately, no one from Toyota can speak out officially and the revised car although much stronger had to get the 205ps catalog spec. Because they had to correct the original mistake. It is not yet what many people wanted (turbo), but overall a much better car doomed by the mistakes of the past.
There are standards that must be met when determining the rated HP of an engine. They can not just do whatever they want. They are not downgrading the new HP to try to hide or "correct" anything on the pervious model. They gave it that 205 rating because that is what it is as per the required testing methods. Don't matter what some guy in a back water dyno shop says it is since they do not have to follow the same testing standard.
__________________
Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar, because Racecar.
Tcoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2017, 11:24 AM   #120
nikitopo
Senior Member
 
nikitopo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Drives: 2015 Subaru BRZ
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 2,757
Thanks: 1,664
Thanked 1,284 Times in 868 Posts
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcoat View Post
There are standards that must be met when determining the rated HP of an engine. They can not just do whatever they want. They are not downgrading the new HP to try to hide or "correct" anything on the pervious model. They gave it that 205 rating because that is what it is as per the required testing methods. Don't matter what some guy in a back water dyno shop says it is since they do not have to follow the same testing standard.
I am not saying that they downgraded the new engine. The 205 PS rating is OK. The problem is that they overrated the first years engines. These engines were not capable of more than 190 PS which is a bit far from the advertised 200 PS number. This is based on measurements according to the ISO1585 standard and not some random guy in a back water dyno as you said. Which testing standard was used by Toyota?
__________________
A show car is not always a race car, but a race car is always a show car.
nikitopo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2017, 11:53 AM   #121
Tokay444
Anti stance.
 
Tokay444's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Drives: '17 White 860. Some TRD things.
Location: Canada
Posts: 935
Thanks: 502
Thanked 443 Times in 270 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
I am not saying that they downgraded the new engine. The 205 PS rating is OK. The problem is that they overrated the first years engines. These engines were not capable of more than 190 PS which is a bit far from the advertised 200 PS number. This is based on measurements according to the ISO1585 standard and not some random guy in a back water dyno as you said. Which testing standard was used by Toyota?
Until you have both engines in a lab on an engine brake dyno, you have no way to quantify that statement.
Tokay444 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tokay444 For This Useful Post:
Tcoat (11-06-2017), venturaII (11-06-2017)
Old 11-06-2017, 12:24 PM   #122
Tcoat
He who smelt it...
 
Tcoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Drives: 14 FRS Hot Lava
Location: London, Ont
Posts: 54,755
Thanks: 48,704
Thanked 75,772 Times in 34,392 Posts
Mentioned: 2005 Post(s)
Tagged: 49 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo View Post
I am not saying that they downgraded the new engine. The 205 PS rating is OK. The problem is that they overrated the first years engines. These engines were not capable of more than 190 PS which is a bit far from the advertised 200 PS number. This is based on measurements according to the ISO1585 standard and not some random guy in a back water dyno as you said. Which testing standard was used by Toyota?
Proof?
__________________
Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar, because Racecar.
Tcoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2017, 12:27 PM   #123
funwheeldrive
Senior Member
 
funwheeldrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Drives: Firestorm Monogram
Location: Thurston County
Posts: 3,357
Thanks: 6,869
Thanked 2,879 Times in 1,352 Posts
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokay444 View Post
Until you have both engines in a lab on an engine brake dyno, you have no way to quantify that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcoat View Post
Proof?
I don't know enough to make one claim either way, but I don't think I've ever seen a stock Zenki 86 put more than 170hp to the wheels on a dyno. And 170 is the high range, most seem to be around 165-168hp. Taking drivetrain loss into consideration, that's roughly 195hp at perfect conditions. The average car probably puts down closer to 190hp, which is pretty much what @nikitopo claimed.
__________________
funwheeldrive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2017, 12:35 PM   #124
Tcoat
He who smelt it...
 
Tcoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Drives: 14 FRS Hot Lava
Location: London, Ont
Posts: 54,755
Thanks: 48,704
Thanked 75,772 Times in 34,392 Posts
Mentioned: 2005 Post(s)
Tagged: 49 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by funwheeldrive View Post
I don't know enough to make one claim either way, but I don't think I've ever seen a stock Zenki 86 put more than 170hp to the wheels on a dyno. And 170 is the high range, most seem to be around 165-168hp. Taking drivetrain loss into consideration, that's roughly 195hp at perfect conditions. The average car probably puts down closer to 190hp, which is pretty much what @nikitopo claimed.

195 is also pretty close to the 200 that it is rated at.
Can't just take all the low numbers and do the math and leave all the high ones out. There are also plenty of stock dynos in the 170 to 178 range.
Dynos are notoriously inaccurate in the first place and then everybody likes to play with the numbers that make their theory work so the low ones get put out more often.


Everybody can dispute the numbers all they want but the fact remains that they are the official results from following the required standards. Just because some don't believe them does not make them false or "cheating".
__________________
Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar, because Racecar.
Tcoat is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tcoat For This Useful Post:
Cole (11-06-2017), venturaII (11-06-2017)
Old 11-06-2017, 12:56 PM   #125
funwheeldrive
Senior Member
 
funwheeldrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Drives: Firestorm Monogram
Location: Thurston County
Posts: 3,357
Thanks: 6,869
Thanked 2,879 Times in 1,352 Posts
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcoat View Post
195 is also pretty close to the 200 that it is rated at.
Can't just take all the low numbers and do the math and leave all the high ones out. There are also plenty of stock dynos in the 170 to 178 range.
Dynos are notoriously inaccurate in the first place and then everybody likes to play with the numbers that make their theory work so the low ones get put out more often.


Everybody can dispute the numbers all they want but the fact remains that they are the official results from following the required standards. Just because some don't believe them does not make them false or "cheating".
I have never seen a stock Zenki 86 dyno showing 178hp or anywhere near there. Personally, from everything I have seen this car on average puts down closer to 190hp at the wheels than it does 200. Of course that's assuming a 15% drivetrain loss, and that's only what I've seen personally which doesn't mean much.


Just because there are official standards doesn't mean that's how the engines perform in real world driving. There are some cars that are notoriously overrated just like there are cars that are underrated. For example, the 2004 SRT-4 was rated at 230hp at the crank by Dodge. In the real world, data consistently showed that the true crank HP was actually 255-265hp. I get that dynos are highly variable, but after years of data are obtained isn't it possible to make certain claims even if it conflicts with what the manufacture originally stated?
__________________

Last edited by funwheeldrive; 11-06-2017 at 01:09 PM.
funwheeldrive is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to funwheeldrive For This Useful Post:
nikitopo (11-06-2017)
Old 11-06-2017, 02:28 PM   #126
WolfpackS2k
Senior Member
 
WolfpackS2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Drives: '06 Cayman S, '92 DB2 GS-R
Location: NC
Posts: 2,122
Thanks: 1,773
Thanked 1,053 Times in 616 Posts
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Garage
Cayman and Boxster weights are all over the place because of options and differences between the generations 986, 987, 981, 982 (718). However, despite Porsche's claims to the contrary, they have DEFINITELY gained weight over the years.

The Cayman S used in Car and Driver's 2017 Lightning Lap event weighed 3162. That's for a car equipped with the PDK and PASM. Porsche's website says the Cayman S weighs 2954 lb, so that's a pretty big difference.

My model 987 Cayman S, when tested by R&T in 2006, weighed 2955 lb. Differences from my car were PASM (added weight), power seats (added weight) and PCCBs (reduced weight). Mine is stripped, other than Sport Chrono I basically have no options. I've never had the car weighed, but I'm pretty confident it's under 3000 lb. Skidpad figure they came up with, btw, was 0.96 using Michelin Pilot Sports.
__________________
'06 Porsche Cayman S
'13 SWP BRZ-L - Innovate Stage 1, Nameless over & down pipes, RevWorks UEL Header - RIP, claimed by VIR T10

'07 S2000 - DD & track rat - sold
'92 GS-R - 300k club member
WolfpackS2k 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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BRZ vs Cayman/Corvette Norcalkid FR-S / BRZ vs.... 128 01-31-2017 01:36 PM
Twins vs Cayman/Boxster 211 botbs FR-S / BRZ vs.... 15 10-06-2014 10:09 AM
2013 981 Cayman ironchef Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions 49 12-09-2012 08:03 PM
FR-S vs Cayman colganc FR-S / BRZ vs.... 102 09-13-2012 04:17 PM
GT86 vs. 370 vs. Cayman S wrxgoose FR-S / BRZ vs.... 0 08-27-2012 11:26 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.