FR-S/BRZ vs. Genesis Coupe

[ZDan]

The FR-S/BRZ is 700 lb. lighter than the Hyundai. If you want a Hyundai G35, obviously the GC is the way to go. If you want, effectively, a 2+2 coupe version of a Miata, FR-S/BRZ.

Check out the overlay:


This *must* be exaggerated quite a bit, but you get the idea. The GC is quite massive relative to the FR-S/BRZ.

Personally, FR-S/BRZ all the way for me.

[tranzformer]

Ultimately I want a sporty car for my DD. This will be my only car and not one strictly for track use. If one will track their car, I could see how weight is everything and that the 600-700 pounds would make a difference (BRZ ~2800 and GC ~3400). But for a DD the most important thing for me is a fun car. I will have to drive both to compare. The GC offers more creature comforts which will make DD a better experience. Not saying the BRZ is bad. I just need to check them both out.

[ZDan]

Light weight is a BIG FACTOR for every day usage driving fun as well, *NOT* just track usage. I DD an S2000, LOVE it even tooling around at 1-3 tenths. Lighter-weight smaller cars are just inherently more fun, ALL the time, not only when pushing the limits.

Mass FTMFL...

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Light weight is a BIG FACTOR for every day usage driving fun as well, *NOT* just track usage. I DD an S2000, LOVE it even tooling around at 1-3 tenths. Lighter-weight smaller cars are just inherently more fun, ALL the time, not only when pushing the limits.

Mass FTMFL...

thats not right. weight is simply one part of the equation. my msp is more fun than my miata despite the 500+ lbs

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Light weight is a BIG FACTOR for every day usage driving fun as well, *NOT* just track usage. I DD an S2000, LOVE it even tooling around at 1-3 tenths. Lighter-weight smaller cars are just inherently more fun, ALL the time, not only when pushing the limits.

Mass FTMFL...

Originally Posted by fatoni

thats not right. weight is simply one part of the equation. my msp is more fun than my miata despite the 500+ lbs

Exactly my point. Each person has a different opinion/definition of what is fun. Some want lightweight. Some want boost. I am honest enough to say that I need to drive both before I decide.

[El_STiG]

I love my 2.0t genesis coupe. 86k miles already after almost 3 years with her. Touge and drifted the crap out of her and still runs strong with no issues.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by fatoni

thats not right. weight is simply one part of the equation. my msp is more fun than my miata despite the 500+ lbs

MSP = Mazdaspeed3? [oh, I see in sig, Mazdaspeed Protege. More fun than Miata? 4 realzies?]

I've never driven one, but I have driven my share of fwd cars. Generally, lighter-weight = more fun. Favorites: 1st and 2nd gen CRX, highly modded GLH-S with ~260rwhp. Whee! But fwd is still awkward and wrong...

If you don't appreciate lightweight rwd cars, obviously other cars than the FR-S/BRZ beckon...

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Deslock

The image in this post illustrates it:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=467

With the seat pushed forward to allow for a rear passenger, the center of mass of the driver is 185-188 pixels from the front axle and 149-152 pixels from the rear axle.

That puts the driver COG only 55-56% towards the back, but the seat looks like it can go back another ~25 pixels. It only needs to go back 12-15 pixels in order for the driver and front passenger COG to be 60% towards the back. That diagram's scale is approximately 3.3-3.4 pixel/inch, so you could still push the seat back another 3.5-4.5" past that point.

It's an old FT86 concept II image, but you get the idea.

This photo proves my point. The weight is frontward bias because the driver or most of his body is ahead of the centerline. It is not behind the center of the car.

[ahausheer]

Originally Posted by mokinbird87

Im sorry... I`m korean and I really WANT to like the gen coupe, but man that front makes me puke. interior is WAYYY to busy for my taste but I like the stiched leather dash.

I agree, the gen coup seems like more of a grand tourer than a true sports car. To me a true sports car is a car that is as small and low as possible with adequate power and amazing handling. If I made longer trips with a passenger I would place more value in the gen coup.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by tranzformer

Exactly my point. Each person has a different opinion/definition of what is fun. Some want lightweight. Some want boost. I am honest enough to say that I need to drive both before I decide.

it wasnt the boost that made it fun though. i really like the miata, partially because of the weight im sure but the msp just has more feel. my miata isnt stock but there is still a kind of numbness. i think its largely because of the fact that it can be difficult to distinguish road feel from other factors because of a relatively flimsy chassis. the limits of the msp were less but it felt alive at the limit and its absolutely the best handling fwd car ive ever driven. more neutral than many rwd cars of the last couple decades

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ZDan

MSP = Mazdaspeed3? [oh, I see in sig, Mazdaspeed Protege. More fun than Miata? 4 realzies?]

I've never driven one, but I have driven my share of fwd cars. Generally, lighter-weight = more fun. Favorites: 1st and 2nd gen CRX, highly modded GLH-S with ~260rwhp. Whee! But fwd is still awkward and wrong...

If you don't appreciate lightweight rwd cars, obviously other cars than the FR-S/BRZ beckon...

yeah i appreciate weight because of what it does to the responsiveness but if a car has more weight and is more responsive, weight means nothing subjectively. as long as people go around judging means instead of ends then yeah, struts suck, fwd sucks, weight sucks, low cog means everything and dont even get me started on the cd.

[Want.FR-S]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Driver and front seat passenger centers of gravity are definitely aft of the middle of the wheelbase, ~60% from the front wheels. Empty car c.g. is at 45% from front wheels. 2700 lb. at 0.45 plus two 330 lb. at 0.6 => 3030 lb. at 0.466, 53/47 F/R distribution.

Originally Posted by Deslock

The image in this post illustrates it:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=467

With the seat pushed forward to allow for a rear passenger, the center of mass of the driver is 185-188 pixels from the front axle and 149-152 pixels from the rear axle.

That puts the driver COG only 55-56% towards the back, but the seat looks like it can go back another ~25 pixels. It only needs to go back 12-15 pixels in order for the driver and front passenger COG to be 60% towards the back. That diagram's scale is approximately 3.3-3.4 pixel/inch, so you could still push the seat back another 3.5-4.5" past that point.

It's an old FT86 concept II image, but you get the idea.

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

This photo proves my point. The weight is frontward bias because the driver or most of his body is ahead of the centerline. It is not behind the center of the car.

Hmmm.. not really.

A while back ago I did the calculation of COG based on the 53/47 weight distribution. The COG actually lies on the thigh of the driver, highlighted by two triangles. So if the both front passengers are seating based on this graph, the COG (53/47) will be at this point (with two triangles). The point with 55/45 distribution will be a bit forward (left in this diagram) of that point.

Now, where do the COG of a human body sit? When you sit on a chair, where is the weight of your body mostly lies? That would be your bottom on the back (axx?). From this diagram, you can see that point is on the right of COG. That means most of the weight for the front passengers are located behind the COG (to the right in this diagram) and thus changes the distribution from 55/45 to 53/47.

What ZDan said roughly is correct. I did not measure it precisely to prove it, but from eye-balling it seems to make sense.

That said, I want to raise another point from this diagram: please notice that the knees of the driver. It is almost touching the front plate under the steering wheel. No one would drive like that in that position. I know personally myself I would shift the seat back for at least 1" or 2" so that my knees would not be that closed to the plate.

So if that is the case, that means the rear leg room is compromised with a *normal* driving position, which seems to be confirmed by many people who actually sit in the car. With driver only, a 6' or above person can fit in the car, but no one can sit behind him in regular fashion. If you are shorter with shorter legs, it is possible to fit the driver and a passenger behind it.

So this is all based on the graph and third person's description. I still want to see it to believe it. If the rear seat is that small I may not be buying this car. Different people have different needs.

[SUB-FT86]

Ok I see now,I had to break out a measuring tape. This would mean that the 3.8 GC 56/44 is actually 54/46 with 2 people in it and 53/47 for the 2.0t model. I just measured them also.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by fatoni

yeah i appreciate weight because of what it does to the responsiveness but if a car has more weight and is more responsive, weight means nothing subjectively.

I disagree. My wife's old 2200 lb. Tercel was much softer sprung (per weight), had crappier tires, was slower, mushier, more oversteery than the Mazda3 we replaced it with. The 3 is superior in every single way from a performance standpoint. But the Tercel felt a LOT more immediate and you could *tell* you were in a much lighter-weight car. Even though the car was very low-performance, there was an element of FUN to it that's lacking in the much heavier 3. Mass does a lot to *deaden* the experience of driving a car.

as long as people go around judging means instead of ends then yeah, struts suck, fwd sucks, weight sucks, low cog means everything and dont even get me started on the cd.

For dd duty, the means are important to me. The "ends" of getting me around town and to/from work will, for 99.9% of my street usage, be identical anyway. The relatively inferior power/weight of the FR-S will not come into play at all. I'd rather do my DD thing in a smaller, lighter-weight car.

Speaking only for myself, of course.