'17 Toyota 86 vs '17 Maza MX-5

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by Gforce

Rhetorical, I assume.

Did you have to look that up? Or were you already somehow aware of the definition?

I took some psych courses as electives... but again, what's your point?

Your need to be right has dragged you right into the weeds, like always. Congrats on ruining another thread, Suberman.

[Syche]

Also speaking of our Miata brethren here's a random photo from this morning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frost]

Originally Posted by 14stu

If you want a convertible, the ND wins. If you want to be able to fit anything larger than a duffel bag or need a "backseat", the twins win.

The two are incredibly well matched. At an autocross, the ND is faster (twins got swapped classes because of the difference) but on a track the twins are faster (with the same tires).

There isn't much difference in this new comparison than the old twins vs NC debate. The new shorter gearing of the '17's help to improve the twins and the lower weight of the ND improved the Miata.

We don't need to compete with our Miata brethren. We are cut from the same cloth.

CAVEAT: If you're 5'10" and taller, you will find it VERY tight with a helmet in the ND. I've instructed in both the RF and the standard cloth top and had to be VERY careful not to smack my front forehead into the windshield.

When people ask me ND or FRZ, I point this out every single time and usually side with the FRZ if they have inclination to track or autocross the car.

[Gforce]

First post to this thread raised some interesting questions for anyone enamoured of the MX5.

Stick a hard roof on the MX5 and you get a car that can't compete with the BRZ.

Even though the MX5 is 300 lbs lighter (it's neatly a foot shorter) and has supposedly superior suspension and much better tires the BRZ is faster.

The MX5 is ridiculously small. No cabin space and no trunk space. Good luck getting a set of tires home in your MX5, even with the roof down.

The BRZ has a much better engine and, apparently, better suspension. (Posters claiming double wishbone is better than McPherson strut are parroting automotive engineering bumpf overlooking the fact that the manufacturers deliver a finished design that works, how hard it was to get there isn't relevant to the driver).

Even with the brembo brake package the MX5 just can't beat the extra horsepower (which also comes in at higher rpm.). The MX5 RF comes with Bilsteins stock and the brembo option also includes a nice set of forged wheels. The BRZ was a base car without the PP as far as I can tell. Those Sachs should be good for another half second, maybe more off the BRZ time. 1:31.27 is the lap time the same driver achieved at the same track with the 2015 BRZ, so the spring rate changes for 2017 are good for a second or so a lap, if I recall the video correctly. Add in the Sachs effect and the BRZ should outhaul the MX5 hardtop nicely.

I know which I'd buy.

Wait a sec, I did!

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by Gforce

The BRZ has a much better engine and, apparently, better suspension.

Based on what exactly? Even Pobst said the Miata suspension was better and more composed. Not as stiff, but that's just spring rates.

Originally Posted by Gforce

The BRZ was a base car without the PP as far as I can tell. Those Sachs should be good for another half second, maybe more off the BRZ time.

I'd love to see where you're pulling that figure from...

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by wparsons

Based on what exactly? Even Pobst said the Miata suspension was better and more composed. Not as stiff, but that's just spring rates.



I'd love to see where you're pulling that figure from...

Wow, that was easy.

I just think the faster more controllable BRZ makes it better. Had to be the suspension. Mind you the same displacement engine produces 1/3 more horsepower...how do you make engine comparisons? Take the juvenile noise maker off the BRZ engine and it even sounds better than the skyactiv wheezer Mazda dumps in from their econobox hatchbacks.

Your last little shot is frankly a little creepy.....

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by wparsons

Based on what exactly? Even Pobst said the Miata suspension was better and more composed. Not as stiff, but that's just spring rates..

Pobst also said that the cars he tested were essentially a draw and decision about them is based on personal preference.

But wait, when are the springs and their chosen rates not a part of the suspension?

Upgrade? True, buyers could swap out springs and shocks, but why add more cost on something not consumable? Most people buy these cars to drive them stock, so if Mazda's chosen rate (even on their highest end models) still encourage tons of body roll then that's the Miata's suspension, not something independent of it.

Personally, if I could chose it, wallowing a softly sprung car around is simply not as fun as a stiffer option (I've driven more than a handful of Miatas). IMO Fiat made better suspension decisions with the 124 Spyder than Mazda by not holding to this ridiculous credo.

Still, for people that want a DD that they can take to the track or AutoX, Toyota/Subaru made the right decisions on suspension. 86ers get a LSD on all models, a hard roof, a back seat, a comfy cabin and a reasonable cargo that they can fill with useful track stuff (like tires, tools and gas). Why waste money investing m/billions more to design and tool just to get double wishbones on all corners? Toyota/Subaru ended up with a car that is dynamically as good as Mazda's stallwart that is more track appropriate (with hard roof and LSD) in stock form that costs less.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by Gforce

Wow, that was easy.

I just think the faster more controllable BRZ makes it better. Had to be the suspension.

Did you actually listen to the audio in the review? Pobst said the Miata was more composed and predictable, also way less prone to snap oversteer on bumps and changes directions more willingly. Where in there does that say the BRZ is more controllable?

Originally Posted by Gforce

Mind you the same displacement engine produces 1/3 more horsepower...how do you make engine comparisons? Take the juvenile noise maker off the BRZ engine and it even sounds better than the skyactiv wheezer Mazda dumps in from their econobox hatchbacks.

Where did I make any engine comparisons?

[guybo]

Am I the only person who saw that appalling body roll on that miata? Plus it's almost $10 grand more! No one can convince me that much body roll is a suspension upgrade from the very flat 86.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by guybo

Am I the only person who saw that appalling body roll on that miata? Plus it's almost $10 grand more! No one can convince me that much body roll is a suspension upgrade from the very flat 86.

Why do you say body roll is bad? I'm not saying you're wrong, but why you think it's bad changes the answer.

[guybo]

The point of a stiff racecar suspension is to limit body roll (among other things- but since aero is not really a concern for these cars, let's stick to mechanical grip). All that transfer of weight and changes in suspension geometry makes for unpredictable behavior and grip. Vertical suspension movement is good but body roll messes up road handling. Check out a real race car- you won't see a lot of roll. Pobst, in the video remarks that the 86 feels like a racecar and is impressed with the lack of body roll. The 86 offers precision that the Miata lacks.

Besides these comparisons are useless. Anyone serious about putting one of these cars ona track will change out tires first. The 86 tires are not for the track. The 86 tires are for FUN- getting sideways and kicking out the rear end. Automotive journalists are paid to have the opinion they give. Either directly or they are set up in top tier accommodations, first class flights and given the best cars to test. If you play along, you get invited to test a lot of cars. If you don't plat this game you don't. This is a useless comparison of two very different cars (one is a 2+2 that costs around $26k, the other is a 2 seater that costs almost $10k more- VERY different cars not even in the same class).

You want to REALLY compare these? Put them on the same tires. Anything else is mental masturbation.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by guybo

The point of a stiff racecar suspension is to limit body roll (among other things- but since aero is not really a concern for these cars, let's stick to mechanical grip). All that transfer of weight and changes in suspension geometry makes for unpredictable behavior and grip. Vertical suspension movement is good but body roll messes up road handling. Check out a real race car- you won't see a lot of roll. Pobst, in the video remarks that the 86 feels like a racecar and is impressed with the lack of body roll. The 86 offers precision that the Miata lacks.

Too stiff of suspension is actually bad for mechanical grip because you're more likely to have a tire leave the ground or transfer weight unexpectedly over a bump. Full on race cars run very little ground clearance (for aero reasons) and don't have room for much compression, they also have to be stiff enough to not bottom out at high speeds from downforce.

Body roll actually makes it more predictable because the weight transfer takes longer and is more dampened by the shocks. Stiff springs transfer weight much quicker, but if there's much less suspension travel it's also undampened and less predictable. The amount of weight transfer doesn't change with how stiff the suspension is, just the time it takes to transfer. Slower weight transfer makes it much easier to drive at the limit because it's less likely to snap unexpectedly.

That said, on a car with a poor camber curve you want to do everything you can to take out body roll because every bit of compression puts the camber more positive. If our cars had as much body roll as the miata we'd need like -2*+ static camber stock or would be roasting the outside edges of the front tires WAY worse than we already do on a stock alignment. Mazda couldn't run suspension as soft as it does on mac struts, but the wishbones give enough camber gain to keep the tires in check.

Even F1 cars have some body roll:

[totopo]

Originally Posted by guybo

The point of a stiff racecar suspension is to limit body roll (among other things- but since aero is not really a concern for these cars, let's stick to mechanical grip). All that transfer of weight and changes in suspension geometry makes for unpredictable behavior and grip. Vertical suspension movement is good but body roll messes up road handling. Check out a real race car- you won't see a lot of roll. Pobst, in the video remarks that the 86 feels like a racecar and is impressed with the lack of body roll. The 86 offers precision that the Miata lacks.

Besides these comparisons are useless. Anyone serious about putting one of these cars ona track will change out tires first. The 86 tires are not for the track. The 86 tires are for FUN- getting sideways and kicking out the rear end. Automotive journalists are paid to have the opinion they give. Either directly or they are set up in top tier accommodations, first class flights and given the best cars to test. If you play along, you get invited to test a lot of cars. If you don't plat this game you don't. This is a useless comparison of two very different cars (one is a 2+2 that costs around $26k, the other is a 2 seater that costs almost $10k more- VERY different cars not even in the same class).

You want to REALLY compare these? Put them on the same tires. Anything else is mental masturbation.

Body roll is mostly a driver preference thing, especially if you have nice double a arms with good camber curves.

Roll does not affect weight transfer.

Race cars have no roll because they are low. Low CoG is good for handling. High spring rates are necessary to prevent bottoming out, but are bad for road holding. So as you go lower, you benefit from cog, but you lose from the spring rates. The balance point is usually somewhere between 2 and 3 inches, which, unsuprisingly, is the bump travel of most pre-aero race cars (in this new aero-driven world suspension plays second, or like 3rd fiddle to aero and engine and now race cars are as low as the rules allow for ground effect).

Compliant springs are actually good for handling. That's part of the reason why pobst says the miata handles the bumps better. Roll can always be tuned away with anti-roll bars if you don't like it (which are a lot cheaper than tires).

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by totopo

Body roll is mostly a driver preference thing, especially if you have nice double a arms with good camber curves.

If you're limited to mcphersons it does affect performance though, since you can't do much to tune the camber curve. Porsche made their mcpherson cars handle well by limiting suspension travel and roll. Now that the 911 finally has a multilink setup in the back we are seeing them sprung softer.

Also note that for 2017 they stiffened the Miata and it made it faster on track. Too much compliance is bad just as too stiff is bad. Its all about balance.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk