Frs vs s2000

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

- The S2k has a power advantage at certain speeds. 20-85, 125+ Between 90 and 120, it's a wash. This is due to the BRZ's inherant "slipperyness" (it's more aerodynamic).

The S2000 should have an acceleration advantage everywhere, at all speeds. If the BRZ being more aerodynamic was enough to give it an advantage at higher speeds, it would have a higher maximum speed. It doesn't. At FR-S/BRZ maximum speed (~147?), the S2000 still has the advantage, and continues accelerating to over 150.

- The BRZ has much better aerodynamic balance stock, compared to the S2k. The S2k makes a ton of rear lift, and a good amount of front downforce, stock, whereas the BRZ is zero lift (with factory aero). This is also why the BRZ gives the S2k such a good fight on mid-speed tracks, but it's also why the S2k simply decimates the BRZ once aero is added (just a rear wing).

Does the FR-S/BRZ really have zero lift? I'd be very surprised...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Anaxilus

Yeah, read further where I said $38K. Oh sorry, $38K is sooo far off 37.9k. Which both to me is basically a $40K car. Straight enough for me.

You said the 2000 model year S2000 was $40k. It wasn't. The most recent non-CR S2000 was $35k in 2009. The CR was a special model aimed at a very small segment of an already limited portion of the market, I don't know why you'd even compare it other than to try to exaggerate the expensiveness of the S2000.

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You said the 2000 model year S2000 was $40k. It wasn't. The most recent non-CR S2000 was $35k in 2009. The CR was a special model aimed at a very small segment of an already limited portion of the market, I don't know why you'd even compare it other than to try to exaggerate the expensiveness of the S2000.

Because when I was looking at roadsters in 2005, I remembered the S2000 approaching 40k while the MR-S was under 30k during cross shopping. Two very different price brackets in my mind. I'm not building a space rocket or cooking a Souffle here. If a 35-38k means it's a $30k car to you, then so be it. We won't agree. The 86 is not what I'd consider a $20K car. Nitpicking a couple grand isn't making any argument worth of note except as a red herring.

I used 2000 to accentuate the price difference between a car produced new in 2000 versus another new car produced in 2012. Use whatever figure makes you comfortable, the point is the same. The S2K was and is a much more expensive car to produce.

Now excuse me, I'm going to go back to the new Miata versus used Cayman S thread now. Thx guys.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Anaxilus

Because when I was looking at roadsters in 2005, I remembered the S2000 approaching 40k while the MR-S was under 30k during cross shopping. Two very different price brackets in my mind. I'm not building a space rocket or cooking a Souffle here. If a 35-38k

Stop right there. You were not looking at a 38k sticker in 2005. 38k was sticker on the CR that didn't come out until 2008. It was a limited-run special model with a higher MSRP, if you want to compare it to any FR-S on price, it should be the series 10. The S2000 was more expensive than the FR-S. It was not a $40k car, it was $35k.

means it's a $30k car to you, then so be it. We won't agree.

$35k is $35k. Who ever said it was a $30k car?

The 86 is not what I'd consider a $20K car.

Of course not. $25k is $25k.

Nitpicking a couple grand isn't making any argument worth of note except as a red herring.

$40k-$35k is not "a couple grand", it's 5,000 dollars.

I used 2000 to accentuate the price difference between a car produced new in 2000 versus another new car produced in 2012. Use whatever figure makes you comfortable, the point is the same. The S2K was and is a much more expensive car to produce.

Yes it was. It just was never a $40k car.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

I'd break it down like this.

- The S2k has a power advantage at certain speeds. 20-85, 125+ Between 90 and 120, it's a wash. This is due to the BRZ's inherant "slipperyness" (it's more aerodynamic).

- The BRZ has much better aerodynamic balance stock, compared to the S2k. The S2k makes a ton of rear lift, and a good amount of front downforce, stock, whereas the BRZ is zero lift (with factory aero). This is also why the BRZ gives the S2k such a good fight on mid-speed tracks, but it's also why the S2k simply decimates the BRZ once aero is added (just a rear wing).

- Coupe... well... if there was one, I'd have one, but I suppose that's why I have an OEM hardtop. Surprisingly, I discovered that going topless is pretty fcking awesome. I would have never though I'd like a topless car before I tried it.

Nice write-up. A couple of my good friends used to own convertibles (S2000, Miatas). On the right days, top-down motoring was awesome. I can only imagine how nice a convertible would be out in gorgeous southern Cal.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Anaxilus

Yeah, read further where I said $38K. Oh sorry, $38K is sooo far off 37.9k. Which both to me is basically a $40K car. Straight enough for me.

Yeah, the reason is called economics, supply and demand. 86 is current production and produced sold at a higher rate than the S2000 ever knew. Performance has very little to do w/ that. The 86 has sold almost 30,000 units it's first year which is almost half what the S2000 did in 10 years.

Of course, you've compared the S2K w/ a wing to the 86 w/ aero right? The Griffon seems to respond well to aero on the stock motor. I'm not sure how valuable comparing a stock car to one with aero add-ons is.

38k in 2009 dollars is nowhere near 40k in 1999/2000 dollars.

The Griffon GT86 can be replicated... for about 120k + a car. Apples to oranges. I'm talking a S2k with a $800 bolt-on wing, and nothing more.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by ZDan

The S2000 should have an acceleration advantage everywhere, at all speeds. If the BRZ being more aerodynamic was enough to give it an advantage at higher speeds, it would have a higher maximum speed. It doesn't. At FR-S/BRZ maximum speed (~147?), the S2000 still has the advantage, and continues accelerating to over 150.

Does the FR-S/BRZ really have zero lift? I'd be very surprised...

Remember that power output is linear, while aerodynamic drag is exponential.

90-120 is the "sweet spot" where the FRS/BRZ has a superior power/drag ratio over the s2k.


The published number, IIRC, was zero lift on the BRZ with both the "diffuser" and wing. It also reduces Cd by 0.02.

[regal]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You said the 2000 model year S2000 was $40k. It wasn't. The most recent non-CR S2000 was $35k in 2009. The CR was a special model aimed at a very small segment of an already limited portion of the market, I don't know why you'd even compare it other than to try to exaggerate the expensiveness of the S2000.

And Honda lost money on every S2k they sold. Its obviously over-engineered (good) and an has more money invested in nearly every part of the car from the engine to the suspension. IMHO It did weigh too much for a pure" sports car roadster." I think the base Elise did every thing the S2k did, better. And in 2005 they were priced very close.

The S2k is not a Gran Tourer. The FRS is a GT in the spirit of GTs before they became 4k lb behemoths but with some roadster like traits. The FRS just doesn't have the go-cart feel of a true sports car like the Elise or Toyotas sports car the (MRS.) But it does great on sweeping highways and interstates. I'd much rather take a 10 hour drive on the interstate with the FRS than an S2k or Elise.

For a little GT it has very sports car like handling on flat roads/tracks.
But driving on really twisty hilly roads it becomes apparent that the handling isn't roadster like, I'm not the only one to report a rear wheel lift on a tight downhill turn. I don't think track guys would ever notice this. But this car is not a top class handling car on turns with sharp elevation changes . It may just be the silly soft springs upfront, it may just need better struts.

A guess the point is we are comparing apples and oranges.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Remember that power output is linear, while aerodynamic drag is exponential.

I certainly haven't "forgotten" that! The fact remains, the S2000 has a higher top speed.

90-120 is the "sweet spot" where the FRS/BRZ has a superior power/drag ratio over the s2k.

No, it doesn't. The faster you go, the more the FR-S/BRZ's lower drag should help it. But even at its top speed, the S2000 still has the advantage.

FWIW, I modded my RX-7 spreadsheet model for the FR-S (170rwhp, 0.29 cd, 2950 lb) and for the S2000 (200rwhp, 0.33 cd, 3000 lb.). Model predicts 14.9@96mph for the FR-S, 14.1@101mph for the S2000, so it's at least in the ballpark. I'm getting a max speed of the FR-S of 155mph, and 158mph for the S2000.

At 90mph, FR-S is accelerating at 5.5 ft/s^2, S2000 at 6.5 ft/s^2. Advantage: S2000

At 120mph, FR-S = 2.9 ft/s^2, S2000 = 3.4 ft/s^2. Advantage: still S2000.

If the FR-S's aero drag advantage were significant enough that it had and advantage anywhere, it would be at higher speeds and it would have a higher top speed.

The published number, IIRC, was zero lift on the BRZ with both the "diffuser" and wing. It also reduces Cd by 0.02.

That's impressive. This is a Subotaru developed diffuser I guess? Makes one wonder why people are developing totally flat sheet metal "diffusers" for these cars...

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I certainly haven't "forgotten" that! The fact remains, the S2000 has a higher top speed.

No, it doesn't. The faster you go, the more the FR-S/BRZ's lower drag should help it. But even at its top speed, the S2000 still has the advantage.

FWIW, I modded my RX-7 spreadsheet model for the FR-S (170rwhp, 0.29 cd, 2950 lb) and for the S2000 (200rwhp, 0.33 cd, 3000 lb.). Model predicts 14.9@96mph for the FR-S, 14.1@101mph for the S2000, so it's at least in the ballpark. I'm getting a max speed of the FR-S of 155mph, and 158mph for the S2000.

At 90mph, FR-S is accelerating at 5.5 ft/s^2, S2000 at 6.5 ft/s^2. Advantage: S2000

At 120mph, FR-S = 2.9 ft/s^2, S2000 = 3.4 ft/s^2. Advantage: still S2000.

If the FR-S's aero drag advantage were significant enough that it had and advantage anywhere, it would be at higher speeds and it would have a higher top speed.


That's impressive. This is a Subotaru developed diffuser I guess? Makes one wonder why people are developing totally flat sheet metal "diffusers" for these cars...

Can you email me a copy of the spreadsheet?

Our real world testing indicates the FR-S is abnormally fast 90-120, both via closed course drag racing, as well as datalogs from hundreds of runs at those speeds.

I haven't done the actual math, although I'm familiar with the equations, as our anecdotal evidence is very strong...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Can you email me a copy of the spreadsheet?

email address?
Note that I only knocked down the horsepower level by a straight factor from my RX-7 model, I didn't take the time to update gear ratios. It should still be a pretty good approximation (as the near dead-on 1/4-mile predictions indicate).

Our real world testing indicates the FR-S is abnormally fast 90-120, both via closed course drag racing, as well as datalogs from hundreds of runs at those speeds.

Weird, acceleration is pretty much a function of power and aero drag. Nothing "magical" should be happening from 90-120. Acceleration should continue falling off as the power applied is resisted with exponentially increasing aero drag.

I haven't done the actual math, although I'm familiar with the equations, as our anecdotal evidence is very strong...

Can I see speed data?

[manonastick]

Yes. . . but in all reality i sold my s2000 cause i couldnt stand how rough it was as it was my daily. . . I was about to buy a hot hatch before my s2000 cause of practicality and fun factor but the major drawback was FF. . the brz/frs is the car of my dreams cause it does everything a normal car can do and yet i can have fun! in coupe shape with decent praticality and backseats. . You can argue over the frs/brz or s2000 being the better performing car but you can deny the fact that the FRS/BRZ is the "better car"

[DarkSunrise]

For one datapoint, at C&D's Lightning Lap, here are the front straight entry & peak speeds for both cars:

S2000CR: 86.3 mph entry, 121.5 mph peak
BRZ: 87.0 mph entry, 116.6 mph peak

I haven't seen CSG's data, but it does look like the S2000 CR out-accelerates the BRZ down the front straight in C&D's test from basically 85-120 mph.

If I had to guess, I think the BRZ claws back time vs. the S2000 in the corners. If you look at the C&D test data, you can see the BRZ has faster cornering speeds in some sectors (2, 3, 5), and I think on equal tires, you would see that more clearly and in more sectors. Just my guess though.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...r-times-page-8
http://virnow.com/files/2012/09/Car-...ning-Lap-3.pdf

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

For one datapoint, at C&D's Lightning Lap, here are the front straight entry & peak speeds for both cars:

S2000CR: 86.3 mph entry, 121.5 mph peak
BRZ: 87.0 mph entry, 116.6 mph peak

I haven't seen CSG's data, but it does look like the S2000 CR out-accelerates the BRZ down the front straight in C&D's test from basically 85-120 mph.

If I had to guess, I think the BRZ claws back time vs. the S2000 in the corners. If you look at the C&D test data, you can see the BRZ has faster cornering speeds in some sectors (2, 3, 5), and I think on equal tires, you would see that more clearly and in more sectors. Just my guess though.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...r-times-page-8
http://virnow.com/files/2012/09/Car-...ning-Lap-3.pdf

Our data is all from the ACS front straight... the front straight of an oval. The BRZ enters slower, and exits the same speed as the s2k...