Base Cayman vs BRZ

[bfrank1972]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

My favorite crash test for when people try to say the old cars were safer because they were bigger. The perfect example of what nostalgia can do to people perceptions.

Wow, that's a pretty cool video, never would have thought a malibu would have held up like that. BTW this thread looks about like that crash test.

[bcj]

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

And yet, if you hang around Cayman owners long enough, and spend time on the Porsche forums, you'll see that ...

I am not sure which Porsche forums you are referring. In general Porsche has official recognized and supported clubs with an additional forum functionality. It is a way to control a bit more what the consumers will receive as information and not get touched by opportunists in the market.

[WolfpackS2k]

^your response has nothing to do with my comment so you've lost me. And I doubt you've spent any time on the Cayman registry.

^^You can't deny that the crash worthiness of automobiles has become a bit of an arms race. They have to be bigger, heavier, and stronger so that they do better in crashes with heavier, stronger vehicles than what was sold 20 years ago.

At the same time outward visibility has become worse, with smaller windows and thicker pillars. At what point do you draw the line?

[bfrank1972]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

At the same time outward visibility has become worse, with smaller windows and thicker pillars. At what point do you draw the line?

With self driving cars, pretty soon you won't need to see

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

^your response has nothing to do with my comment so you've lost me. And I doubt you've spent any time on the Cayman registry.

^^You can't deny that the crash worthiness of automobiles has become a bit of an arms race. They have to be bigger, heavier, and stronger so that they do better in crashes with heavier, stronger vehicles than what was sold 20 years ago.

At the same time outward visibility has become worse, with smaller windows and thicker pillars. At what point do you draw the line?

it isn't really an "arms race" scenario since they are not competing against each other but simply trying to meet all of the various different government requirements. Since they try to meet as many possible crash restrictions as possible (every governments is slightly different) this makes it even more challenging. The truly difficult parts is to try and meet conflicting requirements. The crash test standards need heavier and more survivable vehicles while the fuel economy and emissions laws are asking for lighter more efficient ones. Pretty hard to meet both requirements when they have to be engineered to radically different goals. The manufacturers should be applauded that they can pull this off at all and still keep cars at a price point where people can actually buy them.

[WolfpackS2k]

Yeah, they've already passed the point of diminishing returns.

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by bfrank1972

Well I suppose we could debate about this 'till the cows come home, but I'm not sure what we'd be debating. It's not like Honda has the only team of super smart engineers and Subaru has a bunch of dunces in lab coats. Most of it comes down to cost & constraints - i.e. packaging with a flat four may have some design constraints that impact power output vs something like a K20A, but the flat engine was chosen for other reasons. I'm sure if given the go ahead, Subaru engineers could produce something easily as good as the K20A or F20/22C, it's just not deemed as their target goal.

I highly doubt that for a naturally aspirated 2 to 2.5 liter flat four, which would be comparable to a Honda K20/K24. The Honda K series is basically a masterpiece and there's a reason very few companies have something comparable.

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Because my BRZ has from factory a 3.727 fd diff and not the 4.1 or the newer 4.3. So, I was questioning for a long time if it is worth to change it. I even asked one of the designers of our cars and the reply was the following:

"On your shorter final drive question, it will only drop the whole range of gears, so your top gear will be shorter, so the fuel consumption will decrease. It will only feel livelier but not in all gears since we are just dropping the shift points lower...but not increasing the power to the output. So it's a choice. I would leave it alone if I was you since it really doesn't make the car any faster in all places. Just in some places, and in other places, slower."

Then I started studying it with excel formulas and indeed he was right. If you tell me that they wanted to handicap the Cayman and they didn't provide the bigger engine or the more advanced suspension (if space was sufficient), then yes I agree. But not on the gears or final drive ratios ...

I'd very much like to see the excel sheet on that one. I have a feeling that has a whole lot to do with how the changes affect the time spent in the engine's "sweet spots" under the curve than anything else. In theory, a shorter final drive will get you up to speed faster at the expense of top speed. In reality, especially on our cars, if it changes the amount of time you spend in the "torque dip" rev ranges, it could significantly affect acceleration one way or another.

[bfrank1972]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

I highly doubt that for a naturally aspirated 2 to 2.5 liter flat four, which would be comparable to a Honda K20/K24. The Honda K series is basically a masterpiece and there's a reason very few companies have something comparable.

Why? It's not alien technology.

It's a well designed motor for sure - but even if it had some 'secret sauce' it would be easy enough for anyone to reverse engineer and build their own version (given sufficient budget).

Also I didn't say Subaru could necessarily engineer a *flat four* with equivalent efficiency - motor configurations all have different strengths/weaknesses - my point was rather that different constraints and design decisions impact the overall efficiency/output of an engine system. It's not because we're 'going in reverse' with engine technology (as someone mentioned in the thread), quite the opposite.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

In theory, a shorter final drive will get you up to speed faster at the expense of top speed. In reality, especially on our cars, if it changes the amount of time you spend in the "torque dip" rev ranges, it could significantly affect acceleration one way or another.

At the expense of top speed in every gear. So when you shift to the higher gear you are slower comparing to the longer fd. About the torque dip it'll pass it faster, but this is not a reason to go to a shorter fd ratio. Only if you feel lazy and don't want to downshift.

Anyway, I think the subject is complete. It doesn't matter to discuss it more.

[r_rated]

If you can afford the cayman -DO IT. It is way more car in every way. Also - That motor in the base cayman is sweet an sings. Even without mods the car will not feel underpowered. It will however feel perfectly balanced. With a plenum, TB, headers and a tune it just sings and revs. It will rev better than your S2K did with these mods. But even stock.... its an incredibly engineered car.

Comments about 986... pfffft - ignore them. That platform is 20 years old now.

The BRZ is a fantastic low cost option.

The Cayman is worth the extra money if you have it. It's not one you say "I wanted X but all I could afford was a cayman." If you're considering it then get it so you don't have to convince yourself every time to think of it while you drive the BRZ.

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Yeah, they've already passed the point of diminishing returns.

In terms of emissions, that point was reached somewhere around 1985.

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by bfrank1972

Why? It's not alien technology.

It's a well designed motor for sure - but even if it had some 'secret sauce' it would be easy enough for anyone to reverse engineer and build their own version (given sufficient budget).

Also I didn't say Subaru could necessarily engineer a *flat four* with equivalent efficiency - motor configurations all have different strengths/weaknesses - my point was rather that different constraints and design decisions impact the overall efficiency/output of an engine system. It's not because we're 'going in reverse' with engine technology (as someone mentioned in the thread), quite the opposite.

If the US (and the rest of the world) still used emissions standards from 1999, I don't think Subaru would have any problem matching the S2000's output at all. In fact, it might potentially surpass it, given almost 20 additional years of learning and tricks. Along the same lines, I'd argue that Honda could never build the F20/F22 today with the same power output but still meet 2018 noise and emissions standards.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by r_rated

If you can afford the cayman -DO IT. It is way more car in every way. Also - That motor in the base cayman is sweet an sings. Even without mods the car will not feel underpowered. It will however feel perfectly balanced. With a plenum, TB, headers and a tune it just sings and revs. It will rev better than your S2K did with these mods. But even stock.... its an incredibly engineered car.

Comments about 986... pfffft - ignore them. That platform is 20 years old now.

The BRZ is a fantastic low cost option.

The Cayman is worth the extra money if you have it. It's not one you say "I wanted X but all I could afford was a cayman." If you're considering it then get it so you don't have to convince yourself every time to think of it while you drive the BRZ.

^^ Fully agree.


By the way, Porsche guys should make someday a few lessons about modifications. Plenum and TB are somehow forbidden words over here