EVO: GT86 TRD vs Miata MX-5 BBR Turbo

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i think the findings were both accurate and precise. the question is how valuable people think the findings are.

I think we can agree to completely disagree. It's precise in an apple to oranges comparison but inaccurate. The only way to be accurate in an apples to apples comparison would be to do the same mods to the 86.

If your logic held, than pretty much any comparison is both accurate and precise, like GT86 TRD versus VW CC.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

I think we can agree to completely disagree. It's precise in an apple to oranges comparison but inaccurate. The only way to be accurate in an apples to apples comparison would be to do the same mods to the 86.

If your logic held, than pretty much any comparison is both accurate and precise, like GT86 TRD versus VW CC.

what is your definition of precise and accurate? youre using them in a way that i dont understand. you can certainly make an accurate and precise comparison between the gt86trd and vw cc.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by fatoni

what is your definition of precise and accurate? youre using them in a way that i dont understand. you can certainly make an accurate and precise comparison between the gt86trd and vw cc.

No I did not. Comparing the 86 to the VW CC is inaccurate. The two are not necessarily synonymous. The distinction should have been taught to you in basic Physics or a general science class. Your definition and usage results in this:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum"]Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[hajiruku88]

It just doesnt makes sense why a TRD 86 was compared to a turbo Miata. Well obviously, Miata won because of its turbo. Wonder if the 86 had a turbo, it couldve been a different story.

[bobaab]

Having owned both cars, I suggest you buy an MX-5 and see for yourself. It will definitely put a smile on your face too

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by bobaab

Having owned both cars, I suggest you buy an MX-5 and see for yourself. It will definitely put a smile on your face too

Not only that, Mazda and Alfa Romeo are joint venturing the next generation MX5. Subaru will have its hands full with that competition. Mazda's next gen four will be as strong as the boxer.

Then we'll see who can design a chassis.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by hajiruku88

It just doesnt makes sense why a TRD 86 was compared to a turbo Miata. Well obviously, Miata won because of its turbo. Wonder if the 86 had a turbo, it couldve been a different story.

Not likely because the TRD GT86 couldn't put all its power down in stock form with the better tires. Adding power wouldn't help it enough. Mind you, the BBR wasn't properly sorted either if that was the same prototype that Autocar ran, probably was.

Autocar were at Cadwell Park UK in the dry same two cars (and others).

Toyota GT86 1:53.2 (Ford Fiesta ST 2 1:52.7)

MX5 BBR 1:48.8.

JCW Mini GP 1:47.7.


MX 5 hit fastest speed of all cars tested at 113 mph at the end of the longest straight. Mini was the fastest car through the slowest chicane at 52.3 mph.

Quickest car was the Caterham Seven Supersport at 1:47.4.

Cadwell isn't a power circuit. In fact it's referred to as the mini Nurburgring!

http://www.cadwellpark.co.uk

Draw you're own conclusions.

[Superhatch]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i have no doubt that there are faster twins than the cars tested. i just doubt they happened to have those cars when the comparison was made.

I think this is the crux of the problem. When we think of good automobile journalism we like to think of people who understand the differences between two cars, and if they are different levels of performance (ie a 3rd party FI, modded car, vs a factory add on car) they point this out in their article. They might say something like..."We couldn't get our hands on a 3rd party tuned 86 for this test, but thought comparing price tags might be interesting".

I think what most of us have come to realize in this thread is that this isn't about a bad test, it's about bad journalism. It's about EVO not pointing out, yes we understand this was just a comparison of price tags and the outcome of this comparison will likely be skewed because were not testing two cars of similar performance.

When most auto mags test cars in the same price range/class they also make an attempt to have the cars somewhat on par performance wise as well. This is the type of comparison we are all used to, and all accept as a fair comparison. None of us would be interested in a comparison of a 3rd party tuned M3 vs. an M3 with all the factory aero, convenience, and interior options...even though they are the same price. Why would anyone do that test let alone pretend it was worth putting in a mag?

So yes, you few gents who are arguing that any comparison will have an outcome where (likely) one loses and one wins, and by this definition as long as any common ground is found (price, color, doors, wheel size, model year) its a fair comparison I think are debating for the sake of debate. This was a comparison of two cars with nearly the same price tag, but the odds of that being a fair and interesting comparison are likely never in the cards.

I can spend 2K on a 240sx shell. Then spend 28K on making it track prepped. Should be fair to compare to a GT86 TRD version, yes? Same price tag, both coupes, both RWD...lets write and article about that comparison and then talk about how poorly the 86 does in comparison.

I feel like arguing against this being a faulty comparison is arguing semantics. If you don't understand that (like most of us do, regardless of the cars involved) then perhaps you should edit a journalism course at your local college.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

No I did not. Comparing the 86 to the VW CC is inaccurate. The two are not necessarily synonymous. The distinction should have been taught to you in basic Physics or a general science class. Your definition and usage results in this:

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

while i get that your definition is right, i think the context in which you are using it is wrong.

[Chuck]

To me, it looks like they are trying to compare performance of a vehicle using price as the controlling factor. Price has (can if done right but in this case was not) no effect on performance attributes of a car, therefore, the study does not use a correlating factor that would make this a worthy comparison.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by Chuck

To me, it looks like they are trying to compare performance of a vehicle using price as the controlling factor. Price has (can if done right but in this case was not) no effect on performance attributes of a car, therefore, the study does not use a correlating factor that would make this a worthy comparison.

Exactly right. The price is similar which makes it a relatively precise test. But the chosen metric is irrelevant to the metrics of the actual test performed which makes the comparison inaccurate.

[Turbowned]

Give me GBP10,000 and a GT86 and I'll make it stomp that MX-5; I promise!

[yuicebox]

If I could buy a BBR turbo charged MX-5 as easily as I could buy an FRS and slap some TRD parts on it, I probably would.

Oh wait, I'm 6'7". And I traded in an NC miata to get my FRS.

In all seriousness, that BBR NC is NASTY. Ridiculous comparison but still a cool video. Not sure what he means about not being able to balance the 86 on the throttle though.

[Atropine]

I think a Yugo with a briefcase with $25k vs a TRD FR-S would be a more accurate test, since its all about price instead of value.

I mean, shit why not just put an $8k snakeskin paint job on a random car and bag on it for not being as fast as a forced induction version of that car?