FR-S vs. 370z, end all be all of discussions

[fatoni]

i feel like this is becoming the new vs gen coupe thread.

i dont know why you guys dont consider tires a part of a car and in the same breath talk about how important they are. that doesnt make any sense to me

[ST185RC]

This is like comparing figure skating and hockey. You have the most gifted figure skater vs the most talented all star hockey player, both are judged in their own merit and they are common in that they both involve skates and ice in their respective salary as performers.

Give figure skaters a hockey stick and they probably can't score a lot of goals, give a hockey player figure skates the player will most likely have as much difficulty pulling off a triple axle.

To an audience that judges figure skating purely within the bounds of elegance and perfection, the hockey player will do absolutely shitty against an average figure skater. The FR-S was designed in this way, to be elegant, calm and composed even when pushed to the limits.

To an audience that judges player's hockey performance within the bounds of the NHL, a figure skater will never equal that of even the average hockey player. The 370z, designed to be able to take the grunt to the other guy and go head to head with a porsche and get gritty when things get flared. Hockey fights.

In my humblest of opinion, the FRS isn't for everybody and neither is the 370z. They are leagues apart to the target audience.

Either side will always find something that the other is less adept to doing, it's an endless argument and no empirical data will ever differentiate which is the better car due to the numberically inclined vs. ones who are critical thinkers. It's essentially an ongoing nature vs nurture debate.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i feel like this is becoming the new vs gen coupe thread.

i dont know why you guys dont consider tires a part of a car and in the same breath talk about how important they are. that doesnt make any sense to me

It's ok.

It's a perspective problem, not a comprehension problem. I've followed your posts fatoni and I know you're not having a comprehension problem.

Correct me if I understand you wrong but I see your perspective as such and I'm going to use my own words to describe your point of view more or less:
"Cars should be compared dollar for dollar in how it drives off the lot. Scion/Nissan/Mazda designed these cars and specifically chose these parts (pads/tires etc) as part of the complete package that you paid for off the lot and thus when comparing the cars the tire the car came with, or a tire equivalent to what the car came with if original tire no longer is produced, should be used in comparison testing: stock for stock"

Am I close or completely wrong? If I'm wrong please tell me so and disregard above.

My perspective is from an experimental design point of view: A question asked, a hypothesis presented and a test prepared to prove or disprove the original question. In doing so it's imperative to determine the variables and the control.

So if we are comparing "How does the off-the-showroom-floor-package compare" then I'm with you. But most often then not, we aren't doing this. We are asking questions like "Which car is more capable," or "which car has the greatest lateral G's". The reality is that the tire is without any question, the most significant differentiator regarding performance (accel, decel and laterally) and if we're asking specific performance questions and not addressing tire equality then we will never step away from the off-the-showroom-floor debate and into something more substantive.

Example:
The S2000 came off the showroom floor with a tire that had a 180 treadwear rating. That's an extremely aggressive OEM tire, however it is not any more expensive than the HP Primacy on the FRS. In this comparison comparing the two cars corning ability is an exercise in futility because you won't learn anything about the car but about the tire and that's not the point is it? (rhetorical). A Honda Odyssey on Potenza S03's will probably out-corner an FRS on HP Primacies!! (probably not but I'm exaggerating to prove a point)

So how do we test S2000 OEM and the FRS OEM evenly to find out what stock chassis is superior?... easy, put them both on Potenza S03's or both on HP Primacy's and conduct comparison.

I hope this helps explain why we can talk so definitively about the importance of tires yet not consider them "part of the car." It is a wear item that doesn't have a Subaru/Toyota part # on it.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

It's ok.

It's a perspective problem, not a comprehension problem. I've followed your posts fatoni and I know you're not having a comprehension problem.

Correct me if I understand you wrong but I see your perspective as such and I'm going to use my own words to describe your point of view more or less:
"Cars should be compared dollar for dollar in how it drives off the lot. Scion/Nissan/Mazda designed these cars and specifically chose these parts (pads/tires etc) as part of the complete package that you paid for off the lot and thus when comparing the cars the tire the car came with, or a tire equivalent to what the car came with if original tire no longer is produced, should be used in comparison testing: stock for stock"

Am I close or completely wrong? If I'm wrong please tell me so and disregard above.

My perspective is from an experimental design point of view: A question asked, a hypothesis presented and a test prepared to prove or disprove the original question. In doing so it's imperative to determine the variables and the control.

So if we are comparing "How does the off-the-showroom-floor-package compare" then I'm with you. But most often then not, we aren't doing this. We are asking questions like "Which car is more capable," or "which car has the greatest lateral G's". The reality is that the tire is without any question, the most significant differentiator regarding performance (accel, decel and laterally) and if we're asking specific performance questions and not addressing tire equality then we will never step away from the off-the-showroom-floor debate and into something more substantive.

Example:
The S2000 came off the showroom floor with a tire that had a 180 treadwear rating. That's an extremely aggressive OEM tire, however it is not any more expensive than the HP Primacy on the FRS. In this comparison comparing the two cars corning ability is an exercise in futility because you won't learn anything about the car but about the tire and that's not the point is it? (rhetorical). A Honda Odyssey on Potenza S03's will probably out-corner an FRS on HP Primacies!! (probably not but I'm exaggerating to prove a point)

So how do we test S2000 OEM and the FRS OEM evenly to find out what stock chassis is superior?... easy, put them both on Potenza S03's or both on HP Primacy's and conduct comparison.

I hope this helps explain why we can talk so definitively about the importance of tires yet not consider them "part of the car." It is a wear item that doesn't have a Subaru/Toyota part # on it.

yeah i come off pretty abrasive on this forum but im really not. i just think that written text leaves a lot to be desired.

i know what youre saying and it makes sense. the problem i have is that i dont know where that puts us. so use tires to show which chassis is more capable. what happens when you put the mustang gt up against the frs on equal tires? does that mean the mustang is the "better" chassis because we equalized the test? what about flashing the ecu? running e85? these are things that are easier and cheaper than changing tires and i think retains the cars identity even moreso. its just a slippery slope that much of the community has decided to end up on. there are people who are saying that the mustang v6 performance package and the si hfp arent stock but will agree that changing tires somewhow is stock. thats all im saying.

[Splat]

To me it's all about stock money off floor for comparison. No other BS changing anything.
FR-S 25k
370Z- 32k
v6 Mustang with performance 25k- you can get plain v6 for 22.5k and with rebates 20k
The Frs does not win any racing track or twisty against any of these due to horsepower. Get over it, does not matter how much better it handles, horsepower rules.
I love my FR-S, I am now biased. I do not care that the mustang will trash me, and z will leave me looking at his rear bumper. If I had 8k more I might have had enough for z.....but I dont, so I have what I have and the nissan 370z is goofy looking, and with the mustang I felt like a bean in tin can. So, I am good with that.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

Finally, a voice of reason!!

By the way, anyone seen how the FR-S stacks up against the Z and RX-8 in C-stock auto-x? Yes, that's right, all three of these cars are in the same auto-x class. So let's all just be friends.

Based on what few Autox outcomes I've seen posted, it gets creamed.

With better tires it will probably hang with the RX-8.

Here's what I find so amusing about some of the guys on here:

If performance doesn't matter to a given owner, we would expect NO changes to be made from the stock set-up that affect performance.

And yet, I bet most folks here will do more than spend money on purely cosmetic mods...

As soon as you start making performance oriented changes, you are basically saying that either numbers do actually matter, or that they correspond quite a bit to the "fun" factor after all.

Anyone who cares about performance will mod the car in keeping with that aim, and will probably keep doing so up to whatever one's means may be.

In other words, no matter how fast, how grippy, etc it can always be better -- it really doesn't matter what you drive.

On the other hand, if that's not the aim, then don't even think about it.

If you do think about it -- be honest with yourself and realistic. Learn what the car can and cannot do and then use that info to identify clear goals in terms of improving performance given your budget.

I would love to see a BRZ or FR-S set up to obliterate a 370Z or a Porsche Cayman. Somebody will do it, and that will be awesome!

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by fatoni

yeah i come off pretty abrasive on this forum but im really not. i just think that written text leaves a lot to be desired.

i know what youre saying and it makes sense. the problem i have is that i dont know where that puts us. so use tires to show which chassis is more capable. what happens when you put the mustang gt up against the frs on equal tires? does that mean the mustang is the "better" chassis because we equalized the test?

That's exactly what that means in my opinion. If you put the Mustang and FRS on equal tires and the Mustang performed better in controlled cornering tests then that is what you can call "conclusive evidence". I wish someone would just do this type of testing already.

Originally Posted by fatoni

what about flashing the ecu? running e85? these are things that are easier and cheaper than changing tires and i think retains the cars identity even moreso.

Well first off I don't agree. I can drive down to Les Schwab, sit in the lobby and in 45 minutes have new tires without voiding the warranty... E85 and opening the ECU for tuning on the dyno does. So no, ECU tuning/E85 is in now way a comparison to changing tires as it would intrinsically alter the car as it was designed. The car was not intrinsically designed to run E85 but was intrinsically designed to run a DOT tire in an appropriate size for a 17x7 wheel. Also, every car has multiple options of tires from a vast variety of tire manufacturers. Not every car has the ability to be ECU tuned and run on E85. So no, the slope just ain't that slippery.

Secondly, remember the "premise of the test". What does flashing the ECU or running E85 have to with comparing corning forces between the two chassis? It has no bearing so it's an irrelevant point to make as the conclusion is not supported by the premise (non sequitur).

Originally Posted by fatoni

there are people who are saying that the mustang v6 performance package and the si hfp arent stock but will agree that changing tires somewhow is stock. thats all im saying.

It doesn't matter what they say fatoni... base your decisions on data and quality of testing. Stock or not, if I compared a stock FRS to the HFP Civic and were comparing braking distances, cornering forces and lap times and they weren't on equal footing (tires) then there's little value in looking at the data because the data will tell you more about the tires on the car then car on the tires which is: Sticky tires = lower lap times. Well no duh. So then you have to make assumptions from the data like: If the FRS is 1 second slower but the tires on the civic are worth 2 seconds; is the FRS then 1 second faster? Isn't it technically a better/faster car even though it was slower by 1 second because it's tires are 2 seconds slower? I can't and you can't definitively say because hey... the test wasn't equal. Put them both on the same tire, run the laps and have a definitive conclusion. I also recommend using the same driver but that should have gone without saying. Changing the driver is like changing tires.

Going back to racing:
This is why many racing series have a Spec Tire because it evens the playing feel and the racing advantage is going to be found in the car.

[rice_classic]

fatoni: just to go back to the E85 and ECU programming comment.

While that type of modification is irrelevant to the test previously discussed; if we were to have a test between the 350Z and the FRS about how the two compared when tuned on E85 and what percentage of gains could be made or how reliable E85 was in the fuel system etc etc, then yes.... ECU tuning/E85 makes sense because...It's directly related to the test at hand.

[crazyyankeefan]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

If performance doesn't matter to a given owner, we would expect NO changes to be made from the stock set-up that affect performance.

And yet, I bet most folks here will do more than spend money on purely cosmetic mods...

As soon as you start making performance oriented changes, you are basically saying that either numbers do actually matter, or that they correspond quite a bit to the "fun" factor after all.

Anyone who cares about performance will mod the car in keeping with that aim, and will probably keep doing so up to whatever one's means may be.

In other words, no matter how fast, how grippy, etc it can always be better -- it really doesn't matter what you drive.

On the other hand, if that's not the aim, then don't even think about it.

If you do think about it -- be honest with yourself and realistic. Learn what the car can and cannot do and then use that info to identify clear goals in terms of improving performance given your budget.

The first BRZ I ever saw had upgraded wheels and exhaust...

[Kunzite]

Originally Posted by fatoni

when you change things, things are changed. thats not fair. i understand using the same tires as a tool for evaluation, its just not fair to compare a modified car to a stock car. and if people seem to care so much about numbers i urge you to go buy the mustang gt as that thing is both cheaper and murders the frs in just about every type of performance driving.

You mean it wasn't fair of me when I drove with winter tires, this winter? And when my summer tires will wear out, what should I do - they're not making this model any more! OMG WTF, I would irremediably modify my car!
Again: you are supposed to change tires, even if only street driving. It's no different than changing shoes, really.

FFS, what's so wrong/unfair in wanting to find out what the car (and not the tires) can do? Besides the GT 86 performing too well for your liking :p
Of course, the Michelin-equipped GT 86 should be the baseline.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

fatoni: just to go back to the E85 and ECU programming comment.

While that type of modification is irrelevant to the test previously discussed; if we were to have a test between the 350Z and the FRS about how the two compared when tuned on E85 and what percentage of gains could be made or how reliable E85 was in the fuel system etc etc, then yes.... ECU tuning/E85 makes sense because...It's directly related to the test at hand.

okay well remove e85 and just flash the ecu. still leaves us with wear and tear items like clutch, shocks and pads. removing backseats is less of a modification that changing tires. my point is that when you change things, things are changed. its an arbitrary point to choose to be acceptable. stock v stock: dont change tires. mod v mod:why stop at tires? thats all im saying

Originally Posted by Kunzite

You mean it wasn't fair of me when I drove with winter tires, this winter? And when my summer tires will wear out, what should I do - they're not making this model any more! OMG WTF, I would irremediably modify my car!
Again: you are supposed to change tires, even if only street driving. It's no different than changing shoes, really.

FFS, what's so wrong/unfair in wanting to find out what the car (and not the tires) can do? Besides the GT 86 performing too well for your liking :p
Of course, the Michelin-equipped GT 86 should be the baseline.

its unfair to change things in a stock comparison...because thats not stock

[Kunzite]

I know what you're saying, is just that you don't make any sense. You're claiming that if the car with the least power is not using much worse tires it would be "unfair"...
And by the way, there's nothing arbitrary there; we're specifically asking just for the same tires, nothing else. rice_classic explained very well why, but logic and common sense are lost on you.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by fatoni

okay well remove e85 and just flash the ecu.

For WHAT comparison?!

Now I can't tell if you're trolling or not. You just keep insisting on your non-sequitur argument.

It was clear as day: Non-sequitur = Your conclusion is not supported by the premise.

Premise: Comparing the ability of the car/chassis corning ability between multiple cars (with their own laundry list of variables). In order to do so there needs to be a controlled variable (that control is the tires). ECU flashing, E85 or even a FLUX CAPACITOR are irrelevant to the premise.

[wlfpck]

Please think back to the days of high school chemistry lab.

Remember how you set things constant to determine what variables caused what change?

You can't say that you'll run x, y, z mods on the 86 and then compare it to the stock mustang, rx-8, etc. UNLESS the point that you are trying to make is that the 86 can be modified to beat a stock mustang, rx-8, etc.

If your HYPOTHESIS is that the 86 with the same amount of horsepower/torque as the mustang, rx-8, etc. will win... then yes. The 86 will have to be modified. But then you are contraining the experiment to test the HYPOTHESIS stated above.

If your HYPOTHESIS is that better tires will make the 86 faster than a stock mustang, rx-8, etc., then the ONLY change you can make to the 86 would be new tires.

This is how you design experiments to prove a point in order to generate EVIDENCE BASED results that are properly experimented with CONSTRAINTS.


NOTE: the capitalized words are not "yelling" they are simply there to draw attention to the key words of the scientific process and the design of an experiement.