FRS/BRZ vs. 2013 Civic SI

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i only responded because you brought it up. i think i could say that double wishbone would have a lower roll center than macphersons with more confidence than i could say that fwd outhandles rwd and that kind of talk runs rampant on on this forum. its feel does impress but you cant really make that claim considering it just lost a feel comparison to the miata. its, at best, up for debate.

I brought it up because the car hardly rolls. MotorTrend's preference of more roll in the Miata over more precision in the FR-S, yes, that odd preference is most certainly up for debate. Saying the FR-S' handling feel excels in terms of precision, I absolutely can make that claim with MotorTrend in agreement.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

I brought it up because the car hardly rolls. MotorTrend's preference of more roll in the Miata over more precision in the FR-S, yes, that odd preference is most certainly up for debate. Saying the FR-S' handling feel excels in terms of precision, I absolutely can make that claim with MotorTrend in agreement.

i think all things handling are pretty subjective when we talk about them this way. motortrend (or rather this particular staff member) prefers the miata. there is not way else to look at it other than the frs isnt clearly better than every car even close to its segment. i also think it might be worth noting that definitions of precise are probably gonna cause more confusion. the article talks about how the the miata stays on a neater line while the frs has a tendency to break loose. the frs settles into turns much faster stock for stock. i dont really care to argue those semantics though

[ZDan]

You guys do know that a higher roll center means *less* body roll, right?
Anyway, I think you can put the roll center height where you want it with McPherson struts anway, i think the (minor) drawback is that it moves around more with suspension travel. A lowered McPherson strut car will see the roll center move further *downward*, which will act to negate some amount of the benefits of lowering, more so than with double-wishbones.

[sf5]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i only responded because you brought it up. i think i could say that double wishbone would have a lower roll center than macphersons with more confidence than i could say that fwd outhandles rwd and that kind of talk runs rampant on on this forum. its feel does impress but you cant really make that claim considering it just lost a feel comparison to the miata. its, at best, up for debate.

the 335 is almost twice the price of a mustang and with a third of the power. doesnt sound like much of a bargain to me. that 45k price tag is also why there is more plastic in the frs (how plastic affects the sportiness of a car is beyond me).

leasing and buying are two very different things, you should understand that. leasing any car is almost certainly a ripoff.

in the civic comparo video, they compare cars that were bought with the same amount of money. as far as stock for stock, dollar for dollar comparisons go, that was the closest they could come.

Leasing is a rip, especially if you're paying $330 monthly for a BRZ. Almost any sports car for that price is a better buy.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You guys do know that a higher roll center means *less* body roll, right?
Anyway, I think you can put the roll center height where you want it with McPherson struts anway, i think the (minor) drawback is that it moves around more with suspension travel. A lowered McPherson strut car will see the roll center move further *downward*, which will act to negate some amount of the benefits of lowering, more so than with double-wishbones.

yeah, yeah, i meant a lower distance from cog to roll center. i hate when whats in my head and what i write arent the same thing. id rather not spend time proof reading internet posts at the expense of sounding dumb. i guess if i really cared i could show one of the dozen posts ive made about it in other threads but i dont. thanks for clarifying though :happy0180: ps thats not sarcastic or anything.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

Another point about the boxer - it enabled the car to have a lower hood profile and avoid the ugly high beltline so common in modern cars.

Don't know that it is the engine layout that gives a lower hood profile - my 1st gen Tiburon has a lower hood profile than the twins and it has a 2-litre inline 4 (also with MacPherson struts front/ multilink rear). See also: Acura Integra.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Don't know that it is the engine layout that gives a lower hood profile - my 1st gen Tiburon has a lower hood profile than the twins and it has a 2-litre inline 4 (also with MacPherson struts front/ multilink rear). See also: Acura Integra.

Is the hood lower on the Tibby? Or are its seats just positioned higher than the BRZ? In these side shots, I can see the Tibby's hoodline above the fender line, whereas, the BRZ's hood dips down below the fender line.

[ZDan]

I have to say, it is a bit disappointing how high the FT86 hood and front fenders got relative to the show cars. I think it must be due to strut front suspension. C7 Corvette hood and fenders appear to be *way* lower, and presumably have to meet the same stupid "pedestrian impact" regs as the 86, with a taller/higher motor.

Still, overall the car looks fantastic, but when I get one to replace my s2000, I think it's going to have to come down by at least an inch based purely on aesthetics.

I was hoping for the 86 hood/fenders would have been closer to the S2000:

[MVJ1975]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Don't know that it is the engine layout that gives a lower hood profile - my 1st gen Tiburon has a lower hood profile than the twins and it has a 2-litre inline 4 (also with MacPherson struts front/ multilink rear). See also: Acura Integra.

The Tiburon predates those pedestrian safety regs that have mandated higher hood profiles.

[switchlanez]

When you mention pedestrian safety, I just realized hood line probably means the forward-most part of the hood where it meets the bumper. In that case, yeah, the BRZ's receding hood line is the only thing I don't like about its aesthetics.

I do like the raised fenders, though, both aesthetically as aggressively styled flares and functionally as reference points to place the wheels in spirited driving or maneuvering through parking lots.

[sf5]

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I don't know about how other people shop for cars, but everyone has a budget and money talks more than comparison. I bought the FR-S not only because I wanted it, but it was the cheapest, by far of all it's competitors that I couldn't afford EVEN if I really wanted them (believe it or not the 2013 SI is more expensive than the FR-S right now here)...or else I'd have to go get a used one. I mean a cayman is very close to be a competitor performance/experience wise but nobody will cross shop them, the price gap is just stupid.

The FR-S is the sportier car, it's RWD, and has a nice balance, but if price is your biggest concern, you can get an Si for much, much less. Drop the word "Scion" to a Honda salesman, and they start shedding off the Gs to keep you there. With $2,000 down expect to pay about $100 more per month for an FR-S, bought or leased.

Though not as preferable as the FR-S in many ways, the Civic is still a great car with a great engine. Just the fact that it's in such close competition to the FR-S is a testament to Honda once again.

Bring back the S2000!

[p4png]

The fact that frs has no Rev hang, shorter shifts, no body roll, shorter clutch, makes up for the lack of torque by far.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

It's kind of moot to argue the roll center because nobody knows where it is. What ultimately matters is how the car feels when you drive the damn thing. Doesn't matter how the engineers got there (boxer or not, wishbones or not, marketing hype on a pedestal or not); this car's handling handling feel excels over any car in the vicinity of (even above) its segment.

I think you touched on something here, my BRZ just has more soul vs my Challenger and the BRZ is more like my Type R... I have a feeling this soul will crease a market of its own. Specs are specs, but a soul...

[yeleng22]

I have been wanting to write in this thread cor a while now. So having owned a 2012 si coupe and now a 2013 brz, I think I can give a pretty comparison for the two. A little history: bought a brand new 2012 si in January of this year and traded it in this past weekend for the brz. This comparison will be solely on daily driving as I don't track or anything else (yet).

In terms of power for daily commute the si wins hands down. It is much more torquey and responsive during the lower rpms. Another positive I liked on the si was the steering whel controls. Really liked using the phone through those buttons, adjusting volume, and controlling the cruise control (remember a lot of daily driving here). Also the electronic cluster was good, kinda sucks to go back to having needles in the gauges.

Why I like the brz more: I am 5'4" and on a good day, 5'5" so these seats fit me perfectly and comfortably. The si seats felt extremely wide and big. Sometimes I drive my two kids to school but they too like the rear seats better than the si. The overall handling and cosmetic designs is much better than the si which is no surprise. The si is starting to feel like an SUV to me after only 3 months and the brz definitely made me feel at home again. The best part: having conversations with strangers at the gas pump about this car. Nobody ever wanted to ask about the civic. Lost about three thousand on trading in the civic but definitely fell its worth now.

What makes me happy at the end if the day and th winner of this comparison: if you guess brz you are right lol