follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook. Interested in the FT-1? Check out FT1Club
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Integrity Concepts
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Scion FR-S Forum | Subaru BRZ Forum | Toyota 86 GT 86 Forum | AS1 Forum - FT86CLUB > FT86CLUB Shared Forum > FR-S / BRZ vs....

FR-S / BRZ vs.... Area to discuss the FR-S/BRZ against its competitors [NO STREET RACING]

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-15-2012, 06:49 PM   #45
SVTSHC
(ノಥ益ಥ)ノ
 
SVTSHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Drives: 2002 SVT Focus
Location: Bronx
Posts: 1,217
Thanks: 658
Thanked 508 Times in 288 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSxJunkie View Post
BMW has no incentive to build another lightweight, modestly powered driver's car. They've built a brand image on balancing dynamic performance with luxury. 3ers, 5ers, and X5s practically sell themselves. The cost of developing a new car, tooling for manufacturing, marketing... not worth it when their other cars are carrying their weight in sales. Especially for such a small market. There is a big difference between people who say they will buy a car on the internet and people who will actually walk into a dealership to buy one.

Toyota is a brand whose image is boredom. That's not very compelling That is why the GT86 made sense in the home market. They sold, for the last 8 years, 12 different beige cars. Scion is a brand aimed directly at young car enthusiasts. That's why the FR-S makes sense here. Subaru has sold compelling, affordable, lightweight cars for years. That's why the BRZ makes sense.

A 2002? Where does that slot in? Under the 1er? BMW dealerships have an air of snobbery around them. That's part of what they sell. Exclusivity. They've carefully cultivated that image for the last 20 years. I can guarantee that most will dealers will cringe at the thought of putting a 28k 2002 next to a 90k 7er on the showroom floor. Even more so at the thought of having 22-25 year olds with mediocre credit coming into their store daily looking to finance the new affordable BMW.




Long story short, it makes absolutely no financial sense for BMW to do so, and BMW is first and foremost a business.
I agree with you 100%. I won't argue the point anymore with Zdan, it's like slamming my head into a wall over. Nothings getting done, nothing will get through and I'll just end up with a headache.


But on a sidenote Zdan, yes I've tracked my car. Many many times, I don't think the majority of people that bought an SVT Focus had any intention of "not" tracking the car. But have you ever worked in the business side of the automotive industry? You see it's easy to take your stand when you don't have experience dealing with target demographics and showing gains every fiscal year; but the industry is just what it is, an industry. Businesses do what is in a businesses best interest; spending money on R&D for a platform that isn't necessary and as a result won't move a large amount of units is wasted money. A LOT of wasted money.

Would it be nice if BMW made an ultra light, enthusiast tailored sports car? Sure, why wouldn't it.
Would it make sense for BMW to make an ultra light, enthusiast tailored sports car? Not in the slightest.
SVTSHC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 07:40 PM   #46
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,464
Thanks: 87
Thanked 575 Times in 353 Posts
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTSHC View Post
I won't argue the point anymore with Zdan, it's like slamming my head into a wall over. Nothings getting done, nothing will get through and I'll just end up with a headache.
I will never agree with the argument that "this is what brand X did, therefore this is what brand X *had* to do and what was BEST for them".

Corvette has held the line on size and weight over many MANY years.
Porsche has at least come close to holding the line over the past 15 or so years. (911 went from ~2800 lb. in the mid-80s to 3000+ in the mid-90s to ~3100 or so now for the lightest-weight variant), and it hasn't destroyed them.
The M3, however, went from ~2800 in the mid-80s to ~3200 in the mid-90s to 3400 in the 00's to 3700 lb. today. That's a pretty huge weight gain.

Quote:
But on a sidenote Zdan, yes I've tracked my car. Many many times, I don't think the majority of people that bought an SVT Focus had any intention of "not" tracking the car.
I would bet a 6-pack that over half have never been to the track. Not a dig, I'm sure the same is true for Miatas, S2000s, etc.

Quote:
But have you ever worked in the business side of the automotive industry?
I'm a stress/structural engineer, but I've developed 2- and 3-wheel electric vehicles (~25hp, 70mph) from the tires up and worked with marketing and design (styling) as well to make the vehicles as desirable as possible from a "normal" consumer's perspective, for their intended usage. Would I have rather designed/developed a cafe racer or race bike? Yes (and actually I did build one of my own), but that didn't prevent me from developing the bikes we DID produce for their intended market with the utmost enthusiasm.

Quote:
You see it's easy to take your stand when you don't have experience dealing with target demographics and showing gains every fiscal year; but the industry is just what it is, an industry. Businesses do what is in a businesses best interest; spending money on R&D for a platform that isn't necessary and as a result won't move a large amount of units is wasted money. A LOT of wasted money.
So of course BMW should be building big, heavy sedans and SUVs only...
Well, OK, but it also makes BMW less relevant to enthusiasts.
They can continue down the mainstream path, but the cost is that their vehicles will become more and more Buicks and less and less "BMW's", and over time the brand's "sport" cache will be degraded.

I hope the new 1-based 2-series will be a step in the right direction and come in below 3000 lb., but based on the continuous bulking up of their product line over the past couple of decades I doubt it.

Quote:
Would it be nice if BMW made an ultra light, enthusiast tailored sports car? Sure, why wouldn't it.
Would it make sense for BMW to make an ultra light, enthusiast tailored sports car? Not in the slightest.
Apart from them building an "ultra light" car, I think they could at least keep the 3-series at a realistic weight for the "small" (if no longer the smallEST) BMW. 3500+ lb. is a lot for a "compact" sport sedan! And 3200 lb. is a lot for their lightest-weight "sub-compact" 1-series.

If (and it *is* still a big "if" at this stage) Toyobaru can sell a significant number of 2700 lb. rwd coupes for $25k or so, I guarantee that BMW could do the same at $32k+, and make money doing it.

Would they take the risk? It certainly doesn't look like it. That doesn't mean it's not a risk worth taking.

Meanwhile, the Mercedes-Benzification of BMW continues...

For *some* of us, it's a shame
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 06:41 AM   #47
KeepGuessing
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: e30 150 deville etc etc
Location: Arizona
Posts: 79
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
I will never agree with the argument that "this is what brand X did, therefore this is what brand X *had* to do and what was BEST for them".
This should be good..

Quote:
Corvette has held the line on size and weight over many MANY years.
The Corvette is a SINGLE model in the General Motors lineup..
A SINGLE model that turns profits on a very very very inconsequential scale.

Translation: The Corvette isn't a money maker, it's a marketing tool.

Quote:
Porsche has at least come close to holding the line over the past 15 or so years. (911 went from ~2800 lb. in the mid-80s to 3000+ in the mid-90s to ~3100 or so now for the lightest-weight variant), and it hasn't destroyed them.
Let's start by pointing out that "over the past 15 years" would be a qualifier for the time period of 1997-2012... So I haven't the SLIGHTEST idea why you would bring up "mid 80's" into the equation.

Now let's go into the brand itself.

You're going try and disallow BMW's need for model progression based on PORSCHE?? Are you kidding me?

Last year BMW sold 1,224,280 vehicles world wide.
Last year Porsche PRODUCED 41,949 vehicles total.

PORSCHE up until ~15 years ago, didn't have any other financially successful models...

Porshce up until 10 years ago, could for the life of them produce anything to turn a profit.

Of the ~42,000 vehicles PORSCHE produced last year...22,000 of them were Cayennes.

To try and say "Porsche doesn't change due to the market,etc so BMW has no rational excuse" is 150% preposterous. When Porsche becomes a company that actually has to make a decision based on Market demand, then you can make a long reach for the straw once more, but as is Porsche doesn't even compete on the same scale financially.

Porsche is kept afloat by using a borrowed vehicle with a jacked up MSRP.

You might as well bring Ariel into a conversation and question why Honda doesn't make Go-Karts.

Quote:
The M3, however, went from ~2800 in the mid-80s to ~3200 in the mid-90s to 3400 in the 00's to 3700 lb. today. That's a pretty huge weight gain.
Once again, you're forgetting quite a bit of hugely important factors.

1. The M3 is based on the 3 series, unlike the 911 which remains it's own model.

2. It being based on another car therein provides many restrictions/constraints on design alternatives...An M3 wouldn't be an M3 if it wasn't based on a 3 series, so if they just took headlights and redesigned it from the ground up we'd have a completely different car.

3. The M3 is HUGELY successful because it manages to be such a capable performer without having a 6 figure price tag.

4. Development costs money, exotic materials cost money...If you want a M3 that's "lightweight, smaller, etc etc" It is now YOUR job to find a way to take the standard e46, the standard e90 and standard F30 bmw 3 series coupe, sedan and convertible and make their dimensions smaller to suit your desires, now you must do so WITHOUT causing the price to skyrocket through the roof, because no one will buy a 320HP german coup that's 140,000 dollars.

The M3 also went from a cast iron 4 cylinder, to numerous versions of a cast iron i6, to a aluminum alloy v8.

The M3's primary competition also went from a 2800lb i5 Coupe, to a 3800lb direct injected V8.

So you complain about the M3 gaining wait, yet have yet to reference the success of the 3 series in the global market....

What is sounds like is you want BMW to make a couple thousand 325i's without the engine...at COST...

send them to the M division..have them develop a brand new engine for the car with the accompanying gearbox...have it meet all the regulator tests etc etc.....Then chop the car to bits to lighten it up and make it smaller reduce it's internal capacities shorten it's wheelbase thin out it's front and rear track to make it more like the "older M's that you're fond of"...put their brand new engine in, and slap a 59,000 dollar price tag on it AND turn a profit.....Sounds like someone doesn't know how the world works.

Quote:
I would bet a 6-pack that over half have never been to the track. Not a dig, I'm sure the same is true for Miatas, S2000s, etc.
I'm sure they haven't much like Ferrari's bugatti's etc etc etc. Since when does that matter?

[quote]
I'm a stress/structural engineer, but I've developed 2- and 3-wheel electric vehicles (~25hp, 70mph) from the tires up and worked with marketing and design (styling) as well to make the vehicles as desirable as possible from a "normal" consumer's perspective, for their intended usage. Would I have rather designed/developed a cafe racer or race bike? Yes (and actually I did build one of my own), but that didn't prevent me from developing the bikes we DID produce for their intended market with the utmost enthusiasm.
Quote:
So of course BMW should be building big, heavy sedans and SUVs only...
Well, OK, but it also makes BMW less relevant to enthusiasts.
I would thank you to not put a huge generalizing statement like that towards me, as i'm sure others wouldn't like that as well.

BMW is relevant to enthusiasts. If relevance is a numerical value associated directly with a vehicles race pedigree in correlation to their size increase over the years then you'd have an argument..But it isn't, so you don't.

Lamborghini's are nothing but tarted up Audi's....Are they no longer relevant to enthusiasts?

The lack of live rear axles in popular american "hot rods goes against their standards and practices, but are they no longer relevant to enthusiasts?

You're toting your obscenely naive opinion around on your jacket like it's the truth, when really it's so far from it it just makes you sound like you don't know whats going on. I can TELL you know the happenings of the automotive world by some of the information you bring to the discussion, however i can't help but feel your harboring some animosity towards SOME point in this argument which isn't allowing you to see the "intelligent and rational thinker" side to this "ZOMG BMWS IZ FAT AND NO FUN CUZ OLD M3'S ARE LIGHTWWWAIIT" argument.

Quote:
They can continue down the mainstream path, but the cost is that their knvehicles will become more and more Buicks and less and less "BMW's", and over time the brand's "sport" cache will be degraded.
Except they won't become more buicks, go drive an e90 m3.....
The F10 M5 is ONLY coming with a manual transmission in America..Why bother if it's intent on being a buick.

How many buicks have a DOT legal street slick as a tire option for their performance car?

How many car companies actually produce top tier engine after top tier engine year after year model after model JUST for their bread and butter performance vehicles?
KeepGuessing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 07:23 AM   #48
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,464
Thanks: 87
Thanked 575 Times in 353 Posts
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepGuessing View Post
Translation: The Corvette isn't a money maker, it's a marketing tool.
Wrong.

Quote:
Let's start by pointing out that "over the past 15 years" would be a qualifier for the time period of 1997-2012... So I haven't the SLIGHTEST idea why you would bring up "mid 80's" into the equation.
Pointing out that other manufacturers have held the line on weight for a LONG period of time. Sick of hearing how new cars HAVE to be heavier. They do not HAVE to be much, if any, heavier.

Quote:
You're going try and disallow BMW's need for model progression based on PORSCHE?? Are you kidding me?
The POINT remains the same. But I guess most BMW apologists are fine with BMW becoming ever more luxury and less true SPORT oriented.

Not going any further.

The POINT remains: BMW's have gotten much much bigger and heavier, and this was NOT necessary.

You don't care, that's fine. I think it sucks.

The End.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 07:42 AM   #49
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,464
Thanks: 87
Thanked 575 Times in 353 Posts
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I can assure you all that I had NO intention of derailing this thread. Thread was about comparing the FRS/BRZ with the E46, as it had been compared to the E30. The E30 M3 is actually a pretty similar car. The E46 is, well, NOT.

Anybody interested in E46-like cars should look at LSxJunkie's sig, there are some great ones in there! I was behind a 6.0 GTO on my way into work this AM, and all I could think was how much lower and sleeker it looked than the very box-like new Camaro.

But anyway, it's not like I HATE bigger/heavier cars, I've owned a few in fact. But it's a shame that there's next to NOTHING that's small/lightweight/rwd.

To me, I don't see why an E46 would be cross-shopped with an FR-S/BRZ. If you want a bigger/heavier car, there are plenty out there, new and used.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:06 AM   #50
SUB-FT86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Drives: 06 G35 Coupe Sport
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 2,606
Thanks: 43
Thanked 190 Times in 117 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Zdan I don't think you derailed this thread at all. This thread was derailed on arrival because the comparison like most all the other comparison threads is pretty stupid IMHO.
SUB-FT86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:08 AM   #51
LSxJunkie
Douchebag
 
LSxJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 2014 Mustang GT
Location: NY
Posts: 930
Thanks: 220
Thanked 314 Times in 168 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Wrong.

Pointing out that other manufacturers have held the line on weight for a LONG period of time. Sick of hearing how new cars HAVE to be heavier. They do not HAVE to be much, if any, heavier.

The POINT remains the same. But I guess most BMW apologists are fine with BMW becoming ever more luxury and less true SPORT oriented.

Not going any further.

The POINT remains: BMW's have gotten much much bigger and heavier, and this was NOT necessary.

You don't care, that's fine. I think it sucks.

The End.
The Corvette is certainly a marketing tool. It's one of 4 cars that GM has right now that is compelling to drive, and is currently the halo car. However, they certainly don't sell them in self sustaining volume.

2006: 36,518
2007: 33,685
2008: 26,971
2009: 13,934
2010: 12,624
2011: 13,164

That is a line that is internally subsidized by selling volume like 198,770 Malibus, 75,675 Tahoes (in the US), and 370,135 Silverados (in the US) in 2010.





And with worldwide safety regulations going the way they are, modern cars either have to be heavier (same stuff, plus mandated safety equipment), more expensive (same stuff, same weight, lightweight materials), or decontented (same price, same weight, less stuff).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
I can assure you all that I had NO intention of derailing this thread. Thread was about comparing the FRS/BRZ with the E46, as it had been compared to the E30. The E30 M3 is actually a pretty similar car. The E46 is, well, NOT.

Anybody interested in E46-like cars should look at LSxJunkie's sig, there are some great ones in there! I was behind a 6.0 GTO on my way into work this AM, and all I could think was how much lower and sleeker it looked than the very box-like new Camaro.

But anyway, it's not like I HATE bigger/heavier cars, I've owned a few in fact. But it's a shame that there's next to NOTHING that's small/lightweight/rwd.

To me, I don't see why an E46 would be cross-shopped with an FR-S/BRZ. If you want a bigger/heavier car, there are plenty out there, new and used.

I loved my GTOs. But they weighed 3700lbs and that was without heated seats, side impact airbags, or a sunroof. They were PIGS. And inside they were bigger than a new 6er. They also sit taller than the new Camaro and higher off the ground. Great grand tourer, but certainly not low and sleek.
__________________
Here - 2014 Mustang GT Track Package/Recaros (Laguna Seca Struts/Shocks/Springs, Boss 302 Rear Sway Bar, Boss 302 Wheels, GT500 Quad Tip Axleback, Energy Suspension Shifter Bushing), 2014 IS350AWD
Gone - 2011 IS350AWD, 2010 RX350, 2008 IS250AWD, 2007 RX350, 2006 GTO, 2006 GTO, 2004 G35 6MT, 1992 SC400
LSxJunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 05:18 PM   #52
KeepGuessing
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: e30 150 deville etc etc
Location: Arizona
Posts: 79
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSxJunkie View Post
I loved my GTOs. But they weighed 3700lbs and that was without heated seats, side impact airbags, or a sunroof. They were PIGS. And inside they were bigger than a new 6er. They also sit taller than the new Camaro and higher off the ground. Great grand tourer, but certainly not low and sleek.
One thing i noticed is 90% of peoples opinions on vehicles are completely unrelated to driving/owning/dealing with on a day to day basis the vehicle in question..

I for one thought the GTO was gods gift to the American man when it debuted..Man how i longed for an Australian sourced RWD big v8 car that provided creature comforts without being a leather clad benz...

Then my good friend bought a GTO..and while it was a fantastic car and a WONDERFUL change from the American norm..His door locks worked 1/2 the time...Every part he wanted to upgrade outside of the exhaust cost 2x as much because the engine bay had 1/2 the room of the rest and he spent 1/4 of his ownership time in the garage bay being serviced..

AND this is from the tride and true can't go wrong GM formula..but somewhere in between Aussie and here the metric bolts got replaced with SAE and nothing fit right Lol..Well that's MY guess anyway..

The G8 fixed that but the GTO just scared too many people away imho..

But it's good to see someone with a reasonably good GTO experience as i still like the car, but if i were planning on getting a "daily driven" car of that nature...it'd be a camaro or G8 just based on the fact that it's had MOST of the kinks worked out state side.



ANYWHO back on to e46 and this car..COMPLETELY different venues...E46 is based on a 3 series which is a benz/audi competitor nuff said..
FRS is it's own car with nothing to be based on going up against miata's and introductory hyundais (and if Toyota would have you believe, caymans LOL)
KeepGuessing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 05:35 PM   #53
7thgear
not a real llama
 
7thgear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Canada
Location: I rock a beat harder than you can beat it with rocks
Posts: 3,878
Thanks: 301
Thanked 2,115 Times in 1,067 Posts
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepGuessing View Post
ANYWHO back on to e46 and this car..COMPLETELY different venues...E46 is based on a 3 series which is a benz/audi competitor nuff said..
FRS is it's own car with nothing to be based on going up against miata's and introductory hyundais (and if Toyota would have you believe, caymans LOL)
i'll buy the cayman comparison

lateral grip is primarily a function of width, cg, weight and roll center

if all else being equal (ie, tires), then if the FRS's center of gravity is indeed low, and its suspension design properly utilizes that, then i see no reason why an FRS would not corner just as, if not faster, than a cayman.

obviously the interior and feel are TOOTTALLYYY different, but thats why this is a poormans porsche
__________________
7thgear is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 06:38 PM   #54
KeepGuessing
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: e30 150 deville etc etc
Location: Arizona
Posts: 79
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thgear View Post
i'll buy the cayman comparison

lateral grip is primarily a function of width, cg, weight and roll center

if all else being equal (ie, tires), then if the FRS's center of gravity is indeed low, and its suspension design properly utilizes that, then i see no reason why an FRS would not corner just as, if not faster, than a cayman.

obviously the interior and feel are TOOTTALLYYY different, but thats why this is a poormans porsche

Well considering some of the information thus far has been "lies of omission/exclusion" i'd be hesitant to just feed off of what's been said about the car just yet..


for 1, the Cayman's Center of Gravity is measured with it's stock wheels/tires..
That's a 17" wheel and a 55mm sidewall tire in the front and a 17" wheel and a 50mm sidewall tire in the rear, along with however much rake the car has.....Let's not forget the car has 5" of ground clearance..

The FR-S however has multiple wheel tire size options..

The GT86 RC for example, comes with 16" wheels, the BRZ with 17" wheels and 45mm sidewalls, the toyota 20 spokes are 18" wheels with 40mm sidewalls.. So that "Lower than the Cayman's center of gravity" varies substantially before the car has even hit the car lots.

I know thusfar toyota has said it's weight will start at 26xxlbs...But now that line has been blurred with the inclusion of the Toyota GT86 RC, which is the "26xx lb" model they were talking about.

So if the car with the factual "lower than cayman center of gravity" is ALSO the RC, then chances are every car with larger selection of wheels and tires doesn't quite fit the same claims.

As for the "If all things are equal i don't see why it couldn't corner as fast" by all things equal do you mean PURELY in the tires? or do you mean going through substantial measures to get the same generalized specifications from both...

Because then we're talking optimal suspension tuning for both, because the porsche is setup for tire preservation and guel economy (being a Base Cayman and not an S) while the FR-S is not as noted by the stock cast/camber...Then you have to factor in that the FRS stock suspension setup IS a compromise for performance and economy, which is why the negative toe under hard cornering is prevalent unless addressed...etc etc..

but if we're talking JUST equal tires? no..
KeepGuessing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 06:57 PM   #55
serialk11r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Drives: 2000 MR2 Spyder
Location: United States of America
Posts: 4,358
Thanks: 168
Thanked 572 Times in 421 Posts
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Garage
Uh, so different wheels don't change the ride height unless you're changing wheel diameter, or underinflating the tires. There is less than 3mm difference in tire radius across the different wheel sizes. By the way, 55 does not mean 55mm sidewall.

In addition, I believe the claim for lowest center of gravity is for the RC at 17.8" height as that number was released sometime ago, and then they came out and started saying 18.1" instead, which leads me to believe that is the figure for the non-AC/stereo/etc. delete cars. They said the Cayman was in the higher 18s, so it's likely that the center of gravity is lower.

Just looking at the height of the center of gravity and weight, with the same tires it's possible this could outcorner a Cayman. I'm not certain but I have a feeling weight distribution affects things too, although both cars are biased and not 50/50 so that might not matter as much.
serialk11r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 07:23 PM   #56
Vasilis
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Drives: RX8
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 36
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of4TvLas1TM

M3 vs 350z vs S2000 vs Porsche Boxster 2.7 (not the S version, only 220hp)

Nice race, also nice suprise for the heritage of the GT86 in the end
Vasilis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 10:14 PM   #57
7thgear
not a real llama
 
7thgear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Canada
Location: I rock a beat harder than you can beat it with rocks
Posts: 3,878
Thanks: 301
Thanked 2,115 Times in 1,067 Posts
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepGuessing View Post
Well considering some of the information thus far has been "lies of omission/exclusion" i'd be hesitant to just feed off of what's been said about the car just yet..


for 1, the Cayman's Center of Gravity is measured with it's stock wheels/tires..
That's a 17" wheel and a 55mm sidewall tire in the front and a 17" wheel and a 50mm sidewall tire in the rear, along with however much rake the car has.....Let's not forget the car has 5" of ground clearance..

The FR-S however has multiple wheel tire size options..

The GT86 RC for example, comes with 16" wheels, the BRZ with 17" wheels and 45mm sidewalls, the toyota 20 spokes are 18" wheels with 40mm sidewalls.. So that "Lower than the Cayman's center of gravity" varies substantially before the car has even hit the car lots.

I know thusfar toyota has said it's weight will start at 26xxlbs...But now that line has been blurred with the inclusion of the Toyota GT86 RC, which is the "26xx lb" model they were talking about.

So if the car with the factual "lower than cayman center of gravity" is ALSO the RC, then chances are every car with larger selection of wheels and tires doesn't quite fit the same claims.

As for the "If all things are equal i don't see why it couldn't corner as fast" by all things equal do you mean PURELY in the tires? or do you mean going through substantial measures to get the same generalized specifications from both...

Because then we're talking optimal suspension tuning for both, because the porsche is setup for tire preservation and guel economy (being a Base Cayman and not an S) while the FR-S is not as noted by the stock cast/camber...Then you have to factor in that the FRS stock suspension setup IS a compromise for performance and economy, which is why the negative toe under hard cornering is prevalent unless addressed...etc etc..

but if we're talking JUST equal tires? no..
suspension tuning on the porsche is no doubt superior, (in terms of damper valving and spring setup)

however Toyota isn't exactly the new kid on the block, and until you start getting into the really sticky tires and a need for aero, or you start completly redesigning the base car (ie, WRC) then the advantage of having superior dampers is not that great

dynamic alignment changes for the most part affect drivability, if you put the car on a skid pad it's not going to affect the overall grip, just the way you drive the car

so yes, if you put the FRS and Porsche on lets say a pair of RS3's or StarSpecs of equal sizes, i am confident the FRS will pull the same G's on a skidpad

where the porsche is most likely superior is prolonges cornering sessions where its ABS, brake package, and aero tricks will give it the edge.

in either case, even if a Cayman will out handle an FRS it will not be a surprise to anyone

but imagine the opposite...


let the fanboi in me glee in sushine happyness.. LOL

plus from my own personal experience of tracking shitty econoboxes, i know that there is often much hidden potential in a lighter car going up against a heavier car with more power.. but this is where the fun in driving is (at least for me)
__________________
7thgear is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:28 PM   #58
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,464
Thanks: 87
Thanked 575 Times in 353 Posts
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSxJunkie View Post
I loved my GTOs. But they weighed 3700lbs and that was without heated seats, side impact airbags, or a sunroof. They were PIGS.
Yup, same weight as the E9x M3!

Quote:
And inside they were bigger than a new 6er.
But 500 lb. lighter!

Quote:
They also sit taller than the new Camaro and higher off the ground.
No freaking way. The top of the GTO roof might technically be taller, but the body line going from the nose/hood/lower-edge-of-greenhouse/deck is a LOT lower than the new WAY high blocktastic Camaros. The Camaro greenhouse is much more scrunched down and pinched, so technically slightly lower max height, but it's hood/fenderline/beltline are UP there!

Quote:
Great grand tourer, but certainly not low and sleek.
Relative to the Camaro, I'd say they are. Would be good to have an overlay...

Go here for R&T grid with Camaro: http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...d06531820e.pdf
GTO here (have to download to view: http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/ca...iac_gto_page_4

The GTO's nose, height of the hood above the front wheels, and lower edge of greenhouse are a good 3-4" LOWER than the new Camaro. GTO's decklid is maybe an inch higher, maximum height at peak of roof ~0.5" higher. GTO has a much bigger greenhouse, where the Camaro has a very high beltline with slits for windows.

The bottom edge of the rockers looks to be an inch lower for the GTO, ~5" vs. 5.9" for the Camaro.

Visually, to me the Camaro is MUCH bulkier with a much blockier front end, whereas the GTO *is* generally lower and more swoopily shaped, with a significantly lower and more raked front end.

The new Camaro looks like it could be the box that any previous gen came in! They got some styling details right (like the hips), but it's just too damn BIG.

Last edited by ZDan; 02-16-2012 at 11:45 PM.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 02:55 AM   #59
LSxJunkie
Douchebag
 
LSxJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 2014 Mustang GT
Location: NY
Posts: 930
Thanks: 220
Thanked 314 Times in 168 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepGuessing View Post
One thing i noticed is 90% of peoples opinions on vehicles are completely unrelated to driving/owning/dealing with on a day to day basis the vehicle in question..

I for one thought the GTO was gods gift to the American man when it debuted..Man how i longed for an Australian sourced RWD big v8 car that provided creature comforts without being a leather clad benz...

Then my good friend bought a GTO..and while it was a fantastic car and a WONDERFUL change from the American norm..His door locks worked 1/2 the time...Every part he wanted to upgrade outside of the exhaust cost 2x as much because the engine bay had 1/2 the room of the rest and he spent 1/4 of his ownership time in the garage bay being serviced..

AND this is from the tride and true can't go wrong GM formula..but somewhere in between Aussie and here the metric bolts got replaced with SAE and nothing fit right Lol..Well that's MY guess anyway..

The G8 fixed that but the GTO just scared too many people away imho..

But it's good to see someone with a reasonably good GTO experience as i still like the car, but if i were planning on getting a "daily driven" car of that nature...it'd be a camaro or G8 just based on the fact that it's had MOST of the kinks worked out state side.



ANYWHO back on to e46 and this car..COMPLETELY different venues...E46 is based on a 3 series which is a benz/audi competitor nuff said..
FRS is it's own car with nothing to be based on going up against miata's and introductory hyundais (and if Toyota would have you believe, caymans LOL)
I daily drove mine for two years. They were phenomenal as fun dailies. Both stick, second one had shocks, springs, bushings, sways and was a hoot. It required nothing but routine maintenance. The first one blew up a water pump and developed a body leak. I'm pretty sure that was a 3rd shift Friday car.

There were certain things that you had to just accept, like the obscenely slow steering (it had feel, but the rack was just too damned slow), and the archaic rear suspension and shit wheel width clearance. These were all things I had to work around

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Yup, same weight as the E9x M3!

But 500 lb. lighter!

No freaking way. The top of the GTO roof might technically be taller, but the body line going from the nose/hood/lower-edge-of-greenhouse/deck is a LOT lower than the new WAY high blocktastic Camaros. The Camaro greenhouse is much more scrunched down and pinched, so technically slightly lower max height, but it's hood/fenderline/beltline are UP there!


Relative to the Camaro, I'd say they are. Would be good to have an overlay...

Go here for R&T grid with Camaro: http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...d06531820e.pdf
GTO here (have to download to view: http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/ca...iac_gto_page_4

The GTO's nose, height of the hood above the front wheels, and lower edge of greenhouse are a good 3-4" LOWER than the new Camaro. GTO's decklid is maybe an inch higher, maximum height at peak of roof ~0.5" higher. GTO has a much bigger greenhouse, where the Camaro has a very high beltline with slits for windows.

The bottom edge of the rockers looks to be an inch lower for the GTO, ~5" vs. 5.9" for the Camaro.

Visually, to me the Camaro is MUCH bulkier with a much blockier front end, whereas the GTO *is* generally lower and more swoopily shaped, with a significantly lower and more raked front end.

The new Camaro looks like it could be the box that any previous gen came in! They got some styling details right (like the hips), but it's just too damn BIG.

An e92 M3 curbs in around 3570. A 2006 GTO curbs approx. 3725. More than 100lbs between the two.

In contrast, the Camaro has a curb weight around 3750.

The 2010 Camaro may be visually heavier, it is only half an inch longer and is half an inch shorter than the GTO. High beltline will do that. It's not for everyone. They have equal ground clearance (5.3"), but the Camaro has wheel arches that make 19s look small and the GTO had wheel arches that made 19s look big. Wheel arch size and tire to fender gap both have a huge impact on visual height, actual height notwithstanding.
__________________
Here - 2014 Mustang GT Track Package/Recaros (Laguna Seca Struts/Shocks/Springs, Boss 302 Rear Sway Bar, Boss 302 Wheels, GT500 Quad Tip Axleback, Energy Suspension Shifter Bushing), 2014 IS350AWD
Gone - 2011 IS350AWD, 2010 RX350, 2008 IS250AWD, 2007 RX350, 2006 GTO, 2006 GTO, 2004 G35 6MT, 1992 SC400
LSxJunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2012, 04:47 PM   #60
blackmist27
Member
 
blackmist27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Drives: Subaru BRZ
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 55
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
hopefully i can get my hands on a BRZ and then i will let you know
blackmist27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 11:56 AM   #61
TheJuggernaut
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 4Gen 4Runner, BMW racecar
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
[I've been typing into this off and on since the morning, so it turned out way more long winded than I thought it could... sorry about that]

At the risk of getting thrown under the bus along with him, I agree with ZDan. I do somewhat disagree about light and tossable being what defines a fun car but more on that in a minute. BMW is quite steadily losing touch with the enthusiast community, as he has spelled out quite thoroughly and accurately. And by enthusiasts I'm not referring to the admirers. Rather, those who call the ultimate driving machine bluff on the track (and I'm not saying this is definitive, just what I and I think most here would take it to mean). His point about the E36 being the last good track car BMW is painfully obvious in the paddocks of club races. Aside from a few exceptions, the only times you'll see E46s or newer being the basis of a racecar is when the series rules require a certain minimum vintage. Otherwise, the most successful BMW based cars on track are E36s and even E30s (on average the E36s are faster but the bigger dollar E30s with extra go - and nothing spectacular, just the S50B32 with 321hp - wipe the floor with anything short of a 700hp Trans Am car... so much for those semi-trailing arms being obsolete).

This isn't to say that you won't see E46s or E90s at the track, M or otherwise. Quite the contrary. But this isn't due to their superiority, this is just what people chose to buy and took it to a lapping day or HPDE. Ask any real racer (sorry Vin Diesel) who has extensive seat time in the full 3 series spectrum (or even all the way back to the 02) and you'll hear nothing but whining for the E46+. The way I've heard a few describe them is that it's the same as an E36 but heavier and... well, worse. Clearly, this isn't referring to unlimited budget race car builds, since Turner, Bimmerworld, Fall-Line or even BMW themselves have shown that the latest chassis is able to hang with or defeat anything in its class. But that's not particularly relevant to us.

The bottom line is that stock for stock, their cars are getting more luxury boat and less sports car. And I get it, it's a brilliant business move. Like Porsche, they've established glamor and legitimacy of the brand name with legendary performance and now they can make profitable cars which rich people can buy without worrying about also having to live with the unpleasant realities that come with daily-driving a true "enthusiast" car which cost luxury car money.

Now about the other thing, lighter and lower grip = more fun. I agree and disagree but this is definitely a personal thing, like dark vs milk chocolate. Stock for stock, in terms of absolute figures, the latest M car will shred the one that came before it, and cumulatively so for anything earlier. This, by the way, does not invalidate the point about them being more portly luxury cars than sports cars. You can put a big enough engine, big enough tires and brakes on a Grey Hound and make it destroy all around a track. That doesn't make it any less bus. For someone who hasn't tried a fast heavy car and fast light car on the track, it's probably impossible to explain but the difference is there and clear as night and day, even if the heavier car is faster.

I started driving on track in E34s, the ultimate being an M5 with a built motor (never dynoed but it would hang with E39 M5s bumper to bumper and reel in Carrera 4Ss), track suspension and sticky tires. I'm not the most aggressive driver but I don't remember ever being caught in that car on track, and this isn't due to my driving skill. Then I got a few rides in track prepped E30s and E36s and while these had at most as much brakes and grip as my M5, and except for the supercharged M3, slower in the straights, I saw what the hoopla was about. I know that gravity affects all masses equally but for some reason, I could still tell that the car is lighter. It's almost like you could feel that the suspension and tires didn't have to work as hard during the same direction changes, I'm not sure what it is.

So I got a clean stock E30 eta to play with. It was slow as sin and I had a blast in it. Over time though, I realized I missed speed and violence. So it went through a long progression of changes, from suspension and brake upgrades, large slicks, 3.2 M3 swap to now being fitted with 335/305 slicks and hopefully about a 900hp turbo motor.

This car and some others I've tried over the years on the track (everything from a rental 4dr auto Cobalt to dedicated track cars) have made me realize that there are 2 main types of fun on track. One is where you take a car with low limits, and dance on the edge of them (or even blatantly past, ie dorifto). Things don't happen fast enough to be terrifying but it's challenging and exciting. The other is you get something with limits that exceed or even far exceed the levels needed to tickle your prostate, and you go out and keep pushing the point at which you get scared. For me personally, I've realized that I'm more akin to Mark Donohue, with his saying that when you're able to leave two black marks from one corner to the next, only then you can say you have enough power. But I still see tremendous value in the other kind, and from time to time it's refreshing to drive a car you can toss around with a smile on your face and not all out white knuckle concentration.

Ok so that's my 0 cents on that but back to the original question... E46 M3 vs the 86

This is a very relevant question for me since I just answered it a few days ago. Well, more precisely, my wife answered it since we're looking for a track car for her.

When the 86 was first announced, I thought, what a perfect gift it is from Toyota - here we are looking for a fun rwd manual car for my wife yet uneasy about buying used and cringing at how much good cars with a roof which fit the bill cost new, and a manufacturer I respect is coming out with what appears to be an affordable, new (warranted) version of what we've been considering buying used. Then I heard that the US price is going to be in the order of 25k, which judging by WRX prices, would put it close to 35 here.

Suddenly, the choice wasn't so clear because this could fetch a pretty loaded new Mustang GT or a clean E46 M3 with a pile of cash left over. The Mustang's appeal was obvious, I'm a boy. The M3 is new enough to look current and prestigious and I'm not immune to a little hubris through status, especially for my wife. I wasn't reading between the lines when she told me she wouldn't mind either of those, particularly the M3. What she was actually saying is she doesn't want the Mustang and would prefer not to have the M3. In the mean time, I found some excellent examples including an Interlagos ZCP, and was preparing to pull the trigger instead of waiting for a 200hp compact Subaru Unicorn for 50% more money.

Then through a few thorough conversations, I realized (or rather, was reminded) that my wife is the other kind of fun enthusiast. She has no ambitions of doing powerslides in 5th and doesn't care how fast it goes from something to whatever, how much power it has etc. She wants a small, light, nimble car that will be easy to drive closer to its limits, headache free to own, oh and extremely cute. It was clear that this was still indeed a gift from Toyota, so we went and put a deposit down.

As an aside, before considering an M3, consider its cost beyond the purchase price. Most things have been mentioned here but more specific things to consider is that part of what's required to make a heavy car fast is that the supporting cast needs to be quite epic, including its pricetag. Even if you find one without a broken subframe or rtab mount issues, fixed VANOS, proof of regular valve adjustment and no rust, look into how much the service costs (including valve adjustment, suspension arms/bushings, brakes, clutch and tires... or hell even an oil change).
TheJuggernaut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheJuggernaut For This Useful Post:
amram (05-02-2014), usdmnotjdm (09-09-2013)
Old 02-24-2012, 12:26 PM   #62
SUB-FT86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Drives: 06 G35 Coupe Sport
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 2,606
Thanks: 43
Thanked 190 Times in 117 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Juggernaut I love your post to death. The best read in months!!!!.
SUB-FT86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 01:47 PM   #63
TheJuggernaut
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 4Gen 4Runner, BMW racecar
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUB-FT86 View Post
Juggernaut I love your post to death. The best read in months!!!!.
Thanks, much appreciated!
TheJuggernaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 02:29 PM   #64
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,464
Thanks: 87
Thanked 575 Times in 353 Posts
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Holy crap, thanks for that post, Juggernaut! I had pretty much been convinced that NO one in these forums would even acknowledge that I might just have a point!

Here's to the success of the FR-S/BRZ, and to it lighting a fire under the arses of BMW, Nissan, Porsche, etc.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 02:59 PM   #65
SUB-FT86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Drives: 06 G35 Coupe Sport
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 2,606
Thanks: 43
Thanked 190 Times in 117 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Holy crap, thanks for that post, Juggernaut! I had pretty much been convinced that NO one in these forums would even acknowledge that I might just have a point!

Here's to the success of the FR-S/BRZ, and to it lighting a fire under the arses of BMW, Nissan, Porsche, etc.
I don't think anybody was against what you stood for in a sports car. I think it was just a difference in priorities of a sports car was what made it seem like everybody was against you. We all like the idea of lightweight sports cars or we wouldn't be on this site.
SUB-FT86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 03:00 PM   #66
7thgear
not a real llama
 
7thgear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Canada
Location: I rock a beat harder than you can beat it with rocks
Posts: 3,878
Thanks: 301
Thanked 2,115 Times in 1,067 Posts
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUB-FT86 View Post
I don't think anybody was against what you stood for in a sports car. I think it was just a difference in priorities of a sports car was what made it seem like everybody was against you. We all like the idea of lightweight sports cars or we wouldn't be on this site.
is that why you firmly believe that a GC is an alternative to a FRS?
__________________
7thgear is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.