Twins: second place in a major Top 5 list!
 

...though not the list people here would like to see the twins on :D.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKTQ...youtu.be&t=283

Sorry if repost!

and another 2 more
 

individuals that don't get it.

Accurate post.

This car was never designed to be fast.
It was designed to be a balanced drivers car that you could take to it's full potential without needing 20 computer assist programs turning on every corner.
As well as being affordable and good on fuel economy.

The twins just got way too much hype and attracted attentions from all corners of life like Justin Bieber.

Seriously, these cars are similar to Justin Bieber.

Fans who listen to Justin enjoy his music.
Fans who like the twins enjoy the car.

But because of popularity you always have people nit pick and say negative things these cars because they are always in the spotlight.

Anyways that's just my thought haha.

Ahhh the reappearance of the "Top 5 cars that pedal mashers don't like" list.

Waaaah, Fatty McGee with shitty facial hair made fun of my car being slow. I'm gunna go and cry in the shower now

You get me, T. <3

OMG, I love The Fast Lane Car... Kind of. They are a bit boring. But the FR-S did a 9.15 second 0-60 time when they tested it because they are up in the Colorado Mountains. So yea, I would have to second guess an FR-S purchase with that kind of poor showing.

Their reviews have always been slanted because they're in Colorado at 5000 ft elevation. They've always have to give that disclaimer. And yeah, in CO my BRZ drove like shit, so I can take their point, but down here it's just fine.

In a number of their reviews with turbo cars you see they loose at most 1 second, if even that when compared to lower elevations. So from their perspective (I am speaking for them) the 60 run should have been in the high 7s or right around 8. I don't we should take it to mean that they want a 250+ hp car, rather maybe a 1.6 with 200hp because you would get more low-end torque and no lose anything at higher elevations.

If given the option between the NA 2L or a 1.6T with a neutered red-line, lag, and less direct throttle response, hell yea I would go small turbo.

It is slow.....but its got potential written all over it for upgrades and for car guys who like to tinker......and the after market is rife with ways to make more power.....who leaves this car stock anyways.

people compare it to the wrong cars that's why they say it's not fast...nobody calls the miata slow

they just need to understand that it's a cornering car...not a straight liner

+1~!

Yep, agreed! So many people always compare this car to faster cars...for example, typical youtube comments.
"bro, why would you buy this slow piece of shit when you can buy a STI or Golf R"

Yet most of those commenters probably don't drive and don't have a clue about money and think buying a $50,000(CDN) STI is attainable for everyone.

When they go out into the real world and have a mortgage, family, bills etc......all of a sudden that new honda civic base model looks appealing. :thumbsup:

I just smoked a tailgater Dodge Challenger by making a 40mph sharp right turn lol,

I say goodbye after that right corner, and he didn't come chase me after. I guess he lost his pride knowing his car cant turn a corner. =/

P.S I am happy with my car with 220 HP =]

i rented a v6 challenger once....awesome car but heavy..felt like vin diesel in it :burnrubber:

i was going to take a 90 degree turn and slowed down...i felt like it was a proper speed enough to make the turn ...turned the wheel in and the car understeered..luckily there was no one in the opposite lane...but the car coming towards me probably had this reaction after he saw a huge car go wide on the turn into his lane :confused0068:

We're too fixated on HP this and not having enough power. Fortunate we have this car in an age where safety standards have made cars these days more robotic and computerized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Fast Lane Car has put out some of the dumbest reviews I have ever seen for the twins. Also Roman can't drive a manual to save his life. It's embarassing to watch him drive.

The video is pretty spot on IMO. The car is very slow and it's a pity since it does handle really well. Out of the factory, it should have had another 50hp to make it more balanced.

What?!? I got my car because i thought it was fast, it looks fast though right? Time to trade it in for a mustang!

it looks fast just standing there

That statement makes me feel like selling it. Thanks for nothing....

I brake for Mustangs on curvy roads!

I'll enjoy my slow car and like it..lol

"it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow" - the motto of Everyone who owns a slow car

Yea their acceleration tests are way off. They had an automatic Scion TC smoke a manual FR-S.

At sea level a manual FR-S at does 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. A manual TC does 0-60 in 6.9 seconds. I don't know what the automatic TC does but I highly doubt it's faster than the manual TC.

I'm not saying the FR-S is really fast but they should at least drive the cars at sea level before they tell the world the car is slow. Especially when the FR-S is more affected by the air pressure than the lower revving TC. Most people are not living in the mountains.

i set my speedometer to km/h so it makes it seem like i'm going really fast

I love those kind of reviews because it makes people who wants drag cars stay away from our beloved twins.

They often go to press events to do 0-60 runs when they can. At least they are being fair by testing all of their cars at the same elevation, so you can't say they are fudging the numbers, it is just FI isn't affected as much. That is odd about the Tc. With the FR-S you really need to be careful about bogging it too badly. Maybe more wheelspin would have knocked .5 seconds off the FR-S' time.

Also the high elevation does give some perspective considering most publications do their testing closer to sea level, so it is nice to get the comparison. That and it isn't super scientific since they are just running a device that clips onto the windshield. It isn't like MT that adjusts numbers for temperature and the like.

6.2 0-60 in the FR-S!? Haha, I certainly have not got anywhere near that based on my seat-of-my-pants scientific testing. Maybe early in the morning when it is 50 degrees out and I launch perfect. I was thinking 7-7.5 range. Now that it is 100 degrees outside, probably closer to 8 :( I guess it really doesn't matter.

The title of the video is "Top 5 Cars that Look Fast But Are Not"


Are you really saying the car was not designed to be fast? The Subaru BRZ GT300 seems pretty fast as an example especially when a Porsche 911 recently wins a championship in the SuperGT300 class. Does that mean a 911 isn't fast?


Personally it is hard for me to believe you when someone thinks a Ford Probe or something is designed to be fast.

Another 50 hp,wider stock wheels(no smaller than a 225 tire),and better gearing and this car would've been pretty close to perfect.

Actually,they should've had anther trim that came stock with this set up,but at a slightly higher price,of course.

Agreed! For daily driving, I think the gearing isn't that bad.

Sell it? What do you mean!?
When you nod your head yes
But you wanna say no
What do you mean...

man, if you think the gt300's have ANYTHING in common that you can compare with stock cars...

http://speedhunters-wp-production.s3...9/AY0F9174.jpg

frame chassis, all cf body. suspension components the bolt up right next to the engine for maximum double a arm length. those horizontal mounted shocks. That super expensive aero, that horizontal radiator...

yeah, a car that probably costs in the millions is fast... but if you consider that a "fixed up 86"...

and yeah, if you go by track times, the twins are definitely not fast. In fact they are just about the slowest sports cars for their price. But that's not why they designed the twins, and that's not why you should buy a twin.

The problem is i think it's styled and marketed like a cheap porsche when it really is more like a miata.

Well, I just bought a 2016 and I plan to keep it stock. It has plenty of power for an "oldtimer" like me. :thumbup:

[QUOTE=totopo;2688496

The problem is i think it's styled and marketed like a cheap porsche when it really is more like a miata.[/QUOTE]


Maybe that's Tada's original plan.


86 designed to be entry level sports car ........ Original Boxster.
Future FT1 (Supra) ...................................... 911

I watch a bit of stock car racing and that is why I stay far, far away from Camrys driven by mom's kids.


I'm probably an old fart now, but if 10-15 years ago you wanna mod your uncle's family sedan, good luck to you.

If I lived in CO, I"d drive a car with some type of compressor attached to it.

So, the point the reviewer makes is very relevant for hisparticular location. Not necessarily the same as the mainstream "This cars too slow" complainers.

Where I live, I cant avoid wheel spin supercharged and will be forced to get wider wheels/tires. Dont want to change the cars balanced handling.

Then the title should be "cars Otha's look fast but are slow at high altitudes".