BRZ/FRS Vs DC2 Integra Type R
 

I've always wondered a bit about this myself, and then earlier today someone over on the S2000 forum made a remark about how the Twins would easily lose to a Type R on a track. I'm of the mind that the BRZ would leave the Type R staring at it's taillights.

-near identical power to weight ratios
-superior weight distribution and CoG for Twins
-superior brakes for twins
-superior gearing for twins (6 speed compared to 5)

I love the ITR but I've autoxed one and feels quite front heavy compared to the Twins IMO.

What do you guys think? :thumbup:

I love theory racing.

The ITR has less drivetrain loss being that it's a FWD vehicle.

Idk maybe we can find lap times @ laguna, willows. Etc. for the type R.and twins. I think the type r will win. Vtec!

I'll settle this on GT5 at the Nuburgring later tonight:bonk:

Can you use B-Spec in time trials? I would think that's the most unbiased test from GT-5 if you don't have any pit inputs.

Stock v. stock? DC2-R. Biggest difference is the DC2-R came with RE010's stock, whereas the BRZ/FRS comes with Primacy HP or Turanza EL400's. That's a big tire difference.

If you equalize the tires, it becomes much closer. DC2-R supposedly ran an 8:43 at the Ring. GT86 on RE050's ran an 8:44, so once you equalize tires, the two cars are pretty much equal. That makes sense given how similar they are on paper.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27061

If you're curious about other Hondas, the fastest stock Ring times recorded by a CTR/EP3 was 8:47, and the S2000 clocked in at 8:39.

8:39 S2000
8:43 DC2-R
8:44 GT86 (RE050A)
8:47 CTR/EP3

Obviously take all that with a grain of salt. Different days, different drivers, etc.

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/h...ota_ft-86.html

Seems like the gt-86 handles better, and integra barely edges out the gt-86 on the nordschliefe by ~1second (probably due to less drivetrain loss?).

(NOTE: Idk why but its not showing the correct time with the 86, that one is in the damp. In the dry the 86 got 8:44.90 on Nordschliefe, you can see this if you click on the Toyota gt-86 page. I've also seen much faster 1/4 mile times than this, ~14.5 is the fastest I've seen with a relatively stock brz but that's with some minor weight reduction I think, you should be able to get that with the Integra as well so straight line speed I'd say is more of a toss up. See http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/h...ubaru_brz.html)

I'd put my money on the 86 if it wasn't a high speed track. Otherwise, probably the 86 but that's bias ;)

EDIT: After some further research (thanks @DarkSunrise!), it seems these times were with the stickier bridgestone tires. Good to know! I thought these were with the primacy's which would've been much more impressive, but a little unbelievable when you think of it ;)

Are the RE010s really that great? I don't recall them being that impressive for their time, were only V-rated and had a 195 section width. People crap on the BRZ's tires but the Primacy HP's are 20mm wider, have a W speed rating and have a AA 240 tread wear rating.

My understanding is that RE010's were a pretty sticky track/autocross tire in their time. Tire Rack views Dunlop Z1 SS as the closest comparable modern-day tire, which is saying a lot.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...-civic-si.html

Also worth noting the RE050A's which the GT86 was tested on are pretty mild summer tires.

That's very interesting to know. As to the RE050As I believe a version of them are standard on the 370Z. Honda S2000 AP2 came standard on RE050s (no "A").

What I find amazing is that switching from Primacy HP to RE050A improved the GT86's Ring time by 25 seconds (9:09 --> 8:44). That is astounding. I wonder how much of a difference Z2 SS or Rivals would make.

:eyebulge::clap::happyanim::party0030:

Width is not important (to an extent). The compound of the tire is what makes the difference.

Yeah I know how it works man. Contact patch stays the same size. Just a different shape ;)

Here's my take on car comparisons.

Both cars should be 100% stock. This includes restricting to factory tire compounds. You could always say you could do X to a car to equalize the comparison, but the point of the comparison is to compare them, not equialize them.

If both cars are 100% stock, the ITR would most likely be "faster" due to better tire compound.

Yep, switching tires (even just RE050A's) made a big difference in that test. There's also some indication that the 9:09 was a partially wet lap.

Yeah I can see both sides to this issue, which is why I posted up the times with and without comparable tires. The times can speak for themselves I guess.
:happy0180:

Stock vs stock, i think the ITR will be the "fastest" as you mentioned because of the better tires.

I own both cars and neither of them are stock right now, I havent tracked them yet but I'm planning to do it.

I tend to agree with this notion except when it comes to tires since they play IMO the one of the largest roles in how fast you are and I count them as a wear item that will end up getting changed anyways.

Seems fair to me that everything on both cars are stock except tires are the same to compare the faster car but everything stock if you want to compare the better car to right out the box

if you are going to keep at this hypothetical racing, you might as well pick a real track. the ring is used to develop cars. its not really a good metric considering how much room for human error there is over 13 miles.

also, im not sure a sixth gear is going to matter. having driven both, the itr was more impressive but the drives were years apart so it doesnt really mean anything. when we weighed the itr, it was a lot lighter than what it was listed at

we have been here before but i dont think being a wear item is reason enough. brakes are wear items and so is the clutch (entire cars are wear items too i suppose).

equalizing tires is informative but not fair.

Yeah the Ring isn't the best for comparing laptimes, but it's the only set of times we have for these cars, unless someone owns both in stock form and is willing to do some testing (doubtful).

At the very least, the times on the Ring back up what we can guess from looking at the specs, namely that they're similar weight/hp cars built for similar purposes. On vaguely comparable tires, you'd expect them to put down similar laptimes, which the Ring confirms.

Take a look at http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/h...ota_ft-86.html

There's a lap time for Hockenheim Short & Vairano Handling Course on there for both cars.

From my previous experience, the lap data on that site is fairly accurate. Sometimes there's random times that get posted that are wrong, but they are debunked very quickly. They only use times from big names (race drivers and usually only big sources like Car and Drive, Road and Track, Motrotrend, etc.). Times are always stock (I believe the 86 is equipped with the bridgestones in those tests though).

EDIT: And yea not a lot of times to see, but at least those 2 courses + nordschliefe is a pretty good indication of how fast the 86 (stock) is IMO.

Yep, you're right. Looks like there are more data points there. :thumbsup::thumbup:

The reason i bought an frs is because its the closest thing to a modern itr that is available, from the faux cf trim ( i know its t symbols but cmon) to the red stitched seats, and the minimalist approach, which over time is slowly being appreciated by the masses....

Simple is better imo

There's others (and more accurate 1/4 numbers, etc.) under the subaru brz entry as well. I check the site quite often, I used to be a number whore before this car, lol...

Eh, I had RE010's on my ITR. Those tires were good in 1997 no doubt, but.. compared to a star spec? No IMO. I've driven both on my ITR back to back. The RE010's don't hold a candle to the modern performance tires IMO.

Oh, and I turn faster times on Sebring with the Integras. :shrug: None of my cars are completely stock though.. so.. :shrug:

And lower weight. And "better" gearing.

Which is faster depends greatly on the track too.

I should run the ITR at Sebring again to get some recent times to compare, and data log it to compare data. IMO the BRZ will have higher entry, corner and exit speeds with lower straight speeds.. slow junker that it is :(

Dave, isn't the weight difference only around 100lbs? I figured the FRS's torque advantage would "offset" that. And how does the Type R have better gearing? Seems like both cars shift out of first around 38, 2nd around 58 and 3rd around 85 mph.

Of course, you're probably the right person to ask on this forum since you have both cars currently. What difference in laptimes are you seeing, and what general mods do you have on the cars?

Oh yeah. stock gearing.. who uses that? Probably good point with stock gearing though, I didn't check the numbers, I just remember thinking the ITR was shorter.

Most ITRs are in the 2500s, actually I've never seen one in the 2600+ range. The marketing info showed them as heavier.

At Sebring, I'm running low 40s (41-43s). I used to run 30s in my GS-R with the mods it had. The ITR should be faster than my GS-R was, but I've never datalogged it. Upper 30s most likely. I should run it again for old times sake before I sell it on. Maybe I'll do that next weekend. GS-R had GCs on bilsteins, agressively sprung/valved, intake, header, some ECU tuning. Current ITR is much more stock, just intake, header, bilsteins. BRZ has essex brakes, front camber (top hats and bolts), axleback and intake. Now it has Eibach R2s with 500/600lb springs, so it should be faster now... Both integras also had larger rear bars. GS-R was caged and gutted as well.

I have some datalogs of our race Integra vs the BRZ. The race Integra is SLLOOOOOOOOOOOOW though. Stock cut springs on stock dampers are not exactly the gold standard suspension. Damn cheap race car rules. Even still, the BRZ is way slower than the race car on the straights. probably 5-10mph slower and the race car has to brake much much earlier. On the flip side, the corner speed of the BRZ still equates to ~4 seconds faster per lap...

BTW we have one of these threads already.. :)

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...hlight=Integra

Sounds like the ITR + I/H + shocks was in a similar state of mods to the BRZ + I/AB + front camber + brakes. And the ITR was ahead by a good bit at Sebring, hmm, good to know. Another useful data point :thumbsup:

I thought you were on 500/650 on the BRZ. :brokenheart:

lol no that was a plan at one time.

Good to know :thanks:

Having owned a 98 ITR and driven an FRS...I'll give the edge to the FRS...RWD rotation in the corners will win every time. The FRS simply handles BETTER than a DC2R. Not saying it wouldn't be close, but the edge to the FRS

I remember wanting to buy a new integra but passed because it wasn't RWD. I looked up the cost in todays dollars and they would be well over $30k.

$ to $ the FR-s compares most to an EG Civic Si. A real classic car that we all wished would have been RWD. I wonder if the FR-S may just become as popular as the EG did. It would be something to have 250k+ FR-S's on the US roads in 5 years. Explosions in popularity like that happen, especially with the base FR-S under $25k, that is cheaper than a new Civic Si in '94 considering inflation and interest rates weren't 3% back then either..

Seriously, why do people continually say this? You CANNOT compare car costs that way. It doesn't work, and it is not a logical argument. Do you also talk about how your Pentium 4 computer from 1994 would cost $10,000 in today's money?:bonk: