'22 BRZ vs. Ferrari 348
 

Occasionally I'll check out "affordable" Ferraris on the webz to remind myself how unremarkable their performance was and how I don't *really* want one. Still I'm surprised at how not-that-fast the 348 was. 296hp at 5800rpm from 3.4 liters, 7500rpm redline, 3300 lb., couldn't do better than 14.5 at 99mph in the 1/4! At a time when a 4-cylinder Lotus Esprit did it in 13.5 at 103mph!
348 vs 911 vs Esprit vs NSX vs ZR1

The '22 BRZ/GR86 should put up the same 1/4-mile ET and trap speed as a Ferrari 348. Damn!

It probably won't sound as sweeet while doing it tho...

But does it have torque dip?

I managed 14.5 sec 1/4 with my bone-stock 2013 FR-S (back when I owned it)

I am hoping the new 86 will break into the 13s in stock form.

I think about old/older cars all the time, and spend WAY more time perusing countless on-line classified ad sites than is probably safe for maintaining anything close to acceptable mental health (as if I ever had it...).

The lens of nostalgia is powerful. I came of age starting to drive in the early 1970's, and was already in love with cars during and of the 1960's (and 1950's). In the 70's and 80's the cars I drove were sports cars of the 50's, 60's, and 70's.

Memory plays tricks on us. Some things are remembered as being much better than they probably really were at the time. Like, many of the cars I drove. As you point out, a new BRZ probably has similar performance to an exotic 'supercar' of a few decades ago. The BRZ is also infinitely more reliable, safer, more usable in the real world (with heat and A/C that actually work), as well as so much less expensive to buy.

The passion of the 'old' cars can't be denied. I never had anything remotely as high-end as a Ferrari. A 1960 Alfa Romeo Spyder, and a 1962 Porsche 356B Cab, were as high-end as I ever got (nice ones were $2500 cars back in the 70's, I could afford them as a college student working part-time, but couldn't buy one now). But even the MGB's, Triumph's, Fiat's, Opel GT's, even Karmann Ghia's of the time all had soul. They were fun to drive despite being slow, uncomfortable, and unreliable by contemporary standards. They all had personality and passion (or at least it feels that way though the hazy and rosy gaze of nostalgia-tinged wistful memories).

I'm constantly thinking about buying another old car, to try and relive those days and memories. I'd do it, if it wasn't for what those cars sell for. Even once common MGB's and similar lower-end sports cars of the 60's now sell for prices not that different from a BRZ (or even more; check out Bring-a-Trailer for some truly heart-stopping prices). When I think about spending $20-$40k on a 50 year old sports car, the memories aren't quite as rosy.

I remember how back in the day, those cars could be heavily rusted out by the time they were just 5 or 6 years old (at least in upstate New York where I lived). I remember nights spent troweling gallons of bondo into massive holes, and pop-riveting 'found' road signs into floors, to keep them on the road. I remember so many roadside breakdowns, and always carrying a full set of tools in the trunk (along with spare parts), because I never knew when I'd have to replace a water pump, or distributor points, or a pushrod, on the side of the road. I remember the time the convertible top on my Jensen-Healy blew completely off the car in a torrential thunderstorm (the fine British engineering of the time exclusively used velcro to attach the top, which didn't age well), and running along the shoulder of the highway to retrieve it, and trying to re-velcro it back to the frame while being buffeted by wind, rain, and the backwash from semi's blasting past at 75 mph (and the sight of my patient, understanding, amazing, wonderful, genius-brilliant, model-beautiful love-of-my-life girlfriend at the time forlornly looking at me as she got totally soaked as I struggled to erect the top over her).

The BRZ/86 isn't perfect, but I think it's a pretty good deal and great value. Especially compared with what it would cost to buy an old sports car in decent condition, the BRZ/86 is a bargain.

Here are reviews from Car & Driver of the (then) new 1984 Corvette and the 2020 86GT. Notice the price, horsepower, 0-60 times, braking distance, really any performance metric. Adjust the Vette's $28K price tag for inflation. Now, how good were the "good old days"?

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ved-road-test/

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...y-the-numbers/

$28K in 1984 = $70K in 2020

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Double check the Ferrari engine, but I think it’s transverse which is far less expensive. Engine only has to come out for big stuff. I would talk to a Ferrari mechanic before, you can easily spend more on maintenance then the car for a Ferrari. That would never happen with the twins. Good luck.

348TS. And yes, the battery charger cables were needed. :(

Your data isn't correct though. Peak power was at 7200rpm, not 5800. And wet weight was quoted at 3070lbs (though that may be an EU vs US market thing). Later cars got an extra 20hp but got about 100lbs porkier.
Performance was on-par with 993. Not great by today's standard, but not terrible either.

However, the standing km (.62 mile) is quoted at 24.4s for the Ferrari, 28.0s for the 86. Still quite a performance gap, through that's not really what either car is about.

Interestingly, a '92 viper was measured at 13.2 1/4 mile, which is really not that quick by today's standard either.

I wouldn't kick a 348 out of bed :)

The mid-80's was a bad time for HP. That said,, I had an 85 Vette with the 4+3 transmission. At the time,, it was a pretty good car. HP numbers sucked but it handled well and was a huge step up from a 3rd generation Vette. It wasn't until 1992 that the base C4 had 300 HP. I had a 93 with a 6-speed, I think it was 325HP. It was quick at the time. As a sidebar,, you can pick up a C4 for a song now.

I'd believe peak power rpm being >5800, 7200 sounds more correct...
3070 lb. sounds extremely optimistic, Ferrari were known to kinda lie about weights for a long time. Magazine tests will weigh the actual car so I trust them a lot more than a Ferrari spec weight. 3300 lb. is about right as I recall. Hard to believe EU vs US would be 230 lb. off but could be!

It was a tick or two slower vs. the 964, couple ticks slower still vs 993. But of course the *turbo* 911s which were MUCH quicker/faster...

348 was quite a bit slower than a 1992 base LT1 Corvette. They made a bigger jump in performance than I remembered going from 348 to F355, 99mph to 110mph in the 1/4, that's HUGE.

I'm guessing the 348 probably had a tallish 1st gear. And for sure beyond the 1/4-mile outright power becomes much more important, not just power/weight.

Me neither! If I could get a pristine one for $30k I might *consider* it...

What would hold me back from buying any old exotic like a 348, regardless of the initial purchase price, would be the maintenance and repair costs. Regardless of what would be an 'engine out' procedure or not, the cost of keeping something like this going would be truly eye-popping.

Plus there would be the PITA factor. Unless you have 1) all the necessary tools, 2) all the necessary skills, 3) the garage space, 4) the time, and 5) the patience to deal with endless problems, finding someone who could actually work on a 348 might not be the easiest thing in the world (unless you live in San Francisco, San Diego, or the metro New York City area).

The mid-70's to mid-80's isn't called the 'Malaise Era' for nothing. The early emissions controls systems of the time were primitive. The things engineers had to do to the engines back then to pass the emissions tests robbed them of so much power (compared to late-60's motors), and basically castrated them of anything resembling fun.

One thing that can be said for most pre-1973 cars (excepting Italian exotics)(maybe excepting anything Italian, and certainly anything French) is that they were so easy to work on. I could do pretty much anything on any British, German, or American car of the time, whether a proper repair, or an emergency roadside hack job just to get home. Of course, the cars of the time were less reliable than modern ones, and needed more maintenance and work (even if simple things like adjusting points, greasing chassis lube points, etc.), but most of it was pretty easy to do.

Purely hypothetically, if I could buy a brand new 1969 car for a similar price to a 2020, I would probably go for the brand new 1969, even though it would be slower, less economical, more polluting, and need more maintenance than a 2020 model, just for the satisfaction of being able to work on it and fix and do almost anything.

The nearest thing to doing that today would be to have an old car properly restored to truly 'as new' condition, or buying something from one of the old-new car constructors like this outfit does with Mustangs:

https://revologycars.com

The big problem with that is price. The cost of getting an old car to truly be as-new is many times higher than buying a new one.

Funny how most things in life invariably boil down to money.

Yeah, emissions restrictions really hampered performance cars from the 70s-80s. It wasn’t an issue of tech... 1000HP race cars were a thing by the early 70s, and the old racing sports cars from the 60s are still impressive by the standards of sports cars today.

HP aside, much of the improvement in things like 0-60 and track times is suspension and tyre tech. The old high HP sports cars would spin their wheels easily... fun, but terrible for timed performance tests. Nowadays with better suspension, tyres, traction and launch control, you can send a less powerful car to 60 and down the 1/4 in times that could match a car with double the power 40 years ago. Ditto track times... being able to use all the available power and stick to the road beats having more power but being unable to use it.

So yeah, it’s cool a BRZ could go toe to toe with a 30 year old exotic... but let’s not get too cocky. Fact is, performance for all vehicles has improved in that 30 years, and sports cars should be benchmarked against their current competition, not cars from 30-40 years ago (i.e. effectively ‘classic cars’ now). That’s a pretty low bar.

Which makes a compelling argument for going with a current twin rather than a 30 year old money pit. :cheers: