FRS vs all the perf. cars I've'd own the last 25 years
 

Owning the FR-S for 9 months now and keep reading that it is not a fast car got me thinking, being a moderate income "car guy" I've owned quite a few average budget "performance" cars over the years, so I looked up all their stock reported 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. This is the list and is not in order as I owned them (always bought used well taken care of bargains):

1970 Olds Cutlass Ralley
1983 BMW 633csi
1985 VW GTI
1985 Buick Turbo Regal Grand National
1989 Ford Thunderbird Supercoupe 5 spd
1991 BMW 535is spd
1995 Civic Si 5spd
1995 Caprice Interceptor (LT1, basically an Impalla SS))

Around 1999 I quit buying cars and drove the civic for a decade ( it was the slowest of the list but after upgrading the suspension it was my favorite of the list!)

I finally gave up looking for a 240sx in good shape and resorted to my first new car with clash for clunkers getting a new Yaris in 09 for a song (it is OK after installing a TRD suspension but far from fast.)



I know this list doesn't include the most expensive or most powerful cars in the world but all were considered "fast" in their time.

Any way the point I am getting to is that the FR-S has better 0-60 and better 1/4 mile times than anything I have ever owned. The FR-S the fastest straight-line car I've owned in 20 years of "collecting" performance car bargains!

Adjusted for inflation the FR-S is also the least expensive. I never would have guessed an affordable lightweight FR stick LSD coupe would ever be made again after the 240sx was discontinued.

So in my mind the FR-S isn't just a well handling sports car but is also quick in a straight line, at least quick enough for a span of four decades of cars considered to have good performance.

I like driving the FR-S more than anything I've owned, the FR-S is well balanced best described as a combination of my old 6 series BMW (stiff chassis LSD RWD) with my Civic SI (great suspension, lightweight.)

I am more than satisfied with its straight line performance, this is a quick car, and that's not even its best feature.

yeah, what is 1-2 seconds mean for normal daily drive.
Unless you are stuck at railroad. lol.

For me this is the best affordable new sporty car for the price.

The FRS is faster than the grand national? :iono:

1986 Buick Regal Grand National 0-60 mph 4.8 Quarter mile 13.7

Nope.

My G35 coupe was faster but the BRZ feels way more like a sports car/engaging to drive.

The G35 and G37 are funny cars. On paper, they're amazing. In reality, they're mediocrity incarnate. I test drove my first G35 a decade ago. Didn't buy it. Test drove again 5 years ago. Didn't buy it. Now I don't even look at them.

And yes, the GNX is way faster, but not the 85 GN. OP is correct. Imapala SS is almost as fast in the 1/4 and to 60, but not quite.

The 85 GN times are listed in my previous post. It was the same car from 85-87 and did 13.7 in the quarter. The GNX did 13.3

If you're only into lightweight cars a G35 will be terrible in comparison. I love mines in comparison to my RSX. It feels like a better car in every way except for being lightweight.

Ive owned 2 MK3 Supras and the turbo does make it faster but the car feels SO much heavier than my BRZ.

If I remember correctly the 0-60 on my '87 Porsche 911 Cabriolet was 6.1 seconds. I don't feel underprivileged with my FR-S.

The 84-85 Grand Nationals/GN T-Type were only 15 seconds in the quarter, they didn't have an intercooler till '86.

See http://www.zeroto60times.com/Buick-0-60-mph-Times.html

I stand corrected. I was under the mistaken impression that the intercooler was added in 85.

Even without the intercooler it was still a lot more fun than the mid 80's cutlass my friend I grew up with owned.

IMHO the FR-S has plenty power, no doubt I would like to cure that torque dip with a proper set of headers & tune, more power than that it would require a race track to use it.

True. I grew up with a guy who had an 85 turbo Regal. We caused a lot of trouble in that thing...