Quote:
Originally Posted by extrashaky
The C7 achieves that in part because it's wide. Moving weight up and down isn't the only path to a lower COG. It also costs a lot more than a BRZ. So all you've really told us is that the ND and the BRZ are remarkable vehicles.
Now we're comparing the BRZ to a $375K sports car?
Yeah, the BRZ. When the BRZ first hit the market, the C6 was still the current Corvette. I recall back when I was first considering the car reading that the new BRZ was the lowest COG production car on the market at the time, lower even than the C6 Corvette.
So? The low COG is still a factor in the handling of the car, and the use of the boxer is still a factor in the low COG. Just using facts in marketing doesn't make them false. From the examples in this thread, it looks like the only ways anybody is going lower is by going topless or going wide.
Recall what got us onto this subject in the first place:
|
i dont think the twins had a lower cog than the c6. or the c5 or c4 for that matter. i dont know the cog of the nc miata (and neither do you) but the na, nb and nd miata have lower cogs. i dont think the twins were ever the car with the lowest cog in production. ever. cog is a factor in handling but you cant use that to explain why the twins are superior to cars with objectively better cogs. its a marketing point. why is it that subaru has used boxers for years and all of a sudden they market the cog if theres a direct relation to boxers and cars cog?