Quote:
Originally Posted by 1future
Sweet, it's finally out. Been following your videos for a while now. Very informative and interesting to say the least. The bromance is strong in that last picture.
|
Thanks we were hugging after checking tire pressures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRZnut
great video as always. Thanks for taking the time to do it!
|
Always enjoy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSG Mike
Video is too long. Will watch when I get home tonight.
|
Most of it is crap at the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSG Mike
If I were driving, which car would have been faster?  |
You'd probably be faster in both cars for sure.
I think we had another second to find in the S2000 namely on the main straight. And the FRS could have easily pulled another 1-2 seconds, as I only ran it one session. The S2000 I ran 4 sessions in trying to even get close to that FRS time and it never happened. FRS had much higher entry and exit speeds, much more balanced as you know, easy to push harder with less drama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideways&Smiling
Not trying to be nitpicky, but this comparison doesn't make much sense to me, to be honest. Why match hp figures and ignore all of the other differences? The FRS is lighter right off the bat, so that's going to give it a better power-to-weight ratio, and then you gave it light weight aftermarket wheels, coilovers, and a big brake kit versus a relatively stock S2000 (minus brake pads and tires). That's significant weight savings and a substantial handling improvement given to the FRS, while at the same time allowing it to have approximately 30lbs/ft more torque and a square tire setup, where as the S2000 is using the stock staggered setup, which will not turn in as well due to less front grip. Besides that, there seemed to be quite long stretches of straightaways, which obviously is going to benefit the car with a better power-to-weight and more torque. It seems like the outcome could have been easily predicted... and, realistically, it's not even close to an even comparison in terms of price or level of mods. *shrug*
|
They are within 75lbs of each other last time we weighed the cars. And yes it's true the FRS has the spec advantage which is what we wanted to show, how much does adding 10k to the FRS achieve against a stock S2000 with similar HP levels and real tires.
Is it fair, no but thats what makes some of this more fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideways&Smiling
That's all well and good, but the FRS has roughly 15 years of technology advancements/refinements. It SHOULD be competitive. If it wasn't, there would be a real problem... and in the real world, today, it's possible to get an S2000 for significantly less money than a stock FRS.
About the FRS upgrades: "not too much money" is debatable. Adding a supercharger, coilovers, light wheels, a big brake kit, etc. is not cheap no matter how you look at it. That's easily $10k - $15k. That warranty goes out the window, and if you spent that same amount of money on mods for the S2000 you'd have a significantly more powerful car with a higher level of performance.
I'm not hating on the FRS. I still would like to get one eventually after they've depreciated more. I'm just being realistic about the comparison.
Realistically, you could look at even older cars like the 240sx and RX7 and get even more value for your money in terms of performance potential vs cost. It's hard to argue with factory turbo light FR coupes. The reliability might not be there, but the performance and excitement will be.
|
I cut it out of the video but, the 86 will be the car of the century when you can find a lower mileage one for 15k. It has a lot of potential. But at 25k. Nah. S2000 every time.
8 years ago I was in a Comptech SC S2000 on the track and that car has potential too. But where we were going here was the S2000 does not need much of anything to be a great car. The 86 needs a whole host of things to get there.