FR-S/BRZ vs. Genesis Coupe

[82mm 4g63]

Yes, weight is important. Yes, power is important. I don't know about you, but I look at more than just power and weight before buying a car (assuming the FRS >$20,000). In my opinion, you get more with the GC per dollar than you get with the FRS. You're getting more with the GC's turbocharged 275hp engine than you are with the FRS' 2700 pound "light" curb weight.

The engine/power output award goes to the GC.
The ease of squeezing more power out of it per dollar and ability to handle boost award goes to the GC.
The overall exterior styling award goes to the GC.
(Yes, I like the FRS' front end more than the GC, but the side lines and the rear end are nicer on the GC.)
The interior style and creature comforts award goes to the GC.
The manual transmission award goes to the FRS.
The automatic transmission award goes to the GC.
The lighest curb weight award goes to the FRS.

The GC has the upper hand in the four most important things I look for in my new car. Factory power output, ability to handle boost, exterior style, and interior style. I want to try out a paddle shifted car, so the fact the FRS has a better manual transmission doesn't really affect my decision. When it comes to "light weight" the FRS scores a D, I just barely consider 2700 pounds to be light weight. Giving up so much overall size and creature comforts should have the thing weighing closer, if not lighter than, the Miata. Especially seeing what Mazda is shooting for with their next Miata, this thing is going to be a boat. Of course the GC scores an F, but in the end it has a higher overall GPA than the FRS in my book.

[Dark]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

Yes, weight is important. Yes, power is important. I don't know about you, but I look at more than just power and weight before buying a car (assuming the FRS >$20,000). In my opinion, you get more with the GC per dollar than you get with the FRS. You're getting more with the GC's turbocharged 275hp engine than you are with the FRS' 2700 pound "light" curb weight.

The engine/power output award goes to the GC.
The ease of squeezing more power out of it per dollar and ability to handle boost award goes to the GC.
The overall exterior styling award goes to the GC.
(Yes, I like the FRS' front end more than the GC, but the side lines and the rear end are nicer on the GC.)
The interior style and creature comforts award goes to the GC.
The manual transmission award goes to the FRS.
The automatic transmission award goes to the GC.
The lighest curb weight award goes to the FRS.

The GC has the upper hand in the four most important things I look for in my new car. Factory power output, ability to handle boost, exterior style, and interior style. I want to try out a paddle shifted car, so the fact the FRS has a better manual transmission doesn't really affect my decision. When it comes to "light weight" the FRS scores a D, I just barely consider 2700 pounds to be light weight. Giving up so much overall size and creature comforts should have the thing weighing closer, if not lighter than, the Miata. Especially seeing what Mazda is shooting for with their next Miata, this thing is going to be a boat. Of course the GC scores an F, but in the end it has a higher overall GPA than the FRS in my book.

To each of his own.

[Longhorn248]

Originally Posted by Dark

I think laws of physics apply in the case more than force=mass*acceleration. Try to build a 1000hp brick-like car and see its acceleration, and top speed compare to Bugatti Veyron.

The Veyron is a pretty poor example for your argument. The body was designed by an artist and not engineers which is why it needs obscene power to reach the same speeds that the McLaren F1 is hitting with 300 less horses.

[Dark]

Originally Posted by Longhorn248

The Veyron is a pretty poor example for your argument. The body was designed by an artist and not engineers which is why it needs obscene power to reach the same speeds that the McLaren F1 is hitting with 300 less horses.

Not really, if you compare it to a brick-like car with the same power and weight. Veyron was like what I had on top of my mind at the time, that's all.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Dark

Not really, if you compare it to a brick-like car with the same power and weight. Veyron was like what I had on top of my mind at the time, that's all.

i never know what you are saying really. i hate to be redundant but the veyron is shaped worse than a brick.

[Dark]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i never know what you are saying really. i hate to be redundant but the veyron is shaped worse than a brick.

It doesn't look good, I know.
Like old greg said, if masses and hp of two cars are the same, what matters is net force. I don't think brick-like car has more net force than Veyron, really.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Dark

It doesn't look good, I know.
Like old greg said, if masses and hp of two cars are the same, what matters is net force. I don't think brick-like car has more net force than Veyron, really.

if the only difference between a scion xb and a veyron was the coeffecient of drag, the scion would have more net force as you put it

[Dark]

Originally Posted by fatoni

if the only difference between a scion xb and a veyron was the coeffecient of drag, the scion would have more net force as you put it

To quote what old greg said

Net force = mass * acceleration

Net force is the sum of all forces acting on an object, in this case that includes the tractive force being exerted by the tires, the rolling resistance of the tires and the aero drag.

It's more than just CoD.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Dark

To quote what old greg said



It's more than just CoD.

yeah but what is being brick shaped going to affect? my point is that the veryon is less aerodynamic than most bricks and thinking about it, i dont even know how i got here. i guess thats the ft86club way

[Mr.Jay]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

Yes, weight is important. Yes, power is important. I don't know about you, but I look at more than just power and weight before buying a car (assuming the FRS >$20,000). In my opinion, you get more with the GC per dollar than you get with the FRS. You're getting more with the GC's turbocharged 275hp engine than you are with the FRS' 2700 pound "light" curb weight.

The engine/power output award goes to the GC.
The ease of squeezing more power out of it per dollar and ability to handle boost award goes to the GC.
The overall exterior styling award goes to the GC.
(Yes, I like the FRS' front end more than the GC, but the side lines and the rear end are nicer on the GC.)
The interior style and creature comforts award goes to the GC.
The manual transmission award goes to the FRS.
The automatic transmission award goes to the GC.
The lighest curb weight award goes to the FRS.

The GC has the upper hand in the four most important things I look for in my new car. Factory power output, ability to handle boost, exterior style, and interior style. I want to try out a paddle shifted car, so the fact the FRS has a better manual transmission doesn't really affect my decision. When it comes to "light weight" the FRS scores a D, I just barely consider 2700 pounds to be light weight. Giving up so much overall size and creature comforts should have the thing weighing closer, if not lighter than, the Miata. Especially seeing what Mazda is shooting for with their next Miata, this thing is going to be a boat. Of course the GC scores an F, but in the end it has a higher overall GPA than the FRS in my book.

You cant even say some of this considering a bunch of it is personal taste and a bunch of it is based off what you think consider the frs isnt even out yet so hard to compared the auto frs to the auto gc when one car doesnt exist yet

see your point tho and to each his own. making a list of pro and cons is easy tho

Award for better build quality goes to FRS
Award for innovative engine goes to FRS
Award for driver focus goes to the FRS
Award for aftermarket potential goes to FRS (due to ability to swap in a ej motor)

It will really depend on what exactly you as a car buyer wants and cares for more

if power is your thing than yea GC is the way better deal but if potential is your thing than I would say the FRS (IMO) is the better car cause making a heavy car light is wayyyy more expensive than modding a engine to make more power

[Dark]

Originally Posted by fatoni

yeah but what is being brick shaped going to affect? my point is that the veryon is less aerodynamic than most bricks and thinking about it, i dont even know how i got here. i guess thats the ft86club way

It depends on how you see. It's not true that veyron is faster than a brick like car if you build a brick like car with more net force.

[Dragonitti]

They messed up when they gave the GC and the Veloster the same face plant.

[Ryuu0u]

Originally Posted by Dragonitti

They messed up when they gave the GC and the Veloster the same face plant.

More hp may sell it a little better but it was over all ruined as a possible pick up for me.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Mr.Jay

You cant even say some of this considering a bunch of it is personal taste and a bunch of it is based off what you think consider the frs isnt even out yet so hard to compared the auto frs to the auto gc when one car doesnt exist yet

see your point tho and to each his own. making a list of pro and cons is easy tho

Award for better build quality goes to FRS
Award for innovative engine goes to FRS
Award for driver focus goes to the FRS
Award for aftermarket potential goes to FRS (due to ability to swap in a ej motor)

It will really depend on what exactly you as a car buyer wants and cares for more

if power is your thing than yea GC is the way better deal but if potential is your thing than I would say the FRS (IMO) is the better car cause making a heavy car light is wayyyy more expensive than modding a engine to make more power

we dont really know any of that jazz really and i think you could actually make a pretty sound argument against the innovative engine and aftermarket potential. maybe the driver focus but i doubt it.