FR-S vs S2000

[MADANT15]

Originally Posted by vang

Pretty funny how you love everything about the BRZ before driving it and touching it. Let me guess, you've never been in an S2000 before either, yet you just know you won't like it.

I think everyone moving from the S2000 to the FT86/BRZ is NOT necessarily expecting a better car, just something newer to play with that will remind them of the S2000. I'm confident that this budget sports coupe will not rival the S2000 in terms of performance numbers (obviously, we're talking flagship vs entry sports car). However, it should be a fun car for ex-S2000 owners to try out.

I'm buying a BRZ because a half stripped s2000 with 6 point harnesses and stiff suspension is no longer an ideal daily driver. Plus, the BRZ should have lower limits (especially with stock tires) that can be more safely explored on the street. I don't expect it to be anywhere near my S2K Challenge Street Class car performance wise.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by vang

Pretty funny how you love everything about the BRZ before driving it and touching it. Let me guess, you've never been in an S2000 before either, yet you just know you won't like it.

I think everyone moving from the S2000 to the FT86/BRZ is NOT necessarily expecting a better car, just something newer to play with that will remind them of the S2000. I'm confident that this budget sports coupe will not rival the S2000 in terms of performance numbers (obviously, we're talking flagship vs entry sports car). However, it should be a fun car for ex-S2000 owners to try out.

Not everyone. I loved my S2K on the track and autocross but around town it was the least fun to drive car I owned at the time because of the less than perfect steering feel and higher limits (ie you have to push it a lot more to have fun).

I'm moving to a FT86 variant to get that same blast on the track/autox and HOPEFULLY that Miata kind of fun on the street. If this car ends up reminding me exactly of the S2K I can't imagine I'd buy it.. I'd rather just pick up a S2K CR if I wanted that same experience again.

[viper_driver]

I sold my S2K a year ago after 6 years of ownership because I required a back seat.

Sorely miss it and hope the FR-S I have on order can fill that void! I don't think it will be better, but I do think it will replicate that driving experience.

[Mike]

We believe the car as the *potential* to be faster than a s2k. It's all going to depend on the front suspension not failing us.

There's are some real strengths and weaknesses to the car.

Pros:
- Engine should be easily tuned to 250hp with bolt-ons (TBD). I'm thinking intake, exhaust, test pipe, and tune.
- Car is LIGHT. Losing 100 lbs from stock is a matter of running a quarter take of gas, taking out spare tire + tools. Losing another 100 lbs is a battery, exhaust, and rear seat removal, all of which is easily reversible.
- Coupe chassis; possibly stiffer, and no roll bar needed immediately.
- Car is aerodynamically superior. S2k has front downforce, but massive rear lift. This car has lower Cd and possibly smaller frontal area. As long as there's no significant lift, it's already at a significant aero advantage.

250hp/2500 lbs is quite potent versus a s2k with 250hp/2700lbs.

Cons.

- Front struts. Takes rim/tire space.
- 5x100 wheels. Limits rim choice.
- Unproven engine and platform.
- Extremely limited aftermarket support for a while.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by blur

Pics? Specs? Sounds like a hell of a car...

Just a lot of bolt-ons that are very well sorted out and balanced.

Up to him if he wants to post any more...

From a previous post he made:

Originally Posted by cyde01

Prefer the ap1 over a cr? That's surprising, but then again I've never driven either. I had an ap2 for 2 years and loved it. Frs is a lot more practical and livable but it definitely will be a downgrade performance wise. The trade off will be worth it for me because I like having a real roof and room for tires in the back that much; if a back seat and fixed roof is not a big deal then the pros of the frs over the s2k are slim. Although, as someone mentioned, the frs will prob be easier to control at the limit because of the front biased weight distribution (53/48). S2k's 50/50 might be better for lap times but it also adds to that snap happy feeling in the corners.

Weight distribution is mostly a marketing gimmick.

The s2k in stock form is 50/50, or 49/51, but every one modified for the track is heavier in the front.

Porsche/Lotus are all rear biased, and you don't see their handling compromised much

Originally Posted by Luvzgod

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...-8?redirect=no

I check this website a lot when comparing cars. It to me offers a better estimate of a cars overall performance. It lists the S2000 along with almost all of the cars that a car guy would consider. I feel that the FRS/FT86/BRZ will probably fall into the same area as the as the S2000.

I am pretty sure most of the Internet surfing car guys are already familiar with this website. But, for new guys ENJOY!

Take magazine reviews with a grain of salt. I know more drivers than I can count that are faster than these "pros" in the same car.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Mike

We believe the car as the *potential* to be faster than a s2k. It's all going to depend on the front suspension not failing us.

There's are some real strengths and weaknesses to the car.

Pros:
- Engine should be easily tuned to 250hp with bolt-ons (TBD). I'm thinking intake, exhaust, test pipe, and tune.
- Car is LIGHT. Losing 100 lbs from stock is a matter of running a quarter take of gas, taking out spare tire + tools. Losing another 100 lbs is a battery, exhaust, and rear seat removal, all of which is easily reversible.
- Coupe chassis; possibly stiffer, and no roll bar needed immediately.
- Car is aerodynamically superior. S2k has front downforce, but massive rear lift. This car has lower Cd and possibly smaller frontal area. As long as there's no significant lift, it's already at a significant aero advantage.

250hp/2500 lbs is quite potent versus a s2k with 250hp/2700lbs.

Cons.

- Front struts. Takes rim/tire space.
- 5x100 wheels. Limits rim choice.
- Unproven engine and platform.
- Extremely limited aftermarket support for a while.

i dont think 250 is going be be easy or cheap and nobody knows anything really about the aerodynamics other than that stupid cod people are getting worked up about. and a hardtop goes a long way as far as aero is concerned. i just dont see this car being faster or having more potential than the s2k

[Marrk]

@Mike: 2500 lbs. would be nice.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i dont think 250 is going be be easy or cheap and nobody knows anything really about the aerodynamics other than that stupid cod people are getting worked up about. and a hardtop goes a long way as far as aero is concerned. i just dont see this car being faster or having more potential than the s2k

The S2k is a flying brick. A Camry has better aerodynamics. I kid you not.

I have a hardtop on my s2k, and I can tell you, it helps, but not much.

Think K20 (performance variants). Also 86x86, but 11:1 comp as opposed to 12:1. Redline is 8200, give or take, depending on the variant. With bolt-ons and a tune, they're hitting 260+. Given that TRD is going to offer a supercharger, I have no doubt that this engine can gain some power with just bolt-ons as well.

It really comes down to how the car will turn. Not many cars rotate like a s2k.

[serialk11r]

Camry has good aerodynamics actually, 0.27 drag coefficient, flat underbelly with "diffuser" (at least some newer models). The S2k has a pretty horrible bottom as well as top, the FRS is looking much better already for sure. Hardtop cars tend to do better since the rear window doesn't slope down so steep, I think...

[switchlanez]

For all the frs/brz vs threads I would say go compare the 86 to the car in question in GT5. I honestly think it can be used as a virtual benchmark closest to the real thing til the real cars become physically available.

[Stigmaru]

Originally Posted by Mike

The S2k is a flying brick. A Camry has better aerodynamics. I kid you not.

I have a hardtop on my s2k, and I can tell you, it helps, but not much.

Think K20 (performance variants). Also 86x86, but 11:1 comp as opposed to 12:1. Redline is 8200, give or take, depending on the variant. With bolt-ons and a tune, they're hitting 260+. Given that TRD is going to offer a supercharger, I have no doubt that this engine can gain some power with just bolt-ons as well.

It really comes down to how the car will turn. Not many cars rotate like a s2k.

What's the point in arguing about CD for sports cars. Most of the time it's not a figure of merit at all as the amount of horse power just makes it a negligible attribute. The only time it would matter at all is racing in a straight line with both cars at same HP and weight ratio. Other than that it just adds to a variable in calculating MPG which is a consumer merit rather than racing or sport.

Sure the S2000's CD is horrible compared to the FT86's 0.27. But it also has 40 HP more under the hood despite being 100 lbs heavier.

In automobiles and especially sports cars, aerodynamics are pretty much non existent. 3 out of 4 of the top 4 lowest drag coefficient cars created were 1933-1996. Aerodynamics is an after thought in car design because artist/designers' concepts are more important. Most automobile form factors nowadays range from 0.29-0.35 with the trucks and SUVs obviously hitting higher. One can tell from the standard deviation of the CD pool in cars, that there isn't much engineering done in aerodynamics. Something has gotta be wrong if the top rally cars and sports cars has equal or worse drag than a 1990 Volvo 940

After keeping up with Toyota's FT86 5 year development I can say that 0.27 is a very respectable CD. A 0.03 CD difference might not be a lot number-wise, but car aerodynamics is like grading on a curve and the FT86 is in the top 8% of the class. They purposely designed it into the car to an extent unlike most cookie cutter builds these days. Cars like the Lexus LFA, NSX, 350z, 370z are average C students. Although a Toyota Prius has a CD of 0.25

[Mike]

Originally Posted by AeroWRX

What's the point in arguing about CD for sports cars. Most of the time it's not a figure of merit at all as the amount of horse power just makes it a negligible attribute. The only time it would matter at all is racing in a straight line with both cars at same HP and weight ratio. Other than that it just adds to a variable in calculating MPG which is a consumer merit rather than racing or sport.

Sure the S2000's CD is horrible compared to the FT86's 0.27. But it also has 40 HP more under the hood despite being 100 lbs heavier.

Because I am buying the car to track it, and Cd matters. Case in point: My CR hits the same top speed Mark(colatkitty) hits at WSIR entering T9. He's exiting T5 at LEAST 3-4 mph faster than I am (my stock suspension vs his dialed in coilovers). I'm certainly not making more power than he is, so why am I accelerating faster? Because of Aero. I run a much smaller wing. He's still far faster than I am.

The official Cd of the s2k isn't published, but the math works out to be about 0.38-0.39 with the top up

Cd matters.

Non-existant aerodynamics? Have you seen the latest round of exotics? There's an insane amount of simulation that goes into these things. Top rally and race cars have horrible Cd and frontal area because they're made for extreme downforce, not to cut through the air with as little resistance as possible.

[ayau]

i've always wanted a CR in GPW. :o

are you trading the CR for the FRS/BRZ, or adding another car to the stable?

[Mike]

Originally Posted by ayau

i've always wanted a CR in GPW. :o

are you trading the CR for the FRS/BRZ, or adding another car to the stable?

adding.

I wouldn't mind having a type-s-ish car like yours :p