BRZ vs. Prelude Si vs. S2000. . . Initial Thoughts

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Jawnathin

I guess that must be it then. Didn't realize outside of the final drive there was yet another torque multiplier on an S2000. Even with the taller gears, is it still short enough with the additional gear reduction? IIRC outside of the dip, the torque advantage was pretty healthy in favor of the FA20. More than 10% IIRC.

I'd be curious to know what the actual output to the wheels would be would be between the two. My guess is it would be very similar.

And with that said, my point still remains. Let's say it was a wash, I still find it interesting that he'd find it inadequate. If thats how he feels, thats fine. It was just a thought.

I seem to post this once a month or so

[EAGLE5]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

MotorTrend's Johnnie Liberman

That guy's awful. When I used to read Autoblog, I loved to guess the writer. I always knew it was a Liberman article because he had the style of a 14-year-old fanboy. Sorry, off topic.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Jawnathin

This is a backwards approach. Looking at just a peak number isn't going to tell the whole story.

It tells you a lot about absolute performance.

The power under the curve and gearing is the rest of the story.

You don't need to know gearing to know about acceleration performance. Power (and weight, of course) is enough.

And under that curve, the BRZ makes more power than the S2000.

The 2000 makes more power, period. And of course it also has a lot more "under the curve", too!

I am fully aware of what happens once the F20C gets into its stride (above 6k rpm). I am only referring to down low, presumably under 4k rpm, since I assume the OP is still within break in period.

Ah, but the infamous 4k dip...
I know what you're getting at, but honestly when I've test driven the fr-s, I expected it to feel torquier than my AP1 at real-world normal street driving rpm. It really didn't, to me.

Again, up top is a different story.

Quite!

[jariten]

Originally Posted by iceman666

Hi All,

I believe the BRZ handles well (better than the Prelude Si when it was new - which at the time was one of the best handling cars under $30K).

You remember what your '93 handled like when new? Your memory is much better than mine. I had a '91 Prelude with the mechanical 4ws (which I still think was neat) and only have extremely vague memories of how it handled, enough to remember that it was particularly good and with the 4ws felt like it rotated in place (haven't ever had that particular sensation in any other car). Then, after having it for a few years I ramped over a deer carcass (was just over a blind hilltop at night) and completely destroyed the front suspension...it was never quite right afterwards (though it was still plenty fun).

[iceman666]

I actually had the Prelude's suspension rebuit two years ago. . . which brought the handling (almost) back to the car's glory days.

As for the acceleration of the BRZ versus the S2000, I wasn't trying to knock the BRZ (which definitely has some pep / pick-up). That said, the S2000 accelerates better (at least in my opinion). . . Even below 6000 RPM.

Ultimately, the BRZ and S2000 are both fun cars for what they are (4-cylinder sporty rides that handle well), and I'm fortunate enough to be able to own both and drive either (depending on the day).

[FReSh]

I think comparing the FRS/BRZ to the 4th Gen prelude might be a reasonable comparison as well. I had a '98 Lude in high school, and I have to say that I think the FRS is quicker, though not a whole lot. The FRS definitely takes the cake in the handling department though. The Lude had too much understeer.

[Rampage]

I am surprised that you like the sound of the FA20 in the BRZ with you coming from the Honda camp. I owned a Integra GSR and my brother had a Civic SI (both B18) years ago and those cars were what I called "sewing machine" smooth. In my opinion, the Honda K engines are a little rougher which is probably due to the increased displacement. I never drove a S2000 because I just do not fit in the car very well so ironically I now have a 2ZZ Mr2 Spyder which is smaller outside but roomier inside. The 2ZZ-GE is not as smooth as the 1.8 liter Honda engines but it sounds silky compared to my son's FR-S. Every time I drive his car or hear the motor start it just reminds me that it is not a Toyota engine. Call me spoiled by the old Honda VTEC and The Toyota VVTL-i but that is the sound that I like from a four cylinder engine. I do like the sound of the boxer engine once it gets up in the higher RPM ranges but to me it sounds more like a Harley while the Honda and Toyota engines sound like Japanese sport bikes.

Except for the sound of the engine at idle and low RPM, I love everything else about the BRZ/FR-S. Interesting review between your three cars.

[Rampage]

That is probably why you like the Subie engine sound. I have to admit to loving American V8 sounds also. Grew up in the 60s and 70s and there is just nothing that compares to that rumble for me but as I grew older I gravitated towards the small bore performance engines because I love effeciency. My 1995 Integra GSR with a 1.8L did the 1/4 mile faster than my 1974 455 Formula Firebird. My, how times changed! For the better!

[serialk11r]

While we're on the topic of sound, I like the clean rumble of an inline 4 when at low rpm, but as the engine is making power I like the sound higher pitched, and that's best accomplished with more cylinders.

[iceman666]

While I like the "growl" of the BRZ's engine (totally cool as a change of pace), nothing beats the S2000's high revving engine note above 8000 RPM

Also agree about the oversteer in the Prelude versus the BRZ. . . The Prelude handles well for a FWD car, but it can't match the handling of a similarly sized / setup RWD car.

[Symmetrical]

*slow clap*

That was beautiful.

I agree in many ways. The previous cars I've owned before going to the BRZ which I love the most.

1995 Honda Prelude Si
2002 Acura RSX Type-S (K20A Type-R)
1993 MR2 Turbo (330whp TD06)
2006 EVO IX (350awhp water/meth)
2006 Subaru WRX (VF39 290awhp)

And the BRZ is the first car that I feel like I have to do zero mods to enjoy it. It handles great right out of the box. Turns heads without a single exterior mod. And is just flat out fun to drive. Performance isn't a factor for me.

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

The twins are forever compared to cars costing far more when they were new (Cayman, S2k, RX-8, Elise, 370Z, etc.). These cars simply do not fit in the same price range and shouldn't be compared. It's great that OP has had such good taste in cars, but price is a critical factor that shouldn't be ignored when discussing dynamics, fit and finish.

• OP your BRZ runs $26-$28k MSRP in 2013
• Your S2000 had an MSRP of $32,300 in 2001. Now adjust that to 2013 dollars and you get $42,621 (2.34% inflation).

That's a $17-19k difference in real buying power straight up. Put even half that amount into your BRZ and it will FLY (on the track or street). Put $17 - $19k into it and you can have whatever kind of car you want (ultra-light track beast, show queen, GT or some combination of all 3). The S2K and BRZ are apples to oranges because they never existed in the same price category until your Honda aged 12 years.

• Now OP your Prelude Si's MSRP was $17,136 in 1993. That translates to $27,726 worth of buying power in 2013 which is right inline with your BRZ. By your own account your BRZ dynamically trounces your Prelude even when it was new.

2+2 sports coupes in the same actual price range were the early 240SX, Celica, Talon, Eclipse, and Prelude, later the Gen Coupe, etc. Rarely however are the triplets compared to these cars. Why? MotorTrend's Johnnie Liberman & Scott Mortara put it this way...

MotorTrend's Best Driver's Car 2012
"With the exception of Mazda's Miata, has any car ever punched above its weight like this? Mortara, for one, doesn't think so. "If price were a factor, the BRZ would win this competition hands-down."

The triplets are dynamically so good, and so much fun that people naturally tend to compare them not against their true class rivals, but instead, to the best cars they've ever driven or at minimum cars costing thousands more. High profit, low volume niche sports cars instead of 2+2s in the same range.

Yes the interior is spartan. That's because the car isn't even pretending to be a GT (grand turismo or touring coupe). Notice the lack of sound deadening? Yes, it has a back seat, but that helps to lower import/export tariffs and insurance rates as non-specialty vehicle (which btw bolts out in just a few minutes (ever wonder why?)).

This is also why the '86 is considered likely to be an instant classic. The triplets are accessible, fun and fairly pure. Toyobaru/Subuyota will sell a ton, and you got in early. Enjoy the drive and watch every other mfg jump on the bandwagon afterwards.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Jawnathin

Peak power only one part of the performance equation. Peak power is no more important than how it gets there.

How the fr-s/brz gets its 200hp is not subjectively or objectively "better" than how the s2000 gets its 237hp.

Would you rather be making 180hp or 150hp @ 5k rpm?

brz isn't making 180hp until about 6000rpm, where the S2000 is making close to 180 as well. Above that rpm, of course the F2xC kills the FA20.

What car do you think will accelerate faster in that rev range? Which car do you think will have better acceleration out of the corner if it were to dip that low? What the car makes at 8k rpm is irrelevant if the motor is only spinning at 5k rpm.

What kind of idiot would drive an S2000 as if it had a 7400rpm rev limit when he wants max acceleration?! For a given level of speediness, you're going to be spinning at higher revs in the s2000, of course! This is not a chore at all, it's totally natural and doesn't require an ounce more effort. Same vs same driving style, you're going to be spinning about 20% higher revs in the s2000 vs the brz/fr-s.

I'm not saying peak power isn't important, I'm saying you need to look at the whole curve.

I have seen the curves and experienced the power delivery. I see and feel a HUGE annoying dip at 4000rpm in the brz curve. The f20c has a ridiculous bump at 6k, but above or below that it is nice and smooth. This works well for my usage, as on the street I almost never above 6k and at the track I'm never below 6k, so I rarely encounter the discontinuity. The bump is less severe for the f22c, but the much lower rev limit is annoying. Not enough headroom above peak power rpm.

Looking only at peak power and determining performance from that is ricer armchair math.

And trying to tout a subjectively and objectively inferior (in terms of power/power delivery) powerplant as better based on a nebulous quality not fully grasped could be called fanboism!

Why do you quote 'under the curve' as if it doesn't exist or its being made up?

Because the way you're using it, it may as well be.

FWIW, this isn't about BRZ vs S2000. That is like arguing over what is the fastest type of snail (both are slow). This is more about a car's entire powerband instead of peak numbers.

And the brz powerband has a glaring hole right in the middle of it. It is not making objectively more or subjectively better "power under the curve".
It makes more torque, which is fine, but of course the s2000 powerplant WAY more than makes up for this with revs. And again, anyone who drives an s2000 around at exactly the same revs as a brz is doing it wrong. You naturally drive the lower-torque/higher-revving s2000 at higher rpm levels for the same type of driving.

Oh, and while they may both be what some now consider "slow", it doesn't mean that they are equals in this regard. The fr-s/brz is significantly slower.

[ZDan]

All the above said, I don't really think the fr-s/brz are underpowered for the street. For the way I drive on the street, 200hp is more than enough. At the track I would want a lot more...

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Rampage

I am surprised that you like the sound of the FA20 in the BRZ with you coming from the Honda camp. I owned a Integra GSR and my brother had a Civic SI (both B18) years ago and those cars were what I called "sewing machine" smooth. In my opinion, the Honda K engines are a little rougher which is probably due to the increased displacement. I never drove a S2000 because I just do not fit in the car very well so ironically I now have a 2ZZ Mr2 Spyder which is smaller outside but roomier inside. The 2ZZ-GE is not as smooth as the 1.8 liter Honda engines but it sounds silky compared to my son's FR-S. Every time I drive his car or hear the motor start it just reminds me that it is not a Toyota engine. Call me spoiled by the old Honda VTEC and The Toyota VVTL-i but that is the sound that I like from a four cylinder engine. I do like the sound of the boxer engine once it gets up in the higher RPM ranges but to me it sounds more like a Harley while the Honda and Toyota engines sound like Japanese sport bikes.

Except for the sound of the engine at idle and low RPM, I love everything else about the BRZ/FR-S. Interesting review between your three cars.

I've always been the other way...

B and F engines are nowhere near as smooth as a K...