Frs vs s2000

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Explain this to me:
"Don't forget, the S2000 cost around $40K in 2000 while the 86 is around $25K in 2013."

Here, I'll do it again just for you...again. Only because I'm curious how important being self-servingly myopic is too you to derail a whole a thread and recycle the same shit again like Groundhog Day.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=633

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...=18696&page=30

[aCab]

Interesting debate going on here.

I go back to my "greater than the sum of its parts" argument for the frs/brz - just like a Miata, very surprising performance for what it is.

S2000 is the sum of its parts - in my experience it's exactly what you expect. Nothing more, nothing less.

High point of my s2000 owner ship was the first month. FRS I enjoy more and more with each passing day, just like my NA Miata.

Cars are just tools for drivers to get their job done. All are fun.

[Frs x3]

In terms of appearance the FRS is nicer looking, every time I see an s2000 it looks like a shoe.

[tpham18nm]

Why does the sticker price of the s2000 matter in 2013. Even if the car was around 40k, 38k, 35k, the fact is; you can find them being sold for less than 25k. So with that said, money is money. Weather spending 25k on a new frs and 25k on a used s2000 your still spending 25k! With this said it doesn't matter the sticker price of the s2000, instead, you should ask yourself; which car is better for 25 thousand dollars. a modern 2013 frs, or the dated design of the s2000?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by tpham18nm

Why does the sticker price of the s2000 matter in 2013. Even if the car was around 40k, 38k, 35k, the fact is; you can find them being sold for less than 25k. So with that said, money is money. Weather spending 25k on a new frs and 25k on a used s2000 your still spending 25k! With this said it doesn't matter the sticker price of the s2000, instead, you should ask yourself; which car is better for 25 thousand dollars. a modern 2013 frs, or the dated design of the s2000?

its because many people need to justify their purchase by putting down other peoples opinions and do whatever they must to make sure the frs wins every possible comparison. as for whats better, i think it depends on your values but i think there is an argument for either depending on how effectively you play on their respective strengths or weaknesses.

[CSG David]

Some update on personal impressions of the BRZ/FRS and the S2000.

The S2000 is a constant. It's built at a very high level with high level goals, but no car can fight father time. The car is older technology, but that engine and transmission are just works of mechanical art. You simply don't see a 120hp/L from a 2.0L very often. Although the 2.2L is not rated as high, a simple test pipe and tune puts it close to the 120hp/L mark already.

The BRZ/FRS is a very forgiving and safe car. The limits are set in stages which is absolutely outstanding. This car tailors to those who want a sense of sportiness, those who have a level of driving prowess, and those who are abusers. In all sense, it tailors to these crowds incredibly well. The car is simply modular. The base components are made to be practical and can be swapped out instantly without issue which can produce simple gains to the vehicle. The engineers have done a fantastic job incorporating the tuning market in this aspect.

The BRZ/FRS also has a very good OEM sitting position and good steering feel (much improved with the bushings). Aero is balanced and suspension works surprisingly well for what it is. The brakes have immense capacity when paired with the right pads and fluid. The base setup is fast and easy to drive/control. A simple bolt on with great coilovers just raises the limit of the car's potential. The car also controls added power well with the proper setup. The car can be set up for drift and/or grip fairly readily.

Overall, the BRZ/FRS is a driver and tuner car, which was Toyota's and Subaru's design intent and goal of introducing an affordable sports car. It inspires owners to personalize and improve driving ability. The S2000 is fine wine and those who have had the chance drive them, have a profound appreciation for the car.

[kcam86]

Originally Posted by CSG David

Some update on personal impressions of the BRZ/FRS and the S2000.

The S2000 is a constant. It's built at a very high level with high level goals, but no car can fight father time. The car is older technology, but that engine and transmission are just works of mechanical art. You simply don't see a 120hp/L from a 2.0L very often. Although the 2.2L is not rated as high, a simple test pipe and tune puts it close to the 120hp/L mark already.

The BRZ/FRS is a very forgiving and safe car. The limits are set in stages which is absolutely outstanding. This car tailors to those who want a sense of sportiness, those who have a level of driving prowess, and those who are abusers. In all sense, it tailors to these crowds incredibly well. The car is simply modular. The base compliments are made to be practical and can be swapped out instantly without issue which can produce simple gains to the vehicle. The engineers have done a fantastic job incorporating the tuning market in this aspect.

The BRZ/FRS also has a very good OEM sitting position and good steering feel (much improved with the bushings). Aero is balanced and suspension works surprisingly well for what it is. The brakes have immense capacity when paired with the right pads and fluid. The base setup is fast and easy to drive/control. A simple bolt on with great coilovers just raises the limit of the car's potential. The car also controls added power well with the proper setup. The car can be set up for drift and/or grip fairly readily.

Overall, the BRZ/FRS is a driver and tuner car, which was Toyota's and Subaru's design intent and goal of introducing an affordable sports car. It inspires owners to personalize and improve driving ability. The S2000 is fine wine and those who have had the chance drive them, have a profound appreciation for the car.

Up until yesterday I wouldn't of fully understood this as I do now. Yesterday was my first track event bone stock I was faster than a lot of cars I didn't think I would be. But there were 2 sti and 2 s2ks I really wanted to compete with but they were heavily modded. All 4 had wheels suspension work and fi. Even with those mods I was just trailing 4seconds on a minute course at my first event bone stock when 3 out of the 4 have dozens of event done. All I could think was with sticker tires and maybe coilovers (obviously not a good driver but learning hahA) I could cut my time by atleast 2 seconds. This event made me event made me realize all the people rushing turbos maybe doing it in the wrong order.

[ThisIsChrisKim]

Originally Posted by tpham18nm

Why does the sticker price of the s2000 matter in 2013. Even if the car was around 40k, 38k, 35k, the fact is; you can find them being sold for less than 25k. So with that said, money is money. Weather spending 25k on a new frs and 25k on a used s2000 your still spending 25k! With this said it doesn't matter the sticker price of the s2000, instead, you should ask yourself; which car is better for 25 thousand dollars. a modern 2013 frs, or the dated design of the s2000?

Folks like me will never buy a used car. You can't turn back time on wear and tear. No matter how well a car is taken care of, metal bits and carpet/leather trim will wear down. Interior amenities like Bluetooth and touch screen navigation just aren't available on older cars. So even if price is the same, certain things that make day-to-day use more viable will be missing on an used (even if pristine condition) car.

25k on a twin includes a full warranty and zero wear and tear. 25k on anything else includes previous owner(s) with unknown maintenance record and operating condition of the car. I'm willing to pay that price to get that reduced wear and tear, even if I'm getting a car that's 8/10's as fast or aggressive.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Anaxilus

Here, I'll do it again just for you...again. Only because I'm curious how important being self-servingly myopic is too you to derail a whole a thread and recycle the same shit again like Groundhog Day.

I thought we were done. Then you responded to my post from three weeks ago yesterday...

Link you thoughtfully provided:http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=633
Here's what you said there:

I was looking at roadsters in 2005, I remembered the S2000 approaching 40k while the MR-S was under 30k during cross shopping.

You MISREMEMBERED. You were WRONG. MSRP was actually $33,150 in 2005 according to http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/pr...2000&trimid=-1

You also said:

I used 2000 to accentuate the price difference between a car produced new in 2000 versus another new car produced in 2012. Use whatever figure makes you comfortable, the point is the same. The S2K was and is a much more expensive car to produce.

Obviously, $40k makes you "more comfortable", but the MSRP in 2000 was $32,000, and in 2005 it was $33,150.

And don't bring up registration/doc fees/taxes, or other b.s. because you were comparing the utterly fictitious "$40k" for the S2000 against the 2013 86 at "$25k".

Other link you provided = further idiocy http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...=18696&page=30 :

Like I said, 'approaching'. How much do think adding a hardtop, tax and license cost along with adjusting for inflation? You are the only one claiming 'sticker' price here. Some of us figure actual cost of buying.

This AFTER you were comparing S2000 price vs. "$25k" for the FR-S. Where's the tax and license cost in that "$25k"?!

Here's your original claim again for you to choke on:

Don't forget, the S2000 cost around $40K in 2000 while the 86 is around $25K in 2013.

Bullshit. No amount of dancing around makes this statement remotely true.
YES, the s2000 was a more expensive car, there is no doubt about it. It was not ever a "$40k" car in the same sense that the 86 is a "$25k" car.

Damn...

[aCab]

@ZDan, you're crazy trying to come into and FRS/BRZ board and try and prove the s2000 is the better car. Come on man, you know better. I know you know your stuff, Mike knows you know your stuff, but these ft86 members don't. You're just going in circles.

[CSG David]

Originally Posted by kcam86

Up until yesterday I wouldn't of fully understood this as I do now. Yesterday was my first track event bone stock I was faster than a lot of cars I didn't think I would be. But there were 2 sti and 2 s2ks I really wanted to compete with but they were heavily modded. All 4 had wheels suspension work and fi. Even with those mods I was just trailing 4seconds on a minute course at my first event bone stock when 3 out of the 4 have dozens of event done. All I could think was with sticker tires and maybe coilovers (obviously not a good driver but learning hahA) I could cut my time by atleast 2 seconds. This event made me event made me realize all the people rushing turbos maybe doing it in the wrong order.

It takes time to develop a balanced setup for boost. When I boosted my S2000, I actually had a little difficulty besting my old times on track on the first 2 track days. The only thing I could do was get more consistent, but the times weren't dropping. I have heard other people taking as long as 6-7 track days to finally break through that barrier and learn to drive with power. It is simply redeveloping your driving style. We encourage everybody to go to the track to just have fun with their cars. It's the #1 eye opening experience and simply put, gives you an idea of where you sit on the driver's totem pole.

Some interesting points, the Evasive FRS (r-comp) and Crawford BRZ did a 1:59 (slick) at Buttonwillow in the winter of 2012. Our CSG BRZ had stock power + coilovers did 2:01 (2:00 with R-comp prototype test day).

[7thgear]

the s2000 is a better base race car as far as design is concerned

but as CGS mike pointed ou the FRS is extreamly modular and takes very well to mods (as intended), so it doesn't take much to make the car a killer.

after a certain level of modification though it matters little because the differences have been bridged, so it would be an aesthetics/ergonomics argument after a certain level of investment.

[kcam86]

Originally Posted by CSG David

It takes time to develop a balanced setup for boost. When I boosted my S2000, I actually had a little difficulty besting my old times on track on the first 2 track days. The only thing I could do was get more consistent, but the times weren't dropping. I have heard other people taking as long as 6-7 track days to finally break through that barrier and learn to drive with power. It is simply redeveloping your driving style. We encourage everybody to go to the track to just have fun with their cars. It's the #1 eye opening experience and simply put, gives you an idea of where you sit on the driver's totem pole.

Some interesting points, the Evasive FRS (r-comp) and Crawford BRZ did a 1:59 (slick) at Buttonwillow in the winter of 2012. Our CSG BRZ had stock power + coilovers did 2:01 (2:00 with R-comp prototype test day).

Well I can assure you my first event yesterday was an eye opener. I can also assure you that the totem pole was built on me haha. I haven't notched my way on to the bottom of the pole yet lol. The one thing I kept thinking as I grew more and more balls during the event was with coilovers and wheels I could hit these corners so much faster. It was terrifying increasing my speeds through the turns each time due to the fact there was pools of water on everyside of the track(It was a police training track with ditches all over). But I can say with confidence I earned the name "tokyo drift" that day because I was sliding around every corner not because I tried to but because I had prius tires lol.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by aCab

@ZDan, you're crazy trying to come into and FRS/BRZ board and try and prove the s2000 is the better car. Come on man, you know better. I know you know your stuff, Mike knows you know your stuff, but these ft86 members don't. You're just going in circles.

I'm not trying to prove the S2000 is "better". In some ways it is (power, weight distribution, etc.), and in some ways it isn't (road noise, chassis stiffness, etc.). Whether it's "better" to anyone depends on what they want and need.

The argument is whether it is or was a "$40k" car vs. the 86 being a "$25k" car. It was never a $40k car in that context (MSRP vs. MSRP). If it had continued to go up in MSRP by 1%/yr as it had over its history, it would have been $36.5k in 2013, vs. $24.5k for the base FR-S and $27.5k for the more directly comparable (leather + HIDs) BRZ Limited.

There's no need to exaggerate to make the point. It *was* more $$$. But it wasn't $40k vs. $25k. That is all I've been arguing.

[addendum]Thanks for the words! You're right of course, there's no purpose to continuing that particular argument...