2016 FR-S vs 2016 MX-5 Coupe

[NWFRS]

If the build quality of these cars leaves something to be desired I think it has more to do with the car's price point than with Toyota/Subaru/Fuji Heavy Industries. I also think that Direct Injection raises the price a little, being so new. $26k seems pretty decent to me, considering. I'm thinking it will take a few years for them to work all the bugs out of these cars, in the course of which I'm sure we will see some weight gains, not unlike Mazda's little MX-5. They have become heavier and more refined with each design revision. Not a bad thing, but there are pros and cons. :-)

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by BlueDubbinTDI

How is 28mpg, boxer engine, 2700lbs, made by Toyota, and a center of gravity 18 inches off the ground worse than every other car up there? It got named sports car of the year last year for a reason you troll. It's revolutionary. And It's actually worth a second glance when parked unlike your forgetable (and laughable even) miata.

listing things about the frs doesnt somehow make it any better. my laughable miata has a lower center of gravity than the frs just so you know. i get that you dont like the miata but that doesnt change the fact that it has been the standard that affordable sports cars have been compared to for over 20 years.

thats besides the point i was making in the first place though. you think the miata should sell for 16k. how many 16k cars even come with 4 disc brakes? how many are rwd? how many are convertible? how many have double wishbones at both ends? how many are sports cars? how many 16k cars offer all of those things? what you are expecting is unprecedented so its a little confusing as to why you think its a perfectly reasonable expectation.

[Jaylyons1]

Originally Posted by SciOnDrifTtSlIdeR

this is horrible. but rwd cars are on the rise and i would not be surprised to see these come out in the future.

Actually, they have been on a decline for a while. I'm happy to see some making a comeback though. It's sad that Mercedes and BMW are releasing FWD cars now in the states. RWD cars are just plain better unless you live in an environment that gets a ton of rain or has a long winter.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by Jaylyons1

Actually, they have been on a decline for a while. I'm happy to see some making a comeback though. It's sad that Mercedes and BMW are releasing FWD cars now in the states. RWD cars are just plain better unless you live in an environment that gets a ton of rain or has a long winter.

Rwd is not "plain" better. Unless you've got lots of power fwd is actually quicker.

Fwd has significant packaging advantages and much lighter weight. I recently drove a BMW 1.6d in the UK and it was a dog. A Ford Focus 1.6d is far and away a better car and faster, both in a straight line and around corners. The Ford also has much more room inside and in the trunk (transverse drivetrain) and uses less fuel. Small rwd cars are ridiculous.

Most rwd cars won't sell in North America if there's any winter. That's because rwd can be tricky to drive in winter.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Jaylyons1

RWD cars are just plain better unless you live in an environment that gets a ton of rain or has a long winter.

I wouldn't say that. FWD cars are less expensive to manufacture, have more interior room for the same exterior dimensions (due to the transverse engine orientation and lack of a transmission tunnel), and have lower drivetrain losses (which leads to better acceleration and gas mileage for the same power, assuming it isn't powerful enough to break traction). FWD cars also have better traction in low grip situations, since the vast majority of cars on the road have a front-biased weight distribution, and FWD puts this weight on the driving wheels. RWD cars are more fun, yes, but (sadly) for the vast majority of people, FWD cars are better.

[Jaylyons1]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Rwd is not "plain" better. Unless you've got lots of power fwd is actually quicker.

Fwd has significant packaging advantages and much lighter weight. I recently drove a BMW 1.6d in the UK and it was a dog. A Ford Focus 1.6d is far and away a better car and faster, both in a straight line and around corners. The Ford also has much more room inside and in the trunk (transverse drivetrain) and uses less fuel. Small rwd cars are ridiculous.

Most rwd cars won't sell in North America if there's any winter. That's because rwd can be tricky to drive in winter.

Yep. Lost me at that. Also, FWD is not faster. You compared two completely different cars. One also being far heavier than the other. With front wheel drive, there is just too much going on up front. If your wheels are too busy turning then they can't focus on putting the power down as well and vice versa (why do you think there aren't any FWD super cars?) FWD has it's place. It's cheap. It's better in poor weather conditions or off road type situations. To me, that's about it. Other's may prefer the attributes but, personally, I'm not a fan.

Originally Posted by chrisl

I wouldn't say that. FWD cars are less expensive to manufacture, have more interior room for the same exterior dimensions (due to the transverse engine orientation and lack of a transmission tunnel), and have lower drivetrain losses (which leads to better acceleration and gas mileage for the same power, assuming it isn't powerful enough to break traction). FWD cars also have better traction in low grip situations, since the vast majority of cars on the road have a front-biased weight distribution, and FWD puts this weight on the driving wheels. RWD cars are more fun, yes, but (sadly) for the vast majority of people, FWD cars are better.

I can see your point on fuel economy. You also get the weight savings too. For the typical consumer just looking for 4 wheels and an engine, I could see them finding everything they need with FWD. But when performance demand is injected into the scenario, RWD still comes out on top(might just be my opinion). The only exception to me would be if you were pitting two cars together that both had very little power.

[BlueDubbinTDI]

Originally Posted by fatoni

listing things about the frs doesnt somehow make it any better. my laughable miata has a lower center of gravity than the frs just so you know. i get that you dont like the miata but that doesnt change the fact that it has been the standard that affordable sports cars have been compared to for over 20 years.

thats besides the point i was making in the first place though. you think the miata should sell for 16k. how many 16k cars even come with 4 disc brakes? how many are rwd? how many are convertible? how many have double wishbones at both ends? how many are sports cars? how many 16k cars offer all of those things? what you are expecting is unprecedented so its a little confusing as to why you think its a perfectly reasonable expectation.

Good God I overexadurated a little get over it. How about I can go get 1 for $16k and feel like I actually got my money's worth. Satisfied?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by BlueDubbinTDI

Good God I overexadurated a little get over it. How about I can go get 1 for $16k and feel like I actually got my money's worth. Satisfied?

i guess im still a little confused as to why you would defend a view point you didnt really even have for so long. it just seems like you know very little about the miata when you think it should be in the price range of k cars.

[BlueDubbinTDI]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i guess im still a little confused as to why you would defend a view point you didnt really even have for so long. it just seems like you know very little about the miata when you think it should be in the price range of k cars.

All I said was that you get very little car for what you have to pay for 1. And in reality I don't see how that is incorrect. The mini cooper is the same way. You get very little sheet metal for the price. What you're really paying for is the features, rwd, convertible, ect. I get it. You made this into an attack this platform or that platform thing. I fucking love my FR-S and will defend my purchase til the day selling it is justified, just like you. The miata just does nothing for me. Sorry if i offended you bro.

[chaoskaze]

I thought next gem miata share the chassis with alfa 4c? LOL

maybe I'm hoping for too much.

[Byebye]

This is a specialty car forum. None of us joined because we drive Prius' and want to bench race the owners on this forum. I've read everything and everyone has a valid point but reality is big manufacturers sell cars and worry about the needs of the other 95% that just need a car that gets good gas mileage and meets there family needs.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by chaoskaze

I thought next gem miata share the chassis with alfa 4c? LOL

maybe I'm hoping for too much.

I'm afraid you are but maybe it will incorporate some weight saving ideas. Aluminum hood, door skins and trunk lid would be nice. Although the Alfa 4C does make its composite chassis very cheaply it's still very expensive compared to steel and aluminum.

The MX5 still has better factory suspension than the BRZ. old fashioned double wishbones at both ends (series 3 has multi link rear "wishbones" but in geometry it is still basically a wishbone) make a great base for a road car and a development base for modifying by fitting coilovers. The BRZ is very limited in that respect, unfortunately.

The MX5 is also very neutral without the oversteer problems which ruin the BRZ for the serious driver.

The world is a better place having both types of car in it.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Jaylyons1

Actually, they have been on a decline for a while. I'm happy to see some making a comeback though. It's sad that Mercedes and BMW are releasing FWD cars now in the states.

RWD cars are just plain better unless you live in an environment that gets a ton of rain or has a long winter.

In rain with decent tires there is still enough grip for rwd to have an advantage in load on the driven wheels vs. fwd. At only 0.5g acceleration, a typical 60/40 static fwd car will have only 50% of its weight on the drive wheels. Even a rwd car with sorta poor 55/45 static distribution will have 55% of its weight on the drive wheels, a 10% advantage. A good 50/50 rwd car will put about 60% of it's weight on the drive wheels at 0.5g accel.

In the snow, fwd has a traction advantage, but not enough of one to make me forego driving the S2000 all winter in New England (on winter tires of course!). INFINITELY more fun!

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Suberman

The MX5 is also very neutral without the oversteer problems which ruin the BRZ for the serious driver.

That's not what I'm hearing from the serious drivers...

The world is a better place having both types of car in it.