Autocar: BRZ vs. MX-5 vs. 370Z

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Stock or modded?

I'll give you both of em for ya

Stock EJ251
Low end got a ton of tq, so don't need to downshift at all
BUT top end don't got anything
Mid rpm got lil bump

Modded EJ251 (cams, valves, ported w remapped ECU, & usual bolt on mods)
Smoothed the bump in the mid
bumped extra 500rpm (but kinda pointless)
Top end gets better feel... but not great as S2k

STock EJ253
Don't have a ton tq feeling as EJ251 (due to chassis)
Top ends don't feel weak as EJ251, but 250rpm~400rpm to the redline still feel lacking
bump in the mid smoothed out, but still can feel it

Modded EJ253 (reflash ECU, usual bolt on mods)
Has better tq feel in mid high rpm than stock.
Top end lackness drop to only last +-200rpm
Wish for lil more tq line

My Impreza (GM6) weight 2718 lbs (track modded) to 2870 (stock). Prob current weight is 2750~2765 lbs-ish

My friend's Impreza ('07) weight currently 2950 lbs-ish

Overall my GM6 get's going enough for sure.

So since you've driven an S2000, you would say that the low to mid range power is much better in your 2.5L boxer, yeah?

BTW, those 1st gen Imprezas are sweet. They're pretty rare in the US aren't they?

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

So since you've driven an S2000, you would say that the low to mid range power is much better in your 2.5L boxer, yeah?

BTW, those 1st gen Imprezas are sweet. They're pretty rare in the US aren't they?

When I had my GM6 semi-prep for track, it tied w my friend's S2k from zero... til 3rd gear, from 3rd & up, I got totally screwed

Hm... depends on where you live. It can be rare... but not every states. GM/GC/GF are sweet... but it comes w $. Parts are damn hard to come by

[serialk11r]

Bristecom if the torque is in the high rpm range then if you downshift you can "feel" the same acceleration as if it were lower. Higher revving cars have shorter gears anyways so it "feels" faster, maybe it's just psychological :P

But that aside, I think a good choice of forced induction for this motor would be a Roots supercharger giving only like 0.4 bar or so boost so it feels kinda like a 2.6L ish engine. For a street car I think you should avoid having to drop compression ratio, but that's just me and my silly philosophy. I'm not entirely sure on how the bypass valves work but if they do what I think they do, less peak boost makes the accelerator pedal response better. Most Roots superchargers I've seen online are designed for higher pressure ratios though. Wonder which one the Exige S uses...

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

What was more fun - the NSX or Elise?

The Elise. Even around town trips were exciting. After a day in the Elise the NSX felt large.

But the Elise was not very livable on a daily basis. I'm hoping the BRZ will be the best of both worlds and will be the "Elise Coupe".

-Jim

[Mr.Jay]

Originally Posted by fatoni

Come to socal and spend three hours on the 91 everyday and you'll figure it out real quick

that sounds more like a problem with where you live then downshifting to me


Not sure why the big discussion since power means different things to different people so think its more important than other

having had a bunch of seat time in a gt500 I will say for me IMO power gets boring but is nice to have. I however don't think 200hp is going to be a prob considering my daily drivers don't even have that yes for a sports car its not a lot I get that but its more than plenty for a regular car. I would actually say the gt500 has too much power for a DD car for my taste since I find the car was only fun when you opened it up and boring to cruise in just feels like a boat the weight is very noticeable.

Another thing if you are worried about being passed by a minivan or anything like that then you got self esteem issues. who cares what the ass hat speeding in his minivan is doing? do you see Lambos gunning it every time a ricer does a fly by on him?

Ending points:

Do I want more power in my FRS? Yes

Do I care it only has 200hp from factory? No, I care that it handles like a Cayman at a much reduced budget and that the factory wants tuners to improve upon their canvas.

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by blu_

Subaru is known for saving weight, mainly because there drivetrain is so heavy because of awd. The body panels are so thin on my car the hood quivers on the highway.

Subaru eh? The ZZT231 and ZZW30 were super model weight in comparison to the other 'models' out there, at 2500 and 2200lbs respectively. If anyone can shave weight on a car, its Toyota. If not for the safety regulations that have gone into effect these past few years, the 86/BRZ would probably be closer to the mid-high 2600's in base trim.

As for the AP1 vs. 86/BRZ argument....with the BRZ you're getting arguably better engineering chassis balance in a -brand new- car thats still $7000 less, in terms of MSRP, vs. the MY2003 S2000. At the reviews this car is currently getting, if Toyota and Subaru wanted to make the car start at the low $30k range, it would obliterate the AP1 and AP2 in every category. Bang for your buck, in regards to buying brand new, the 86/BRZ wins out.

I smirk at the articles hint at who did what and so forth on this car. As for me, I refuse to believe that a RWD car, that was co-produced by a company who has easily created some the most memorable and highly respectable RWD Japanese Sports car's in history, would be singularly engineered by a company who's only mark on racing history is AWD rally, while the latter company had 0 input into its chassis and suspension designs/tuning. If you honestly believe that then you are extremely stubborn, or dense.

I'm not saying I know whom did exactly what, and who gets credit for what, but Toyota most certainly did more than just design and financing. They have decades of experience mass producing car's of this kind.

Lastly, the article does come off as a bit too much Subaru lovey-doveyness going on, but hey, its a British magazine. The brits have an unholy love affair with Subaru. See also: last gen WRX.

[bestwheelbase]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

After a day in the Elise the NSX felt large.

But the Elise was not very livable on a daily basis.

-Jim

This article's comment about the NSX gives me this great opportunity to ask... how great is NSX ownership? What can you tell us about it? Is it just pure bliss each and every drive, even during the most mundane errands? Their beauty is timeless. I really think I would enjoy the NSX. The trick is finding a clean example for a reasonable amount. Many appear neglected or overpriced (or both!).

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by bestwheelbase

This article's comment about the NSX gives me this great opportunity to ask... how great is NSX ownership? What can you tell us about it? Is it just pure bliss each and every drive, even during the most mundane errands? Their beauty is timeless. I really think I would enjoy the NSX. The trick is finding a clean example for a reasonable amount. Many appear neglected or overpriced (or both!).

I have never kept a car for very long until I got my NSX. I have owned numerous sports or sporty cars. Multiple Corvettes, Porsche 924 and 924 Turbo, RX7, etc. I'd keep them a year or two.

The NSX is a keeper. I've owned it since 2001. It's solid, doesn't creak or rattle, it's reliable, it feels great - even with only 270hp. I still love the styling.

I don't know what I'd consider as a replacement. Sure, an Audi R8 or maybe the new NSX, but that's a lot of money. And even then, for the 25K-35K that I could get for my NSX - why would I consider selling it? For that amount of money, and if I could afford a new R8 or the new NSX or whatever, I'd rather keep it. It's a buyer's market when it comes to NSXs - that's for sure.

It's the bargain supercar. For 25 to 40K you can get a really nice car. I bought mine with just over 8,000 miles. It was showroom perfect. And there are still many clean low-mileage cars available. Typically, NSXs haven't been beat or misused. Although recently many of newer crop of younger owners often "modify" and beat them. Many NSXs have more than 150K miles, so they are durable and trouble free. If you're serious in looking at NSXs, try NSX Prime.

http://www.nsxprime.com/

Here, you can get to know many owners and get a lot of good info and leads on cars for sale.


-Jim

[Dark]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

Subaru eh? The ZZT231 and ZZW30 were super model weight in comparison to the other 'models' out there, at 2500 and 2200lbs respectively. If anyone can shave weight on a car, its Toyota. If not for the safety regulations that have gone into effect these past few years, the 86/BRZ would probably be closer to the mid-high 2600's in base trim.

As for the AP1 vs. 86/BRZ argument....with the BRZ you're getting arguably better engineering chassis balance in a -brand new- car thats still $7000 less, in terms of MSRP, vs. the MY2003 S2000. At the reviews this car is currently getting, if Toyota and Subaru wanted to make the car start at the low $30k range, it would obliterate the AP1 and AP2 in every category. Bang for your buck, in regards to buying brand new, the 86/BRZ wins out.

I smirk at the articles hint at who did what and so forth on this car. As for me, I refuse to believe that a RWD car, that was co-produced by a company who has easily created some the most memorable and highly respectable RWD Japanese Sports car's in history, would be singularly engineered by a company who's only mark on racing history is AWD rally, while the latter company had 0 input into its chassis and suspension designs/tuning. If you honestly believe that then you are extremely stubborn, or dense.

I'm not saying I know whom did exactly what, and who gets credit for what, but Toyota most certainly did more than just design and financing. They have decades of experience mass producing car's of this kind.

Lastly, the article does come off as a bit too much Subaru lovey-doveyness going on, but hey, its a British magazine. The brits have an unholy love affair with Subaru. See also: last gen WRX.

I think they did mention that both Subaru and Toyota worked together on testing the prototype to get the exact feel they want, but Toyota got more involved in testing. The car entered 24hr Nurburgring, and ran around the ring with Cayman and Supra. Toyota was also the one that implemented direct injection in Subaru Boxer (Subaru failed in doing so).

[Levi]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

With that said, I think a 2.7L Boxer 6 making 265 hp/205 lb ft torque at 2800-2900 lbs would be really nice for this type of car. But they would need to move the transmission to the rear as a transaxle and it would increase the price by a few thousand probably.

If it had a transaxle gearboxe it would be awesome. I'd then love an FA30 H6 making +300 HP, ~300 Nm revving above 8.000 RPM. All this NA fun in a 1200 kg car. This at 40.000 € and I'd take it over any 370 Z, TT-S, 135i and Cayman S.

[86'd]

Wow, that was difficult to read. I don't know if it's because it's 4am, or if the writer just likes to mangle the Queen's English, but...my...God...

I think someone else mentioned it but I got a sense that they loved the car, but really didn't say why, in a concrete way. Again, this is probably because I haven't slept.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

As for the AP1 vs. 86/BRZ argument....with the BRZ you're getting arguably better engineering

Well that's certainly debatable... The only issue with the AP1 was the rear toe-change-with-bump, which got corrected on the AP2.

chassis balance

??? 49/51 > 54/46 for an FR car.

in a -brand new- car

Unfortunately, S2000 is gone foever

thats still $7000 less, in terms of MSRP, vs. the MY2003 S2000.

But of course one could buy a much newer S2000 for less than MSRP on the BRZ.

At the reviews this car is currently getting, if Toyota and Subaru wanted to make the car start at the low $30k range, it would obliterate the AP1 and AP2 in every category.

Now you're comparing the AP1 against a car that does not exist. Of course the magical nonexistent car wins!

I've been looking forward to the FR-S/BRZ for a long time now. It's going to be a great car. I might get one, as it has all the S2000 qualities I enjoy in DD driving, plus it's a fixed-roof coupe (hate convertible wind noise), and has +2 utility. But I know for a fact that it won't compete with any stock S2000 at the track, so in that sense it would definitely be a downgrade. Tough choice...

[blu_]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

Subaru eh? The ZZT231 and ZZW30 were super model weight in comparison to the other 'models' out there, at 2500 and 2200lbs respectively. If anyone can shave weight on a car, its Toyota. If not for the safety regulations that have gone into effect these past few years, the 86/BRZ would probably be closer to the mid-high 2600's in base trim.

As for the AP1 vs. 86/BRZ argument....with the BRZ you're getting arguably better engineering chassis balance in a -brand new- car thats still $7000 less, in terms of MSRP, vs. the MY2003 S2000. At the reviews this car is currently getting, if Toyota and Subaru wanted to make the car start at the low $30k range, it would obliterate the AP1 and AP2 in every category. Bang for your buck, in regards to buying brand new, the 86/BRZ wins out.

I smirk at the articles hint at who did what and so forth on this car. As for me, I refuse to believe that a RWD car, that was co-produced by a company who has easily created some the most memorable and highly respectable RWD Japanese Sports car's in history, would be singularly engineered by a company who's only mark on racing history is AWD rally, while the latter company had 0 input into its chassis and suspension designs/tuning. If you honestly believe that then you are extremely stubborn, or dense.

I'm not saying I know whom did exactly what, and who gets credit for what, but Toyota most certainly did more than just design and financing. They have decades of experience mass producing car's of this kind.

Lastly, the article does come off as a bit too much Subaru lovey-doveyness going on, but hey, its a British magazine. The brits have an unholy love affair with Subaru. See also: last gen WRX.

I was just pointing out that Subaru is known for trying to save weight everywhere to make up for their heavy AWD... sometimes to their cars detriment IMO. The comment had nothing to do with what Toyota's role in development was. I don't know enough about Toyota to comment on them.

[ZDan]

Holy crap, I missed a lot since yestiddy!
Regarding S2k c.g. height...

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

As for 19.8 came from S2k forum. One of member did it & got around 19.1~19.8

And another guy did it and got 26"! Which is obviously VERY far off.

Fact is, using the normal methods for measuring c.g. height (measure front/rear weights level, measure again with one end lifted some amount) is not super accurate, I've done it and gotten a *very* wide spread of results for the same vehicle!

I like the 53:47 weight distribution on FRS/BRZ. When you're accelerate (going straight, coming out of corner & etc), load of CoG will pushes back into rear which gets close to 50:50 weight distribution cars. Vs 50:50 weight distribution car will not be 50:50 in those situations, due to load of CoG pushes rear & front inlift.

1. 50/50 isn't "perfect" or ideal. Particularly for a 2wd car
2. Even if it were, why would you suppose that it would be better to have 50/50 under acceleration than under braking?

In a rear wheel drive car, you definitely WANT more load on the rears during acceleration. Not as much an issue on a 14-15 lb/hp car like the FR-S, but the better the power/weight, the more rearward you want the weight to be.

With a 10 lb/hp car, 54/46 static (FR-S/BRZ with driver only, 1/2 tank) would be FAR inferior to 50/50, or the S2000's 49/51. You just wouldn't be able to put the power down as well out of lower-speed corners.

There are also benefits under braking for having a 50/50 or better (more rearward) distribution. Under 1-g braking, the 54/46 static FRS/BRZ will have ~72% of its weight on the front tires, only 28% on the rears. Given same size tires front and rear, the fronts are overloaded and the rears are underutilized.
Meanwhile, the 49/51 static car under 1-g braking would have 67% on the fronts, 33% on the rears. Due to the nonlinear nature of grip vs. load in tires, this car would have more braking grip (all else equal).

Also under trailbraking on corner entry, the more forward weight-biased car will be loading the outside front more. Less front grip, more push.

For a rear-drive car, 50/50 or slightly more rearward weight distribution is better for:
1. braking
2. corner entry
3. steady-state cornering
4. corner exit
5. straight-line acceleration

All that said, every design is a compromise. In order for the FR-S/BRZ to come in as light as possible, it was important to keep the wheelbase short. They could have stretched out the wheelbase, moving the front wheels forward, to get to 50/50, but the car would have weighed more (and cost a smidge more, too).

But 54/46 *is* inferior to 50/50 (or slightly more rearward) for an FR car, for outright performance potential and for feel (less p/s assist required with less weight on the fronts).