GT86 vs Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.6 R

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Twin4Life

Willow Springs:
33. Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 1:27.30 '13 659 / 1750 EdMunds InsideLine
34. Subaru WRX 1:27.33 '14 272 / 0 Randy Pobst
35. Subaru WRX Special Edition 1:27.40 '13 269 / 1452 Randy Pobst
36. BMW M3 1:27.67 '07 420 / 1580
37. Chrysler 300 SRT-8 Mk II 1:27.74 '11 477 / 1994 Randy Probst
38. Ford Mustang GT 5.0 1:27.76 '11 418 / 1648
39. Nissan Z34 370Z 1:27.79 '12 337 / 1524 Martin Choi

3.8 Gen Coupe-

Willow Springs - Streets of Willow 1:28.71


61. Ford Mustang V6 1:30.90 '11 309 / 1571
62. Mini Cooper S 1:30.93 '14 192 / 0
63. Scion FR-S 1:31.15 '13 197 / 0 Randy Pobst
64. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X SE 1:31.40 '11 295 / 1519 Roger Yasukawa
65. VW Golf GTI Mk. VI 1:31.47 '09 211 / 1318 Randy Pobst

Frankly, those are awesome times for the FR-S, the Z, and the Gen Coupe. Other cars in the times are BIG HP compared to the lot.

Pobst was actually more comfortable in the BRZ (versus FR-S) and ran a 1:30.3 with the BRZ.

He also did a 1:29.1 in the V6 Mustang and 1:29.1 in the GC 2.0T.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/.../photo_02.html

[Twin4Life]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Pobst was actually more comfortable in the BRZ (versus FR-S) and ran a 1:30.3 with the BRZ.

He also did a 1:29.1 in the V6 Mustang and 1:29.1 in the GC 2.0T.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/.../photo_02.html

Oh, wow, I didnt see that. Geezuz that guy can drive.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Twin4Life

Oh, wow, I didnt see that. Geezuz that guy can drive.

Haha definitely. Although for the V6 Mustang time, he may have been helped by the fact that it was the Performance Pack model (sticky tires, "track" suspension, etc.) The one you quoted might have been a standard one, I can't tell.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by totopo

again, not to try to sound overly contentious, but doesn't the first article show why people compare the 2 cars?

I never said anything about the two cars, I just posted lap times.

Originally Posted by totopo

The first one, hard to interpret because amateur drivers. I think it is actually harder to get a great fwd time for an amateur driver compared to pro. I think it's easier to get a decent fwd time, but harder to get a great one.

Maybe if you're talking about FWD race cars. For production cars, it's actually the other way around.

There was a test not too long ago comparing a fwd GTI and rwd FR-S. The amateurs were faster in the FWD car. But the professional driver was faster in the RWD car.

The amateurs' times were obviously slower overall than the professional's, but they left more time on the table with the RWD car.

Originally Posted by totopo

the second one, amateur driver, are they stock tires? So if you say the brz is more of a sports car than the civic si based on the track times, is the genesis 3.8 more of a track car than a brz?

Again I never said anything about the two cars, I just posted lap times.

Originally Posted by totopo

third one, you can't compare randy pobst's track times with random chumps. the brz is the slowest car pobst has logged a track time at laguna. If you look at fastest laps, pobst gets like 5 seconds faster laps than car magazine reviewers. Same with the other pro drivers. I think the best thing fastest-laps is for is to show you how driver skill and tires are the largest factor in track times. Until you are at that level, it's kind of hard to look at track times.

LOL Max Angelelli (driver of the Civic SI) is no "random chump". He was winner of the Italian Formula Three championship (1992), winner of 24 Hours of Daytona (2005), winner of the Daytona Prototype championship (2005), raced numerous times in 24 Hours of Le Mans, etc.

[totopo]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

For those that don't believe in tires making a difference on the 86. Try nearly -2.5 secs on a 1:30 track.

Your idol and hero Randy Pobst said the 86 should have been drivers car of the year.

Randy Pobst put the BRZ just over second of the V6 Mustang with more than 100+ more hp and torques, 2 more cylinders and better tires around Streets of Willow (which actually likes power and torque down that uphill straight despite being a tight track overall). Supposedly they were able to wrangle the FRS around just a hair bit faster later on.

Yo man, calm down, are you trolling? Stop trying to make an argument out of issues that aren't there. Is this post just so everyone will ignore the well meaning posts at the bottom of page 19 and try to reignite a meaningless flame war on the top of page 20?

Obviously tires are the most important, no one is doubting that, honestly, you are fighting straw men here and tilting and windmills.

I never said anything bad about the subjective feel. I very well know that randy pobst loves how the 86 drives. I know that chris harris gets a hard-on over the 86, that video comes up every time someone even talks about the 370z. Stop putting up strawmen in your mind and slapping them down. I never said the Genesis is more of a driver's car... How many times do people have to say it to get it through the heads of the fanbois here. No one is arguing about the subjective driving dynamics of the car.

I feel like this whole thread is so painful, everyone is too confrontational to actually read and parse the posts. People take like 10 seconds to twist posts around and beat up the strawmen in their mind.

Engineering side of you? You have to be kidding that you can't look at track times, entry and exit speeds (check the car mags), a CoG lower than a Porsche Cayman, sub 2800lb weight, high tensile steel cabin/chassis, aerodynamic performance, steering, seating, driver's position and ergonomics and possibly consider the Genesis Coupe even remotely in the ballpark of a drivers car.

Errrr, sigh, how do I word this so you don't go super crazy. So the published track times of the brz are pretty un-inspiring, but alot of that is due to the tires. As I have said before, it's unfortunate that there aren't really tests with same tire and pro driver. It's really hard to tease out the driver skill versus car performance in the amateur setting.

So you see, when you build a car, there are a lot of issues to think about. There's a lot of give and take, especially with the budget. So to get low CoG and sub 2800 weight they had to give up a lot, like torque and hp. So low CoG is nice because of less weight transfer, but more HP is also nice, because of more HP. So when you try to look at the performance of a car, you first I think have to have a goal in mind, with a specific set of rules in mind, real or imagined, before you can really look at the car.

High tensile steel? like everything is made of high tensile steel these days... Is there anywhere or any company that actually produces data on torsional stiffness of chassis? I really have no idea how to compare chassis stiffness.

Aerodynamic performance? the coefficient of drag on the 86 is 0.29, genesis coupe is 0.32, 370z is 0.29. The 86 produces lift, the z is zero lift.

Have you even driven or sat in an 86? Doesn't seem like it because Chris Harris seems to prefer a stock 86 over a stock 370z like you have.

stock versus the Genesis Coupe R-spec

Tons of videos and graphs out there on the 86's entry and exit speeds on top of what we've linked and all the stuff in this forum. But by all means, let the 'engineering side of you' ignore all the logic, and evidence.

So what's a naturally aspirated 370Z or Genesis Coupe do around Tsukuba these days? How about a FI 370Z around Buttonwillow? Thought so. Hell, let's bring the Civic into this, why not?!

You've asked for evidence and ignored it when in front of your face. You still have none to offer yourself except spouting hot air. It seems you haven't looked around the forum or other sources for any data or information to figure this stuff out yourself. Probably because you're just a troll rather than an 'engineer'. Let me guess, software engineer.

I've driven in a brz, and I don't really know what to make of it. I wasn't allowed to take it to the edge and break it loose on a chaperoned test drive, so I can't say I can form a personal opinion on how it drives. If I had more time, more money, and more parking space, I would love to own and drive an 86 on the track. Come to think of it I would love to rent one on the track, maybe I should look into it... anyone know of anything in socal?

When you talk about race prepped cars, the question mostly becomes money, and rules. You can make anything into a fast car, the question is rules, money, and interest.

That saying, that trd griffon is super hot. I love time attack cars too.

[thill]

Enjoy:
http://wot.motortrend.com/performanc...ft-407757.html

Even with Randy Pobst and Willow Springs

[MokSpeed]

Originally Posted by blackhawkdown

To be honest in my opinion, the twins are like Honda civics. They are cheap fun cars and don't pretend that they are comfortable,fast, or luxurious. If that is what you want,get a twin. If that is not what you want, get something else.

I feel the twins are more comparable to the Integra. When I first drove the FR-S, it reminded me of my GS-R only better.

Sorry off topic.....CONTINUE THE GENESIS WAR!

[tahdizzle]

Eh. Potenzas are horrible tires. And anything feels stickier than the stock Primacies.

I RE11As are a decent tire. Good entry level AutoX tire in my opinion, but definitely not as sticky as the Supersports they had on the mustang.

[hypercarfanatic]

These are all good points. This debate is intense. Too bad its all settled now...DRIVE THIS



0-60 in the time it takes to knit a space shuttle and goes 2mph up a 2% incline. What a beast.

[thill]

Originally Posted by hypercarfanatic

These are all good points. This debate is intense. Too bad its all settled now...DRIVE THIS



0-60 in the time it takes to knit a space shuttle and goes 2mph up a 2% incline. What a beast.

Meh... That one is heavy and has poor handling and steering feel.. This is the one you want!!! Go away troll!

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by totopo

1-Stop putting up strawmen in your mind and slapping them down....


It's only a straw man to you because you haven't read the thread or made clear what your arguments even were. Each of my vids is a direct answer to arguments or criticisms made in this very thread. That is not a strawman argument. Please do not cite philosophical fallacies if you do not truly understand them. I also assume by tilting you mean shifting, so please get your terms right if you are going to try to come off as an expert.

2- So to get low CoG and sub 2800 weight they had to give up a lot, like torque and hp. So low CoG is nice because of less weight transfer, but more HP is also nice, because of more HP.


No, wrong. The car is underpowered because they had an emissions target of 160g/km CO2. Nothing else. Plus we were talking about handling not power. Which is why entry and exit speeds matter, not complete track times plowing up a hill with 4 cylinders and 150lb/ft against 2800lbs. So if you can stop shifting the argument to power, you can better forcus on the metric that better define chassis balance and handling.


3-High tensile steel? like everything is made of high tensile steel these days...


Except pretty much every car mentioned in this thread as a competitor. Again, just a hyperbolic generalization with no specific examples on your part.


4- Aerodynamic performance? the coefficient of drag on the 86 is 0.29, genesis coupe is 0.32, 370z is 0.29. The 86 produces lift, the z is zero lift.


0.27-0.29 depending on underpanels and spoiler. Better frontal surface than Z car too so overall less drag. check out the low and high pressure zones on Hanchey (HVT) aero simulations for the 86. Take an 86 out for a spin >95mph and compare to Z. Is the Z zero lift in the rear? I'm also not sure I trust anything from Nissan whose Nurburgring times can't be replicated and thinks 53/47 F/R weight distribution is 'ideal'. I lol at how they mount their front calipers in the same position on every car from an Altima to the GTR. Sure helps keep costs low.

5- When you talk about race prepped cars, the question mostly becomes money, and rules. You can make anything into a fast car, the question is rules, money, and interest.


Rules in this case being the chassis is essentially the same on all those examples. That's what we were talking about, chassis, handling and potential. Still waiting for a 370Z example to turn better than 1:49 at Buttonwillow and 0:58 at Tsukuba.

You asked for proof, I think you've gotten more than enough.

Originally Posted by thill

Enjoy:
http://wot.motortrend.com/performanc...ft-407757.html

Even with Randy Pobst and Willow Springs

Different wheels and tires changed rotational mass and gearing which kills the FA20. This was covered in the other video I linked in my supposed 'strawman' argument lol. That vid is basically a Tirerack commercial.

Originally Posted by MokSpeed

I feel the twins are more comparable to the Integra. When I first drove the FR-S, it reminded me of my GS-R only better.

Yup, that's a valid observation and more valid comparison despite being FF. My friend has a race prepped Integra as well.

[totopo]

Originally Posted by Twin4Life

Willow Springs:
33. Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 1:27.30 '13 659 / 1750 EdMunds InsideLine
34. Subaru WRX 1:27.33 '14 272 / 0 Randy Pobst
35. Subaru WRX Special Edition 1:27.40 '13 269 / 1452 Randy Pobst
36. BMW M3 1:27.67 '07 420 / 1580
37. Chrysler 300 SRT-8 Mk II 1:27.74 '11 477 / 1994 Randy Probst
38. Ford Mustang GT 5.0 1:27.76 '11 418 / 1648
39. Nissan Z34 370Z 1:27.79 '12 337 / 1524 Martin Choi

3.8 Gen Coupe-

Willow Springs - Streets of Willow 1:28.71


61. Ford Mustang V6 1:30.90 '11 309 / 1571
62. Mini Cooper S 1:30.93 '14 192 / 0
63. Scion FR-S 1:31.15 '13 197 / 0 Randy Pobst
64. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X SE 1:31.40 '11 295 / 1519 Roger Yasukawa
65. VW Golf GTI Mk. VI 1:31.47 '09 211 / 1318 Randy Pobst

Frankly, those are awesome times for the FR-S, the Z, and the Gen Coupe. Other cars in the times are BIG HP compared to the lot.

You have to take fastestlaps time with a grain of salt. When you equalize drivers, the86 has pretty uninspiring times. When you look at the ones with similar drivers: autozeitung, hockenheim short, top gear, Tsukuba, just randy pobst laguna Seca and streets of Willow time, the 86 is kind of unimpressive.

Look at willow spring international raceway, if you accept all times as equal, then that would make the Acura tl type s a shit ton faster than a bunch of high performance sports cars. Really shows you what good drivers like Tsuchiya can do.

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

That's too broad a statement to make IMO, especially given the short length of time the car has been out. Certainly in NASA TTD, the FR-S is considered one of the cars to have at the moment, mostly due to its ability to run E85 within the rules. It's set numerous class records at various tracks, and quite easily (with points left to spare).

Speaking of similar hp/weight ratio cars, the 370z has a much higher hp/weight ratio, but both are classed in the same class (CS) for autocross. I'd say the 370z has the advantage at the moment, but not nearly as much as its hp/weight ratio would lead you to believe (9.8 lbs/hp vs. 13.8 lbs/hp).

Hmm, I kind of strayed into my own personal musings. im wiling to concede this point for the purposes of this thread. I have some hesitancy about the chassis, but I am eagerly awaiting the results that people get with it and am ready to be proved wrong.

Fair to say you don't have any data yet?

I've followed this car since its release and haven't seen anything that would indicate it's objectively slower than its hp/weight ratio would indicate. In fact, most of the data would indicate the car is spot on, if not slightly faster, in fact.

No, see above. Most of the reason I didnt want to start posting lap times is they are unfair to the stock 86 because of the tire issue. If you look at just the time with similar level drivers the brz times are kind of underwhelming, but again, tires.

Yes, exactly, the point I was trying to make is that the 86 isnt some wonder car that has objective handling of the gods like people make it out to be. It is about what you would expect. compared to similar cars around the price point, I dont think you can say objectively the 86 road holds signficantly above all competitors.

I would agree with this. From a purely numbers/objectively-based standpoint, I don't think chassis is superior to everything under $70k. But if you're talking about a combination of the following (to quote you):

1) subjective: feel, fun, controllability, responsiveness
2) objective: measured performance.

The chassis definitely been compared quite favorably to other coupes under $70k. There is plenty of evidence of this out there for this.

And actually Pobst, who you seem to respect, loves this car on the track. I think he had it as high as 2nd in MT's best driver's car comparison against some very expensive exotics/supercars.

Yeah, as I said before, the question about what you like is a subjective one.

Getting back to the original subject of the thread, the reasonable point people are trying to make is that when looking at stock or semi stock, the objective performance of the 86 doesnt really punch so far above its hp and weight that it blows all competitors out of the water. That if people like a car w more hp and daily driveability, and decent objective handling, the Genesis 3.8 is a viable option. Is that statement so hard for people to accept? Why do people refuse to accept that the objective handling of the two cars stock in terms of road holding is in a similar ballpark. Mayby some meteric one is better than the other, thats not the point. The point is that they are worthy enough of comparison; that there is a market segment for the Genesis coupe.

That there exist people out there in the world that would be happier driving a Genesis coupe than a 86, and thats okay too.

[totopo]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

I also assume by tilting you mean shifting, so please get your terms right if you are going to try to come off as an expert.

Have you heard of don quixote? [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills"]Tilting at windmills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

No, wrong. The car is underpowered because they had an emissions target of 160g/km CO2. Nothing else. Plus we were talking about handling not power. Which is why entry and exit speeds matter, not complete track times plowing up a hill with 4 cylinders and 150lb/ft against 2800lbs. So if you can stop shifting the argument to power, you can better forcus on the metric that better define chassis balance and handling.

Entry and exit speeds are hard to use as a metric because different cars use different driving lines. The fr-s (like the miata and other low weight low hp cars) need to maximize their exit speed above all else, since they don't accelerate well. So they will brake at the outside in a straight line, turn in, hit the apex middle, and maximize maintaining cornering speed. Ultra high hp cars, like time attack 4wd cars, drive an ugly diamond line. They dive bomb the apex under heavy trailbraking to get to the apex asap and not spend time in the corner, sacrifice their cornering speed, hit the apex a little late, then blast it down the straight. So they will have a lower entry speed, lower corner speed, lower exit speed, but since they drive less distance, they get to the next corner quicker under acceleration. Other cars go somewhere in between the two extremes.

How a car handles is pretty complicated, and I don't think it's worthwhile teasing out one specific metric and using it as a smoking gun comparison. For example, how much front anti-dive is "better"? More anti-dive makes the car feel less unsettling, but binds the suspension. Different cars need different setups.

3-High tensile steel? like everything is made of high tensile steel these days...


Except pretty much every car mentioned in this thread as a competitor. Again, just a hyperbolic generalization with no specific examples on your part.

http://www.automotiveaddicts.com/214...iew-test-drive
http://www.oncars.com/news-blogs/sto...-all-new-Z-Car


why i say everything is made of high tensile steel these days:
http://archive.postcrescent.com/arti...y-Hybrid-sedan
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewd...lly-satisfies/
http://www.boronextrication.com/

4- Aerodynamic performance? the coefficient of drag on the 86 is 0.29, genesis coupe is 0.32, 370z is 0.29. The 86 produces lift, the z is zero lift.


0.27-0.29 depending on underpanels and spoiler. Better frontal surface than Z car too so overall less drag. check out the low and high pressure zones on Hanchey (HVT) aero simulations for the 86. Take an 86 out for a spin >95mph and compare to Z. Is the Z zero lift in the rear? I'm also not sure I trust anything from Nissan whose Nurburgring times can't be replicated and thinks 53/47 F/R weight distribution is 'ideal'. I lol at how they mount their front calipers in the same position on every car from an Altima to the GTR. Sure helps keep costs low.

Pretty sure the cross sectional areas aren't too different. If you just approximate both as rectangles, the z is maybe like 6% more cross sectional area. yeah the z is 0 lift front, front and rear for the sports version.

5- When you talk about race prepped cars, the question mostly becomes money, and rules. You can make anything into a fast car, the question is rules, money, and interest.


Rules in this case being the chassis is essentially the same on all those examples. That's what we were talking about, chassis, handling and potential. Still waiting for a 370Z example to turn better than 1:49 at Buttonwillow and 0:58 at Tsukuba.

You asked for proof, I think you've gotten more than enough.

Different wheels and tires changed rotational mass and gearing which kills the FA20. This was covered in the other video I linked in my supposed 'strawman' argument lol. That vid is basically a Tirerack commercial.

unfortunately, there is no love for the 370z in the enthusiast market T_T. There's really little reasons for amateurs to sink tons of money into making a race prepped car without an actual race group to put it in.

If you are calling that all carbon fiber trd griffon on racing slicks a 86, then can I call this a 350z?

[thill]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

Different wheels and tires changed rotational mass and gearing which kills the FA20. This was covered in the other video I linked in my supposed 'strawman' argument lol. That vid is basically a Tirerack commercial.

The end result was that Pobst shaved 2.5 seconds off the OEM wheel/tire combo with the lap on the max performance tires that had more grip. Per Pobst, the limiting factor at that point was lack of power. The chasis and tires could have handled more power.

Nothing to get upset about, ultimately its a good thing and something we already knew If this was supposed to be a Tire Rack commercial, I say they succeeded if you track the car alot and want more grip..

Road & Track had the same experience when they put larger wheels and sticker tires on their car. They shaved several seconds off their lap time as well off the OEM wheel/tires.