CNET on 86: More power would ruin it

[synchromesh]

I didn't have half an hour to watch the whole video, but the host doesn't say once during the whole segment, "More power would ruin it". In fact, he complements the visual appeal of the engine bay and suggests labeling it a slow car is rather maligning. Title is kind of vague.


That be weird if they required drug testing and a doctors approval for something so dangerous such as auto-racing a sanctioned racecar.

[synchromesh]

Originally Posted by Spartarus

I wasn't making a comparison of the cars at all. It was a demonstration that a small RWD car of nearly identical weight is not "ruined" by having extra horsepower. Quite the opposite, in fact. That was a direct refutation of the article in question, and therefore relevant and on-topic. It just so happened that the convenient example was a Honda S2000... It's happenstance that they both share revvy, NA, 2-liter engines, close-ratio 6-speeds, and a helical LSD... And many other things that make them directly comparable.

They're both good cars. They share many characteristics. There are many characteristics they don't share, which distinguish them from one another. That said, a comparison is absolutely not improper. I completely disagree with you there, and I'm prepared to defend the point. Maybe that should be the closed, stickied thread.. That, however, is an argument for another time, and another thread.

No need to close off. That would be an insult.


I personally think comparing the S2000 to the FR-S is a good demonstration. Obviously, FI is the odds on favorite approach for a more powerful version of the twin from the factory.(if that is ever going to happen).


What I'm getting at is that late last week, what appeared to be an exclusive Thomson-Reuters article indicated the EPA is going to be way less of a force on automakers and in fact the writer and editor went as far as some government officials want the EPA gone completely.


If true, I could see a same displacement N/A engine with slightly less output than an S2000 possibly causing birds to fly into windows.


Now, don't get me wrong. But I am aware, Voltaire, and Rousseau, as examples looked into viewing that human as a whole can be evil creature or as a whole, a decent animal.


What I see here could be comparable as, rather than the separation of the church and state; we might possibly see the separation of the state and the key to your sports car.


I guess 1/3 of people now are highly educated so I would think, a typical guy or girl off the street can make there own informal decision on what they want to buy, rather than someone choosing it for them.



On the other hand, I have seen some dumb things done and said from the most educated people when it gets to the nitty-gritty or the moment of truth.

[synchromesh]

I'm not an expert on crash tests, but don't expect some cars to get any lighter. Crash test dummies are now used in obese form.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/health...rnd/index.html

[Spartarus]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

How is using the S2000 as an example of more hp compared to the twins (you are using the twins as the baseline), not a comparison? That is exactly what it is.

And buyers paid for that extra hp. Some people forget that the price point is part of what makes the car good, not only its performance. Suffice to say that if the twins were to make 25% more power from the factory, covered under warranty, they would probably -start- in the low $30k range.

And a comparison between cars in completely different price points is basically improper; if not definitely moot. Especially when one is a 2 seat roadster, and the other is a 2+2 hardtop.

This S2000 and 350z/370z comparison malarkey has been going on since 2009. If you had been around as long as that you'd be as tired of seeing "well the s2000" pop up as it always does. Same goes for the "moar HP!" crowd.

I've been around plenty long enough to know that we're just going agree to disagree. I have a different perspective on the issue than you do.

I can also understand why you find it irritating. I find different things irritating.

So, I'll go briefly off topic to explain my perspective.

Points of comparison vary in importance. Some people find warranties important, some find them irrelevant. Warranties don't add value for everybody. I bought both my FRS and S2000 without warranties. The age and condition of the car is an expense factor for some, and an aesthetic factor for others.

The new to new price comparison is moot because the cars share no production years. I paid less for my S2000 than I did for my FRS. So did everybody else who sat down and compared them when the FRS was new... There were no new S2000's to compare prices with. The price point on the date of purchase is the only relevant price. It's an open market.

On a curious note, the cheapest used FRS's are now cheaper than the most expensive used S2000's. The market will eventually correct, and then the nature of the comparison will change. Perhaps the S will go the way of the NSX and jump way up in price... Perhaps the used FRS's will bottom out a 5K... Perhaps they will reverse...

Part of the nature of comparing used cars to new ones is your dollars can potentially go further with a used car. Just because you can buy more car for less money, doesn't mean two cars are incomparable. There are tradeoffs with both options. That's what comparisons are for. To figure out which tradeoffs you are willing to live with.

I'm willing to put up with a tiny, misshapen trunk and an old radio because I like the engine and transmission better.

Back on topic then:

I also disagree with the power vs price argument. There's a pervasive myth that adding power would automatically increase price. I don't think that's true.

The WRX starts in the exact same price range as the BRZ, with 4 doors, a turbo, and 60 more horsepower. It also, coincidentally, shares a version of the FA20. It would not have been an undue burden for Subaru/Toyota to drop in a 260 HP engine without changing the price. The price for a release series 1.0 or series.blue would nearly buy you an STI, which gets to drag around a little over 300 HP. Instead it buys you a cheap body kit and an exhaust. That's what the marketing people decided would work and sell. These are marketing decisions, not technical decisions.

If you listen to the feedback from the market, it's clear that the disappointing sales are a result of completely missing the mark on power. That's literally everybody's first comment. It's the first argument that gets made about the car. It's the white elephant that every journalist, owner, and prospective buyer has to deal with. It's clear that's what held it back. It's the first question you have to answer to every other enthusiast. Leaving the power alone is not automatic, it's a decision you have to justify to people.

If they had substantially improved on already available cars, nobody would hear a peep about the S2000, the Z cars, the Genesis, or the Mustang.

The thing that made the S2000 special when it was new is that is was cheaper than comparable cars, and it outperformed them. It wasn't just cheaper. People were looking for that kind of impact from the FT-86 platform, and they didn't get it.

It doesn't mean it's a bad car, it just means that the development people made a big mistake, and owners of the car are going to hear about it until long after they get sick of hearing about it.

[Calvin27]

Originally Posted by Spartarus

I also disagree with the power vs price argument. There's a pervasive myth that adding power would automatically increase price. I don't think that's true.

The WRX starts in the exact same price range as the BRZ, with 4 doors, a turbo, and 60 more horsepower. It also, coincidentally, shares a version of the FA20. It would not have been an undue burden for Subaru/Toyota to drop in a 260 HP engine without changing the price. The price for a release series 1.0 or series.blue would nearly buy you an STI, which gets to drag around a little over 300 HP. Instead it buys you a cheap body kit and an exhaust. That's what the marketing people decided would work and sell. These are marketing decisions, not technical decisions.

If you listen to the feedback from the market, it's clear that the disappointing sales are a result of completely missing the mark on power. That's literally everybody's first comment.

The wrx wasn't a full new chassis development. So it's natural for the brz to eat more of its development budget and have not much left for a turbo configuration. I a big part of this program was for Subaru to eventually develop their FA20DIT. From this perspective consider the brz a development project. Sure, they could drop an EJ in there and job done, but it would still leave them with no 'next gen' engine. So in this case, as a new platform, yes it would cost a lot more.

[Spartarus]

Originally Posted by Calvin27

The wrx wasn't a full new chassis development. So it's natural for the brz to eat more of its development budget and have not much left for a turbo configuration. I a big part of this program was for Subaru to eventually develop their FA20DIT. From this perspective consider the brz a development project. Sure, they could drop an EJ in there and job done, but it would still leave them with no 'next gen' engine. So in this case, as a new platform, yes it would cost a lot more.

The G4 chassis for the impreza / xv was new in 2011. The WRX jumped on that platform in 2014, when it adopted the DIT engine.

The 260 HP engine to which I was referring is the FA20DIT, which is almost identical to the FA20/4UGSE. The development of the two engines was virtually concurrent. Not suggesting dropping in an EJ.

The chassis was a Toyota concept, with an (almost) parts-bin Subaru suspension.

I understand why they made the decisions they made, I just think they were bad decisions.

It's a shame, because I really like the 86 platform... That, and it has a much better, classier, and more intelligent aftermarket than the S2000 does... It's really sad.

[Calvin27]

Originally Posted by Spartarus

The G4 chassis for the impreza / xv was new in 2011. The WRX jumped on that platform in 2014, when it adopted the DIT engine.

The 260 HP engine to which I was referring is the FA20DIT, which is almost identical to the FA20/4UGSE. The development of the two engines was virtually concurrent. Not suggesting dropping in an EJ.

Well there you go. The DIT came in 2014, the 86/brz in 2012. So yeah they could have put a FA20DIT, and I probably agree they should have done it for the MY17, but at the time (2012) it was probably part of the development process and not quite ready yet.

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by Spartarus

If you listen to the feedback from the market, it's clear that the disappointing sales are a result of completely missing the mark on power. That's literally everybody's first comment. It's the first argument that gets made about the car. It's the white elephant that every journalist, owner, and prospective buyer has to deal with. It's clear that's what held it back. It's the first question you have to answer to every other enthusiast. Leaving the power alone is not automatic, it's a decision you have to justify to people.

You can already see this with the number of FI NA and NB miatas driving around. The 6 speed out of the mazdaspeed and some special edition NB's bolts right up and pretty much eliminates any worry about drivetrain failures when more power is added. The mazdaspeed was a brief offering and really, the OEM hardly offered a faster offering at all. Instead people are making what Mazda didn't, and the cars are working.


We are going to see the same thing with the Abarth Fiata vs. the ND. ND owners are already getting really pissed off and defensive, and claiming their 180 WHP naturally aspirated record is more than enough. The turbo Abarth engine can do that with nothing but a tune. I expect that will become the more enthusiast focused car because of the ease of adding more power even despite the extra 100 lbs of weight and the lack of a mazda badge and direct generational lineage.

[Spartarus]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

You can already see this with the number of FI NA and NB miatas driving around. The 6 speed out of the mazdaspeed and some special edition NB's bolts right up and pretty much eliminates any worry about drivetrain failures when more power is added. The mazdaspeed was a brief offering and really, the OEM hardly offered a faster offering at all. Instead people are making what Mazda didn't, and the cars are working.


We are going to see the same thing with the Abarth Fiata vs. the ND. ND owners are already getting really pissed off and defensive, and claiming their 180 WHP naturally aspirated record is more than enough. The turbo Abarth engine can do that with nothing but a tune. I expect that will become the more enthusiast focused car because of the ease of adding more power even despite the extra 100 lbs of weight and the lack of a mazda badge and direct generational lineage.

I'm very interested in watching what tuners can do with Fiat MultiAir. That is a thoroughly unconventional system, and tuning will be interesting, to say the least.

[Lantana frs]

Excellent review of the 86 in a motortrend comparo. It came in 3rd out of 6. Edit. Sorry, already posted. Old info

[darthpnoy1984]

Originally Posted by Spartarus

I've been around plenty long enough to know that we're just going agree to disagree. I have a different perspective on the issue than you do.

I can also understand why you find it irritating. I find different things irritating.

So, I'll go briefly off topic to explain my perspective.

Points of comparison vary in importance. Some people find warranties important, some find them irrelevant. Warranties don't add value for everybody. I bought both my FRS and S2000 without warranties. The age and condition of the car is an expense factor for some, and an aesthetic factor for others.

The new to new price comparison is moot because the cars share no production years. I paid less for my S2000 than I did for my FRS. So did everybody else who sat down and compared them when the FRS was new... There were no new S2000's to compare prices with. The price point on the date of purchase is the only relevant price. It's an open market.

On a curious note, the cheapest used FRS's are now cheaper than the most expensive used S2000's. The market will eventually correct, and then the nature of the comparison will change. Perhaps the S will go the way of the NSX and jump way up in price... Perhaps the used FRS's will bottom out a 5K... Perhaps they will reverse...

Part of the nature of comparing used cars to new ones is your dollars can potentially go further with a used car. Just because you can buy more car for less money, doesn't mean two cars are incomparable. There are tradeoffs with both options. That's what comparisons are for. To figure out which tradeoffs you are willing to live with.

I'm willing to put up with a tiny, misshapen trunk and an old radio because I like the engine and transmission better.

Back on topic then:

I also disagree with the power vs price argument. There's a pervasive myth that adding power would automatically increase price. I don't think that's true.

The WRX starts in the exact same price range as the BRZ, with 4 doors, a turbo, and 60 more horsepower. It also, coincidentally, shares a version of the FA20. It would not have been an undue burden for Subaru/Toyota to drop in a 260 HP engine without changing the price. The price for a release series 1.0 or series.blue would nearly buy you an STI, which gets to drag around a little over 300 HP. Instead it buys you a cheap body kit and an exhaust. That's what the marketing people decided would work and sell. These are marketing decisions, not technical decisions.

If you listen to the feedback from the market, it's clear that the disappointing sales are a result of completely missing the mark on power. That's literally everybody's first comment. It's the first argument that gets made about the car. It's the white elephant that every journalist, owner, and prospective buyer has to deal with. It's clear that's what held it back. It's the first question you have to answer to every other enthusiast. Leaving the power alone is not automatic, it's a decision you have to justify to people.

If they had substantially improved on already available cars, nobody would hear a peep about the S2000, the Z cars, the Genesis, or the Mustang.

The thing that made the S2000 special when it was new is that is was cheaper than comparable cars, and it outperformed them. It wasn't just cheaper. People were looking for that kind of impact from the FT-86 platform, and they didn't get it.

It doesn't mean it's a bad car, it just means that the development people made a big mistake, and owners of the car are going to hear about it until long after they get sick of hearing about it.

Funny the most common complaint the AP1 had was the relatively lack of low end torque which AP2 addressed and yet the car is overpriced on used car market. As for the 86 I see this car as more of a RWD BB6 Prelude/DC2 Integra.

I respectfully disagree that the developers made a mistake it kept true to the past fun to drive RWD Corollas not just the AE86 but also from back in the 70-80's one that's practical and cheap to maintain. Sure who doesn't want a turbo charged version but are we willing to fork over 30K before taxes?

It seems that its us Americans that are b:&;&: and whining about lack of power were too lazy on the foot. It's suppose to reward skilled driving rather than brute power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk