Flat Engine Goodness

[TommyW]

Originally Posted by 2013dgmbrzdood

Ps a 74 911 was incredibly slow. If indeed it was not slow and it and the brz are fast what do you consider a new 911 let alone a tt.

Well, I drove a 911 TT for years and it's a very fast car however the speed was really non useable that often. A thrilling car to drive but a car with such high limits isn't really that practical. Those cars have their place just as an 86 has it's place. Fast and slow are relative terms. So then you have someone driving a Veyron that would consider the 911TT slow in comparison......

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by VTEC

I've actually said before that the FR-S is pretty slow for a performance car.

Now that ^ is the right way to say it!

[venturaII]

Sports cars have always been slower than their more mundane counterparts. An MGA from the 50's and a Buick from the same era are a good example; the Buick will leave it for dead in a straight line, but the MG was meant to shine elsewhere, and it does. Look at Triumphs and early BMWs from the 60's and 70s - dog slow compared to the average station wagon. It's hard to imagine anything slower than early 80's cars from Detroit, until you get into an X1/9 from the same era. Don't drive the twins if you have a frail ego. Mustang is the answer for that.

[Gil Scott Heron]

Originally Posted by venturaII

Look at Triumphs and early BMWs from the 60's and 70s - dog slow compared to the average station wagon. It's hard to imagine anything slower than early 80's cars from Detroit, until you get into an X1/9 from the same era. Don't drive the twins if you have a frail ego. Mustang is the answer for that.

I can't imagine any low end Euro sports car being slower than my first car, a 1984 Cutlass Supreme Coupe 3.8L.

Talk about slow... you ain't lived until you've attempted to pass on a two lane highway in an early 1980s domestic mid-size car with a v6.

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by Gil Scott Heron

I can't imagine any low end Euro sports car being slower than my first car, a 1984 Cutlass Supreme Coupe 3.8L.

Talk about slow... you ain't lived until you've attempted to pass on a two lane highway in an early 1980s domestic mid-size car with a v6.

Oh, I've lived it, trust me. Take a ride in a bone stock X1/9 (if any still exist...). Or a late 70's MGB. Painfully slow. I started driving in the early 80s with a Fiat 128, and let's just say my buddy's '78 V6 Monte Carlo (same as your Oldsmobuick) was a missile compared to it. Not that that's saying much...lol. Or an early Scirocco to a Dodge K-car...practically a dead heat. You had to go pretty far upmarket to find a sports car that would offer decent (at that time) straight line performance.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by venturaII

Sports cars have always been slower than their more mundane counterparts. An MGA from the 50's and a Buick from the same era are a good example; the Buick will leave it for dead in a straight line, but the MG was meant to shine elsewhere, and it does. Look at Triumphs and early BMWs from the 60's and 70s - dog slow compared to the average station wagon. It's hard to imagine anything slower than early 80's cars from Detroit, until you get into an X1/9 from the same era. Don't drive the twins if you have a frail ego. Mustang is the answer for that.

LOL I did some brief comparisons and the results are hilarious.
These:
1973 Lincoln Town Car 0-60 mph 10.3


1973 Chevrolet Caprice Classic 0-60 mph 8.6





VS:


1976 MG MGB 0-60 mph 18.4


1970 Lotus Europa S2 0-60 mph 11.0



1973 Porsche 914 0-60 mph 12.4


1974 Triumph Spitfire Mk IV 0-60 mph 15.8


1974 Ford Mustang II (Manual) 0-60 mph 14.1

[Sapphireho]

Funny how this turned into another "twins are fast/slow" thread.

[Gil Scott Heron]

I'm rather enjoying the twist the thread took into the comparison of sports car acceleration vs. domestic sedan acceleration.

IIRC, my '84 Cutlass v6 would do 0-60 around 12 seconds and I'm assuming the quarter mile in about 17-18 seconds. My highschool buddy's 1972 Ford F-100 pickup truck with a 390 ci. v8 dusted me off a few times driving down those south GA dirt roads. Good times...

Behemoth 1973 Impala (pictured above) performing 0-60 in 8.3 seconds must have been optioned with the 454 ci. Such big heavy cars those were back then.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Gil Scott Heron

Behemoth 1973 Impala (pictured above) performing 0-60 in 8.3 seconds must have been optioned with the 454 ci. Such big heavy cars those were back then.

454 Turbo Jet
248 HP/ 375 torque
3 speed Hydra-Matic tranny
4400 pounds

Even the normal 400 (150hp) would do 0 to 60 in 13 seconds.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

Funny how this turned into another "twins are fast/slow" thread.

OK, back on topic then.
Household flat engine goodness.
Neither is "fast".
Both are spectacular!

[revaholic]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

OK, back on topic then.
Household flat engine goodness.
Neither is "fast".
Both are spectacular!

Nice new Prezzy man, I hear that they improved the handling a lot. How does it feel compared to your FRS?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by revaholic

Nice new Prezzy man, I hear that they improved the handling a lot. How does it feel compared to your FRS?

So close that is actually sort of weird. It is the Sport Tech so has the sport tuned suspension, bigger brakes, torque vectoring, and the steering gear is lifted straight out of the BRZ including the exact same assist with the same ratios). It is of course AWD so you can't kick the rear out but it will take a turn that would have most cars in it's class going squirrely on you. The biggest change over the previous generations is that they really firmed it up. The stiffness comes across very well when you hit some turns since there is hardly any body flex at all. The other big difference is in overall fit and finish. If it wasn't for the badges you would have a hard time guessing it was a Subaru. Now, it is no speed demon since it uses the lower compression NA FB20 engine putting out 152hp but even that has been improved a bit over the last gen since they went to direct injection.
All in all it is a great platform and when they switch the WRX/STi over to it they will have a real winner on their hands.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

LOL I did some brief comparisons and the results are hilarious.
These:
1973 Lincoln Town Car 0-60 mph 10.3
1973 Chevrolet Caprice Classic 0-60 mph 8.6
...

an interesting source for comparing this can be found on AutoSnout.com where the list 100's of 0-60 and quarter-mile times for cars. Amazing how varied the list can be, and how many supercars we all think were fast can be outrun by the Soccer Mom Van....

The Twins show up at 7.3.

[revaholic]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

So close that is actually sort of weird. It is the Sport Tech so has the sport tuned suspension, bigger brakes, torque vectoring, and the steering gear is lifted straight out of the BRZ including the exact same assist with the same ratios). It is of course AWD so you can't kick the rear out but it will take a turn that would have most cars in it's class going squirrely on you. The biggest change over the previous generations is that they really firmed it up. The stiffness comes across very well when you hit some turns since there is hardly any body flex at all. The other big difference is in overall fit and finish. If it wasn't for the badges you would have a hard time guessing it was a Subaru. Now, it is no speed demon since it uses the lower compression NA FB20 engine putting out 152hp but even that has been improved a bit over the last gen since they went to direct injection.
All in all it is a great platform and when they switch the WRX/STi over to it they will have a real winner on their hands.

That's incredible to hear that it actually feels a lot like a BRZ!