Miata to BRZ

[CAPSLOCK]

Originally Posted by TommyW

The mx5 was a great car however I'm just not a convertible guy and how 'bout that body roll folks?.

Thats exactly why I removed my soft top, bolted on my hardtop, and run it year round.

Originally Posted by NCtoBRZ

The NB, as you mentioned, felt a bit wheezy. The NC was actually pretty quick, and my NC had the suspension pack with LSD and Bilstein shock absorbers so it handled beautifully.

I literally couldn't disagree with you more here. The NB is as light and nimble as the NA with additional chassis stiffening without the sacrifice of added weight. The NC is so heavy and slow and such a departure from the original that they couldn't justify naming it a Miata.

[NCtoBRZ]

Originally Posted by CAPSLOCK

Thats exactly why I removed my soft top, bolted on my hardtop, and run it year round.



I literally couldn't disagree with you more here. The NB is as light and nimble as the NA with additional chassis stiffening without the sacrifice of added weight. The NC is so heavy and slow and such a departure from the original that they couldn't justify naming it a Miata.

Saying the NC is “so heavy” is usually just the same regurgitated thing that people who haven’t actually looked up the numbers or spent time driving one like to say. In reality, the NC soft-top (~2,450lbs.) is within 50-150lbs the weight of a NA with the 1.8 (~2300lbs.)or the NB (~2400lbs). The NC has a more powerful engine and stiffer chassis than the NA/NB and is significantly faster 0-60 and handles better than the previous generations. They are all fun cars... but the NC performs better.

[NCtoBRZ]

Originally Posted by guybo

I don't really understand "torque vectoring". Isn't that really just using the brakes strategically to do what a LSD would do a lot better without slowing down?

A lot of people say the only reason to get a manual is because it's faster and now that automatic tech has caught up & newer A/T and are as fast as M/T, that's why companies say they are going away from manuals. These people and companies don't get it. Who cares which is faster- GIVE US THE M/T OPTION!

Anyway, I have never owned a MX5. Convertibles make my nose itch, but that new targa top MX5.... That's a hot looking car! I want to do a T-Top or moonroof conversion to my FRS.

Torque vectoring will brake the inside front wheel to sharpen turn-in response, whereas an LSD only acts on the drive wheels to maintain optimal drive traction. I agree about the manual transmissions... every time the manual vs. auto conversation comes up, folks with autos like to mention how autos are faster than manuals these days (which is only true for a few select vehicles) while completely missing the point that a manual transmission gives an extra level of connection with the driving experience that an automatic just can’t.
I test drove a Miata RF with Brembo package today, it made my nose itch a bit but it certainly only made my decision about the next car that much harder!

[ermax]

An LSD isn’t only good for maintaining “optimum” traction though. I think that is where the marketing gets it partly wrong. On an open diff when you give it too much power it spins the inside wheel but the outside wheel ends up maintaining traction. On a locker when you give too much power both wheels will lose traction. Sure the power output needed to reach this point is higher on an LSD but the point is you can power oversteer with an LSD in a way which is not possible without an LSD due to the inability to spin the outside wheel with the open diff.

Manufacturers play on people’s misunderstanding that an LSD is solely a traction control device and then cheap out using electronics to simulate an LSD.

[Adam_L]

Originally Posted by NCtoBRZ

I’m no stranger to peaky powerbands, having owned an S2000 before, but the BRZ didn’t have the high RPM payoff that the S2000 had.

"Payoff" ? How is that, exactly a payoff ?

It's all about low-mid rpm range torque, that's where the real ummmppfff is at.

Friggin Honda

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ermax

An LSD isn’t only good for maintaining “optimum” traction though. I think that is where the marketing gets it partly wrong. On an open diff when you give it too much power it spins the inside wheel but the outside wheel ends up maintaining traction. On a locker when you give too much power both wheels will lose traction. Sure the power output needed to reach this point is higher on an LSD but the point is you can power oversteer with an LSD in a way which is not possible without an LSD due to the inability to spin the outside wheel with the open diff.

Manufacturers play on people’s misunderstanding that an LSD is solely a traction control device and then cheap out using electronics to simulate an LSD.

Except when a torsen diff loses traction I think it just acts like an open diff.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by fatoni

Except when a torsen diff loses traction I think it just acts like an open diff.

The only time it acts like an open diff is if you pick up the inside wheel. For a Torsten to lock it needs resistance on both wheels. A spinning wheel offers enough resistance to lock but a wheel in the air does not.

[NCtoBRZ]

Originally Posted by Adam_L

"Payoff" ? How is that, exactly a payoff ?

It's all about low-mid rpm range torque, that's where the real ummmppfff is at.

Friggin Honda

I’ll assume this comment is loaded with sarcasm, considering the fa20 is lacking low-mid torque just as the f20c/f22c in the s2000 is. The payoff in the s2000 is that all of that revving delivers a strong punch of acceleration starting around 6k rpms and a peak of 240hp (which is likely underrated from the factory). With the fa20, you just keep revving but nothing much happens.

[Adam_L]

I'm not comparing the FA20 to the S2k engine. If you want a 2 seater, convertible that's fun at an affordable price then the S2K could be the ticket. Comparing the S2k to a Twin isn't close to apples to apples (different manufacture, different era, totally different cars).

If you want real deal payoff of getting some gumption of hp/torque from an engine at low/mid RPM, then it's unlikely going to be a 4cyl engine , in comparison to a H6 (Cayman S, Carrera S) , I5 , I6, or V8. Either of those will give you a good/nice torque curve safely, without having to go Turbo/Supercharger route.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by NCtoBRZ

I’ll assume this comment is loaded with sarcasm, considering the fa20 is lacking low-mid torque just as the f20c/f22c in the s2000 is.

The FA20 is actually quite a bit better than the F20C for low-midrange torque. Here they are tested on the same dyno (ignore the blue and green lines):



Looking at the torque curves, you can see the FA20 (even with the infamous torque dip) handily outperforms the F20C everywhere below 6000 RPM.

In some ways the FA20 is like an F20C lite version. Its "payoff" starts at 4400 RPM and runs to 7400 RPM (3000 RPM peak torque spread, 200 hp max). The F20C is like the big brother. The payoff is from 6000 to 9000 RPM (also 3000 RPM peak torque spread, but max at 240 hp).

The difference is the FA20 also makes that same peak torque from 2400 to 3200 RPM which is good for daily driving.

[ermax]

Having driven an AP1 and AP2 I would say in normal day to day driving the FA20 has the AP1 beat but about even with the AP2. The AP2 is dramatically better than the AP1 at low RPMs. But the S2000 pulls so hard all the way to redline. On paper the FA20 pulls to redline but it just feels flat on the but dyno compared to the S2000. My biggest problem with the FA20 is that dip. It's fine for day to day casual driving and good when you wind out every gear to redline but if you want something in between casual and full on ragging the FA20 really sucks because you basically fall in that dip on each shift.

[NCtoBRZ]

Originally Posted by Adam_L

I'm not comparing the FA20 to the S2k engine. If you want a 2 seater, convertible that's fun at an affordable price then the S2K could be the ticket. Comparing the S2k to a Twin isn't close to apples to apples (different manufacture, different era, totally different cars)...

But I specifically was comparing the S2000 to the “Twin”, so my comment of the s2000 having a “payoff” for all of the revving in the form of 240hp applies to the point I was making. I am ok with a relative lack of torque if there is a nice punch of power in the upper RPM range, which the twins just don’t deliver. The s2000 and the Twins have more in common than not... both are front engine, rear drive, 6 speed manual, ~2,800 lbs and have high revving 4 cylinder engines.

Originally Posted by ermax

Having driven an AP1 and AP2 I would say in normal day to day driving the FA20 has the AP1 beat but about even with the AP2. The AP2 is dramatically better than the AP1 at low RPMs. But the S2000 pulls so hard all the way to redline. On paper the FA20 pulls to redline but it just feels flat on the but dyno compared to the S2000. My biggest problem with the FA20 is that dip. It's fine for day to day casual driving and good when you wind out every gear to redline but if you want something in between casual and full on ragging the FA20 really sucks because you basically fall in that dip on each shift.

Thanks for saving me the typing of explaining all of this... people seem to forget about the 2.2 liter found in the AP2 (which is what I previously owned). If you shift close to redline, that engine just keeps pulling.

[Adam_L]

But to get it to 7-8K rpm redline all that takes time and more gas as well. It's really all relative. I don't consider them "similar" in the fact that 1. S2K is strictly a 2 seater , and 2. S2K is convertible (different category).

Straight line is straight line, surely the S2K should beat the Twins. However if it's all about speed, then get a turbo/supercharged car, I6, V6, H6, or V8 with 350+ hp/torque then you're talking real deal speed. That's the route I'd go if that's what my agenda was= fastest 1/4 mile, or 0-70mph. The Twins chassis is stiffer the S2K, thus you'd think would hold up better at high speed manuvers.

[NCtoBRZ]

Originally Posted by Adam_L

But to get it to 7-8K rpm redline all that takes time and more gas as well. It's really all relative. I don't consider them "similar" in the fact that 1. S2K is strictly a 2 seater , and 2. S2K is convertible (different category).

Straight line is straight line, surely the S2K should beat the Twins. However if it's all about speed, then get a turbo/supercharged car, I6, V6, H6, or V8 with 350+ hp/torque then you're talking real deal speed. That's the route I'd go if that's what my agenda was= fastest 1/4 mile, or 0-70mph. The Twins chassis is stiffer the S2K, thus you'd think would hold up better at high speed manuvers.

I think you misunderstood my original point and it sent the conversation into left field. My point in mentioning the S2000 was to demonstrate that the BRZ was not the first high-revving 4 cylinder that I’ve driven, so I wasn’t expecting much low to mid range punch... but the twins are lacking throughout the powerband. Even the 167 horsepower 4 cylinder in the NC Miata has much more satisfying power delivery as does the 155 horsepower piece in the ND Miata. It’s just a bit... odd how weak the lump in the BRZ feels given that it has a decent output for an NA 4 cylinder of 205 horsepower.

If it was “all about speed” I wouldn’t have owned a long line of small, light 4 cylinder cars. The BRZ handles beautifully, which is why I am still strongly considering it despite the lackluster power delivery.