"Underpowered"... compared to...?

[Shizuma]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

haha okay.

so in your reality dodge challengers should be winning all the autocross competitions across the nation.

It's not my reality, it's actual reality, and road tests prove as such, you can argue all you want but numbers don't lie, sure the 86 is a great car, I own a BRZ and love it, but it's still not a fast car, my previous Dodge Magnum RT station wagon was faster, but it does have a good base to make it an amazing fast car, but as is from the factory, nope, it's not, nor is it an econo box, it's somewhere in the middle, pretty good fuel economy, decent performance and good handle, which was what I was looking for, if I was going for straight out performance and didn't care about fuel economy I would have gone with the Challenger which honestly is more practical too as it has a lot more space to carry stuff/people.

Lateral acceleration:
BRZ .90g
Challenger .89g

Figure 8:
BRZ 26.2 sec @ 0.68 g (avg)
Challenger25.9 sec @ .68 g (avg)

0-60 / 1/4 mile:
BRZ 6.4 sec / 14.9 sec @ 95.5 mph
Challenger 5.0 sec / 13.5 sec @ 105.9 mph

Braking 60-0:
BRZ 120 ft
Challenger 112 ft

Both cars have the same front/rear weight balance, and both cars come with shitty tires in terms of traction.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html

[wbradley]

I'd much rather do a controlled drift in a 2750 lb car vs. the Challenger. On the other hand, a professional driver will do better than me with the Challenger.

I'd like to see the numbers comparison when the tests are performed by average drivers. Mass and momentum are tough to work against.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

do you know about this thing called physics?


the biggest issue with measuring exit speeds is that skill requirements go up exponentially for every additional kilometer

it doesn't take much to look at any form of SPEC racing and realize the huge gap of skill and ability that exists in such a small sample of drivers.

but since no one is ever going to admit that they are a bad driver, they will simply blame their car or praise the car of their competitor

i am aware of that thing. what im failing to understand is what that has to do with the fact that i dont think the frs will have exit speeds that much faster than cars like the cobalt. in fact, as i read that post, it almost sounds like youre making my point

[CBR600RR]

Originally Posted by Shizuma

I think people vastly overestimate the handing of this car compared with other cars, sure it handles great for a small little cheap sports car, but in reality a 4200+ pound Dodge Challenger R/T is just as fast around the curves and a figure 8 as the 86, and with almost double the horsepower and almost triple the torque for not that much more money.

maybe you should have bought a Challenger???

[SUB-FT86]

I can't wait to drive this car so bad!!! I wonder if anyone has ever driven a automatic RSX in comparison to a automatic FRS/BRZ? When I look at torque to the wheels its saying my RSX auto makes 1600+ tq to the ground but the FRS/BRZ auto makes 2200 tq to the ground and both cars weigh the same. I am wondering with the better gearing and 11 extra torque would I feel a difference acceleration wise under 6k rpms? I think I should since the numbers to the ground doesn't lie.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i am aware of that thing. what im failing to understand is what that has to do with the fact that i dont think the frs will have exit speeds that much faster than cars like the cobalt. in fact, as i read that post, it almost sounds like youre making my point

go to a racetrack

ask any driver of a heavy car if they wish theirs was lighter

production cars are all hammered into single file because no manufacturer would make a cheap car that could do over 1g in a turn

see what the numbers end up when you step up the tire, i can guarantee you that the performance of the challenger will not go up as much as the frs

NOT TO MENTION the concept of tire life and track longevity, heavier cars overheat their tires and brakes sooner, a 20 minute session will have the challenger dropping times by whole seconds lap after lap once the components overheat.

[Shizuma]

Originally Posted by CBR600RR

maybe you should have bought a Challenger???

The Challenger is a fast car with a V8 so it doesn't have the fuel economy I wanted, if I didn't care about fuel economy and just wanted performance I would have, or stuck with my Dodge Magnum RT, high gas prices and friends living an hour and a half away meant I needed something more fuel efficient while still being pretty sporty, the BRZ fell perfectly into that compromise area I was looking for, not too slow, but also not a gas guzzler.

Originally Posted by 7thgear

see what the numbers end up when you step up the tire, i can guarantee you that the performance of the challenger will not go up as much as the frs

The Challenger comes with even crappier tires stock than the 86 does, all season goodyear eagle RS-A's, aweful tires that Dodge is obsessed with, when I bought some 20" wheels off a Charger SRT for my Magnum it had those OEM tires still and my Dodge Dakota R/T 5.9 had them as well.


It just annoys me that this seems to be the case on any car forum I've ever been on, guys who are so close minded that if it isn't the car they drive then it sucks and is obviously inferior.

[CBR600RR]

Originally Posted by Shizuma

The Challenger is a fast car with a V8 so it doesn't have the fuel economy I wanted, if I didn't care about fuel economy and just wanted performance I would have, or stuck with my Dodge Magnum RT, high gas prices and friends living an hour and a half away meant I needed something more fuel efficient while still being pretty sporty, the BRZ fell perfectly into that compromise area I was looking for, not too slow, but also not a gas guzzler..

Thats a valid point.

In Canada out cas prices are significantly highere than in the US I pay about $60 to fill the tank from empty with 94 octane

[wbradley]

Sorry but the Challenger is not considered a spirited handler, the 86 is. Numbers can be deceiving if the average Joe isn't able to wring out the performance numbers you have posted. I will bet you anything that the average driver will have a shorter lap time in the 86 one time, first time except in a drag or oval track. It is a very user friendly handler, so the performance is accessible to more drivers.THAT is the difference.

Between Camaro, Mustang and Challenger I'm pretty sure we would have third place for handling.

[Shizuma]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Sorry but the Challenger is not considered a spirited handler, the 86 is. Numbers can be deceiving if the average Joe isn't able to wring out the performance numbers you have posted. I will bet you anything that the average driver will have a shorter lap time in the 86 one time, first time except in a drag or oval track. It is a very user friendly handler, so the performance is accessible to more drivers.THAT is the difference.

And your average Joe isn't going to wring those performance numbers out of the 86 either. While I haven't driven the Challenger I owned a Dodge Magnum RT for 8 years and the Challenger is just based off a slightly shortened wheelbase version of the Magnum's platform, that being said while you can certainly feel the weight with the body roll on the Magnum is is also a very friendly handler, it doesn't catch you by surprise when the rear end starts to drift out and it's very balanced, the Magnum was actually more so with a near perfect 51/49 weight balance.

One of my exes who was also into cars and drove a 91 300ZX and she was thoroughly impressed with how quickly I could down windy roads with sharp turns in that car, 2 ton boat or not, a good set of grippy tires and that car's handling was impressive, especially when you could do that with 5 full size adults and cargo in the car.

[7thgear]

^

take your boat

go to an autocross

get killed by gutless fiestas and rusty civics

learn a lesson

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

go to a racetrack

ask any driver of a heavy car if they wish theirs was lighter

production cars are all hammered into single file because no manufacturer would make a cheap car that could do over 1g in a turn

see what the numbers end up when you step up the tire, i can guarantee you that the performance of the challenger will not go up as much as the frs

NOT TO MENTION the concept of tire life and track longevity, heavier cars overheat their tires and brakes sooner, a 20 minute session will have the challenger dropping times by whole seconds lap after lap once the components overheat.

again, i fail to see how wanting a lighter car or the performance of a challenger has anything to do with the fact that i dont think the frs will have that much higher exit speeds over the cobalt ss

[Superhatch]

Originally Posted by Shizuma

Lateral acceleration:
BRZ .90g
Challenger .89g

Figure 8:
BRZ 26.2 sec @ 0.68 g (avg)
Challenger25.9 sec @ .68 g (avg)

0-60 / 1/4 mile:
BRZ 6.4 sec / 14.9 sec @ 95.5 mph
Challenger 5.0 sec / 13.5 sec @ 105.9 mph

Braking 60-0:
BRZ 120 ft
Challenger 112 ft

Both cars have the same front/rear weight balance, and both cars come with shitty tires in terms of traction.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html

Did you just quote SRT8 numbers? I think you did.

Because here is what they say about the SE (which is in the twins price range, the SRT8 is 41K starting)

Price as tested $24,790
0-60 mph 7.3 sec
Quarter mile 15.6 sec @ 90.3 mph
Lateral acceleration 0.83 g (avg)
MT figure eight 28.4 sec @ 0.59 g (avg)

Are there any other 41K cars you want to compare the FRS/BRZ to?

[7thgear]

you can think all you want