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

[Shizuma]

Originally Posted by Superhatch

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

Nope, if you clicked the links I posted to the two articles you would have seen I quoted the R/T's numbers, which starts at 29,995 which is still a bit more than an 86, but my point is a big boat of a coupe like that can still pull the same numbers as an 86, the 86 handles really well, but it's not godly good like a lot of people on here seem to make it out to be.

[Superhatch]

Sorry...I was looking at a 2009 motortrend article.

I disagree that the two are in the same handling class though. Figure 8, and skidpad only tell a small story of what a car does on a track, or on the street.

Ideally I'd like to check lap times, and even more ideally I'd like to see lap times without professional drivers.

Remember the Randy Pobst video where he drove the 86 and the Track Pack Mustang? While the two might look similar on paper, Randy clearly pointed out some of the flaws the mustang had with corner entry, and quick directional changes. Not only that but put it on any track where you need to use curbs and the solid rear axle really becomes a detriment. Know why they have a Laguna Seca version? No high curbs on that track.

http://www.newcartestdrive.com/revie...&ReviewID=5038

The Challenger is too big and heavy to merit any consideration as a sports car and isn't ideal for tossing around on tight racetracks or mountain roads.

I've never heard any reviewer ever say anything remotely like this about the FRS/BRZ. Numbers aren't everything.

[SUB-FT86]

This is going to sound funny but when I drove the 86/GC3.8Track/370Z in Forza 4/Gran Turismo 5 the 86 was the best when it came to tackling aggressive corners. I love driving it in the game more than the other two but that doesn't mean I don't like the others.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by Shizuma

34 highway is the EPA for the automatic, but the manual is only 30MPG due to different gearing, and 30MPG highway really is poor for a 200hp 2.0L 4 cylinder, the Hyundai Genesis coupe's 274hp 2.0 turbo also get's 30MPG highway on the manual, the Ford Mustang's 305hp 3.7L v6 gets 29MPG highway for the manual and the Chevy Camaro's 323hp 3.6L gets 28MPG for the manual, all produce significantly more hp and have around the same hp, and for the same hp range the Hyundai Veloster turbo's 200hp 1.6L turbo gets 38MPG highway with the manual.

Ive gotten 450 miles out of one tank... Do the math... You can easily surpass the EPA in these cars...

[CBR600RR]

^really??? I've only managed 340 miles.. then again i wasn't really baby-ing it

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Superhatch

Numbers aren't everything.

That's all you needed to say right there.

Case in point: the Challenger R/T and FR-S might put up similar handling numbers, but a blind chimp could tell you the difference behind the wheel. Honestly, if you can't tell the difference, you need to put down the magazines and start driving the cars.

[jarviz]

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

Under torqued is probably more correct than under powered (horsepower). Of course one is a function of the other.

As for the OP question: When I have said the car is under powered, I have not been comparing it to anything but itself. I don't care how much power other cars have. I only car about mine.

In many corners, on my drive to work, I find myself at about 5000rpm with my foot to the floor, begging for just a little more power. This car can handle it for sure, without upsetting the balance of the car. 20-30 more horses, and getting rid of the torque dip would be perfect.

just curious... what gear are you on and how fast are you taking these turns?

[Shizuma]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

Ive gotten 450 miles out of one tank... Do the math... You can easily surpass the EPA in these cars...

You can easily surpass the EPA numbers on any car depending on how you drive it, I've gotten 500 miles on a tank on my BRZ, over 38MPG, I also got a bit over 500 miles on a tank on my Magnum RT before, about 27 MPG and it's highway EPA is 23 MPG.

[wbradley]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

^

take your boat

go to an autocross

get killed by gutless fiestas and rusty civics

learn a lesson

[Slartibartfast]

Originally Posted by jarviz

just curious... what gear are you on and how fast are you taking these turns?

One is a second gear corner, the other two are third gear.

Speed? Don't really pay attention to that. The one third gear corner I enter at about 90ish.

[ABQautoxer]

I find it funny comparing the Challenger to a BRZ/FRS. Apples to oranges, nothing wrong with either but it's a weird cross shop though I'm sure it will happen. This is the problem I have the Genesis comparisons. I own a GC and have test driven 3 FRS, the only thing they have in common is the basic 2+2 RWD layout. Drive them back to back and its as different as it can be. I'm a decent autocrosser and I can tell you give me all day to have a stock challenger match a stock FRS/BRZ time on an autox course or even match minimum apex speeds and it's not going to happen. Exploit them both to SCCA stock legal rules and the difference will become greater. Then factor in if one car is easier to achieve with less talent and/or more consistency. The 86s are in such a unique spot in that nothing I can think of honestly compares directly, most that come close are 2 seaters and the ones that are 4 seaters tend to be much more on the power side than handling side.

PS - where's the slalom time comparison for the cars?

[Tbomb 25]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

^

take your boat

go to an autocross

get killed by gutless fiestas and rusty civics

learn a lesson

Im with you on the Challenger v6 but not the RT, a SRT8 Chally, a Boss 302 or a Camaro ZL1 wouldnt see tailights to any civic or fiesta on any track or autocross course. Again i think everyone is confusing a poorly set up heavy car verses a well set up large car.

[Tbomb 25]

Originally Posted by Superhatch

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?

What performance minded person would by the v6 challenger? when you can buy the RT for under 29k all day long,thats utter useless nonsence....

[Tbomb 25]

Originally Posted by Superhatch

Sorry...I was looking at a 2009 motortrend article.

I disagree that the two are in the same handling class though. Figure 8, and skidpad only tell a small story of what a car does on a track, or on the street.

Ideally I'd like to check lap times, and even more ideally I'd like to see lap times without professional drivers.

Remember the Randy Pobst video where he drove the 86 and the Track Pack Mustang? While the two might look similar on paper, Randy clearly pointed out some of the flaws the mustang had with corner entry, and quick directional changes. Not only that but put it on any track where you need to use curbs and the solid rear axle really becomes a detriment. Know why they have a Laguna Seca version? No high curbs on that track.

http://www.newcartestdrive.com/revie...&ReviewID=5038



I've never heard any reviewer ever say anything remotely like this about the FRS/BRZ. Numbers aren't everything.

Funny thing is that that numbers are much more important than this forum says they are numbers can and usually do translate into real world situations....and bringing up the boss 302 is pretty stupid....even if the twins had more power it would slaughter them around any track...