FR-S vs. 370z, end all be all of discussions

[2forme]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Call it a frustrated boner for the FR-S

I really, really wanted the car to be... well something it's just not, and I'm irritated that Toyota glossed over performance by chaging the rules on how it's assessed.

I loved my Celica -- this car was intended to be the replacement, but if I had kept my Celica, I probably would have been torn once I realized that the FR-S would have felt slow and awkward unless I sank another 5-10 grand into it.

More "meaningless" numbers I found...

RX8 - Mean Skid = .896 g's, Mean slalom = 67.5, braking 60-0 114' (better grip, a bit slower, better braking)

Mx-5 - Mean skid = .895, mean slalom = 64.15, braking 60-0 = 117' (better grip, a bit slower, better braking)

Oh well. Like I said, good thing its not about the numbers -- ANY numbers.

And to whomever said the Z is awkward, heavy,whatever, it's not. The numbers speak for themselves -- unless you ignore them because they don't matter...

Again, I think the car is beautiful and nicely designed, but it needs better brakes, better rubber, more power, and way more torque. And that means you will be spending around 5-10 grand to get it there... I just wish Toyota had offered that car too.

I really wanted to discover that it shined in handling and braking... but it doesn't. Period.

BTW: Why lock the thread? I'm not the only one who would like to see a "super sport" version. At worst, this will open discussion about what needs to be improved. My criticisms are based on data (gasp! heretic!), not on just coming in here to troll (you believe me, right... ).

Do we need three hundred threads here on tinting windows?

You're not seeing my point, man. Quote all the numbers you want, but unless all the variables are the same (driver, tires, day, track, temperature etc), then it's vague assumptions at best. It makes it relatively impossible to compare the two credibly. But that's the name of the game, vague assumption.

I've driven quite a few "sports" cars in my day. The BRZ impressed me more than a 350, RX-8, Mustang, and even my old Celica. You're referring to an FR-S, which is technically the same car, but with much better options. Which is a major reason as to why it's an upgrade from my Celica.

I just get irritated when people start arguing for the sake of making themselves feel better, rather than prove an actual fact. It's apparent when reading a lot of these posts, but that's they way it goes I suppose. The 350/370 IS a sports car, just rather bland.

[crazyyankeefan]

Originally Posted by 2forme

You're not seeing my point, man. Quote all the numbers you want, but unless all the variables are the same (driver, tires, day, track, temperature etc), then it's vague assumptions at best. It makes it relatively impossible to compare the two credibly. But that's the name of the game, vague assumption.

I've driven quite a few "sports" cars in my day. The BRZ impressed me more than a 350, RX-8, Mustang, and even my old Celica. You're referring to an FR-S, which is technically the same car, but with much better options. Which is a major reason as to why it's an upgrade from my Celica.

I just get irritated when people start arguing for the sake of making themselves feel better, rather than prove an actual fact. It's apparent when reading a lot of these posts, but that's they way it goes I suppose. The 350/370 IS a sports car, just rather bland.

I thought he actually used real numbers to make his argument, did he not?

[2forme]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

I thought he actually used real numbers to make his argument, did he not?

"Real" is arbitrary. That's what I mean.

[Max Schnell]

So did we figure out a definition of sports car yet? Because you know, without agreeing on the definition...

[industrial]

Originally Posted by Max Schnell

So did we figure out a definition of sports car yet? Because you know, without agreeing on the definition...

From wikipedia.

A sports car (sportscar or sport car) is a small, usually two seat, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling. Sports cars may be spartan or luxurious but high maneuverability and minimum weight are requisite.

Seems pretty spot on. Moving on, let's get a hard definition for "spirited performance", "nimble handling", "high maneuverability" and "minimum weight". (hint: it's subjective)

[phm14]

Originally Posted by blu_

You keep saying Miatas have a lower COG, yet there is no evidence for this besides people trying to calculate it out on forums. As for the rest of your post and others, it just seems like everyone here is trying to justify their purchase using knowledge gained from top gear or the internets as opposed to just enjoying their cars.

If someone wanted to purchase a used Miata for a cheap fun track car, then they probably would have done it.

If someone wanted a 370Z for a good V6 FR setup, then they probably would have done it.

Obviously the people here who bought BRZ's or FRS did so because it made sense to them. Its a great small, light, economical, sports car with more utility than its convertible cousins.

Now Im sure this thread will go on for another 50 pages with the same strawman arguments about why various cars are, or are not, better than the GT86/BRZ/FRS...

Exactly.

This is my previous car. Before that, I owned a S2000CR. Couldn't have made the 6200 mile road trip I just finished in the 86 with either of those cars. For me, the FRS strikes the perfect balance of handling, economy, and utility. It's a blast to drive, and I like the looks of it. I no longer have to leave my favorite car in the garage for road trips.

[blu_]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Call it a frustrated boner for the FR-S

I really, really wanted the car to be... well something it's just not, and I'm irritated that Toyota glossed over performance by chaging the rules on how it's assessed.

It's not all about what you want. I'm sorry that Toyota and Subaru made a car that isn't marketed for you, but get over it.

Also, saying that a FRS or BRZ isn't a sports is just as stupid as saying a 370Z isn't a sports car. There is a definition that is pretty consistent everywhere except in the minds of fanbois defending their car ego.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

Again, please explain this by using real stats.

Real stat: 370Z weighs 3360 lb. = overweight for a 2-seat sports car, as far as I'm concerned.

You 86 drivers keep bragging about how light the 86 is and how "heavy" the Z is, but you people constantly fail to realize the idea of "power-to-weight".

I drive a 2800 lb. car with over 500hp. I think I understand the ramifications of power/weight! On the street, the power/weight of the FR-S is more than sufficient for how I drive on the street. It's not an issue. But I can feel the difference between driving a 2800 lb. car and a 3300 lb. car even just tooling around at 2/10ths the car's limits.

By calculating power-to-weight ratio, the 86 is actually the one that's overweight.

No, it's just relatively underpowered. Which means very little for 99% of real-world usage.

It's delusional to make the argument of saying the 86 is better than Z, GTR, Lambo, etc just cuz it's lighter

"Better" is of course subjective. For me, the 86 is better than the 370Z.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by industrial

From wikipedia.

A sports car (sportscar or sport car) is a small, usually two seat, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling. Sports cars may be spartan or luxurious but high maneuverability and minimum weight are requisite.

Seems pretty spot on. Moving on, let's get a hard definition for "spirited performance", "nimble handling", "high maneuverability" and "minimum weight". (hint: it's subjective)

No, that's just a qualitative description -- a theoretical definition.

If we want to be less subjective, we can, we just need a logical way to do it.

A logical way would be to review characteristics of cars widely considered to be benchmarks among sports cars (e.g., Porsche, Ferrari, etc.).

When we do that, the FR-S primarily shines in overall design (sleek coupe, FR layout), COG, and overall weight (but, curiously, NOT power to weight). After that... not so much.

I might add, these are also the ONLY hard pieces of non-subjective info mentioned when marketing the car. The rest of the virtues they tout are qualitative.

We might also ask what is the overall importance of various sports car characteristics? How much does each characteristic contribute to the concept of a sports car.

As someone else on here noted, I've never even heard COG discussed before this car was introduced. Power, braking, handling, yes, yes, yes.

Conclusion based on benchmark cars: Layout, overall weight, COG = high marks (but low relative value to ranking in sportscar domain); power, torque, braking, handling = low marks (but high value in ranking to sportscar domain).

Merits as a "sports car" in present form = kinda low

On the other hand... merits as a fun, pretty, relatively inexpensive "sporty" car = high!

Anyway, bring on the "super sport" version.

Please.

[phm14]

BTW, anyone citing the 86 "braking numbers" on skinny tires and stock pads must be unaware that those two items, along with brake fluid, are always upgraded for the track. Aggressive track pads have a huge impact on braking performance. Stock pads in a 3300lb car could easily be fried in one or two aggressive track sessions. May want to gain some actual experience before you run off at the mouth.

[blu_]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

No, that's just a qualitative description -- a theoretical definition.

If we want to be less subjective, we can, we just need a logical way to do it.

A logical way would be to review characteristics of cars widely considered to be benchmarks among sports cars (e.g., Porsche, Ferrari, etc.).

When we do that, the FR-S primarily shines in overall design (sleek coupe, FR layout), COG, and overall weight (but, curiously, NOT power to weight). After that... not so much.

I might add, these are also the ONLY hard pieces of non-subjective info mentioned when marketing the car. The rest of the virtues they tout are qualitative.

We might also ask what is the overall importance of various sports car characteristics? How much does each characteristic contribute to the concept of a sports car.

As someone else on here noted, I've never even heard COG discussed before this car was introduced. Power, braking, handling, yes, yes, yes.

Conclusion based on benchmark cars: Layout, overall weight, COG = high marks (but low relative value to ranking in sportscar domain); power, torque, braking, handling = low marks (but high value in ranking to sportscar domain).

Merits as a "sports car" in present form = kinda low

On the other hand... merits as a fun, pretty, relatively inexpensive "sporty" car = high!

Anyway, bring on the "super sport" version.

Please.

That definition is not subjective at all. All of your points are just an argument that its a bad sports car numbers wise. Toyota and Subaru didn't "change the formula" to market the car, they just challenged your incorrect notion of what a sports car is. In the end does it matter? Do you need to like the car or something if in your mind you are forced to admit its a sports car?

Also, there is no such car segment as "sporty" "fun" car. So either Toyota REALLY DID REVOLUTIONIZE THE CAR INDUSTRY by making a new car segment, or its a simple small little sports car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_classification

[industrial]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

No, that's just a qualitative description -- a theoretical definition.

If we want to be less subjective, we can, we just need a logical way to do it.

A logical way would be to review characteristics of cars widely considered to be benchmarks among sports cars (e.g., Porsche, Ferrari, etc.).

When we do that, the FR-S primarily shines in overall design (sleek coupe, FR layout), COG, and overall weight (but, curiously, NOT power to weight). After that... not so much.

I might add, these are also the ONLY hard pieces of non-subjective info mentioned when marketing the car. The rest of the virtues they tout are qualitative.

We might also ask what is the overall importance of various sports car characteristics? How much does each characteristic contribute to the concept of a sports car.

As someone else on here noted, I've never even heard COG discussed before this car was introduced. Power, braking, handling, yes, yes, yes.

Conclusion based on benchmark cars: Layout, overall weight, COG = high marks (but low relative value to ranking in sportscar domain); power, torque, braking, handling = low marks (but high value in ranking to sportscar domain).

Merits as a "sports car" in present form = kinda low

On the other hand... merits as a fun, pretty, relatively inexpensive "sporty" car = high!

Anyway, bring on the "super sport" version.

Please.

They actually make a powerful ft86. It's called the Cayman, Cayman S and Cayman R. They are quite expensive but pretty much exactly what you are looking for. Look into that. I'm too poor so I have to settle for my BRZ which isn't the greatest sports car in the world but it's pretty damn fun to drive.

You know what's funny? I bet there is a discussion going on between richer versions of us about how underpowered the Cayman R is and how the Nissan GTR is a superior sports car. To me, the Cayman R is as perfect a sports car as they come and the GTR is not even close to a sports car.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by phm14

BTW, anyone citing the 86 "braking numbers" on skinny tires and stock pads must be unaware that those two items, along with brake fluid, are always upgraded for the track. Aggressive track pads have a huge impact on braking performance. Stock pads in a 3300lb car could easily be fried in one or two aggressive track sessions. May want to gain some actual experience before you run off at the mouth.

True. My criticisms (I am also praising the car here and there, BTW -- not just random bashing) are based on what you get out of the box.

Yes, if you throw 10 grand at the FR-S, it will do everything I am asking for... but that's the problem, and that is what led me to the 370Z (note: no interest now or before in the 350 -- different beast, as shown empirically in road and track tests).

In current form, the FR-S/BRZ is a pretty, fun, competent, sporty, road car.

But calling it a "sporty" car, instead of a "sports car" causes all sorts of grumbling... maybe after I hear more good things about it in GRM or something

[blu_]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

In current form, the FR-S/BRZ is a pretty, fun, competent, sporty, road car.

But calling it a "sporty" car, instead of a "sports car" causes all sorts of grumbling... maybe after I hear more good things about it in GRM or something

Again there is no such car segment as "sporty".