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

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by industrial

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.

If Toyota wasn't hedged in by the "Scion" label, they could throw 10 grand at the car and do all that too.

Subaru probably will. I expect the shootout for 2015 to be between Subaru's boosted BRZ and the next gen Nissan Z car.

The FR-S will be fighting it out with a refreshed Velocitor and that "baby Camaro" Chevy is supposedly working on.

[blu_]

Toyota didn't design this for the global market the way they did to save scion

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

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

Except that those cars are actually quite luxuriously appointed cars that offer tremendous performance. In my opinion, they are *less* true sports cars than a Miata. Or an FR-S/BRZ! For *me*, true sports cars sacrifice creature comforts in the name of being lighter-weight. No Ferrari or Porsche really does this. The "stripped" versions that they do sell like the Boxster Spyder pay lip service to the kind of minimalism I'm talking about, but you don't usually accomplish much when you try to "add on" light weight (big increases in $$$ don't result in meaningful weight reduction).

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

COG is indeed important. Lower c.g. = less lateral weight transfer => increased cornering g's possible. Or looked at another way, it allows the car to be physically smaller and on a narrower track while maintaining the same lateral weight transfer.
But for me, POWER doesn't make a car a sports car, and lack of POWER doesn't make a car NOT a sports car. Many of the most *quintessential* of sports cars throughout history have been pretty low-powered and some quite slow. Lotus Elan, MG TC, Miata, Austin Healey Sprite, Triumph Spitfire, Fiat X1/9, Porsche 356, Lotus/Caterham Super 7, etc. etc. etc.

IMO, Porsche and Ferrari make *supercars*, not necessarily what I consider to be pure "sports cars". That's MY take on it, anyway.

The 370Z is trying to hard to be a junior supercar, kind of a lower-powered Japanese Corvette, rather than trying to be what it IMO *should* be: the modern incarnation of the 240Z. The FR-S/BRZ are MUCH closer to that ideal.

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

I disagree, but then my definition of "sports car" is quite different from yours. For me, for a sports car minimalism and light weight are way way WAY more important than more power.

Anyway, bring on the "super sport" version.
Please.

That would be cool with me

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

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

Even with the 370z it isn't perfect out of the box. You still have to do things to make it track worthy. Isn't it a widely known fact that the VQ37 is notorious for needing an oil cooler for anything more than a hot lap? How about the brake pads? Didn't one of the magazines total a Nismo 370 by putting it into a wall due to early brake fade?

I didn't buy the FRS in hopes of competing with the 370z as I knew that wasnt the philosophy behind the car. The AE86 was NEVER a power house and was known for it's light weight and high revving engine and generally an all around fun car. That was the philosophy they used in making the FRS/BRZ and they succeeded. I'm sorry if you were expecting some new age Supra or something but that isn't what this car was designed as.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ZDan

COG is indeed important. Lower c.g. = less lateral weight transfer => increased cornering g's possible. Or looked at another way, it allows the car to be physically smaller and on a narrower track while maintaining the same lateral weight transfer.

im pretty sure that the guy had a point. i mean even now that we are all talking about it, cog is only part of the big picture. its not how low the center of gravity is, its how close it is to the roll center. if it was simply a matter of lowering the cog to reduce weight transfer, then hella flush cars would handle well. youre ignoring the real issue. when you lower a car, you lower roll center faster than you lower the cog so many times lowering the cog is bad

[MVJ1975]

Many true, classic sports cars (Triumph, MG, the original Boxster, etc.) weren't particularly powerful as compared to other cars of their day. A sports car requires fantastic handling and minimum weight.

The FR-S is about as "pure" a sports car as you can get at any price. 2+2 seating is atypical but not a disqualifier (911 and 944, anyone).

[blu_]

Fatoni I think it's safe to assume that a factory car has that taken into the equation. Hella flush handles like shit because you are ruining the factory suspension geometry

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by fatoni

im pretty sure that the guy had a point. i mean even now that we are all talking about it, cog is only part of the big picture. its not how low the center of gravity is, its how close it is to the roll center.

No, it *is* how close the c.g. is to the ground. The distance to roll center does define how much the car ROLLS, but it is distance from c.g. to the GROUND that dictates weight transfer. Weight transfer = lateral g's * c.g. height above the ground / track

c.g. height is HUGELY important! Simply elevating the roll center does NOT fix the problems of a higher c.g.! Weight transfer is unaffected by roll center height.

if it was simply a matter of lowering the cog to reduce weight transfer, then hella flush cars would handle well. youre ignoring the real issue. when you lower a car, you lower roll center faster than you lower the cog so many times lowering the cog is bad

Maintaining proper geometry is important, but in most instances lowering the c.g. is even more so. Word on the street is that the FR-S/BRZ are designed to have proper suspension geometry when lowered some amount, so further c.g. lowering is possible and will improve performance. yay...

[crazyyankeefan]

Originally Posted by ZDan

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

Funny how the world has changed. Since when has "slower" become "better" for sports cars? Since when has "slow" become the new standard? If that's the case, might as well make a "sports car" which goes from 0-60 in 10 s, but handles like no other

[blu_]

You see the part where he said for him better is subjective?

[MVJ1975]

"Slow" isn't better for sports cars. Amusingly, neither is "fast". This is because acceleration isn't a criteria that's even considered in the sports car category.


A 10+ second 0-60 MG MGB is still a sports car, and it always will be.


A 3.9 second 0-60 E92 M3 is still not a sports car, and it never will be.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ZDan

No, it *is* how close the c.g. is to the ground. The distance to roll center does define how much the car ROLLS, but it is distance from c.g. to the GROUND that dictates weight transfer. Weight transfer = lateral g's * c.g. height above the ground / track

c.g. height is HUGELY important! Simply elevating the roll center does NOT fix the problems of a higher c.g.! Weight transfer is unaffected by roll center height.


Maintaining proper geometry is important, but in most instances lowering the c.g. is even more so. Word on the street is that the FR-S/BRZ are designed to have proper suspension geometry when lowered some amount, so further c.g. lowering is possible and will improve performance. yay...

ill concede everything but that but the booze is getting to me so im not going to go into details. i still dont know why you would want a narrower track though

[industrial]

Originally Posted by blu_

You see the part where he said for him better is subjective?

Your personal opinion about the personal interpretation of what is or is not personally subjective is DEAD WRONG.

[blu_]

Originally Posted by fatoni

ill concede everything but that but the booze is getting to me so im not going to go into details. i still dont know why you would want a narrower track though

Drinking is bad