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

[Wolfking]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

I'm failing to see where in the hell exactly people are expecting this car to compete with the Z. The engine difference alone puts them in different sports classes, and the price tag on the 370Z takes its pretty much out of most peoples affordable range, especially Scions target market.

Agreed! What idiots are making this comparison? You've hit the nail on the head. I've priced a 370Z several times and just can't bring myself to that type of payment...plus insurance! That's damned near a mortgage payment! Pass!

[Shagaliscious]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

I will say this...the AE86 was a freaken Corolla. Repeat, a Corolla...no offense, but it was like shit when compared to the Skyline GT-R at the time

Yup. It wasn't anything special (and wasn't fast). Just a fun car to drive (when modded).

[industrial]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

It's all about marketing and hype. After all Toyota want to sell bunch of this car, and...let's be real; this is basically the only interesting car Toyota have made in recent years. Hence the hype...

You mean aside from the LFA, IS-F, IS350 & TRD Tacoma right? Or are those not really that interesting? There is almost no corporate hype for this car that I've noticed. How many advertisements have you seen for the frs/brz? What marketing are you talking about? The car is getting reviewed by everyone because it's new. It's getting good reviews because it's a good car. WHAT A CONCEPT?!

[ZDan]

FR-S/BRZ are only marketing hype to those who don't understand that driving a lightweight, responsive rwd car is fun even with 200hp or less and lowish-grip tires. I drive my S2000 on winter tires a decent portion of the year, and practically never VTEC on the street, and I LOVE it. For those who don't/can't appreciate this, and have to be able to point to performance numbers in a magazine to enjoy a car, other cars beckon.

[2forme]

Originally Posted by ZDan

FR-S/BRZ are only marketing hype to those who don't understand that driving a lightweight, responsive rwd car is fun even with 200hp or less and lowish-grip tires. I drive my S2000 on winter tires a decent portion of the year, and practically never VTEC on the street, and I LOVE it. For those who don't/can't appreciate this, and have to be able to point to performance numbers in a magazine to enjoy a car, other cars beckon.

LOL, a majority of the arguing is just to make the person feel better. They won't understand, because they don't want to. To them, understanding would mean admitting they were wrong (even if on a small, silly level), and humans just don't like to do that. Just let em have the bigger epeen, I mean, would we really want drivers like that in our community?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by justaquestion

Actually it sounds like common sense. I own an e46 m3 and it weights about the same as a 370z. Are you going to tell me that my car isn't a sports car either?

Your car is NOT a sports car.

[MVJ1975]

The M3 has never been a sports car. The line is blurry with the e30s, as those are at least lightweight, but the full backseat keeps them from being true sports cars.

The newer (E46, E92) M3s are clearly GTs. GTs aren't sports cars.

Bear in mind that we aren't saying the M3's are bad cars. Just because a car fits into classification x and not y doesn't make it a bad car, it just makes it a different sort of car.

[industrial]

Originally Posted by justaquestion

Actually it sounds like common sense. I own an e46 m3 and it weights about the same as a 370z. Are you going to tell me that my car isn't a sports car either?

Yup. Sports car is actually a pretty specific catagory. Like pickup truck. I guess you could call a Range Rover Evoque a pickup truck but that just sounds stupid to me. That's exactly what you are doing and it sounds stupid.

To be honest, it can be debated that the ft86 isn't a sports car either but not for any of the reasons people have said here. Because, it has a roof and backseats, if anything.

[phm14]

Originally Posted by 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.

True. The feeling of carving trough a turn @ 90mph in the optimal slip angle has nothing to do with how fast you accelerated to that speed.
Acceleration/power = muscle
Agility = sport
Think of it as comparing a power lifter to a soccer player.

[phm14]

Originally Posted by Wolfking

Agreed! What idiots are making this comparison? You've hit the nail on the head. I've priced a 370Z several times and just can't bring myself to that type of payment...plus insurance! That's damned near a mortgage payment! Pass!

The discussion has simply moved beyond price. If you think that makes everyone here an idiot, maybe you should look in the mirror.

[crazyyankeefan]

Originally Posted by ZDan

FR-S/BRZ are only marketing hype to those who don't understand that driving a lightweight, responsive rwd car is fun even with 200hp or less and lowish-grip tires. I drive my S2000 on winter tires a decent portion of the year, and practically never VTEC on the street, and I LOVE it. For those who don't/can't appreciate this, and have to be able to point to performance numbers in a magazine to enjoy a car, other cars beckon.

I guarantee you it's more fun driving a GT-R in any course of the road, or Lambos, Ferrari. They're all heavier. If you think otherwise, you're obviously cheating yourself just to feel better on your own 86.

[2forme]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

I guarantee you it's more fun driving a GT-R in any course of the road, or Lambos, Ferrari. They're all heavier. If you think otherwise, you're obviously cheating yourself just to feel better on your own 86.

You've driven all of them in comparison? Or do you speak for ZDan? or both?

I guarantee you peanut butter goes better with fluff then jelly, and jelly weighs more.

[quik1987]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Apparently, it doesn't have fantastic handling.

Excellence is always assessed based on established benchmarks. For performance cars, that means we look to high end, high output cars that win races as benchmarks

Performance cars, in general, are all influenced by technologies developed on the race track, where high performance (and measurement) is key.

The FR-S follows the same strategy. It compares it's COG to Porsche and it's overall layout and styling to other high performance sports cars (isn't there a thread on here likening the FR-S to a Maserati?)

Toyota just waffles on the speed part and oversells the handling a bit...

Toyota knew this and that is why they point to very specific objective details that they can legitimately praise (e.g., COG) and turn towards imaginative flights of fancy on the rest ("It's not about numbers, but about driving excitement!").

It will be interesting to see what happens as time goes by. To see what other cars appear to compete with it, what other models or options are offered, and what the track guys do with it.

What?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POPiUCtytqc"]Gymkhana Battle: Subaru BRZ vs Nissan 370Z - YouTube[/ame]

Many reviews put handling of the car amongst lotus

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by phm14

The discussion has simply moved beyond price. If you think that makes everyone here an idiot, maybe you should look in the mirror.

Precisely.

This is really a philosophical discussion over what the essence of a sports car is and what defines the ideal as well.

My central argument is that until the advent of the twins, performance bechmarks of higher end cars defined the ideal, while good power to weight ("good" is somewhat subjective, but raccecar builders generally endeavor to reach < 10 lbs per hp, so closer to that is better than further) and high grip might be considered essential. "Lightweight" is somewhat relative, and without taking power:weight into account, becomes meaningless.

Toyota selected handling and braking as their benchmarks, and fell short. (That's my recent discovery that I found disappointing).

They chose light weight as their essential minimum, and did okay on power but dropped the ball on torque (hello, huge loss of torque in the midrange!).

Finally they abandoned grip for slip, which had the dual benefit of alluring the drift fans while concealing how underpowered the car really is.

Last but not least they concealed all of these limitations by crafting a philosophy that runs completely counter to a long history of race track inspired cars: they said numbers don't matter.

However, they have succeeded in creating a beautiful, reasonably affordable, and sporty car accessible to the masses. It is praised for good throttle response and is average to slightly above averagge everywhere else (although they have a LOT of 1st gen quality issues to fix!).

Its a great car, and i'd much rather own that than a camry, but as a sports car, "entry level" is almost an understatement.

I'd say at least 25% of their target audiance feels the same way, and it is that huge disappointment that underlies these comparison threads and also the desire for a "super sport" (as I have called it) option that might cost more, but would deliver the goods in a more hollistic way.

Everyone says the DNA of this car is the Trueno AE86. Well, that car was not a sports car. It was their sporty commuter car. The Celica and the Supra (derived from the Celica) were the "sportscars", and their DNA is clearly recessive here.

Its a great sporty commuter car; it is a bit of a letdown as a sports car to many of us who were equally captivated by the "dream". It delivered only in part.

Toyota needs to make more true sports car (high performance)l options available. Nevermind 3 different trims for the stupid fake fender vents.