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

[blu_]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

You're absolutely right on this point, the FR-S has a lower CG than the Miata. I noticed a little gem in C&D's review of the best handling cars under $40k. C&D calculated the CG for the Miata, along with a bunch of other cars, so this should put this issue to rest. In reverse order:

GTI: 22.0"
JCW Mini: 21.0"
Mustang GT: 21.0"
Evo X MR: 20.5"
370Z: 20.0"
Miata: 19.0"

And by comparison:

FR-S: 18.1"
Cayman R: 18.0"
LFA: 17.8"
360 Modena: 17.6"
911 GT3: 17.4"

Yeah, I remember reading that article. I trust it more than I do people measuring it out in their garage or shop, as the random forum measurements seem to be all over the place.

Unfortunately no issues are ever put to rest on internet forums, because the disinformation experts will just lie low for a few months before popping back up with the same claims.

[track_warrior]

Im getting to drive a friends modded 370z next week at my track, ill let you guys know what i think.

This is what i get to drive hopefully it has a new clutch and voltex wing by next week because i remember my 350z having the tendency to step out its ass in the high speed corners, it might have been the supercharger though lol .

320WHP on E-85 all motor beast sitting on bc coilovers and potenzas. The first E-85 NA tuned 370Z , tuned by JMS!!

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

You're absolutely right on this point, the FR-S has a lower CG than the Miata. I noticed a little gem in C&D's review of the best handling cars under $40k. C&D calculated the CG for the Miata, along with a bunch of other cars, so this should put this issue to rest. In reverse order:

GTI: 22.0"
JCW Mini: 21.0"
Mustang GT: 21.0"
Evo X MR: 20.5"
370Z: 20.0"
Miata: 19.0"

And by comparison:

FR-S: 18.1"
Cayman R: 18.0"
LFA: 17.8"
360 Modena: 17.6"
911 GT3: 17.4"

thats the nc. i was referring to the na. and all that aside the c4 corvette was rolling around with a cog of 15" for about a couple decades before this car came around. fwiw, i would trade .9" of cog for double wishbone suspension especially since people seem to ignore the importance of cog in relation to roll center and just talk about it like an absolute.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by fatoni

thats the nc. i was referring to the na. and all that aside the c4 corvette was rolling around with a cog of 15" for about a couple decades before this car came around. fwiw, i would trade .9" of cog for double wishbone suspension especially since people seem to ignore the importance of cog in relation to roll center and just talk about it like an absolute.

Control roll via swaybars? Center of gravity is the hardest to move, you can change camber, stiffen things up, etc. to maximize tire grip but left right weight distribution under cornering is limited by center of gravity (and track width).

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Control roll via swaybars? Center of gravity is the hardest to move, you can change camber, stiffen things up, etc. to maximize tire grip but left right weight distribution under cornering is limited by center of gravity (and track width).

the closer the roll center is to the center of gravity, the less roll there is. im not really talking about changing components or anything, im talking about the inherent nature of the cars. the closer those two things are, the less static camber you need and the more optimal the contact patch shape. its even more important for cars with mac struts because toe and camber are not separable.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by fatoni

thats the nc. i was referring to the na. and all that aside the c4 corvette was rolling around with a cog of 15" for about a couple decades before this car came around. fwiw, i would trade .9" of cog for double wishbone suspension especially since people seem to ignore the importance of cog in relation to roll center and just talk about it like an absolute.

Why bring up the NA Miata and C4 Corvette? Both of those cars have long been out of production and were created in a different era. Due to increased public awareness about crash safety, it would be difficult for Mazda and Chevy to create cars like that again. In the modern era, what Subaru and Toyota have accomplished in terms of lowering CG on the 86 is very impressive. Both the BRZ and FR-S received 5-star safety ratings and conform to modern regulations re. minimum bumper heights, all while keeping CG below any other mass production car.

Also double-wishbone suspension isn't as important on the front end of a RWD setup. BMW and Porsche have long been successful running RWD cars with macpherson strut based front suspension (both consumer cars and full-out race cars). The limitations of the macpherson strut design are minimized in that layout. For instance, you can largely overcome the lack of a proper camber curve on a lowered macpherson strut suspension by running relatively high rates of negative static camber. And roll center on a lowered macpherson strut setup is actually pretty easy to correct. Not to mention the additional weight and complexity (i.e., cost) of running double-wishbones.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Why bring up the NA Miata and C4 Corvette? Both of those cars have long been out of production and were created in a different era. Due to increased public awareness about crash safety, it would be difficult for Mazda and Chevy to create cars like that again. In the modern era, what Subaru and Toyota have accomplished in terms of lowering CG on the 86 is very impressive. Both the BRZ and FR-S received 5-star safety ratings and conform to modern regulations re. minimum bumper heights, all while keeping CG below any other mass production car.

Also double-wishbone suspension isn't as important on the front end of a RWD setup. BMW and Porsche have long been successful running RWD cars with macpherson strut based front suspension (both consumer cars and full-out race cars). The limitations of the macpherson strut design are minimized in that layout. For instance, you can largely overcome the lack of a proper camber curve on a lowered macpherson strut suspension by running relatively high rates of negative static camber. And roll center on a lowered macpherson strut setup is actually pretty easy to correct. Not to mention the additional weight and complexity (i.e., cost) of running double-wishbones.

i only bring those cars up because that number isnt exactly groundbreaking. its also worth mentioning that cog is relative to the total weight of the car so its still quite likely that the nc will have less weight above 18.1" than the frs despite the higher cog. i dont think it would be that difficult for those companies to get numbers like that. i cant find any c5 or 6 data but i would suspect its still pretty low. i dont think its that hard to get those numbers but i suspect they have other priorities. the frs accomplishments arent very impressive, i dont think it does anything groundbreaking. its just a good car in a time where there arent many good cars

i know mac struts arent a deal breaker. having to run higher rates and more static camber is a poor compromise despite its success. so while its not the end of the world im just pointing out that neither is a cog of 19" or whatever other cars may have.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i only bring those cars up because that number isnt exactly groundbreaking.

None of the numbers are for this car, which is why Toyota says they don't matter

With stickier tires it can MATCH a MX-5.

Toyota has clearly shown that for under 30K, you just can't build a decently performing car -- but you can build one with massive potential.

That's the FR-Z: "Has potential"

[Kunzite]

FFS, stop filling this forum with your trolling. You don't like the car? It's not what you hoped for? Who cares; just go and buy whatever you want.

[crazyyankeefan]

Just a objective point of view. I got a chance to sit in a FR-S the other day. For some reason, while I was in fact physically lower, it felt higher than my Z. When I sit into the Z, I feel myself just "sink" into the spot. While on a FR-S, I feel I just "sit" there. In a point, I think it feels great cuz it gives me a better view as a driver.

[sho220]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

Just a objective point of view. I got a chance to sit in a FR-S the other day. For some reason, while I was in fact physically lower, it felt higher than my Z. When I sit into the Z, I feel myself just "sink" into the spot. While on a FR-S, I feel I just "sit" there. In a point, I think it feels great cuz it gives me a better view as a driver.

You sure the seat was all the way down? They're height adjustable...

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Kunzite

FFS, stop filling this forum with your trolling. You don't like the car? It's not what you hoped for? Who cares; just go and buy whatever you want.

I dunno Jordo is mostly quite reasonable, it's true that the FR-S sits near the bottom of the sports car pack in terms of performance. He acknowledges the strengths of the car.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i only bring those cars up because that number isnt exactly groundbreaking. its also worth mentioning that cog is relative to the total weight of the car so its still quite likely that the nc will have less weight above 18.1" than the frs despite the higher cog. i dont think it would be that difficult for those companies to get numbers like that. i cant find any c5 or 6 data but i would suspect its still pretty low. i dont think its that hard to get those numbers but i suspect they have other priorities. the frs accomplishments arent very impressive, i dont think it does anything groundbreaking. its just a good car in a time where there arent many good cars

i know mac struts arent a deal breaker. having to run higher rates and more static camber is a poor compromise despite its success. so while its not the end of the world im just pointing out that neither is a cog of 19" or whatever other cars may have.

It's groundbreaking in the modern era of cars. If it wasn't, the 86 wouldn't be the only mass production car with a CG height that low. There's a reason only exotics and expensive sports cars can match the CG of the 86. And that's especially impressive when you consider the 86 still has 4.9" of ground clearance to work with, while the exotics that beat it have closer to 4". (Consequently that means the CG for the 86 can be lowered into the 17.1-17.6" range while maintaining real-world practicality.)

As for static camber, that only applies if you want to lower your car and prep it for the track (quite appropriately for this topic, to lower the CG). At stock heights, a macpherson strut setup can actually gain some negative camber through much of its range of articulation.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I dunno Jordo is mostly quite reasonable, it's true that the FR-S sits near the bottom of the sports car pack in terms of performance. He acknowledges the strengths of the car.

Hard to agree with that statement when he throws misinformation like this out there:

Originally Posted by Jordo!

With stickier tires it can MATCH a MX-5.

That's already been proven wrong.

Buttonwillow (stock tires on the BRZ)

BRZ: 2:13.79
Miata: 2:14.23

Willow Springs (stock tires on the BRZ)

BRZ: 1:30.32
Miata: 1:31.88

And we already know the 86 gains ~2 seconds on a short track (1:30 second track) with just stickier tires. That means an 86 on stickier tires would be about 2-3 seconds faster per lap than a Miata on a short course. Basically the Miata is getting destroyed by an 86 on stickier tires.