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

[sho220]

Originally Posted by fatoni

yeah im only arguing to show that its only one side of the coin. i could just as easily say that once the frs gets a vert top and double wishbone suspension while losing 200 lbs then it would be groundbreaking. the point is that its a pretty normal car and the summation of all the things about it falls into pretty normal territory.

It's so normal it's groundbreaking...

[Jordo!]

Yeesh... touchy, touchy.

In the one big Best motoring shootout the Miata wins in the Slalom and loses (but not by much) in the 1/4 mile and roadrace, if memory serves.

Otherwise, on stock tires, the twins seem to usually net marginally better times.

In terms of braking, skidpad, however, they are right in Miata territory, with slightly poorer performance on both.

overall, I call that somewhere between neck-and-neck and marginally faster.

Should we throw a RS-X or Civic-Si into the mix too? Those "sporty" cars would give the FR-Z a run for its money too.

So, sure, buy a set of decent tires and "murder" Miatas til the cows come home...

Oh well, I'll just keep my yap shut until I hear more about that twin-screw blower project that no one wants because adding more torque would just ruin the car...

And this is the most discussion I've ever seen about CoG values on a car forum. Remember, it's not about the numbers.

[sho220]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

And this is the most discussion I've ever seen about CoG values on a car forum. Remember, it's not about the numbers.

Our cars are slow pieces of shit, so a few meaningless numbers are all we have to console ourselves...

[switchlanez]

Top Gear voted it 1st place against the 911, McLaren, and Exige which tied for 2nd. Roman Mica preferred it over the 911 in his video review. Wheels Magazine had a Cayman beat by the 86. Yes, those reviews have sensationalism. But the fact that these comparos were approved for publication several times over in different parts of the globe are a testament to why this car is groundbreaking on the journalistic front. Projected demand/units produced turned out to be what... 1/5 of actual demand? It's groundbreaking from a sales front. I don't remember seeing so much aftermarket support/heavy development happen before a car was even released. It's groundbreaking from an aftermarket front. If this car was nothing special, all the hype and envy would have extinguished months ago when it was released for public scrutiny and evaluation. But, as we see, the hate keeps coming thread after thread - a clear indicator of its goodness.

From a technical standpoint, the numbers aren't groundbreaking. But it's in the way simple components were cleverly put together. Meticulous thought was put into maximizing the engine, handling, chassis, and ergonomics of this car given the budget limitations. Four months of dedicated testing/tuning on the Nurburgring. To be fair, the Miata, Mustang, 350Z, and GenCoupe were groundbreaking in their own respective ways. Except for the 350Z, I'm not sure that any of those other cars covered the same depth of engineering and breadth of areas that were tuned as this car. Designing a lightweight, low CoG, robust chassis from scratch can only be achieved from the manufacturer. Tires, brakes, and power can be "scaled up" afterwards. This is a very logical and practical approach yet I don't see any other mass-produced car executing these objectives quite as strictly. And for most of us who don't chase lap times, this car comes perfectly built and balanced out of the box. The simplicity yet effectiveness of the package is what's groundbreaking.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by sho220

Our cars are slow pieces of shit, so a few meaningless numbers are all we have to console ourselves...

Ha ha ha ha :happy0180:

I think it just needs all things I think every car needs (e.g., more torque, better brakes, etc.).

Don't get me wrong -- I am still obviously very interested in the car. I'm just venting my disappointment loud enough for Toyota to hear me (hopefully along with others) and offer a "super sport" package of some sort.

Originally Posted by switchlanez

Top Gear voted it 1st place against the 911, McLaren, and Exige which tied for 2nd. Roman Mica preferred it over the 911 in his video review. Wheels Magazine had a Cayman beat by the 86. Yes, those reviews have sensationalism. But the fact that these comparos were approved for publication several times over in different parts of the globe are a testament to why this car is groundbreaking on the journalistic front. Projected demand/units produced turned out to be what... 1/5 of actual demand? It's groundbreaking from a sales front. I don't remember seeing so much aftermarket support/heavy development happen before a car was even released. It's groundbreaking from an aftermarket front. If this car was nothing special, all the hype and envy would have extinguished months ago when it was released for public scrutiny and evaluation. But, as we see, the hate keeps coming thread after thread - a clear indicator of its goodness.

From a technical standpoint, the numbers aren't groundbreaking. But it's in the way simple components were cleverly put together. Meticulous thought was put into maximizing the engine, handling, chassis, and ergonomics of this car given the budget limitations. Four months of dedicated testing/tuning on the Nurburgring. To be fair, the Miata, Mustang, 350Z, and GenCoupe were groundbreaking in their own respective ways. Except for the 350Z, I'm not sure that any of those other cars covered the same depth of engineering and breadth of areas that were tuned as this car. Designing a lightweight, low CoG, robust chassis from scratch can only be achieved from the manufacturer. Tires, brakes, and power can be "scaled up" afterwards. This is a very logical and practical approach yet I don't see any other mass-produced car executing these objectives quite as strictly. And for most of us who don't chase lap times, this car comes perfectly built and balanced out of the box. The simplicity yet effectiveness of the package is what's groundbreaking.

Well... look, in a lot of hard tests the car simply doesn't excel, but wins on "cool factor" or "fun factor", which is pretty much how it landed first place in the that R&T shootout.

Is that great or disappointing? Given that which car is the "fairhaired boy" can change in less than a model year, I find it disappointing. Numbers have to be empirically beaten, but a car can seem pretty great one day and then not so great the next...

Likewise, Top Gear picking it as Car of the Year or whatever is... interesting... not sure what to make of it.

I love the show, but they constantly vacilate between loving cars for being too numb and then hating cars for being too harsh, so god only knows what made Clarkson get tight pants that particular day.

Maybe he suffered a mini-stroke. He thought the car was fast but ugly -- huh?

[industrial]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Yeesh... touchy, touchy.

In the one big Best motoring shootout the Miata wins in the Slalom and loses (but not by much) in the 1/4 mile and roadrace, if memory serves.

Otherwise, on stock tires, the twins seem to usually net marginally better times.

In terms of braking, skidpad, however, they are right in Miata territory, with slightly poorer performance on both.

overall, I call that somewhere between neck-and-neck and marginally faster.

Should we throw a RS-X or Civic-Si into the mix too? Those "sporty" cars would give the FR-Z a run for its money too.

So, sure, buy a set of decent tires and "murder" Miatas til the cows come home...

Oh well, I'll just keep my yap shut until I hear more about that twin-screw blower project that no one wants because adding more torque would just ruin the car...

And this is the most discussion I've ever seen about CoG values on a car forum. Remember, it's not about the numbers.

I'm surprised that someone so obsessed with numbers is even here. Shouldn't you be shopping for a new Mustang GT? It pretty much blows the doors off the 370 in everyway you are asking for. Why do you bother looking at the small cheap nimble cars when it's readily apparent that you want more of a muscle car? The GT will go faster in everyway than your 370 for about the same money. That's the car you want so stop trolling around here.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by fatoni

yeah im only arguing to show that its only one side of the coin. i could just as easily say that once the frs gets a vert top and double wishbone suspension while losing 200 lbs then it would be groundbreaking. the point is that its a pretty normal car and the summation of all the things about it falls into pretty normal territory.

The problem is you can't have it both ways. You can't use the Miata's 19" CG to invalidate the 86's even lower 18.1" CG by hypothetically adding 200 lbs to the Miata if, by your own admission, they're different cars that can't be directly compared.

I'll put it another way. Find even one comparable sports car with an even lower CG than the 86, then you'll have a valid claim for calling the 86's CG "normal". If you can't, then by the very definition of the word, the 86's CG falls outside the range of normal and is groundbreaking.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Yeesh... touchy, touchy.

In the one big Best motoring shootout the Miata wins in the Slalom and loses (but not by much) in the 1/4 mile and roadrace, if memory serves.

Otherwise, on stock tires, the twins seem to usually net marginally better times.

In terms of braking, skidpad, however, they are right in Miata territory, with slightly poorer performance on both.

overall, I call that somewhere between neck-and-neck and marginally faster.

Should we throw a RS-X or Civic-Si into the mix too? Those "sporty" cars would give the FR-Z a run for its money too.

So, sure, buy a set of decent tires and "murder" Miatas til the cows come home...

Oh well, I'll just keep my yap shut until I hear more about that twin-screw blower project that no one wants because adding more torque would just ruin the car...

And this is the most discussion I've ever seen about CoG values on a car forum. Remember, it's not about the numbers.

Seriously, all you could come up with was one slalom test in a BM video where the Miata beats the 86 (and loses on the roadcourse and 400m)?

I don't particularly care about the numbers on this car in stock form, but when you make misinformed statements like this on an 86 forum, you're going to get called out on them.

Originally Posted by Jordo!

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.

You're not just making inflammatory statements, but you're making them without any valid basis.

[raz0rbladez909]

Seriously, if I was looking for a car and it didn't turn out to be what I wanted it to be then I wouldn't even stick around the forums. I don't see the point of every post being used to bash the car or make the owners feel inferior because they are happy with their purchase. Go get a hobby or something.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Also 0.9" in CG height makes a significant difference.

I agree that ~1" difference in c.g. height is significant, and that c.g. height is important.

BUT...

I think you're selling it short. A standard overly-simple calculation for lateral g is:

g = [weight transfer x track width] / [weight x CG]

Using that formula, if you raise the CG height on an 86 from 18.1" --> 19.0" and keep all else equal, you would decrease lateral grip from 0.900 --> 0.857.

...all else is not equal. You can't say that cornering g's will increase by the same amount that you reduce c.g. height. With a higher c.g. height, you will have greater weight transfer, it's not going to be a constant.

Your relationship would have lateral g's going infinite at zero c.g. height, pretty obviously this won't happen.

Cornering g's will increase with reduction in c.g. height, but not linearly.

The formula is better used to calculate weight transfer for cornering g's:

weight transfer = g's * weight * c.g. height/track width

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I agree that ~1" difference in c.g. height is significant, and that c.g. height is important.

BUT...


...all else is not equal. You can't say that cornering g's will increase by the same amount that you reduce c.g. height. With a higher c.g. height, you will have greater weight transfer, it's not going to be a constant.

Your relationship would have lateral g's going infinite at zero c.g. height, pretty obviously this won't happen.

Cornering g's will increase with reduction in c.g. height, but not linearly.

The formula is better used to calculate weight transfer for cornering g's:

weight transfer = g's * weight * c.g. height/track width

Yep, agreed on all of the above. However, it'd be difficult to figure out how much weight transfer would be affected by the increase in CG, which is why I tried to caveat that statement with the all else held equal disclaimer and the comment that it was an "over-simple" calculation. I think I gave fair warning

Any ideas how better to demonstrate the difference 1" CG makes?

[shadoquad]

Not sure how the Miata got sucked into this discussion. I love those little cars, though.

Anyway, I'm a proud and happy Z owner. I'm not trading the vehicle in for a FRS/BRZ. But had they been out when I was cross shopping, I would have definitely considered them fairly close. In fact, my 2010 buying decision also included a Miata, a Camaro, and a Gen Coupe. It would have most certainly included an FRS/BRZ in there as well.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

The problem is you can't have it both ways. You can't use the Miata's 19" CG to invalidate the 86's even lower 18.1" CG by hypothetically adding 200 lbs to the Miata if, by your own admission, they're different cars that can't be directly compared.

I'll put it another way. Find even one comparable sports car with an even lower CG than the 86, then you'll have a valid claim for calling the 86's CG "normal". If you can't, then by the very definition of the word, the 86's CG falls outside the range of normal and is groundbreaking.

im not asking for it both ways. thats my point. if you describe something using these terms and i can use the same terms and come to an opposing conclusion, we need to rethink the terms. i have found comparable cars but they were thrown out for being old. obviously the more criteria you throw into the mix, the more groundbraking something is going to look. where do you draw the line?

[Embarrassed]

Originally Posted by ZDan

~1" difference in c.g. height is significant

Yes, and no. Once a car is at minimum ride height, then taking ANOTHER inch out is very very difficult to do. Before you hit that criteria it is much easier.

Checking out the twins, the main reason why it has a "low" c.g. stock is because it has very little ground clearance for a modern car. The reason we see it played up is simply marketing. They they can say , "see, we are better than a Posche", and because it is so narrowly focused, you can't really say much about it. Subaru plays up the boxer layout, but frankly that has very little effect.

Originally Posted by ZDan

c.g. height is important.

Not so much. Big changes are nice, but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty hard to make much of a change and virtually every "car" ends up in a 20" +/- 2" range.

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

it'd be difficult to figure out how much weight transfer would be affected by the increase in CG

That's a piece of cake. Lowering the cg from 19" to 18" will reduce weight transfer by a little over 5% (1/19). Assuming a 60" track, the 19"cg would have 81.6% vehicle weight on the outside tires, and the 18"cg would have 80%. This has about the same effect on grip as moving your battery from one side of the car to the other. In other words, not much.

For those wishing to get an idea of what other cars have for cg heights, you can look at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809868.pdf

You will need to find the vehicles average track width, the SSF number from the above report and use the following forumla:

cg = track/ (2 * SSF#)

Just to keep this conversation inline, I tried to find a calculation for the 370z, but couldn't. In substitute, the 350z has a c.g. height of ~19.3 inches.

O

FYI, a 2002 vette has a cg of 17.8".