2013 Subaru BRZ vs 2012 Honda Civic Si HFP

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by fatoni

you could replace the word "tire" with "power" or "suspension" or "weight" and that is why i think its arbitrary. the tire is just as much a part of the package as something like sway bars or an exhaust. those things can make or brake a car as well. drive an nc with rx8 sways and it transforms the car but nobody brings that up. thats a much cheaper fix than new tires but for some reason that isnt valid?

Yeah, we're just not going to agree but I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just trying to clarify perspective and define it.

The OEM has a specific "setup" for any given car that meets very specific criteria regarding NVH, emissions, MPG etc etc. Changing tires has little effect on these things and doesn't change what the car is. Changing weight, power and suspension change the car dramatically regarding NVH, ride comfort, MPG, emissions etc. But then again, my specific argument is that the tire isn't part of the "package". It's not part of the car and the tire itself is what is "arbitrary".

If I change my sway bars, my springs, add power or put on a louder exhaust I've modified the car but if I just change the tire, it is my opinion that I have just changed the tire and not modified the car. Like stepping up to a more aggressive track-day brake pad is not modifying the car whereas upgrading to a big-brake setup would be. That's the type of difference I'm trying to illustrate. So without modifying the car it would be nice to see these comparison tests done on "equal footing" (pun intended).


There's the term "setting yourself up for failure". Toyota kind of did that regarding comparison tests by deliberately choosing a low-grip tire. This decision almost guaranteed this car would be out performed by less competent platforms. They even said, "We didn't want any shortcomings to be masked by sticky tires and feel the lower grip tires highlight the quality of the chassis." (I'm doing a little paraphrasing). However, the result is that this car turns, what could be determined as, an artificially slower lap time as it comes from the factory with a "grip handicap" that all its segment market competitors don't. If this car launched with a more comparative tire to its segment competitors outcomes would be much different in a broad range of reviews without the car being different.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Yeah, we're just not going to agree but I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just trying to clarify perspective and define it.

The OEM has a specific "setup" for any given car that meets very specific criteria regarding NVH, emissions, MPG etc etc. Changing tires has little effect on these things and doesn't change what the car is. Changing weight, power and suspension change the car dramatically regarding NVH, ride comfort, MPG, emissions etc. But then again, my specific argument is that the tire isn't part of the "package". It's not part of the car and the tire itself is what is "arbitrary".

If I change my sway bars, my springs, add power or put on a louder exhaust I've modified the car but if I just change the tire, it is my opinion that I have just changed the tire and not modified the car. Like stepping up to a more aggressive track-day brake pad is not modifying the car whereas upgrading to a big-brake setup would be. That's the type of difference I'm trying to illustrate. So without modifying the car it would be nice to see these comparison tests done on "equal footing" (pun intended).


There's the term "setting yourself up for failure". Toyota kind of did that regarding comparison tests by deliberately choosing a low-grip tire. This decision almost guaranteed this car would be out performed by less competent platforms. They even said, "We didn't want any shortcomings to be masked by sticky tires and feel the lower grip tires highlight the quality of the chassis." (I'm doing a little paraphrasing). However, the result is that this car turns, what could be determined as, an artificially slower lap time as it comes from the factory with a "grip handicap" that all its segment market competitors don't. If this car launched with a more comparative tire to its segment competitors outcomes would be much different in a broad range of reviews without the car being different.

i just feel like ,all terms aside, you are contradicting yourself by saying that tires are the most important thing but they arent part of the car at the same time. i guess we have to agree to disagree. every part of a sports car works to keep the tire in contact with the road and tires are very much part of that system

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i just feel like ,all terms aside, you are contradicting yourself by saying that tires are the most important thing but they arent part of the car at the same time. i guess we have to agree to disagree. every part of a sports car works to keep the tire in contact with the road and tires are very much part of that system

System yes, car no. I don't see the contradiction. I can say that tires are the easiest way to reduce laps (aka most effective) and simultaneously say that changing them (of course, all things within reason) doesn't change the car, as a car. They're just tires, they are on the car, not of the car.

Human being comparison just for fun:
Tires are clothing, shoes if you have it. I'm still "me" even when I change my shoes. If I show up to a track meet with dress shoes I haven't "changed me" but I have put myself at a handi-cap against the other runners right? I might as well show up with the right shoes on eh? However, for every day use, I like wearing nice shoes. If I changed my suspension (leg muscles) or my engine (heart) or Intake/Exhaust (Lungs) then I've changed "ME". This is how changing tires is not changing the car whereas changing power, suspension or brakes is. That is why I think putting both cars in equal shoes puts them on level testing ground.

Another argument is that Subaru, Toyota, Honda... Don't make tires. Michelin, dunlop, bridgestone, etc do. This is not an OEM part but an OEM "size" because the wheel is the OEM part. Thus changing wheel size is modifying the car. Changing tires without changing wheel size (which limits tire options) is just "changing the shoes". Nobody ever goes to buy a used car and sees that the owner had a different set of tires than that which the car originally came with says: "I want a bigger discount, this car is modified!"

Another example is that the original AP1 came with S-02's but Bridgestone stopped making the S-02 so does that mean the AP1 can never be considered "un-modified" ever again? Of course not.

I'm just saying, before we line the runners up at the starting gate, are they all wearing running shoes? If not, why are we comparing them?

[rice_classic]

I also understand tuning your car to the tire to maximize it (of course I do, it's how I win races) but the argument still stands. I've gone from Toyo to Hankook to Hoosier to Goodyear on the race car and in some cases I've had to change the car to suit the tire. You can call it semantics if you'd like but women walk differently in pumps then in sneakers, doesn't mean women are "modified".

Changing tires for purpose of equal ground testing is no the same as changing power/suspension/brakes.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

System yes, car no. I don't see the contradiction. I can say that tires are the easiest way to reduce laps (aka most effective) and simultaneously say that changing them (of course, all things within reason) doesn't change the car, as a car. They're just tires, they are on the car, not of the car.

Human being comparison just for fun:
Tires are clothing, shoes if you have it. I'm still "me" even when I change my shoes. If I show up to a track meet with dress shoes I haven't "changed me" but I have put myself at a handi-cap against the other runners right? I might as well show up with the right shoes on eh? However, for every day use, I like wearing nice shoes. If I changed my suspension (leg muscles) or my engine (heart) or Intake/Exhaust (Lungs) then I've changed "ME". This is how changing tires is not changing the car whereas changing power, suspension or brakes is. That is why I think putting both cars in equal shoes puts them on level testing ground.

Another argument is that Subaru, Toyota, Honda... Don't make tires. Michelin, dunlop, bridgestone, etc do. This is not an OEM part but an OEM "size" because the wheel is the OEM part. Thus changing wheel size is modifying the car. Changing tires without changing wheel size (which limits tire options) is just "changing the shoes". Nobody ever goes to buy a used car and sees that the owner had a different set of tires than that which the car originally came with says: "I want a bigger discount, this car is modified!"

Another example is that the original AP1 came with S-02's but Bridgestone stopped making the S-02 so does that mean the AP1 can never be considered "un-modified" ever again? Of course not.

I'm just saying, before we line the runners up at the starting gate, are they all wearing running shoes? If not, why are we comparing them?

that analogy doesnt work because i can take shoes off and run a race. you cant take your tires off and do the same.

companies outsource a lot of stuff including tires. if a car comes with brembos do we get to change those and still be oem? how about the bilsteins on the miata? do i get to change my shocks and still have a stock car? those stock bbs?

its just a faulty argument since the points youre making arent exclusive to tires and your conclusion is

[suzuka]

... as per TTAC via autoguide
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...in-track-test/

My 2 cents: The Civic Si would've not just dominate... but PWNED the Toyobaru thoroughly if Honda decided to keep the front double wishbone suspension instead of McStruts. All wheel double wishbones traditionally found in older Honda chassis (EG/EK/DC2-R) usually gave similarly powered FR cars a run for its money.

[chulooz]

Im with Rice on this one. The tires are just on the car (as a wear item too), change them for another brand (treadwear) and advantages are gained.

[chulooz]

Troll your fwd econobox elsewhere.

a tenth on a lap is never 'dominating'... and everyone knows the prius tires are junk.




And its not an Si, its an Si HFP: honda is only selling 500.

[Kimsey47]

Honda, how much I wanted to love thee but thee gave into thy beigeness... Noweth thou sucketh.

As a former Honda fan I cannot describe how disgusted I am with their products... And don't get me started on Acura! Woof! ILX for the FAIL.

[Jidonsu]

They even said that the Civic is only faster because it has stickier tires. The BRZ, per the review, is still a lot more fun to drive.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by chulooz

Im with Rice on this one. The tires are just on the car (as a wear item too), change them for another brand (treadwear) and advantages are gained.

you do realize that you are totally butchering the analogy to make it fit your skewed perspective. i think the brand of tire would relate to the brand of shoe. if you can make that analogy make sense in a way that other modifications are omitted then ill concede but you cant drive without tires and you can run without shoes. is gutting a car stock? you arent even replacing something. see where im coming from? nothing about your argument supports your conclusion

[chulooz]

Im not making any analogies, tires are changed on 'unmodified' cars all the time.

It was a stupid decision to put economy tires on this car once it wears performance rubber all of its capabilities are accentuated and none are obstructed.


youve never seen a car drive without tires?

[TuxedoCartman]

Originally Posted by chulooz

Troll your fwd econobox elsewhere.

a tenth on a lap is never 'dominating'... and everyone knows the prius tires are junk.




And its not an Si, its an Si HFP: honda is only selling 500.

Now now, gotta give respect where it's due. I wouldn't own one, but it's impressive that it can keep up with the twins around the track, for quite a bit less (though I wonder how well the standard Si would have done, without the tire and suspension upgrades).

While it's faster around a track, though, I doubt it's as much fun. There's a million FWD compacts out there; it's good to finally see a RWD car that's NOT a Mustang, Challenger, etc... (read as: big American boat).

End of the day, I celebrate more variety and performance here! :happy0180:

[Kimsey47]

Originally Posted by TuxedoCartman

Now now, gotta give respect where it's due. I wouldn't own one, but it's impressive that it can keep up with the twins around the track, for quite a bit less (though I wonder how well the standard Si would have done, without the tire and suspension upgrades).

While it's faster around a track, though, I doubt it's as much fun. There's a million FWD compacts out there; it's good to finally see a RWD car that's NOT a Mustang, Challenger, etc... (read as: big American boat).

End of the day, I celebrate more variety and performance here! :happy0180:

It just sucks that Honda who used to make so many exciting cars, had to take what is not exciting anymore, throw on some extra letters, and then make it what it should be to begin with to compete at all. I think this review shows how far Honda has really fallen. So sad!