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

[Shagaliscious]

Originally Posted by fatoni

yeah. i think that by quoting people it always sounds like an attack or something. i just used that because, while what you say makes sense, it isnt what is happening.

i understand that there constants are important. it just seems like many people are just picking constants to support the conclusion they want.

And what are you doing? You keep wanting to talk about the tires, or, picking a constant that supports the conclusion you want. How is that different?

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Boxer-86

Fixed that for you..

I have never seen a review that came up with that conclusion. The weight difference between the two is 600 lbs and the size difference is about 21 inches. I think the Z might be closer to a V6 FRS/BRZ in that it's faster but because it has a heavier engine it doesn't have the finesse as the 4 cylinder.

[Kunzite]

Shagaliscious: He keeps talking about how the tires MUST (as in RFC 2119) not be changed, because people SHALL NOT be allowed to ask e.g. "factoring out the tires, how good is this car?".

[termigni]

I love the BRZ/FRS and all, but you can't compare to 370Z. BRZ is an entry level sports car where the 370Z is sitting on a level higher.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Kunzite

Talking about DarkSunrise's example: the "100% stock" FR-S did 0,88g on the skidpad and 67.3 mph slalom. Only by using the same or similar tires can we find out if the talk about balance and low CoG is real or BS.

Yep adding actual performance-oriented summer tires really showcases how good this chassis is.

Low CG + light weight + wide track width + good tires = very impressive lateral grip.

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Dark, are you as blown away by this as I am?

I've been around a track plenty in an Elise and they are something special but this skid pad test is almost unbelievable.

To put it this way. In back to back testing on my race car the Hoosier R6 (R-comp) has a UTQG of 40 and the Toyo RA1 (R-comp) has a UTQG of 100. I know the UTQG rating has some margin of error but the R6 is at least 1 second faster, usually 2 seconds and the difference in grip is noticeably different on track.

So here we have a UTQG rating delta of 120 in favor of the Elise and the FRS turns .03 G less in the skidpad. Astonishing.

After reading this my experience 2 weeks ago flashed through my memory where I was out on track after instructing for the day and I had the school director in my car. After deliberately trying to get the car to slide at entry or apex (and it not doing so) the director yelled out: "I think you lied to me about the prius tires, the grip is incredible!"

I think this car would have been fun even if they put forklift tires on it.

Yeah it's unbelievable that the FR-S is even within striking distance of the track-focused Elise (and on less grippy tires, as you pointed out). It's almost as if Toyota/Subaru designed the chassis to maximize the grip of good summer tires, then threw on the Prius tires at the very end.

The great thing is, if you want to hoon around and have fun on the street, the stock tires work great. But if you want to get serious on the track, all you have to do is throw on a good set of summer tires (and upgraded pads/fluid) and you've got a car that will devour corners with the best of them. The FR-S is very versatile in that way.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Kunzite

Sigh... if even putting the numbers (1.0g vs. 0.88g) on the table won't convince you how important the tires are, and how much they can influence the results - what will?
No wonder subtler things, like "what do we test - the car itself, or the tires" are lost on you.

You claim to "love" this car, but it seems you're here only to make sure people don't like the 86 too much

the problem here is that i have no idea what point you are trying to make. i know tires are important. i never said they werent so i dont really know what to say.

Originally Posted by Shagaliscious

And what are you doing? You keep wanting to talk about the tires, or, picking a constant that supports the conclusion you want. How is that different?

it isnt. the problem is that by doing the exact same thing as others, im somehow wrong. my only point was that changing something on a car means the car has changed and changing things for a comparison is a slippery slope

[Kunzite]

My point is that you're trolling, but you're the one proving it. Because it's impossible not to understand such a simple thing.

DarkSunrise, that's precisely why I like this car: it has a "real" chassis, instead of trying to solve everything through stiffness and electronics.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by fatoni

the problem here is that i have no idea what point you are trying to make. i know tires are important. i never said they werent so i dont really know what to say.


it isnt. the problem is that by doing the exact same thing as others, im somehow wrong. my only point was that changing something on a car means the car has changed and changing things for a comparison is a slippery slope

Originally Posted by Kunzite

My point is that you're trolling, but you're the one proving it. Because it's impossible not to understand such a simple thing.

DarkSunrise, that's precisely why I like this car: it has a "real" chassis, instead of trying to solve everything through stiffness and electronics.

[switchlanez]

It's not that this car sets supercar-like precedences in performance numbers but that it achieves supercar-like excellence. The excellence lies in that it one of the most natural, organic extensions of a driver's body available. Isn't that exactly what a driver's car should be, after all? Randy Pobst ranked the BRZ second behind the 911 and above the GT-R for this reason. The Elise achieves similar excellence, is faster than the FR-S, but the inherent snap oversteer/twitchiness tendency of a mid-engine layout and lack of LSD means control sensitivities are dialed way up whereas the FR-S offers a more forgiving window for correction whilst effectively communicating what's happening as you break traction. But why hasn't the Z been invited to this conversation?

The Z is not exactly praised for these delicate types of qualities but for other types of qualities. This thread is like trying to compare how well an Olympic gymnast (poised, balanced, coordinated, controlled) wrestles against and Olympic wrestler (brute, powerful, grabs by scruff of neck, still poised and controlled but not to the point where it racks the nerves due to intense concentration on delicate balance of movements). Of course, the gymnast will lose. But what happens if each athlete performs a set on the balance beam? Both cars excel at what they were intended to do. Based on my perception of how professional drivers have evaluated each car, the FR-S is a gold medalist in its event and the Z is a silver medalist in its event (IMO). Or you can subjectively argue they are equally excellent. Then it becomes a matter of preference; not a matter of which one is holistically "better" than the other.

Sorry I had to make an abstract analogy lol but you can't compare 2 different athletic breeds of cars and expect a definitive conclusion. Don't waste time theoretically swapping ECUs, tires, brakes, or comparing numbers stock-for-stock. You need to compare how all components function in synergy as a package, at the top level where those lower component-level comparisons become trival. Instead of speculating how they compare on a forum in a bench race, ya either gotta drive the things.

Or consider this man's opinions:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUhLXvxlQR4"]Toyota GT86 / Scion FR-S v Nissan 370Z v Used Porsche Cayman S - CHRIS HARRIS ON CARS - YouTube[/ame]

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

Sorry I had to make an abstract analogy lol but you can't compare 2 different athletic breeds of cars and expect a definitive conclusion.

Has clearly missed the discussion from the last 3 pages

[Jordo!]

The problem is, they didn't release a version that can really show off straight from the factory.

The FR-S needs some sort of "sport package" or "track package" option with bubblegum tires, bigger brakes, no backseat, stiffer sways, etc.

Now THAT car would probably impress me -- and the FR-S can be that car (with further room to grow, I'm sure), but Toyota isn't selling it.

Even the priciest factory version of the FR-S needs assistance to really show what it can do. Out of the box, it leaves too much to be explored by an aggressive tuner. Put another way, it shouldn't improve that much from tires -- that means the car is set up with components that hold it back. Why would you sell a sports car set up like that?

I suppose that's cool from the standpoint of keeping costs on the initial purchase down, or the excitement of tuning, but a real bummer if you were hoping for a better starting point (i.e., I'd prefer to have bigger calipers on day one and just worry about pads and SS lines than all three).

I'd rather have some of the good stuff already on the car at time of purchase, but that's just me.

At least the LSD is stock.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Has clearly missed the discussion from the last 3 pages

If you're referring to the validation of chassis comparisons by using similar tires across the board, then you've clearly missed the countless discussions before these last 3 pages. Only this time numbers have been stated (impressive ones at that). But when you reduce the argument down to numbers, naysayers will say you fail to describe the dynamics as it reaches and leaves that corner and beg the question of suspension architecture and if it can power out of the corner through straights (since corners aren't the full picture) which has already been beaten dead. And round and round we go.

Anyway, was a conclusion reached in the last 3 pages? If not, I haven't missed anything.

[Shagaliscious]

Originally Posted by fatoni

it isnt. the problem is that by doing the exact same thing as others, im somehow wrong. my only point was that changing something on a car means the car has changed and changing things for a comparison is a slippery slope

Gotcha. I miss understood you. I would agree that changing tires is modifying the car, especially since everyone lists tires as a mod when telling someone what they have done to the car.

I think the problem is that everyone thinks the car was built to be a great handling car, which I don't think is entirely true. I think it was built to be a great drifting car, which just happens to equate to a really good handling car. Well balanced, light weight, etc.

[Kunzite]

But what's so wrong in asking for "the validation of chassis comparisons by using similar tires across the board"? (nice, succinct description, switchlanez).
Of course listing the tires would be mandatory for every car (because you need to know what tires were used). And obviously it's not the same if you start changing e.g. the suspensions or pretty much anything else (one of fatoni's BS claim). But he can't, or better said he refuses to understand that people are asking for a very specific thing which is meant to reduce variability (grip differences due to tires), and not add to it (random car changes). So he's repeating the same BS strawman each time people are asking for this specific thing.
All because "our way" would make the GT 86 to good for his liking.

switchlanez: Chris Harris is something... very passionate, a lot of feeling, I like watching him.