New FR-S BRZ Technology Info! Engine specs, CoG, Drag Coefficient, Dimensions, etc.

[old greg]

Originally Posted by chopstickz

You can easily add a stiffer sway bar in the rear which will increase some weight and cause more over steer if you'd like

A stiffer rear bar does not effect weight distribution, it changes the lateral load transfer distribution. Stiffer rear bar = more lateral load transfer in the rear/less in front = less rear grip, more front grip.

Originally Posted by chopstickz

I'm sure most of us will get coilovers for the the frs which we can corner balance.

That doesn't change weight distribution either, it allows you to have equally loaded diagonals so that the car has the same balance while turning left or turning right.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by rmagic

weight dist at 53/47 , just doesn't sound like they work hard to make a sport car and with that weight all the small detail its important to make good sport car. and with 200PS, 151 lb-ft with a 12.5:1 CR it will be hard to keep up with S2000 and Miata in auto x. numbers are important, it is part of the performance of the car, but you have to drive the car to find out for real review. you can see that in Nissan GTR with 3800 lb.

This car is gonna smoke a miata on the auto x...first of all it's got a lower center of gravity and it's got more power and a better power to weight ratio.
Hell the FRS/BRZ is about 75 to 100 pounds lighter than a s2000.

I think this car is gonna surprise a bunch of people. It's not a big heavy car. If you think about it, it's one of the lightest rwd 2+2 out there.

We just got to see one on a dyno to really see how much power it really has.

Just because Toyota/Subaru says it has 200ps does not mean it may dyno much higher. They may have underrated the engine output.

Read this to see how Honda underrated the engine in the 2004 s2000
http://vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=171514

[rmagic]

As I mentioned, in the end it's still hard to say until somebody drives the car in production version. I have been following this car for about 2 years and I don't want to be just a fan boy and ignore the fact. I think being a fan of a car has to be able to tell the strengths as well as the weakness. Base on my own experience, good sport cars are a combination of different things. It doesn't matter if it just has good handling or lots of power, or simply it's light. It has to have all the ingredients in a reasonable number. I'm hoping this car would smoke the s2000 and miata on the track but what I am trying to say is that the numbers so far just don't add up. But then I hope I'm wrong. I think one of the most important parts is that the car has to have the potential to be fast, not necessarily be fast out of the box. That's why I said we still have to wait and see.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

This car is gonna smoke a miata on the auto x...first of all it's got a lower center of gravity and it's got more power and a better power to weight ratio.
Hell the FRS/BRZ is about 75 to 100 pounds lighter than a s2000.

I think this car is gonna surprise a bunch of people. It's not a big heavy car. If you think about it, it's one of the lightest rwd 2+2 out there.

We just got to see one on a dyno to really see how much power it really has.

Just because Toyota/Subaru says it has 200ps does not mean it may dyno much higher. They may have underrated the engine output.

Read this to see how Honda underrated the engine in the 2004 s2000
http://vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=171514

i hope its great but wishful thinking isnt going to get us anywhere. by that same tolken it could be overrated and we know it has "inferior" suspension design

another not on that weight distribution aside from areo influence is the fact that balance is most important when turning and when youre turning you are probably also accelerating and thats going to shift the weight back some. if you think about it they had enough room and this was designed from the ground up so this number shouldnt be an accident or a compromise

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i hope its great but wishful thinking isnt going to get us anywhere. by that same tolken it could be overrated and we know it has "inferior" suspension design

another not on that weight distribution aside from areo influence is the fact that balance is most important when turning and when youre turning you are probably also accelerating and thats going to shift the weight back some. if you think about it they had enough room and this was designed from the ground up so this number shouldnt be an accident or a compromise

Inferior suspension design? Just because it does not have a double wishbone front but a mcfearson front does not mean it is inferior. The cayman and boxster have strut suspensions...so do most bmws...they probably went with a strut front because the engine sits so low in this car. Remember the only two cars who have a lower center of gravity are the LFA and the ferarri 458.

Oh and don't forget the cd is .27...the miata and s2000 wish they had a cd and a cog as low as the FR-S!

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

Inferior suspension design? Just because it does not have a double wishbone front but a mcfearson front does not mean it is inferior. The cayman and boxster have strut suspensions...so do most bmws...they probably went with a strut front because the engine sits so low in this car. Remember the only two cars who have a lower center of gravity are the LFA and the ferarri 458.

Oh and don't forget the cd is .27...the miata and s2000 wish they had a cd and a cog as low as the FR-S!

Uh of the cars stated that's true. GT3s are lower, GT3RS are lower and I'm sure if we check the numbers we'll find other cars that are lower also. They picked a few cars to show some that are lower and some that are higher.

Car and Driver lists it now but I don't think anyone has compiled a list of them, at least 30 seconds of google searching didn't find one.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

Inferior suspension design? Just because it does not have a double wishbone front but a mcfearson front does not mean it is inferior. The cayman and boxster have strut suspensions...so do most bmws...they probably went with a strut front because the engine sits so low in this car. Remember the only two cars who have a lower center of gravity are the LFA and the ferarri 458.

Oh and don't forget the cd is .27...the miata and s2000 wish they had a cd and a cog as low as the FR-S!

the thing is im not sure that stuff matterst too much. my ls430 has a lower cd if you consider that a huge factor which i dont. i would rather have my car be hundreds of pounds lighter than shave off a couple millimeters of the cog but if you arent buying that im pretty sure the fatcat motorsport and the nhtsa, the cog of the na miata to be 447 mm so no the miata doesnt wish it had a cog that low

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Uh of the cars stated that's true. GT3s are lower, GT3RS are lower and I'm sure if we check the numbers we'll find other cars that are lower also. They picked a few cars to show some that are lower and some that are higher.

Car and Driver lists it now but I don't think anyone has compiled a list of them, at least 30 seconds of google searching didn't find one.

My bad there are more cars with lower center of gravity that the FR-S.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by fatoni

the thing is im not sure that stuff matterst too much. my ls430 has a lower cd if you consider that a huge factor which i dont. i would rather have my car be hundreds of pounds lighter than shave off a couple millimeters of the cog but if you arent buying that im pretty sure the fatcat motorsport and the nhtsa, the cog of the na miata to be 447 mm so no the miata doesnt wish it had a cog that low

Yeah miata verified at 17.6 inches vs the FRS at 18.1 inches.....for the COG.

The miata has a pretty damn low COG...nice. I did not know.

[Dave-ROR]

Based on measurements of a friends 4 door jdm ITR his car has a cog of 17.9 so really I don't think the frs is all that great in terms of the cog.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Not super happy with the weight dist at 53/47. Nor the output of the motor at 200PS, nor the 151 lb-ft with a 12.5:1 CR.

With a 2L I was expecting 52:48 or better. No biggie though... this car should be very tossable and fun.

Originally Posted by rmagic

weight dist at 53/47 , just doesn't sound like they work hard to make a sport car and with that weight all the small detail its important to make good sport car.

2662 pounds in a cheap RWD 4 seater with a low COG and reasonable wheelbase. I'm not gonna complain about 53:47.

Originally Posted by tripjammer

This car is gonna smoke a miata on the auto x

The NA and early NBs commonly used at autox are <2300 pounds. Even the base-model NC is ~2450 pounds. The MX5's shorter wheelbase, better weight distribution, and better suspension also give it an advantage. And of course at this point a lot of autoxed MX5s are modded.

I'm sure the FT will be competitive at autox, but it's too early to predict on how it'll compare to even the stock MX5s.

Originally Posted by tripjammer

Inferior suspension design? Just because it does not have a double wishbone front but a mcfearson front does not mean it is inferior.

That is exactly what it means.

But it's OK... with this engine/layout, we knew all along it would have struts in the front. It's not a deal breaker.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Based on measurements of a friends 4 door jdm ITR his car has a cog of 17.9 so really I don't think the frs is all that great in terms of the cog.

Please. In addition to being out of production for 11 years, the ITR was an expensive street legal race car that was so harsh that it was unbearable as a daily driver. And it was FWD (though it was impressively neutral).

A more apt comparison would be against the GSR or the RSX-S, except those are long gone too.

By today's standards, the FT's COG is excellent.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Please. In addition to being out of production for 11 years, the ITR was an expensive street legal race car that was so harsh that it was unbearable as a daily driver. And it was FWD (though it was impressively neutral).

A more apt comparison would be against the GSR or the RSX-S, except those are long gone too.

By today's standards, the FT's COG is excellent.

Doesn't that make it even more sad that even with today's technology and engineering they couldn't best that though? My primary point though was that I bet there's a fair number of cars that will beat the frs in terms of cog but we'd have to find a list, the examples I gave were just ones that I knew about and I only brought up an out of production car because the NA Miata was mentioned (I specifically didn't mention in my first post on the topic). Also the frs has no sunroof so comparing it to cars that came with them by default like the rsx-s or gsr make less sense no sunroof is great IMO though

I'm also bitter that Toyota lied about the cog.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Doesn't that make it even more sad that even with today's technology and engineering they couldn't best that though? My primary point though was that I bet there's a fair number of cars that will beat the frs in terms of cog but we'd have to find a list, the examples I gave were just ones that I knew about and I only brought up an out of production car because the NA Miata was mentioned (I specifically didn't mention in my first post on the topic). Also the frs has no sunroof so comparing it to cars that came with them by default like the rsx-s or gsr make less sense no sunroof is great IMO though

I'm also bitter that Toyota lied about the cog.

I am glad there is no sunroof too! This is gonna be a great car.