FRS/BRZ vs. 2013 Civic SI

[red_comet]

Originally Posted by Burrcold

Not saying it wasn't crap, just that it was FF sports car not based on another platform. [/END]

True true.

[shawnperolis]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You can dial in a ton of rear roll stiffness to make an FF car more oversteery, but that doesn't mean it's acting like an FR car. Far from it...

I think I can provide a fairly unbiased comment on this. I loved my 06 Civic Si, it was a great car. The ass end would come out because of how light the rear was and I wasn't running stock suspension.

I just bought my first RWD car ever, my lovely Whiteout Scion FR-S. The ass end (obviously) comes out around the bendies and the difference between the two cars is astounding. I always thought that my Civic handled like a RWD car because of how "oversteery" it was... But it really doesn't handle quite like a RWD car now that I've been able to test them back to back.

[p4png]

Just came from a 2012 Si. They have completely different targets. Si a more powerful civic which is basically a daily driver kind of car. Has what most people need and reliability for a good price. Frs, clearly targets performance and balance, look at the features and the interior. More for people who don't need the options like nav, sun roof, fancy displays. Both great car for different personalities.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by p4png

Just came from a 2012 Si. They have completely different targets. Si a more powerful civic which is basically a daily driver kind of car. Has what most people need and reliability for a good price. Frs, clearly targets performance and balance, look at the features and the interior. More for people who don't need the options like nav, sun roof, fancy displays. Both great car for different personalities.

this kind of hyperbole really bugs me. they are cars and relatively sporty cars at that. they dont have completely different targets. the have marginally different targets.

[p4png]

Originally Posted by fatoni

this kind of hyperbole really bugs me. they are cars and relatively sporty cars at that. they dont have completely different targets. the have marginally different targets.

I'm stating facts from experience.
Si vs frs in canada is around same price
Si has sunroof, rear seat leg room, standard nav, fwd (great for winter here), auto headlights, now comes with climate control, iMid display.
All which are great for the regular driver plus some power. All which are unnecessary for sports performance hence why frs doesn't include any of these

Frs
Everything about sports performance, low center of gravity, rwd, balanced, minimal body roll (si had lots of), etc (you guys already know)

This is my opinion and there are my facts. If you disagree please state your facts on why they are "marginally different targets" otherwise your post become meaningless to this thread.

[Mr.Jay]

The civic targets a much larger group of people with its creature comforts where the frs is more focused on being for drivers however I agree that the targets aren't that far apart which is prob why the are priced almost exactly the same

[p4png]

What I was putting in mind was most sports enthusiasts typically hate the civic si (current generation). Its more or less a civic with more power. While the average buyer who likes tech stuff and comfort for more than 2 would not consider an frs. Which is why I think the target is different. But I guess you can argue they both aim at 20-30 range, guess I shouldn't say "completely"

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by p4png

I'm stating facts from experience.
Si vs frs in canada is around same price
Si has sunroof, rear seat leg room, standard nav, fwd (great for winter here), auto headlights, now comes with climate control, iMid display.
All which are great for the regular driver plus some power. All which are unnecessary for sports performance hence why frs doesn't include any of these

Frs
Everything about sports performance, low center of gravity, rwd, balanced, minimal body roll (si had lots of), etc (you guys already know)

This is my opinion and there are my facts. If you disagree please state your facts on why they are "marginally different targets" otherwise your post become meaningless to this thread.

the majority of the stuff you listed in an attempt to make the si target exclusive to the target of the frs are found on the brz. do you think the brz and the frs have completely different markets? having a navigation or a sunroof or any of that stuff doesnt mean it isnt a sports car or that its not targeted for whatever you are saying.

my facts indicating the overlap in their targets are simple. they are both cars. they are both used by people to go to work, get groceries or go to the track. options or not, they do almost the exact same thing for a buyer (if not almost exactly then exactly.)

a civic si and a banana, completely different targets. a civic si and 4runner, very different targets. a civic si and an frs, marginally different targets.

[p4png]

Originally Posted by fatoni

the majority of the stuff you listed in an attempt to make the si target exclusive to the target of the frs are found on the brz. do you think the brz and the frs have completely different markets? having a navigation or a sunroof or any of that stuff doesnt mean it isnt a sports car or that its not targeted for whatever you are saying.

my facts indicating the overlap in their targets are simple. they are both cars. they are both used by people to go to work, get groceries or go to the track. options or not, they do almost the exact same thing for a buyer (if not almost exactly then exactly.)

a civic si and a banana, completely different targets. a civic si and 4runner, very different targets. a civic si and an frs, marginally different targets.

I actually loled, then I guess our comparison of cars are COMPLETELY different. To answer your question about the brz is yes. They even stated themselves brz is for a more mature crowd, while the scion was to target the younger generation. Your example of si and 4runner, both used by people to go to work, get groceries, both can be taken to the track, both do same thing for buyer, so aren't you contradicting yourself by saying very different targets, it should be marginally different targets.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by p4png

What I was putting in mind was most sports enthusiasts typically hate the civic si (current generation). Its more or less a civic with more power. While the average buyer who likes tech stuff and comfort for more than 2 would not consider an frs. Which is why I think the target is different. But I guess you can argue they both aim at 20-30 range, guess I shouldn't say "completely"

Originally Posted by p4png

I actually loled, then I guess our comparison of cars are COMPLETELY different. To answer your question about the brz is yes. They even stated themselves brz is for a more mature crowd, while the scion was to target the younger generation. Your example of si and 4runner, both used by people to go to work, get groceries, both can be taken to the track, both do same thing for buyer, so aren't you contradicting yourself by saying very different targets, it should be marginally different targets.

i responded before you guessed you shouldnt say completely. thats really where my issue came. i referred to the 4runner comparison as "very different" or some word that gives room for interpretation. the word complete gives little in terms of its definition.

i think that if you intend to analyze things with such fine detail, you will lose the value of its analysis. with so many dissections, every car now becomes the best car in its class and that leaves you with as little useable data as you had when you started.

on a side note, anybody who says things arent comparable using an "apples to oranges" analogy is stupid. i mean really, you are unable to compare an apple to an orange? whether certain comparisons are less valuable than others is a different story but i think sporty cars in the same segment and more importantly in the same price range (since money is the standard we use to assess value) are worthy of comparison

[p4png]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i responded before you guessed you shouldnt say completely. thats really where my issue came. i referred to the 4runner comparison as "very different" or some word that gives room for interpretation. the word complete gives little in terms of its definition.

i think that if you intend to analyze things with such fine detail, you will lose the value of its analysis. with so many dissections, every car now becomes the best car in its class and that leaves you with as little useable data as you had when you started.

on a side note, anybody who says things arent comparable using an "apples to oranges" analogy is stupid. i mean really, you are unable to compare an apple to an orange? whether certain comparisons are less valuable than others is a different story but i think sporty cars in the same segment and more importantly in the same price range (since money is the standard we use to assess value) are worthy of comparison

I get where you are coming from, when I used the word completely it was just an emphasis of my opinion on how different I thought the cars were. Not really to be taken literally. There are obvious similarities from the two cars but like how brz and frs were made for different target audiences, I also think that the si was made for a certain target audience.

What I find in a lot of comments about si and frs is that most people compare them by performance ONLY. But as a person who has driven both, I don't think these comments are fair, which is why I think the targets are somewhat different.

[MVJ1975]

I suspect that most people comparing these two cars will be "normal" drivers - not driving enthusiasts. People that just want a sporty inexpensive car and don't care about FWD or RWD.

Toyota doesn't care if these people buy an FR-S. It'll happily sell them one, but it doesn't market to them nor did it design the car for them. That's what the tC is for.

Someone who "gets" the FR-S/BRZ is probably not going to be comparing with a Civic Si, they're going to be comparing with the Miata (and possibly things like a used S2k, RX-8, etc).

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

I suspect that most people comparing these two cars will be "normal" drivers - not driving enthusiasts. People that just want a sporty inexpensive car and don't care about FWD or RWD.

Toyota doesn't care if these people buy an FR-S. It'll happily sell them one, but it doesn't market to them nor did it design the car for them. That's what the tC is for.

Someone who "gets" the FR-S/BRZ is probably not going to be comparing with a Civic Si, they're going to be comparing with the Miata (and possibly things like a used S2k, RX-8, etc).

if that was the case at all, i dont think there would be any marketing put into the frs. i doubt anyone who "gets" it, got it from a commercial.

[MVJ1975]

Originally Posted by fatoni

if that was the case at all, i dont think there would be any marketing put into the frs. i doubt anyone who "gets" it, got it from a commercial.

They don't market them much. The GT-86 gets a bit more marketing outside the US, I'll admit. Outside of a commercial or two at launch, there wasn't much fanfare outside of driving magazines and websites.

If Toyota cared about the "sporty car" buyer at all, the FR-S would look rather different than it does. The tail-happy suspension, the skinny non-grippy tires that deliberately hold it back in comparison tests (but make it more fun to fling about), the emphasis on low-weight and driving focus, all point to a car intended purely for enthusiasts. Toyota intends this to be a niche car, much like the aformentioned MX-5. The Si appeals to - and is intended for - a larger audience.