FRS/BRZ vs. 2013 Civic SI

[sf5]

Originally Posted by Liebot

Hey great first post!. How many "horses" would it take to "cut it" for an "enthusiast"?

Something with a turbo helps. I had a 328 and a 335, both '08s. The 328 didn't have the "horses," the 335 did. I applaud the FR-S for having a better weight ratio than the Si, but it's still not 50/50 like most "enthusiasts" prefer it.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by sf5

Something with a turbo helps. I had a 328 and a 335, both '08s. The 328 didn't have the "horses," the 335 did. I applaud the FR-S for having a better weight ratio than the Si, but it's still not 50/50 like most "enthusiasts" prefer it.

im sure that about half of enthusiasts prefer not to have a turbo. the 335 isnt half the sports car that the frs is (ironically because its almost double the car). the front to rear weight balance means next to nothing as long as you can run a square setup. front roll couple is probably what you are getting at and i would imagine the frc is pretty close to 50% in the frs.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

this is my point. when things are built to a price, it is so that it appeals to your economy, not your enthusiasm. i would also like to mention that simply dropping a tc or corolla auto in the car likely would have happened if they werent designed for fwd layouts.

having fun driving isnt valued exclusively to enthusiasts. they use that to sell mazda 3s and dodge darts too.

but what car isn't "built to a price" besides cars that sell for 6+ figures? i think this car is built more for our enthusiasm than economy (but accommodates both like any other sports car under $100k). it offers the least general purpose value and amenities among Scion's entire lineup yet it's the most expensive Scion on the lot! (and by a significant margin.) even more expensive than other brands' mid-sized sedans that have "more" to offer. only an enthusiast would pay such a premium for less "car" and more "sports." this is quite clearly more sports car than economy car.

an example of where they didn't cut corners for economy and rather focused on sports car engineering within a budget (like any other sub-100k sports car):

2012 Impreza door sill vs. BRZ beefy chassis reinforcement stiffening (I mean door sill)



the only compromises i can fault this car for having are its 4 seats rather than 2 (like the 911?) and a drivetrain tuned for economy (like the 30 mpg corvette?). but the engine is still engineered with some real sporting elements not found in its 2.0L 150hp economy counterpart, the FB20, which gets better fuel economy. front mac struts (also like 911) instead of wishbones may be an engineering compromise to allow for another performance edge (not necessarily for economy): accommodate the flat-engine and achieve low CoG/roll center. i believe that one has been argued before.

the dart and mazda3 are in a gray area when it comes to questioning whether they appeal more to enthusiasm or to economy. one concession they make for "economy" over "sports" is their FWD layout. the fr-s maintains purity in that respect (and probably the single most key factor among enthusiasts).

[sf5]

Originally Posted by fatoni

im sure that about half of enthusiasts prefer not to have a turbo. the 335 isnt half the sports car that the frs is (ironically because its almost double the car). the front to rear weight balance means next to nothing as long as you can run a square setup. front roll couple is probably what you are getting at and i would imagine the frc is pretty close to 50% in the frs.

switchlanez makes a good argument, and I got to give the FR-S props for it's RWD.

Fatoni, do NOT compare this car to a 335i. It's not in the same class, yet alone the same planet. Show a little respect for BMW.

The "enthusiasts" I know prefer a turbo to NA. Why not? In fact, if the FR-S had a turbo, it would be a monster. A true sports car should be quicker than a stock economy car like the Si, not neck and neck.

[stilletto]

Used to own an 09' FA5, and really miss thE redline on that K Series. One of the main reasons I've been looking into an 86.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

but what car isn't "built to a price" besides cars that sell for 6+ figures? i think this car is built more for our enthusiasm than economy (but accommodates both like any other sports car under $100k). it offers the least general purpose value and amenities among Scion's entire lineup yet it's the most expensive Scion on the lot! (and by a significant margin.) even more expensive than other brands' mid-sized sedans that have "more" to offer. only an enthusiast would pay such a premium for less "car" and more "sports." this is quite clearly more sports car than economy car.

an example of where they didn't cut corners for economy and rather focused on sports car engineering within a budget (like any other sub-100k sports car):

2012 Impreza door sill vs. BRZ beefy chassis reinforcement stiffening (I mean door sill)



the only compromises i can fault this car for having are its 4 seats rather than 2 (like the 911?) and a drivetrain tuned for economy (like the 30 mpg corvette?). but the engine is still engineered with some real sporting elements not found in its 2.0L 150hp economy counterpart, the FB20, which gets better fuel economy. front mac struts (also like 911) instead of wishbones may be an engineering compromise to allow for another performance edge (not necessarily for economy): accommodate the flat-engine and achieve low CoG/roll center. i believe that one has been argued before.

the dart and mazda3 are in a gray area when it comes to questioning whether they appeal more to enthusiasm or to economy. one concession they make for "economy" over "sports" is their FWD layout. the fr-s maintains purity in that respect (and probably the single most key factor among enthusiasts).

im not trying to say that this thing isnt any more sporty than the other cars in its class. im just saying that the frs is very much targeting enthusiasts and non enthusiasts alike. im not going to argue point for point because i dont think it really matters. if anything, the boxer motor raises the roll center because it forces macpherson strut onto the car. when i think of a car that was built to a price and not really built to a price (just realized how confusing this can be) i think of things like a locost or an elise. i guess when i say built to a price, i mean built to compete in a segment

Originally Posted by sf5

switchlanez makes a good argument, and I got to give the FR-S props for it's RWD.

Fatoni, do NOT compare this car to a 335i. It's not in the same class, yet alone the same planet. Show a little respect for BMW.

The "enthusiasts" I know prefer a turbo to NA. Why not? In fact, if the FR-S had a turbo, it would be a monster. A true sports car should be quicker than a stock economy car like the Si, not neck and neck.

im not really comparing the 335 to the frs. i think the 335 is cool but its pretty clear that you overvalue what it is. i can assure you, the frs and 335 are from the same planet.

there are many reasons why enthusiasts prefer na. things like weight, throttle response, heat, cost, reliability are important. especially for people who actually take their car to the track. i dont think people should be concerned with how fast other cars are. sports cars arent about fast but about fun.

[naikaidriver]

Originally Posted by fatoni

there are many reasons why enthusiasts prefer na. things like weight, throttle response, heat, cost, reliability are important. especially for people who actually take their car to the track. i dont think people should be concerned with how fast other cars are. sports cars arent about fast but about fun.

Coming from someone that spends as much time at the track as possible, I would say RELIABILITY is HUGE! Even if you're just doing TT or HPDE days, it puts an incredible amount of strain on a car and I've seen my fair share of people having to have their cars towed back home from engine failure.

NOTE!: The VAST majority of those cars were custom setups and NOT factory. Its rare I have seen unmodified, factory turbo cars break on the track unless they were;
1. Inexperienced Drivers
2. Turbo systems that have been mucked with
3. Older cars
4. Poor maintenance

Scott

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

if anything, the boxer motor raises the roll center because it forces macpherson strut onto the car.

...i guess when i say built to a price, i mean built to compete in a segment

It's kind of moot to argue the roll center because nobody knows where it is. What ultimately matters is how the car feels when you drive the damn thing. Doesn't matter how the engineers got there (boxer or not, wishbones or not, marketing hype on a pedestal or not); this car's handling handling feel excels over any car in the vicinity of (even above) its segment.

[MVJ1975]

Another point about the boxer - it enabled the car to have a lower hood profile and avoid the ugly high beltline so common in modern cars.

[sf5]

Originally Posted by fatoni

im not trying to say that this thing isnt any more sporty than the other cars in its class. im just saying that the frs is very much targeting enthusiasts and non enthusiasts alike. im not going to argue point for point because i dont think it really matters. if anything, the boxer motor raises the roll center because it forces macpherson strut onto the car. when i think of a car that was built to a price and not really built to a price (just realized how confusing this can be) i think of things like a locost or an elise. i guess when i say built to a price, i mean built to compete in a segment


im not really comparing the 335 to the frs. i think the 335 is cool but its pretty clear that you overvalue what it is. i can assure you, the frs and 335 are from the same planet.

there are many reasons why enthusiasts prefer na. things like weight, throttle response, heat, cost, reliability are important. especially for people who actually take their car to the track. i dont think people should be concerned with how fast other cars are. sports cars arent about fast but about fun.

There's also a reason why the FR-S doesn't have a turbo -- cost. I'm pretty sure FR-S owners wouldn't turn down a turbo if offered. I can't wait until the new, improved Subies are out. Talk about an "enthusiast" car, and it's basically the same engine!

I copped an '08 335i sedan with 16k for $30,000. It's not overvalued, and if I could still afford the payments, I'd take that any day over a new FR-S. $250 used JB and I've got 400 horses and torque. Lot more plastic in the FR-S. Steptronic is no joke and will put most manuals to shame.

Speed is just one aspect, like you say; however, speed is addicting, and it never hurts to be fast. Obviously, handling is just as important. The weight and RWD of the FR-S is superior to the Si, but if you're going to lease an FR-S -- not recommended -- it's a ripoff. You could get an ATS or Infiniti for almost the same price, and that's where the Si shines as the better buy.

On a side note, there's an infamous video online where the Civic beats the FR-S in a head-to-head. Yes, the FR-S was rocking stock tires, and the Civic was the HFP version. I think they should have used a stock Si, not the HFP, with the tires it comes with -- MXM4 Michelin Pilots. It would have been a more accurate and fair comparison that way. I wish mine came with upgraded tires.

[shu5892001]

Originally Posted by sf5

I would love to test drive a BRZ/FR-S, but I couldn't really consider buying that car. I know it's RWD and looks way cooler than the Si, but the CHEAPEST you can lease one is $300 or more a month with at least $3,000 down.

I was able to pick up my '12 Si Coupe for under $220 monthly with only $2,100 down.

The Si isn't that far away from the BRZ, and if it was RWD it might well be better. I'll keep my 9th gen Si and pay a lot less any day even though the BRZ/FR-S is the better car.

If you're a serious sports-car "enthusiast," buy a 335 or 135 and never look back. This isn't the 90's anymore, and 200 horses in a new car doesn't cut it for an "enthusiast."

There is a difference between sport sedan/coupe and sport car

[matchamochi]

Originally Posted by sf5

I would love to test drive a BRZ/FR-S, but I couldn't really consider buying that car. I know it's RWD and looks way cooler than the Si, but the CHEAPEST you can lease one is $300 or more a month with at least $3,000 down.

I was able to pick up my '12 Si Coupe for under $220 monthly with only $2,100 down.

The Si isn't that far away from the BRZ, and if it was RWD it might well be better. I'll keep my 9th gen Si and pay a lot less any day even though the BRZ/FR-S is the better car.

If you're a serious sports-car "enthusiast," buy a 335 or 135 and never look back. This isn't the 90's anymore, and 200 horses in a new car doesn't cut it for an "enthusiast."

I'm so glad you don't drive a brz. I'd hate to get associated with you.

[matchamochi]

Originally Posted by sf5

There's also a reason why the FR-S doesn't have a turbo -- cost. I'm pretty sure FR-S owners wouldn't turn down a turbo if offered. I can't wait until the new, improved Subies are out. Talk about an "enthusiast" car, and it's basically the same engine!

I copped an '08 335i sedan with 16k for $30,000. It's not overvalued, and if I could still afford the payments, I'd take that any day over a new FR-S. $250 used JB and I've got 400 horses and torque. Lot more plastic in the FR-S. Steptronic is no joke and will put most manuals to shame.

Speed is just one aspect, like you say; however, speed is addicting, and it never hurts to be fast. Obviously, handling is just as important. The weight and RWD of the FR-S is superior to the Si, but if you're going to lease an FR-S -- not recommended -- it's a ripoff. You could get an ATS or Infiniti for almost the same price, and that's where the Si shines as the better buy.

On a side note, there's an infamous video online where the Civic beats the FR-S in a head-to-head. Yes, the FR-S was rocking stock tires, and the Civic was the HFP version. I think they should have used a stock Si, not the HFP, with the tires it comes with -- MXM4 Michelin Pilots. It would have been a more accurate and fair comparison that way. I wish mine came with upgraded tires.

If numbers are all you're looking at then keep trying to argue these points. If you ever actually took this car on a spirited drive you would understand what most of us enjoy so much about our cars.

Unfortunately you're blinded by pure #'s and trying to quantify a beautiful driving experience.

Nothing we can obviously say or do can convince you otherwise so just let it go. You didn't "get it".

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

It's kind of moot to argue the roll center because nobody knows where it is. What ultimately matters is how the car feels when you drive the damn thing. Doesn't matter how the engineers got there (boxer or not, wishbones or not, marketing hype on a pedestal or not); this car's handling handling feel excels over any car in the vicinity of (even above) its segment.

i only responded because you brought it up. i think i could say that double wishbone would have a lower roll center than macphersons with more confidence than i could say that fwd outhandles rwd and that kind of talk runs rampant on on this forum. its feel does impress but you cant really make that claim considering it just lost a feel comparison to the miata. its, at best, up for debate.

Originally Posted by sf5

There's also a reason why the FR-S doesn't have a turbo -- cost. I'm pretty sure FR-S owners wouldn't turn down a turbo if offered. I can't wait until the new, improved Subies are out. Talk about an "enthusiast" car, and it's basically the same engine!

I copped an '08 335i sedan with 16k for $30,000. It's not overvalued, and if I could still afford the payments, I'd take that any day over a new FR-S. $250 used JB and I've got 400 horses and torque. Lot more plastic in the FR-S. Steptronic is no joke and will put most manuals to shame.

Speed is just one aspect, like you say; however, speed is addicting, and it never hurts to be fast. Obviously, handling is just as important. The weight and RWD of the FR-S is superior to the Si, but if you're going to lease an FR-S -- not recommended -- it's a ripoff. You could get an ATS or Infiniti for almost the same price, and that's where the Si shines as the better buy.

On a side note, there's an infamous video online where the Civic beats the FR-S in a head-to-head. Yes, the FR-S was rocking stock tires, and the Civic was the HFP version. I think they should have used a stock Si, not the HFP, with the tires it comes with -- MXM4 Michelin Pilots. It would have been a more accurate and fair comparison that way. I wish mine came with upgraded tires.

the 335 is almost twice the price of a mustang and with a third of the power. doesnt sound like much of a bargain to me. that 45k price tag is also why there is more plastic in the frs (how plastic affects the sportiness of a car is beyond me).

leasing and buying are two very different things, you should understand that. leasing any car is almost certainly a ripoff.

in the civic comparo video, they compare cars that were bought with the same amount of money. as far as stock for stock, dollar for dollar comparisons go, that was the closest they could come.