3 things: Even after reading many reviews, I still can't fathom these...

[Noob4Life]

This car may be lacking a bit in the power dept but im gonna out in the reason I chose this car instead of something with more power. Potential. This car has the potential to be an all out monster. It comes from the factory lightweight and a handling monster. With a little money and can cut the weight even further and slap a turbo or SC on it. Once my FR-S goes FI (which I know im eventually going to do) it will be a beast. Ill put up with people calling it slow for now (even though its not as slow as I thought it was going to be, which says alot considering im coming from a 22psi turbod jetta) because I know that a year or so from now when ive got a stage 2 fi kit under the hood. None of those people are going to touch me on the track and a decent amount will get left behind on the drag as well. My ideas may sound a bit childish but im okay with that lol I see my 86s potential even tho alot of people only see stock tq numbers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

[Atticus808]

doesn't anyone here know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source? althought information may be correct, it's not much better than sourcing a forum post.

I haven't done my moments calculations and all that in a couple years, but if someone drew up all the shapes and distances and did the COG calculations, the COG will change. (I didn't really read the posts above cause I'm too lazy)

[circuithero]

Lol @ state certification and "engineer". Right... and cute (and very wrong) use of Newton's second law. My friend you are about as much of an engineer as I am Tony Stark.

Your first posts reminded me exactly of why everyone should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt, including mine. Thanks for helping with the noise to signal ratio... For the rest of you people, don't be thrown off by arbitrary formulas thrown out by some keyboard warrior who did a quick search on google to back up his argument. As for you "wu_", go take your argument to the suspension model section, they will rip you a new one quickly.

Sure you can assume relative arbitrary points, fact is, you are lowering the entire mass (minus the unspung, which is a small portion) relative to the contact patch has immense benefits. You really think, that in this obvious case that the COG would not be different? You know damn well (well, YOU don't...) for all intents and purposes, the center of gravity would be effectively acting on the center of mass in this case. Period. Btw, COM is arbitrary and a made up point to simplify modelling and not anything physical. Why don't we just take a point of the moment of the car around earth relative to Pluto huh? Will that make sense? You think race cars are low for fun?

Not only are you reducing the moment LATERALLY but you are decreasing the available volume for air underneath the car, which aids in high speed stability by reducing the pressure delta at higher speeds (generating less lift). Why are you decreasing the moment laterally? Because the COM/height of the vehicle is analogous to the effective lever arm, which you are reducing by decreasing the height, thereby decreasing the effective force to roll the body. You think trucks roll because they are unlucky and hit pixie dust too much? Higher COM, higher moment laterally (about the x-axis as a reference point, as any REAL engineer would take it) and you have more roll. Less moment laterally = less body roll = more use of the contact patch, especially on a mcpherson strut which sees positive camber gain with body roll. Thats just the tip of the iceberg too, as there are so many variables and components that your already WRONG and SILLY arguments is moot. Stop with the BS, you are wrong on so many levels and its not even funny. Geek talk my @$$, you don't even understand principle fundamentals.

[oldpueblo]

[Brzetto]

Originally Posted by oldpueblo

He's doing the Capital One commercials now.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-V9DVAPnQ"]Capital One Vikings Commercial - 2009 (1).wmv - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRuuF-5ZST8"]neeeerds - YouTube[/ame]

[shishand]

this guy will never post again lol

[husker741]

20 year old who understands why this car is so great, checking in!...

You're all talking about the pu$$y magnet in the glove box, correct?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

Not disputing that fact. But here is the question, how can you accurately setup your sum of moments (torque) equal zero for all 3 planes to solve for R when your unt vector in X and Z direction is zero?

You, are doing it wrong. You don't need to apply forces, or "unit vector" gravity in any directions, or sum moments at all to find the center of mass. Which, again, *is* the center of gravity in a constant gravitational field (which is the only way any of these cars will be driven).

Wikipedia references that are misunderstood and wrongly applied are no substitute for knowing what the hell you are talking about. Clearly you do not.

Also, it's "rigid body", not "ridgit" or "ridget".

Now repeat after me: A car's center of gravity *is* the same as it's center of mass, and it *does* change (move) if the car is lowered.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited

The BRZ/86/FRS is not slow, the other cars just have a lot more power to compensate for their relatively humongous weight.

just like those other cars are relatively humongous, the frs is relatively slow. you cant have it both ways.

[Brzetto]

Originally Posted by fatoni

just like those other cars are relatively humongous, the frs is relatively slow. you cant have it both ways.

Opinions vary.

[F1_Fanatic]

I'm glad someone asked this because I have been wondering the same thing for quite some time now.

I've been driving a 140hp Civic (2008 LX) for 5 years now and to me it's not that bad in terms of power. Sure, you have to be realistic, but if I mash the pedal, the car revs up and moves. Like I said, gotta be realistic, so of course there's no sort of feeling of getting pulled into your seat or anything, but still, the car goes..

Now take the 86. Roughly the same weight as my car right now, but with an additional 60hp. That is quite a significant increase in power is it not? So when I read things like "Man, this car doesn't move" or "Damn it's slow" , I get really confused because I know if my Civic had 200hp it would certainly not feel slow!

[sho220]

Originally Posted by circuithero

Lol @ state certification and "engineer". Right... and cute (and very wrong) use of Newton's second law. My friend you are about as much of an engineer as I am Tony Stark.

Your first posts reminded me exactly of why everyone should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt, including mine. Thanks for helping with the noise to signal ratio... For the rest of you people, don't be thrown off by arbitrary formulas thrown out by some keyboard warrior who did a quick search on google to back up his argument. As for you "wu_", go take your argument to the suspension model section, they will rip you a new one quickly.

Sure you can assume relative arbitrary points, fact is, you are lowering the entire mass (minus the unspung, which is a small portion) relative to the contact patch has immense benefits. You really think, that in this obvious case that the COG would not be different? You know damn well (well, YOU don't...) for all intents and purposes, the center of gravity would be effectively acting on the center of mass in this case. Period. Btw, COM is arbitrary and a made up point to simplify modelling and not anything physical. Why don't we just take a point of the moment of the car around earth relative to Pluto huh? Will that make sense? You think race cars are low for fun?

Not only are you reducing the moment LATERALLY but you are decreasing the available volume for air underneath the car, which aids in high speed stability by reducing the pressure delta at higher speeds (generating less lift). Why are you decreasing the moment laterally? Because the COM/height of the vehicle is analogous to the effective lever arm, which you are reducing by decreasing the height, thereby decreasing the effective force to roll the body. You think trucks roll because they are unlucky and hit pixie dust too much? Higher COM, higher moment laterally (about the x-axis as a reference point, as any REAL engineer would take it) and you have more roll. Less moment laterally = less body roll = more use of the contact patch, especially on a mcpherson strut which sees positive camber gain with body roll. Thats just the tip of the iceberg too, as there are so many variables and components that your already WRONG and SILLY arguments is moot. Stop with the BS, you are wrong on so many levels and its not even funny. Geek talk my @$$, you don't even understand principle fundamentals.

He's not an engineer, but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited

Opinions vary.

thats true but to knock other cars for being heavy (which may or may not effect the performance of the car) but not knocking the frs for being slow (which does effect the performance of the car) simply isnt fair.

[Brzetto]

Originally Posted by F1_Fanatic

I'm glad someone asked this because I have been wondering the same thing for quite some time now.

I've been driving a 140hp Civic (2008 LX) for 5 years now and to me it's not that bad in terms of power. Sure, you have to be realistic, but if I mash the pedal, the car revs up and moves. Like I said, gotta be realistic, so of course there's no sort of feeling of getting pulled into your seat or anything, but still, the car goes..

Now take the 86. Roughly the same weight as my car right now, but with an additional 60hp. That is quite a significant increase in power is it not? So when I read things like "Man, this car doesn't move" or "Damn it's slow" , I get really confused because I know if my Civic had 200hp it would certainly not feel slow!

Cars that have 200hp or more are not slow by any means BUT you have these spoiled brats who think every car should come with 350hp so they are going to call a car with 200hp slow. The same mentality is present in the car magazines, these so called journalists drive $200.000 cars on a weekly basis in addition to inexpensive cars. Those hacks say the same bullshit, basically calling the inexpensive cars cheap pieces of junk. Not to mention a large group of them are car company stooges and or political stooges as well. For example that idiot Angus Mackenzie from motor trend blathering on about Carroll Shelby's nickname for the Mustang and calling the BRZ's handling crisp, bacon is crisp a car's handling isn't. The BRZ's handling is tight and direct like a sports car, period. *rolls eyes*

Originally Posted by fatoni

thats true but to knock other cars for being heavy (which may or may not effect the performance of the car) but not knocking the frs for being slow (which does effect the performance of the car) simply isnt fair.

I knocked them because the people who bitch about 200hp are spoiled brats who need to go buy a different car if they want to achieve 4 seconds to 60 mph. The same idiots say "for an extra $5000 I could get a mustang gt", the funny thing is they don't get that certain cars are secret giant killers. They see a cheap car, I see a car that has the potential to kick a much more expensive car's ass. For example I saw a video out of japan about 5 years ago that showed one or two R34 Skylines vs an AE86 on a road course, the Skyline stayed away for a few laps but once the AE86 got past him the Skyline never recovered the lead.