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

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited

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*




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.

calling people spoiled brats for having an appreciation is at the very least as ignorant as they are for liking the power they have been exposed to. the frs is slow relative to its competition. you can say its fast for your standards but then its competition is just faster. the mustang can be had for much less than five thousand over the frs. in fact i had offers from dealers for cheaper than ive ever seen an frs. if there is a giant killer in this conversation, its the mustang and not the frs. anecdotal evidence that one time a corolla beat a skyline isnt proof of anything.

the frs is a neat little car. its design philosophy speaks to my personal values and that doesnt happen much in todays industry so im excited. im sure there are going to be isolated situations where an frs will surprise some people but it isnt close to being a giant killer.

[solidONE]

I've got a 06 Toyota Sienna that feels like it goes faster on the straights. What's attractive about this car, to me, is it's potential. When I first drove this car I thought "that's it? what was all the fuss about?" My 95 MX-5 R-package felt much more inspiring out of the box. My first test drive was a bit disappointing to be honest.

While the FR-S does everything my MX-5 did, it simply didn't do it quite as well besides not being back breakingly harsh (in stock form). What it did make me feel that the little miata didn't is that with the much larger footprint it will be capable of handing much more power and being much more stable at high speeds. A lot of room for improvement and tuning. And, with some minor tweaks it can be just as much a scalpel on the twisties as the tiny MX-5. I think this has already been proven time and time again by boatloads of tuners within months after it's release. With the right "investment" it has the potential to battle with and win against sports cars that cost many times more than it. I think that is what the designers and engineers of this car were aiming to do, and they did it well. This car is the best thing that happened to the automotive aftermarket since the fast and furious movies. lol

[Mr.Corvus]

I'm no physicist by any means, but it's kind of hard to say the height of a vehicle doesn't directly affect the CoG just based off personal observations alone. Ever see a lifted Camaro/El Camino/some other muscle car do a tight turn on 24's? It's scary enough just watching that, let alone being inside the damned thing. Drifters don't lower there cars just to ruin their body kits you know.
I know it's slightly off topic, but if you talk to anyone who (properly) lifts without the use of steroids, they can tell you all about how the height of a person changes the CoG of the body and thus makes lifting heavier objects easier or difficult depending on height.

[bobpuffer]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

Unless you are smitten by the looks, ( 6/10 on my scale... meh...) the car makes no sense on paper. Minivans and Camrys ARE going to leave you in the dust. Problem is compounded by the fact that the car seems to act as a challenge to a certain demographic when they see it.

But do yourself a favour and go drive it. There is a lot I am willing to live with (or without) for a car that has the handling properties of this car.

Smitten, give it a 9/10

[Dake]

I'll add my two cents. This car is slow if what you want to do is drag race every V8 Mustang, Camaro, Charger, Challenger, etc off the line at stoplights. When you put it up against a car that weighs 50% more with twice as much motor (and they're trying) you'll still lose.

But, you'll stay close and make the pass at the first curve without any problems and you'll do it with a big ol' smile on your face.

In the real world though, you have all the power you need if you keep the revs up. You'll never have difficulty merging on entrance ramps, and every empty, sweeping exit ramp is a joy because you won't even need to slow down. This car just settles in and cruises right around it.

The reality is, unless you own a Veyron or MP14, there will ALWAYS be something faster. So for the rest of us, you gotta pick something you can enjoy and this car is it for me.

[TheAWDkiD]

I currently own an 2012 STi and I dont think it is all that slow.
handling wise the brz/fr-s is way way way better

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by fatoni

if there is a giant killer in this conversation, its the mustang and not the frs.

im sure there are going to be isolated situations where an frs will surprise some people but it isnt close to being a giant killer.

Only true if your definition of "giant killer" is track times, and nothing else. If you're looking for the most enjoyable car for the track and street, the FR-S and BRZ are certainly giant killers. They've taken down plenty of cars above and beyond their price range.

[Dezoris]

I have said this in my reviews, if you can get over the fact that the car is slow in a straight line along with the "cheapness" inside there is plenty of enjoyment to be had.

[wu_dot_com]

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.

WTF are you for real.

Do you actually understand what those equation mean? COM is absolutely not just any arbitrary point in random space that someone picked.

COM is a the mass distribution is continuous with the density ρ(r) within a volume V, then the integral of the weighted position coordinates of the points in this volume relative to the center of mass is zero.

While COG is a calculation of the net zero resultant torque acting from different density distribution within a body with gravity.

For one, I am not arguing of the effects of lowering COM. I am talking strictly on the subject of which would the COG be lower if the car is lower.

If you self proclaim to be the god of this COG topic, how would you setup your equation.

Unlike some of you who thinks COG is just a random point in space. In real engineering an science, COG and COM is actually calculated and unique to each specific volume and density in a system of products.

I'm am not going to wast my time arguing popular science with someone who have no substantiation in this subject matter

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by ZDan

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.

Are you really that stupid. You just describe what I've said and what Wikipedia said.

When calculating COM, gravity does not come into play because its a relationship of volume and density distribution.

When you calculate COG, you need the sum of moment of each respective volume and density and apply gravity.

I never said to calculate COM while applying gravity.

It is you who clearly have a half baked understanding of both COM and COG. Also put on your critical thinking cap before posting again. Dispute what you believe, you really don't know what you are talking about

[WolfpackS2k]

Let's not kid ourselves. With 200 hp this car is not fast by today's standards. I would call it fast by 30 year old standards.

Compared to my 1992 Integra GS-R, overall yes it is faster. But once you're rolling and you can keep the Integra's (which has I/H/E work) engine above 5000 rpm I would call them pretty equal. Once the road gets twisty the BRZ/FRS runs away.

200 hp is disappointing. I'm hoping that there will be a factory solution for that within a year, otherwise I'll have to go the aftermarket route.

[strat61caster]

The COG/COM argument has devolved into semantics, we all agree on the same basic principles.

I read this quote yesterday:
"All models are wrong, some models are useful."

Nothing more will be gained from discussing this here, take it to the suspension sub-forum. /argument.

[circuithero]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

Are you really that stupid. You just describe what I've said and what Wikipedia said.

When calculating COM, gravity does not come into play because its a relationship of volume and density distribution.

When you calculate COG, you need the sum of moment of each respective volume and density and apply gravity.

I never said to calculate COM while applying gravity.

It is you who clearly have a half baked understanding of both COM and COG. Also put on your critical thinking cap before posting again. Dispute what you believe, you really don't know what you are talking about

Comic relief with my morning coffee for the win. Btw, its: "DESPITE what you believe, you really don't know what you are talking about".

[oldpueblo]

This seems semi-relevant:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_c1H60zlW0"]Drag Racing - Top Gear - Series 19 Episode 2 - BBC Two - YouTube[/ame]

It's not all about paper specs.