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

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ZDan

64-66 Mustangs were fr-s/brz weight, ~2750 lb!
By how much, 15 lb? A Scion iQ is lighter than a Lotus Elise, that doesn't mean the Elise isn't a lightweight! C'mon, at 2300 lb, the ae86 was a light car, even in the 80s.

i think youre taking what im saying out of context with the corollas weight. i was just trying to show the corollas "amazing" hanlding isnt due to its amazing suspension layout or it amazingly low weight. also that mustang weight you mentioned was from twenty yearsr before the ae86. in 85 the corolla weighed about as much as much as a camry.

Originally Posted by Timmy_Jones

Is the FR-S fast? NO
Is the FR-S quick? YES

You need to make that distinction. I own a fast car, but can enjoy the quickness of the FR-S. You do need to go drive one...the weird lag at 4K RPMS was my only major turn off from the car.

what distinction? what is the difference between quick and fast? in my book (the dictionary), they are synonymous.

[NOHOME]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i think youre taking what im saying out of context with the corollas weight. i was just trying to show the corollas "amazing" hanlding isnt due to its amazing suspension layout or it amazingly low weight. also that mustang weight you mentioned was from twenty yearsr before the ae86. in 85 the corolla weighed about as much as much as a camry.

what distinction? what is the difference between quick and fast? in my book (the dictionary), they are synonymous.

Go for a test drive and you will understand.

[ZDan]

185mph = fast
0-60 in 3.5 = quick

FR-S is neither by modern standards, but it is tremendously FUN in a way that most bigger, heavier, faster, quicker cars will never be.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i was just trying to show the corollas "amazing" hanlding isnt due to its amazing suspension layout or it amazingly low weight. also that mustang weight you mentioned was from twenty yearsr before the ae86.

I know, but it was an era when most cars were heavier vs. mid-80s. You said that you'd never argue that Mustangs were *ever* lightweight, I was just pointing out that the originals were pretty light, relatively... I guess they probably were with the Mustang II in the mid-70s, but of course those should hardly count as Mustangs...

in 85 the corolla weighed about as much as much as a camry.

Camry was *very* lightweight for a 4-door sedan. That *still* doesn't mean that the AE86 was something other than LIGHTWEIGHT.
I mean, come on!

the ae86 wasnt really lightweight. especially in its time.

Standards differ, but to me (and I am a big-time stickler on weight) 2300 lb. rwd coupe in the mid-80s was pretty damn lightweight in its day, and its weight is a tremendous benefit to its performance potential.

[strat61caster]

'85 Honda Civic ~1900 lbs
'85 Mustang ~2,800 lbs
'87 Camaro ~3,300 lbs
'85 Alfa Romeo Spyder ~2,560 lbs
'85 BMW 318i ~2,400 lbs
'85 RX7 ~2,500 lbs
'85 Porsche 944 ~2,830 lbs
'85 Hilux ~2,800 lbs

Sooo AE86 was on the light side for a 2-door hatch. I really just wanted to look up a bunch of curb weights for vehicles that can be picked up for less than 5 grand.

Edit: '85 GTI ~2,000 lbs

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

Go for a test drive and you will understand.

test drive what? i owned a corolla for years.

Originally Posted by ZDan

I know, but it was an era when most cars were heavier vs. mid-80s. You said that you'd never argue that Mustangs were *ever* lightweight, I was just pointing out that the originals were pretty light, relatively... I guess they probably were with the Mustang II in the mid-70s, but of course those should hardly count as Mustangs...

Camry was *very* lightweight for a 4-door sedan. That *still* doesn't mean that the AE86 was something other than LIGHTWEIGHT.
I mean, come on!


Standards differ, but to me (and I am a big-time stickler on weight) 2300 lb. rwd coupe in the mid-80s was pretty damn lightweight in its day, and its weight is a tremendous benefit to its performance potential.

im not saying the ae86 is heavy. i wasnt saying the mustang has always been heavy either. im just saying the corollas weight isnt remarkable and cant be the reason for the cars much overhyped status. 2300 lbs is something that is appreciable but if it was enough for that legendary status the ae86 has, there should be tons of equally legendary cars.

[Timmy_Jones]

Originally Posted by fatoni

what distinction? what is the difference between quick and fast? in my book (the dictionary), they are synonymous.

Let me try an analogy.

Wes Welker is quick
Randy Moss is fast

The FRS is not fast 0-60, but it feels quick like you can throw it side to side. A Bugatti is fast, but you wouldn't want it on a little auto x course as that requires quickness side to side. I would associate quickness with weight, size and rigidity. The ability to be fast is more raw power.

I hope that helps.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Timmy_Jones

Let me try an analogy.

Wes Welker is quick
Randy Moss is fast

The FRS is not fast 0-60, but it feels quick like you can throw it side to side. A Bugatti is fast, but you wouldn't want it on a little auto x course as that requires quickness side to side. I would associate quickness with weight, size and rigidity. The ability to be fast is more raw power.

I hope that helps.

its just too ambiguous i guess since in my head the terms are completely interchangeable. people use stuff like this all the time and from what ive seen, quick means slow. the most memorable times i can remember were times when a miata (quick) raced a bentley(fast) raced an autocross and were within two tenths of a second from eachother. theres also a lot of corvette vs elise talk that mirror those sentiments but the vette has more objective "quickness" (slalom, emergency lane change)than the quick elise does.

[blackraven1425]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

Minivans and Camrys ARE going to leave you in the dust.

Uh, maybe the V6 Camry will keep up if the 86 is auto, but not a 4 cylinder Camry...

[ZDan]

"Quick" implies that something is happening over a very short period of time. A car is quick if it is capable of impressive *acceleration* (i.e., significant increase in speed over a small increment of time). "Fast" is simply high *speed*. Speed and acceleration are not the same thing. Like I said before, 185mph is FAST (even if it took 5 minutes to get to that speed), 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds is QUICK (even if 60mph isn't really "fast").

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by fatoni

im not saying the ae86 is heavy. i wasnt saying the mustang has always been heavy either. im just saying the corollas weight isnt remarkable and cant be the reason for the cars much overhyped status. 2300 lbs is something that is appreciable but if it was enough for that legendary status the ae86 has, there should be tons of equally legendary cars.

OK, start naming the "tons" of other reasonably attainable rwd street cars from the 80s that are the same weight or lighter than the AE86, because somehow I've been overlooking them!

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ZDan

"Quick" implies that something is happening over a very short period of time. A car is quick if it is capable of impressive *acceleration* (i.e., significant increase in speed over a small increment of time). "Fast" is simply high *speed*. Speed and acceleration are not the same thing. Like I said before, 185mph is FAST (even if it took 5 minutes to get to that speed), 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds is QUICK (even if 60mph isn't really "fast").

i understand what youre saying. i just dont understand where you got these definitions or why people think calling something that can go 200mph quick or something that goes 0-60 in under 5 seconds is wrong.

Originally Posted by ZDan

OK, start naming the "tons" of other reasonably attainable rwd street cars from the 80s that are the same weight or lighter than the AE86, because somehow I've been overlooking them!

i never said that. i was saying 2300 lbs shouldnt be enough to make the corolla into what a lot of people think it is. i feel like the engine was more remarkable than the chassis. especially for its time.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i never said that. i was saying 2300 lbs shouldnt be enough to make the corolla into what a lot of people think it is. i feel like the engine was more remarkable than the chassis. especially for its time.

So if it was more about the engine than chassis, how do you feel about the FX16 vs. AE86?

What you said:

im just saying the corollas weight isnt remarkable and cant be the reason for the cars much overhyped status. 2300 lbs is something that is appreciable but if it was enough for that legendary status the ae86 has, there should be tons of equally legendary cars.

What makes the AE86 totally worthy of the hype and legendary status is the combination of rwd and light weight.
If there are so many other cars from the 80s that are equally worthy, I'd like to know what they are!
The AE86's 2300 lb. weight *is* remarkable for a rwd car in the 80s.

And yeah, 4AGE is fine, but I'd like to drop an F20C or F22C into the AE86

[Opposed]

Originally Posted by blackraven1425

Uh, maybe the V6 Camry will keep up if the 86 is auto, but not a 4 cylinder Camry...

Agreed. By no means would I kid myself that the FRS is "fast" but saying its going to get left in the dust by minivans is a little harsh.

FRS 0-60 6.2

2012 Sienna 7.7
2012 Caravan 7.9
Odyssey 7.5-7.8
Quest 7.8
Sedona 8.7