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

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ZDan

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

What you said:


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

ive never driven the fx16 so i wouldnt know. ive owned the corolla and i dont think its worthy of its stature. its a neat car and was an absolutely amazing buy before it became such a phenomenon. i just think that people put too much value on weight and rwd. i think they are means to an end and dont automatically yield an ideal sports car.

the 4age was pretty crazy for its time. even today, its pretty rev happy and a joy to run. it made ridiculous power for its day too but i wouldnt have been opposed to the f seires either i guess.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by fatoni

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.

I guess I wouldn't say someone is flat-out *wrong* to say that 200mph is "quick" or that 0-60 in 3.5 is "fast", but for me, in the racetrack and engineering crowds I move in, "quick" almost always refers to acceleration, and "fast" almost always refers to speed.

For me, there's a very real distinction, which can be quite useful. But yeah, I guess it's not like they are rigidly defined that way...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by fatoni

ive never driven the fx16 so i wouldnt know. ive owned the corolla and i dont think its worthy of its stature. its a neat car and was an absolutely amazing buy before it became such a phenomenon. i just think that people put too much value on weight and rwd. i think they are means to an end and dont automatically yield an ideal sports car.

I do put TREMENDOUS value on light weight and rwd.

Give me a lightweight rwd car and I can make it handle like I want MUCH more easily than I can make a heavy car reasonably lightweight or make an fwd car rwd (without getting into the whole debate, suffice to say I'm *only* interested in rwd).

Lightweight will generally feel more immediate and make you more connected to the driving experience. Lightweight means you don't need as much power or brakes or tire to have a reasonably quick/fast track car. My 240Z (also 2300 lb!) with a modded n/a L6, modded suspension (springs/struts/sways/camber bushings/etc.), on 225 Hoosiers is (er, was, anyway) quite literally a "giant-killer".

For many people who are into modding cars for performance, starting with a lightweight rwd platform is a no-brainer.

[shawnperolis]

Originally Posted by blackraven1425

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

The V6 Camry would eat any FRS, auto or not. The V6 Camry keeps up with muscle cars, it is stupid fast for what it is.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I do put TREMENDOUS value on light weight and rwd.

Give me a lightweight rwd car and I can make it handle like I want MUCH more easily than I can make a heavy car reasonably lightweight or make an fwd car rwd (without getting into the whole debate, suffice to say I'm *only* interested in rwd).

Lightweight will generally feel more immediate and make you more connected to the driving experience. Lightweight means you don't need as much power or brakes or tire to have a reasonably quick/fast track car. My 240Z (also 2300 lb!) with a modded n/a L6, modded suspension (springs/struts/sways/camber bushings/etc.), on 225 Hoosiers is (er, was, anyway) quite literally a "giant-killer".

For many people who are into modding cars for performance, starting with a lightweight rwd platform is a no-brainer.

i get that and agree. the thing that strikes me as odd is how the community seems to ignore its downsides. many people here are quick to dismiss miatas (well convertibles in general) because of the inherently flimsy chassis or talk down on mustangs because they cant possibly handle due to the antiquated live axle. then theres enough following here for the corolla that dont seem to care that when you corner, there is enough flex to turn your interior light on or that the car is less than confidence inspiring with its short wheelbase and solid axle.

im not going to argue the old z though. my friend and as soon as he found a transmission to handle what kind of power he was putting down, there wasnt much that could keep pace even on big willow.

[dori.]

Originally Posted by shawnperolis

The V6 Camry would eat any FRS, auto or not. The V6 Camry keeps up with muscle cars, it is stupid fast for what it is.

I dunno about "eat" but it is faster by a small margin

[cfusionpm]

There's more to a car than 0-60 and 1/4 mile. If that's all you want, don't buy this car.

You buy this car for this:

[shawnperolis]

Originally Posted by dori.

I dunno about "eat" but it is faster by a small margin

No, it is a LOT faster.

V6 Camry
0-60mph - 5.7
Quarter Mile - 14.1
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Toyota-0-60-mph-Times.html

FR-S
0-60mph - 6.2
Quarter Mile 14.5
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Scion-0-60-mph-Times.html

[dori.]

Originally Posted by shawnperolis

No, it is a LOT faster.

V6 Camry
0-60mph - 5.7
Quarter Mile - 14.1
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Toyota-0-60-mph-Times.html

FR-S
0-60mph - 6.2
Quarter Mile 14.5
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Scion-0-60-mph-Times.html

not going to call you on anything, but where does that site get its times from?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by fatoni

theres enough following here for the corolla that dont seem to care that when you corner, there is enough flex to turn your interior light on

I lol'd

[Dorb]

Are you taking it to the track? If not it is fine. Speed limit around here is 65 and I have had not problems. Or you can always get a another Mustang / Camaro - you hardly ever see them on the road these days. lol

[cfusionpm]

Originally Posted by dori.

not going to call you on anything, but where does that site get its times from?

Who cares? Who in their right mind would ever want to buy a Camry over an FR-S???

[shawnperolis]

Originally Posted by dori.

not going to call you on anything, but where does that site get its times from?

If you don't believe that site, here is Car and Driver's and Motor Trend's times:

V6 Camry
Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec
1/4 mile: 14.3 sec @ 101 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec
1/4 mile: 14.2 sec
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ry_first_test/

FR-S
Zero to 60 mph: 6.0–6.2 sec
1/4 mile: 15.5–15.7 sec
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review

Zero to 60mph: 6.2 sec
1/4 mile: 14.8
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html

Sorry man, but the Camry is quite a bit faster than our beloved FR-S. I'd much rather have the FR-S, but people don't give the new Camry enough credit... It stupid fast for a family sedan. Probably not as fun as the FR-S though!

[Brzetto]

2013 Subaru BRZ (Manual) 0-60 mph 6.1 Quarter Mile 14.6

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Subaru-0-60-mph-Times.html