BRZ/FRS Vs DC2 Integra Type R

[regal]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Seriously, why do people continually say this? You CANNOT compare car costs that way. It doesn't work, and it is not a logical argument. Do you also talk about how your Pentium 4 computer from 1994 would cost $10,000 in today's money?

Cars are not computers.

There hasn't been significant technological advance to engines output since Buick combined EFI along with an intecooler and a turbo in 1986. That set the bar for engine performance per dollar, everything since then owes their numbers to these engineers.

There have been slight advances since then like vtech and port injection but these are slight in comparison to the efi+ intercooler + turbo.

I'll give you that recently V6 output has gone up significantly, largely because these were neglected for 40 years.

Car Chassis have gotten considerably worse in the last decade. Heavy FWD appliances. The average popular cars today are very similiar to late 60's 4 sedans with big blocks only fwd and overdrive.

For example a 1989 E30 BMW M3 hasn't been matched to this day dollar to dollar or compensated for inflation.

Using inflation is a valid way to compare prices if you are comparing well engineered cars.

Its just the last decade that hp and torque numbers have really jumped but are these engines proving long lasting and maintainable to 200k+ ?

We aren't getting more car for the money (inflation adjusted) than the late 80's as your post implies. We are getting safety bogged down heft, emmision ridden tuning, and epa milage testing gearing. The "technological" advances are for insurance companies not the consumer after performance per dollar. That's it unless you are into gadgets like bluetooth and gps which add no real to a sports car.

The other thing the inflation adjusted comparisons do is window a price-bracket.

There is more to it than HP/Lbs, its not a linear curve. Lightweight cars can be better even if they are slower in a straight line.

The FR-S is in a very similar price bracket as a 20 year old Civic Si/base Integra. This is an indication of potential sales/market share.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by cosworth

ITR is a great car to drive fast. I loved mine. It was closest thing to a rwd sporty car from Honda before S2000 was introduced. That B series engine was a screamer.

As much as I love one, I prefer a rwd car.

I think for most people will have a faster time in a stock ITR than a stock BRZ. Once you start to mod, it's anyone's guess.

p.s. what up dave?

Sup Sean. You coming to Expo? Craig still has your helmet AFAIK....

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by regal

Cars are not computers.

His point is still valid.

There hasn't been significant technological advance to engines output since Buick combined EFI along with an intecooler and a turbo in 1986. That set the bar for engine performance per dollar, everything since then owes their numbers to these engineers.

I guess the intercooled fuel injected vehicles before the 86 T-Type didn't advance anything? Adding an intercooler isn't even close to the technological advanced made by variable valve timing, direct injection, some of the advanced ECUs we have today, etc. Plus the 89 TTA did Buick's job better anyways a few years later. :shrug:

There have been slight advances since then like vtech and port injection but these are slight in comparison to the efi+ intercooler + turbo.

I disagree but that's just my opinion

Using inflation is a valid way to compare prices if you are comparing well engineered cars.

Not really. Federal safety standards require money to be spent in various areas that didn't exist in 1988. Do you believe the 88 M3 would have cost the same if it had to account for fuel efficiency standards, 12 air bags, extra crash testing, additional safety systems (EBFD/TCS/VSC/variable airbags, etc)?

Its just the last decade that hp and torque numbers have really jumped but are these engines proving long lasting and maintainable to 200k+ ?

Which engines are you talking about? If Integra Type-R's... easily. if BRZ/FRS, I'd imagine so but I guess time will tell.

We are getting safety bogged down heft, emmision ridden tuning, and epa milage testing gearing. The "technological" advances are for insurance companies not the consumer after performance per dollar. That's it unless you are into gadgets like bluetooth and gps which add no real to a sports car.

I agree with part of that, however, people actually do consider vehicle safety as part of their vehicle choice. Same with fuel economy, etc. Just because you don't doesn't mean that those things are not important to the majority of the public, and I'd venture to guess the majority of buyers on here (hell just look at all the fuel economy threads). BT, Nav, etc are conv items that some are willing to pay for. It would be stupid for a manufacturer not to provide them at this point.

Want a car from the 80s, go buy one.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Want a car from the 80s, go buy one.

[Mustang88_357mag]

I can speak for both cars in this comparison. I had a 2001 ITR loved the hell outta it and tracked it at Willow springs raceway since I'm from tehachapi ca which is 20 mins away. Also used to go up to palamar mountain road in Southern California when i lived in san diego. I have not tracked my frs yet but to me the power my ITR made was alot stronger, and the suspension was better and the car war way more confident in the corner. With that being said my ITR had alot of work done to it bored and sleved with AEBS sleves , Pauter Rods AEBS crank, JE pistons. My suspension was full Tien also had falken rubber on it. so it's not really a fair comparison but just thought I would add my .0002 cents either way both cars are great

[regal]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

I agree with part of that, however, people actually do consider vehicle safety as part of their vehicle choice. Same with fuel economy, etc. Just because you don't doesn't mean that those things are not important to the majority of the public, and I'd venture to guess the majority of buyers on here (hell just look at all the fuel economy threads). BT, Nav, etc are conv items that some are willing to pay for. It would be stupid for a manufacturer not to provide them at this point.

Want a car from the 80s, go buy one.

To say go buy an 80's car is coming out of left field. The Miata was designed in the 80's and I don't believe the 2013 MX-5is significantly "safer" than the '89 model or even more "technologicaly advanced." Hell the '98 DC2 Integra Type R is a safer ride than a 2013 Miata no matter what the Feds say, common sense. .

Heck Honda can't afford to build anything close to a double wishbone suspended Vtech powered DC2 today, it would list for $40k+ and not be competitive, the current disappointing offerings from Honda should tell you that todays dollars are not the same as when the DC2 was on the market.

No one can say that the FR-S for $25k in 2013 dollars isn't a good value compared to the '98 DC2 integra bought new for $25k when it was released, especially with interest rates as low as they are now. $ for $ we should be comparing the FR-S to something like a '94 Civic Si, that's the price bracket the FR-S is in.

The twins are the best deal I've seen in 30 years of lusting after affordable performance cars.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by regal

To say go buy an 80's car is coming out of left field. The Miata was designed in the 80's and I don't believe the 2013 MX-5is significantly "safer" than the '89 model or even more "technologicaly advanced." Hell the '98 DC2 Integra Type R is a safer ride than a 2013 Miata no matter what the Feds say, common sense. .

I'd rather be in ANY accident (even a rollover) in a 2013 MX-5 than a 90 MX-5. The early NA Miatas were incredibly flexible machines.

Heck Honda can't afford to build anything close to a double wishbone suspended Vtech powered DC2 today, it would list for $40k+ and not be competitive, the current disappointing offerings from Honda should tell you that todays dollars are not the same as when the DC2 was on the market.

Could, or won't? They moved in the direction they did for cost savings and packaging. Every old Honda fan hates it. They could do so but the safety gear and electronics increases the price, yen values change over time, testing/research costs would be different, etc, so no, it wouldn't be for $25K. I've had talks with VPs at Honda and they will plainly tell you that it's not the direction they want to go in. Honda can do whatever they want to do, that doesn't mean they can't do something. Obviously a DC2R would cost more today if they made it a modern car (which they'd have to in order to sell it currently). If they could legally make it the same as the old one, I'm not so sure it would honestly. Probably a little more since they'd actually have to start producing old parts again... and, it's VTEC, they aren't putting cordless phones in the engine bays.

No one can say that the FR-S for $25k in 2013 dollars isn't a good value compared to the '98 DC2 integra bought new for $25k when it was released, especially with interest rates as low as they are now. $ for $ we should be comparing the FR-S to something like a '94 Civic Si, that's the price bracket the FR-S is in.

The twins are the best deal I've seen in 30 years of lusting after affordable performance cars.

Who is arguing that the FR-S/BRZ aren't good values? And for reasons already mentioned, you can't just do an inflation comparison. Hell you aren't even accounting for yen values, federal testing, development cost (one thing to remember about the ITR is that it was based on an OLD platform, and if you believe the rumors, Honda lost money on each one sold, although I don't buy that myself, even if it is true for some of the other Type-R models), etc. Inflation increases based on MSRP is worthless, sorry. You are picking just one variable that goes into vehicle pricing and ignoring a ton of others.

[WolfpackS2k]

Personally I feel that the car is 20-30hp short of being a good value.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by regal

To say go buy an 80's car is coming out of left field. The Miata was designed in the 80's and I don't believe the 2013 MX-5is significantly "safer" than the '89 model or even more "technologicaly advanced." Hell the '98 DC2 Integra Type R is a safer ride than a 2013 Miata no matter what the Feds say, common sense. .

Heck Honda can't afford to build anything close to a double wishbone suspended Vtech powered DC2 today, it would list for $40k+ and not be competitive, the current disappointing offerings from Honda should tell you that todays dollars are not the same as when the DC2 was on the market.

No one can say that the FR-S for $25k in 2013 dollars isn't a good value compared to the '98 DC2 integra bought new for $25k when it was released, especially with interest rates as low as they are now. $ for $ we should be comparing the FR-S to something like a '94 Civic Si, that's the price bracket the FR-S is in.

The twins are the best deal I've seen in 30 years of lusting after affordable performance cars.

the new miata is much different than an old miata. i dont know why you keep alluding to that. how is it common sense that the new miata is more dangerous than the old integra? also, pure speculations dont make for good arguments.

[DC2R]

Originally Posted by regal

To say go buy an 80's car is coming out of left field. The Miata was designed in the 80's and I don't believe the 2013 MX-5is significantly "safer" than the '89 model or even more "technologicaly advanced." Hell the '98 DC2 Integra Type R is a safer ride than a 2013 Miata no matter what the Feds say, common sense. .

Heck Honda can't afford to build anything close to a double wishbone suspended Vtech powered DC2 today, it would list for $40k+ and not be competitive, the current disappointing offerings from Honda should tell you that todays dollars are not the same as when the DC2 was on the market.

No one can say that the FR-S for $25k in 2013 dollars isn't a good value compared to the '98 DC2 integra bought new for $25k when it was released, especially with interest rates as low as they are now. $ for $ we should be comparing the FR-S to something like a '94 Civic Si, that's the price bracket the FR-S is in.

The twins are the best deal I've seen in 30 years of lusting after affordable performance cars.

I know this thread is old buuuuuut....... I thought VTECH was a kids' learning toy. I have a B20VTEC in a 2000 GS-R that is pretty strong and reliable. finding it hard to justify a 25k+ purchase pver a car that's been pay off for over a year. That being said I may buy one next week with 10K down. Thoughts?

[Hanni_0176]

Why are you asking us? The easiest way to decide is to go test drive one. If you don't fall in love with it, then don't buy it.

[xia]

If you have money down, go for it. I do kind of wish i wouldve gotten a 3sgte swapped Celica i was looking at. Both the Celica and FRS were identical in every aspect besides engine and fwd/rwd. To me fwd, awd, rwd doesnt matter. Best thing is to go do a test drive. Buy what you want.

[solidONE]

Just to add to this. I remember reading years ago, about when the S2000 was just released. They took both cars to the streets of willow and the Type-R DC2 was able to lap several seconds quicker than the AP1 S2000. I will have to try to find the article. Might have been Sport Compact Car who did the test.

Type R DC2 is one bad assed FWD platform. It 'smoked' the crap out of the AP1 S2K.

[DC2R]

Just trying to get some opinions from others that may have owned Integras before. I drove the manual around the block conservative(lame dealer). I did just drive the auto. I like the feel of the car overall. I'd definitely be going for the manual. If I had a garage I'd feel different about keeping the teg

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk 4