Toyota rep at Frankfurt IAA said FT-86 weight will be 1,160kg (2,555 pounds)

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I bet if I was to drive a miata I would never get the same feeling as you guys. The only light roadster that I have been in that feels fast was the s2k. But that feeling only came at full WOT. In my RSX when im using steptronic I get the sensation of speed but reality sets in when I look at the guage and look outside to see my car is barely moving. I know exactly what you guys mean.

You also have an automatic base RSX, about the biggest POS excuse for a sporty economy car Honda has made since.. hell even DC4 Integra LS/GS/RS were more fun..

I'd take an RSX-S over a DC4 but not a DC2 even, the RSX's are, IMO, complete failures as a replacement for the US GS-R/ITR cars.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Bingo. Finally someone is building a cheap, 4 seat, non-FWD momentum car.

I wouldn't even mind a cheap 2 seat non-roadster non-FWD momentum car :P 4 seats will leave space to throw junk in easily though.

[SUB-FT86]

I hope the FRs turns out to be 2+2 version of a miata but with masculine low slung styling, and a much more livelier powertrain.

[MtnDrvr86]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

You know what? I will test a miata out one of these days. But my issue was never about the handling prowess of a Miata in case you guys forgot. I could tell the damn car is a good handling car just by looking at it. It isn't hard to make a tiny sports car really fun in the handling dept. With the right ingredients,attention to details and right balance it can be done.

I think if GM put there minds to it they could've made a helluva light sports car if they were to make a RWD version of the Cobalt SS which had the best time of any FWD car on the Ring.

The solstice gxp and sky redline where pretty much that...you know, minus the back seats and roof.

[Aki]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Don't forget the shitty mac strut design.

Honda's last good Integra hatchback was the DC2.

Well the FR-S I think is Mac strut up front too =P I don't mind MacPherson struts actually, I mean it's good enough for Porsche. The main thing is to dial in negative camber, compensating for the lack of camber gain under compression.

[Dimman]

Sub, why haven't you bought your Genesis coupe 3.8L yet?

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Aki

Well the FR-S I think is Mac strut up front too =P I don't mind MacPherson struts actually, I mean it's good enough for Porsche. The main thing is to dial in negative camber, compensating for the lack of camber gain under compression.

I don't hate them, but I'd rather have double wishbones up front. There are pros and cons to both but switching from double wishbone to a mac strut setup pisses off people who would have otherwise considered buying the new version... the mac strut on the FR-S is probably my biggest negative about the car pre-release :P

Mac strut does make it easy for caster and camber adjustments.

Porsche also used some really horrible suspension designs in the past :P

[Want.FR-S]

Sorry for going off tangent here: is it true that under normal driving condition (revving up to 4K max on the street), a S2K would be slower than a cavalier because of less torque in that sense? Somehow I got this impression but I do not know where I get this. Maybe this is just another urban myth w.r.t. S2K.

BTW, if GT5 has any bearing on the performance of FR-S, I think this car is going to be as fast as a Z (maybe a bit slower, but definitely faster than mx-5) on track.

[Dave-ROR]

The best Cav motor I believe had 180ftlbs and 135hp. I have no idea which is faster in a race where the S2K has to shift at 4K and the Cav has to shift at.. redline? I'd guess the Cav then. If it had to shift at 50% of it's redline I'd guess the S. No idea though and it doesn't really matter does it?

I rarely revved my S2K (or my low torque hondas) past 4k in normal street driving and have no problems going with the flow of traffic.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Sub, why haven't you bought your Genesis coupe 3.8L yet?

I dont want to give up just yet. 2 more months if I hear what I like then I want to give the scion/subaru a chance. I prefer smaller cars anyway.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Want.FR-S

Sorry for going off tangent here: is it true that under normal driving condition (revving up to 4K max on the street), a S2K would be slower than a cavalier because of less torque in that sense? Somehow I got this impression but I do not know where I get this. Maybe this is just another urban myth w.r.t. S2K.

BTW, if GT5 has any bearing on the performance of FR-S, I think this car is going to be as fast as a Z (maybe a bit slower, but definitely faster than mx-5) on track.

Look at any dyno chart of the S2k, you'll see torque is actually pretty constant. On the low speed cam it's a tiny bit lower to save fuel obviously, but the torque is very respectable throughout the rev range. For people who complain about lack of low end torque, it's all in their heads, real data shows this is not the case.

A cavalier has to do with almost only half the power of the S2k, so no, there is no way it would be faster. At 4k rpm on the s2k the engine is giving you over 100 hp, while on the cavalier you'd need to be 75% up the rev range to get that (or something). No way the gears would be retarded enough to make the cavalier "faster" at low speed. Think of it like this, "normal driving" cuts away more power on the s2k, but the s2k is geared shorter since it is performance oriented, and the s2k is so far ahead in power that the "normal driving" disadvantage isn't enough to make it lose.

If you want more solid numbers, I'm getting somewhere that max power on the 3.1L gm motor comes at 5200rpm. The s2k has max power at 8300, rev limited at 9k. Let's say we're revving to 4k on both engines. At 4000 rpm we probably have something like 80% of the power on the gm motor, while we have about 45% power on the s2k. However the s2k has 50% more power in the first place. So at 4000 rpm the s2k is only down maybe 15% in actual power. Weights appear to be comparable.

Here's the catch, the s2k is a very hardcore performance car, and I bet that the gears are short enough to compensate. Say we're in first gear...and both cars were designed to accelerate at the same rate in first gear. Then the s2k's gearing would be comparatively 10% shorter (to give the same torque at the wheel) to match the cavalier, and it would lose if we limited revs to 4k. But I am willing to bet 20 bucks that the s2k's gears are considerably shorter (read: a crapton higher torque multiplication), and it would hit that 4k rpm point much sooner. The s2k has a very good 0-60 time, which supports this idea since 0-60 is the only time when you even need to think about the stuff in the lower 75% of the rev range. Another thing is that the s2k has piss poor fuel economy for a 2L engine, which is another indication that its gears are extremely short. If you go faster, then the power disadvantage can't be overcome obviously, but that's what those extra 5000 revs are for right?

The thing is this: if you have a lot of revs, but your car is somehow slow at lower speed, that makes no sense because a lot of revs=performance oriented=they want it to be fast at all speeds, not just have a higher top speed.

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by pastuch

My issue is getting made fun of at every fucking light. Even girls give me a hard time.

That's why god invented the middle finger.

I love the Miata. I don't mean to downplay it at all in any of my posts. I'd own one now if I didn't have a need for a back seat.

[chulooz]

Have you ever driven an S2k? Even when they upped the displacement to 2.2l it could be described as 'gutless' when that digi tach wasn't getting up there, such as very conservative city style driving.

That is a great example of a motor that thrives on revs.

[Want.FR-S]

2003 Cavalier dyno graph (stock)

http://www.dragtimes.com/2003-Chevro...aphs-8862.html



2003 S2000 dyno graph (stock)

http://www.dragtimes.com/2003-Honda-...phs-11765.html



So, I understand that S2K is a fast car that can achieve good 0-60 time whereas cavalier maybe a POS in 0-60 time. However, the key point in this discussion is at the rev limit of 4K. At 4K point, Cavalier has > 100 HP and > 125 lb-ft of torque, whereas S2K has < 100 HP and < 125 lb-ft of torque. If we just forget about the gearing issue and the free revving characteristic of S2K for now, just compare it on numbers S2K is inferior to Cavalier. I think this maybe the complaints of the "gut-less" motor. In the regular city driving, the motor feels gutless.

I have only driven a cavalier but not S2K so I know that torque at the low rev. There might be a moot point to determine which is faster unless someone actually tried it. But we can talk about the torque/hp and how it can be related to FT-86.