BRZ/FRS Vs DC2 Integra Type R

[WolfpackS2k]

Yeah I know how it works man. Contact patch stays the same size. Just a different shape

[ayau]

Here's my take on car comparisons.

Both cars should be 100% stock. This includes restricting to factory tire compounds. You could always say you could do X to a car to equalize the comparison, but the point of the comparison is to compare them, not equialize them.

If both cars are 100% stock, the ITR would most likely be "faster" due to better tire compound.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Sonolin

EDIT: After some further research (thanks @DarkSunrise!), it seems these times were with the stickier bridgestone tires. Good to know! I thought these were with the primacy's which would've been much more impressive, but a little unbelievable when you think of it

Yep, switching tires (even just RE050A's) made a big difference in that test. There's also some indication that the 9:09 was a partially wet lap.

Originally Posted by ayau

Here's my take on car comparisons.

Both cars should be 100% stock. This includes restricting to factory tire compounds. You could always say you could do X to a car to equalize the comparison, but the point of the comparison is to compare them, not equialize them.

If both cars are 100% stock, the ITR would most likely be "faster" due to better tire compound.

Yeah I can see both sides to this issue, which is why I posted up the times with and without comparable tires. The times can speak for themselves I guess.
:happy0180:

[Draco_PR23]

Stock vs stock, i think the ITR will be the "fastest" as you mentioned because of the better tires.

I own both cars and neither of them are stock right now, I havent tracked them yet but I'm planning to do it.

[Mr.Jay]

Originally Posted by ayau

Here's my take on car comparisons.

Both cars should be 100% stock. This includes restricting to factory tire compounds. You could always say you could do X to a car to equalize the comparison, but the point of the comparison is to compare them, not equialize them.

If both cars are 100% stock, the ITR would most likely be "faster" due to better tire compound.

I tend to agree with this notion except when it comes to tires since they play IMO the one of the largest roles in how fast you are and I count them as a wear item that will end up getting changed anyways.

Seems fair to me that everything on both cars are stock except tires are the same to compare the faster car but everything stock if you want to compare the better car to right out the box

[fatoni]

if you are going to keep at this hypothetical racing, you might as well pick a real track. the ring is used to develop cars. its not really a good metric considering how much room for human error there is over 13 miles.

also, im not sure a sixth gear is going to matter. having driven both, the itr was more impressive but the drives were years apart so it doesnt really mean anything. when we weighed the itr, it was a lot lighter than what it was listed at

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Mr.Jay

I tend to agree with this notion except when it comes to tires since they play IMO the one of the largest roles in how fast you are and I count them as a wear item that will end up getting changed anyways.

Seems fair to me that everything on both cars are stock except tires are the same to compare the faster car but everything stock if you want to compare the better car to right out the box

we have been here before but i dont think being a wear item is reason enough. brakes are wear items and so is the clutch (entire cars are wear items too i suppose).

equalizing tires is informative but not fair.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by fatoni

if you are going to keep at this hypothetical racing, you might as well pick a real track. the ring is used to develop cars. its not really a good metric considering how much room for human error there is over 13 miles.

also, im not sure a sixth gear is going to matter. having driven both, the itr was more impressive but the drives were years apart so it doesnt really mean anything. when we weighed the itr, it was a lot lighter than what it was listed at

Yeah the Ring isn't the best for comparing laptimes, but it's the only set of times we have for these cars, unless someone owns both in stock form and is willing to do some testing (doubtful).

At the very least, the times on the Ring back up what we can guess from looking at the specs, namely that they're similar weight/hp cars built for similar purposes. On vaguely comparable tires, you'd expect them to put down similar laptimes, which the Ring confirms.

[Sonolin]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Yeah the Ring isn't the best for comparing laptimes, but it's the only set of times we have for these cars, unless someone owns both in stock form and is willing to do some testing (doubtful).

Take a look at http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/h...ota_ft-86.html

There's a lap time for Hockenheim Short & Vairano Handling Course on there for both cars.

From my previous experience, the lap data on that site is fairly accurate. Sometimes there's random times that get posted that are wrong, but they are debunked very quickly. They only use times from big names (race drivers and usually only big sources like Car and Drive, Road and Track, Motrotrend, etc.). Times are always stock (I believe the 86 is equipped with the bridgestones in those tests though).

EDIT: And yea not a lot of times to see, but at least those 2 courses + nordschliefe is a pretty good indication of how fast the 86 (stock) is IMO.

[DarkSunrise]

Yep, you're right. Looks like there are more data points there.

[_hollywood]

The reason i bought an frs is because its the closest thing to a modern itr that is available, from the faux cf trim ( i know its t symbols but cmon) to the red stitched seats, and the minimalist approach, which over time is slowly being appreciated by the masses....

Simple is better imo

[Sonolin]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Yep, you're right. Looks like there are more data points there.

There's others (and more accurate 1/4 numbers, etc.) under the subaru brz entry as well. I check the site quite often, I used to be a number whore before this car, lol...

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

My understanding is that RE010's were a pretty sticky track/autocross tire in their time. Tire Rack views Dunlop Z1 SS as the closest comparable modern-day tire, which is saying a lot.



http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...-civic-si.html

Also worth noting the RE050A's which the GT86 was tested on are pretty mild summer tires.

Eh, I had RE010's on my ITR. Those tires were good in 1997 no doubt, but.. compared to a star spec? No IMO. I've driven both on my ITR back to back. The RE010's don't hold a candle to the modern performance tires IMO.

Oh, and I turn faster times on Sebring with the Integras. :shrug: None of my cars are completely stock though.. so.. :shrug:

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by ayau

Here's my take on car comparisons.

Both cars should be 100% stock. This includes restricting to factory tire compounds. You could always say you could do X to a car to equalize the comparison, but the point of the comparison is to compare them, not equialize them.

If both cars are 100% stock, the ITR would most likely be "faster" due to better tire compound.

And lower weight. And "better" gearing.

Which is faster depends greatly on the track too.

I should run the ITR at Sebring again to get some recent times to compare, and data log it to compare data. IMO the BRZ will have higher entry, corner and exit speeds with lower straight speeds.. slow junker that it is