BRZ vs E46 M3

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

Translation: The Corvette isn't a money maker, it's a marketing tool.

Wrong.

Let's start by pointing out that "over the past 15 years" would be a qualifier for the time period of 1997-2012... So I haven't the SLIGHTEST idea why you would bring up "mid 80's" into the equation.

Pointing out that other manufacturers have held the line on weight for a LONG period of time. Sick of hearing how new cars HAVE to be heavier. They do not HAVE to be much, if any, heavier.

You're going try and disallow BMW's need for model progression based on PORSCHE?? Are you kidding me?

The POINT remains the same. But I guess most BMW apologists are fine with BMW becoming ever more luxury and less true SPORT oriented.

Not going any further.

The POINT remains: BMW's have gotten much much bigger and heavier, and this was NOT necessary.

You don't care, that's fine. I think it sucks.

The End.

[ZDan]

I can assure you all that I had NO intention of derailing this thread. Thread was about comparing the FRS/BRZ with the E46, as it had been compared to the E30. The E30 M3 is actually a pretty similar car. The E46 is, well, NOT.

Anybody interested in E46-like cars should look at LSxJunkie's sig, there are some great ones in there! I was behind a 6.0 GTO on my way into work this AM, and all I could think was how much lower and sleeker it looked than the very box-like new Camaro.

But anyway, it's not like I HATE bigger/heavier cars, I've owned a few in fact. But it's a shame that there's next to NOTHING that's small/lightweight/rwd.

To me, I don't see why an E46 would be cross-shopped with an FR-S/BRZ. If you want a bigger/heavier car, there are plenty out there, new and used.

[SUB-FT86]

Zdan I don't think you derailed this thread at all. This thread was derailed on arrival because the comparison like most all the other comparison threads is pretty stupid IMHO.

[KeepGuessing]

Originally Posted by LSxJunkie

I loved my GTOs. But they weighed 3700lbs and that was without heated seats, side impact airbags, or a sunroof. They were PIGS. And inside they were bigger than a new 6er. They also sit taller than the new Camaro and higher off the ground. Great grand tourer, but certainly not low and sleek.

One thing i noticed is 90% of peoples opinions on vehicles are completely unrelated to driving/owning/dealing with on a day to day basis the vehicle in question..

I for one thought the GTO was gods gift to the American man when it debuted..Man how i longed for an Australian sourced RWD big v8 car that provided creature comforts without being a leather clad benz...

Then my good friend bought a GTO..and while it was a fantastic car and a WONDERFUL change from the American norm..His door locks worked 1/2 the time...Every part he wanted to upgrade outside of the exhaust cost 2x as much because the engine bay had 1/2 the room of the rest and he spent 1/4 of his ownership time in the garage bay being serviced..

AND this is from the tride and true can't go wrong GM formula..but somewhere in between Aussie and here the metric bolts got replaced with SAE and nothing fit right Lol..Well that's MY guess anyway..

The G8 fixed that but the GTO just scared too many people away imho..

But it's good to see someone with a reasonably good GTO experience as i still like the car, but if i were planning on getting a "daily driven" car of that nature...it'd be a camaro or G8 just based on the fact that it's had MOST of the kinks worked out state side.



ANYWHO back on to e46 and this car..COMPLETELY different venues...E46 is based on a 3 series which is a benz/audi competitor nuff said..
FRS is it's own car with nothing to be based on going up against miata's and introductory hyundais (and if Toyota would have you believe, caymans LOL)

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

ANYWHO back on to e46 and this car..COMPLETELY different venues...E46 is based on a 3 series which is a benz/audi competitor nuff said..
FRS is it's own car with nothing to be based on going up against miata's and introductory hyundais (and if Toyota would have you believe, caymans LOL)

i'll buy the cayman comparison

lateral grip is primarily a function of width, cg, weight and roll center

if all else being equal (ie, tires), then if the FRS's center of gravity is indeed low, and its suspension design properly utilizes that, then i see no reason why an FRS would not corner just as, if not faster, than a cayman.

obviously the interior and feel are TOOTTALLYYY different, but thats why this is a poormans porsche

[KeepGuessing]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

i'll buy the cayman comparison

lateral grip is primarily a function of width, cg, weight and roll center

if all else being equal (ie, tires), then if the FRS's center of gravity is indeed low, and its suspension design properly utilizes that, then i see no reason why an FRS would not corner just as, if not faster, than a cayman.

obviously the interior and feel are TOOTTALLYYY different, but thats why this is a poormans porsche

Well considering some of the information thus far has been "lies of omission/exclusion" i'd be hesitant to just feed off of what's been said about the car just yet..


for 1, the Cayman's Center of Gravity is measured with it's stock wheels/tires..
That's a 17" wheel and a 55mm sidewall tire in the front and a 17" wheel and a 50mm sidewall tire in the rear, along with however much rake the car has.....Let's not forget the car has 5" of ground clearance..

The FR-S however has multiple wheel tire size options..

The GT86 RC for example, comes with 16" wheels, the BRZ with 17" wheels and 45mm sidewalls, the toyota 20 spokes are 18" wheels with 40mm sidewalls.. So that "Lower than the Cayman's center of gravity" varies substantially before the car has even hit the car lots.

I know thusfar toyota has said it's weight will start at 26xxlbs...But now that line has been blurred with the inclusion of the Toyota GT86 RC, which is the "26xx lb" model they were talking about.

So if the car with the factual "lower than cayman center of gravity" is ALSO the RC, then chances are every car with larger selection of wheels and tires doesn't quite fit the same claims.

As for the "If all things are equal i don't see why it couldn't corner as fast" by all things equal do you mean PURELY in the tires? or do you mean going through substantial measures to get the same generalized specifications from both...

Because then we're talking optimal suspension tuning for both, because the porsche is setup for tire preservation and guel economy (being a Base Cayman and not an S) while the FR-S is not as noted by the stock cast/camber...Then you have to factor in that the FRS stock suspension setup IS a compromise for performance and economy, which is why the negative toe under hard cornering is prevalent unless addressed...etc etc..

but if we're talking JUST equal tires? no..

[serialk11r]

Uh, so different wheels don't change the ride height unless you're changing wheel diameter, or underinflating the tires. There is less than 3mm difference in tire radius across the different wheel sizes. By the way, 55 does not mean 55mm sidewall.

In addition, I believe the claim for lowest center of gravity is for the RC at 17.8" height as that number was released sometime ago, and then they came out and started saying 18.1" instead, which leads me to believe that is the figure for the non-AC/stereo/etc. delete cars. They said the Cayman was in the higher 18s, so it's likely that the center of gravity is lower.

Just looking at the height of the center of gravity and weight, with the same tires it's possible this could outcorner a Cayman. I'm not certain but I have a feeling weight distribution affects things too, although both cars are biased and not 50/50 so that might not matter as much.

[Vasilis]

M3 vs 350z vs S2000 vs Porsche Boxster 2.7 (not the S version, only 220hp)

Nice race, also nice suprise for the heritage of the GT86 in the end

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

Well considering some of the information thus far has been "lies of omission/exclusion" i'd be hesitant to just feed off of what's been said about the car just yet..


for 1, the Cayman's Center of Gravity is measured with it's stock wheels/tires..
That's a 17" wheel and a 55mm sidewall tire in the front and a 17" wheel and a 50mm sidewall tire in the rear, along with however much rake the car has.....Let's not forget the car has 5" of ground clearance..

The FR-S however has multiple wheel tire size options..

The GT86 RC for example, comes with 16" wheels, the BRZ with 17" wheels and 45mm sidewalls, the toyota 20 spokes are 18" wheels with 40mm sidewalls.. So that "Lower than the Cayman's center of gravity" varies substantially before the car has even hit the car lots.

I know thusfar toyota has said it's weight will start at 26xxlbs...But now that line has been blurred with the inclusion of the Toyota GT86 RC, which is the "26xx lb" model they were talking about.

So if the car with the factual "lower than cayman center of gravity" is ALSO the RC, then chances are every car with larger selection of wheels and tires doesn't quite fit the same claims.

As for the "If all things are equal i don't see why it couldn't corner as fast" by all things equal do you mean PURELY in the tires? or do you mean going through substantial measures to get the same generalized specifications from both...

Because then we're talking optimal suspension tuning for both, because the porsche is setup for tire preservation and guel economy (being a Base Cayman and not an S) while the FR-S is not as noted by the stock cast/camber...Then you have to factor in that the FRS stock suspension setup IS a compromise for performance and economy, which is why the negative toe under hard cornering is prevalent unless addressed...etc etc..

but if we're talking JUST equal tires? no..

suspension tuning on the porsche is no doubt superior, (in terms of damper valving and spring setup)

however Toyota isn't exactly the new kid on the block, and until you start getting into the really sticky tires and a need for aero, or you start completly redesigning the base car (ie, WRC) then the advantage of having superior dampers is not that great

dynamic alignment changes for the most part affect drivability, if you put the car on a skid pad it's not going to affect the overall grip, just the way you drive the car

so yes, if you put the FRS and Porsche on lets say a pair of RS3's or StarSpecs of equal sizes, i am confident the FRS will pull the same G's on a skidpad

where the porsche is most likely superior is prolonges cornering sessions where its ABS, brake package, and aero tricks will give it the edge.

in either case, even if a Cayman will out handle an FRS it will not be a surprise to anyone

but imagine the opposite...


let the fanboi in me glee in sushine happyness.. LOL

plus from my own personal experience of tracking shitty econoboxes, i know that there is often much hidden potential in a lighter car going up against a heavier car with more power.. but this is where the fun in driving is (at least for me)

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by LSxJunkie

I loved my GTOs. But they weighed 3700lbs and that was without heated seats, side impact airbags, or a sunroof. They were PIGS.

Yup, same weight as the E9x M3!

And inside they were bigger than a new 6er.

But 500 lb. lighter!

They also sit taller than the new Camaro and higher off the ground.

No freaking way. The top of the GTO roof might technically be taller, but the body line going from the nose/hood/lower-edge-of-greenhouse/deck is a LOT lower than the new WAY high blocktastic Camaros. The Camaro greenhouse is much more scrunched down and pinched, so technically slightly lower max height, but it's hood/fenderline/beltline are UP there!

Great grand tourer, but certainly not low and sleek.

Relative to the Camaro, I'd say they are. Would be good to have an overlay...

Go here for R&T grid with Camaro: http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...d06531820e.pdf
GTO here (have to download to view: http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/ca...iac_gto_page_4

The GTO's nose, height of the hood above the front wheels, and lower edge of greenhouse are a good 3-4" LOWER than the new Camaro. GTO's decklid is maybe an inch higher, maximum height at peak of roof ~0.5" higher. GTO has a much bigger greenhouse, where the Camaro has a very high beltline with slits for windows.

The bottom edge of the rockers looks to be an inch lower for the GTO, ~5" vs. 5.9" for the Camaro.

Visually, to me the Camaro is MUCH bulkier with a much blockier front end, whereas the GTO *is* generally lower and more swoopily shaped, with a significantly lower and more raked front end.

The new Camaro looks like it could be the box that any previous gen came in! They got some styling details right (like the hips), but it's just too damn BIG.

[blackmist27]

hopefully i can get my hands on a BRZ and then i will let you know

[TheJuggernaut]

[I've been typing into this off and on since the morning, so it turned out way more long winded than I thought it could... sorry about that]

At the risk of getting thrown under the bus along with him, I agree with ZDan. I do somewhat disagree about light and tossable being what defines a fun car but more on that in a minute. BMW is quite steadily losing touch with the enthusiast community, as he has spelled out quite thoroughly and accurately. And by enthusiasts I'm not referring to the admirers. Rather, those who call the ultimate driving machine bluff on the track (and I'm not saying this is definitive, just what I and I think most here would take it to mean). His point about the E36 being the last good track car BMW is painfully obvious in the paddocks of club races. Aside from a few exceptions, the only times you'll see E46s or newer being the basis of a racecar is when the series rules require a certain minimum vintage. Otherwise, the most successful BMW based cars on track are E36s and even E30s (on average the E36s are faster but the bigger dollar E30s with extra go - and nothing spectacular, just the S50B32 with 321hp - wipe the floor with anything short of a 700hp Trans Am car... so much for those semi-trailing arms being obsolete).

This isn't to say that you won't see E46s or E90s at the track, M or otherwise. Quite the contrary. But this isn't due to their superiority, this is just what people chose to buy and took it to a lapping day or HPDE. Ask any real racer (sorry Vin Diesel) who has extensive seat time in the full 3 series spectrum (or even all the way back to the 02) and you'll hear nothing but whining for the E46+. The way I've heard a few describe them is that it's the same as an E36 but heavier and... well, worse. Clearly, this isn't referring to unlimited budget race car builds, since Turner, Bimmerworld, Fall-Line or even BMW themselves have shown that the latest chassis is able to hang with or defeat anything in its class. But that's not particularly relevant to us.

The bottom line is that stock for stock, their cars are getting more luxury boat and less sports car. And I get it, it's a brilliant business move. Like Porsche, they've established glamor and legitimacy of the brand name with legendary performance and now they can make profitable cars which rich people can buy without worrying about also having to live with the unpleasant realities that come with daily-driving a true "enthusiast" car which cost luxury car money.

Now about the other thing, lighter and lower grip = more fun. I agree and disagree but this is definitely a personal thing, like dark vs milk chocolate. Stock for stock, in terms of absolute figures, the latest M car will shred the one that came before it, and cumulatively so for anything earlier. This, by the way, does not invalidate the point about them being more portly luxury cars than sports cars. You can put a big enough engine, big enough tires and brakes on a Grey Hound and make it destroy all around a track. That doesn't make it any less bus. For someone who hasn't tried a fast heavy car and fast light car on the track, it's probably impossible to explain but the difference is there and clear as night and day, even if the heavier car is faster.

I started driving on track in E34s, the ultimate being an M5 with a built motor (never dynoed but it would hang with E39 M5s bumper to bumper and reel in Carrera 4Ss), track suspension and sticky tires. I'm not the most aggressive driver but I don't remember ever being caught in that car on track, and this isn't due to my driving skill. Then I got a few rides in track prepped E30s and E36s and while these had at most as much brakes and grip as my M5, and except for the supercharged M3, slower in the straights, I saw what the hoopla was about. I know that gravity affects all masses equally but for some reason, I could still tell that the car is lighter. It's almost like you could feel that the suspension and tires didn't have to work as hard during the same direction changes, I'm not sure what it is.

So I got a clean stock E30 eta to play with. It was slow as sin and I had a blast in it. Over time though, I realized I missed speed and violence. So it went through a long progression of changes, from suspension and brake upgrades, large slicks, 3.2 M3 swap to now being fitted with 335/305 slicks and hopefully about a 900hp turbo motor.

This car and some others I've tried over the years on the track (everything from a rental 4dr auto Cobalt to dedicated track cars) have made me realize that there are 2 main types of fun on track. One is where you take a car with low limits, and dance on the edge of them (or even blatantly past, ie dorifto). Things don't happen fast enough to be terrifying but it's challenging and exciting. The other is you get something with limits that exceed or even far exceed the levels needed to tickle your prostate, and you go out and keep pushing the point at which you get scared. For me personally, I've realized that I'm more akin to Mark Donohue, with his saying that when you're able to leave two black marks from one corner to the next, only then you can say you have enough power. But I still see tremendous value in the other kind, and from time to time it's refreshing to drive a car you can toss around with a smile on your face and not all out white knuckle concentration.

Ok so that's my 0 cents on that but back to the original question... E46 M3 vs the 86

This is a very relevant question for me since I just answered it a few days ago. Well, more precisely, my wife answered it since we're looking for a track car for her.

When the 86 was first announced, I thought, what a perfect gift it is from Toyota - here we are looking for a fun rwd manual car for my wife yet uneasy about buying used and cringing at how much good cars with a roof which fit the bill cost new, and a manufacturer I respect is coming out with what appears to be an affordable, new (warranted) version of what we've been considering buying used. Then I heard that the US price is going to be in the order of 25k, which judging by WRX prices, would put it close to 35 here.

Suddenly, the choice wasn't so clear because this could fetch a pretty loaded new Mustang GT or a clean E46 M3 with a pile of cash left over. The Mustang's appeal was obvious, I'm a boy. The M3 is new enough to look current and prestigious and I'm not immune to a little hubris through status, especially for my wife. I wasn't reading between the lines when she told me she wouldn't mind either of those, particularly the M3. What she was actually saying is she doesn't want the Mustang and would prefer not to have the M3. In the mean time, I found some excellent examples including an Interlagos ZCP, and was preparing to pull the trigger instead of waiting for a 200hp compact Subaru Unicorn for 50% more money.

Then through a few thorough conversations, I realized (or rather, was reminded) that my wife is the other kind of fun enthusiast. She has no ambitions of doing powerslides in 5th and doesn't care how fast it goes from something to whatever, how much power it has etc. She wants a small, light, nimble car that will be easy to drive closer to its limits, headache free to own, oh and extremely cute. It was clear that this was still indeed a gift from Toyota, so we went and put a deposit down.

As an aside, before considering an M3, consider its cost beyond the purchase price. Most things have been mentioned here but more specific things to consider is that part of what's required to make a heavy car fast is that the supporting cast needs to be quite epic, including its pricetag. Even if you find one without a broken subframe or rtab mount issues, fixed VANOS, proof of regular valve adjustment and no rust, look into how much the service costs (including valve adjustment, suspension arms/bushings, brakes, clutch and tires... or hell even an oil change).

[SUB-FT86]

Juggernaut I love your post to death. The best read in months!!!!.

[TheJuggernaut]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Juggernaut I love your post to death. The best read in months!!!!.

Thanks, much appreciated!