Autocar: BRZ vs. MX-5 vs. 370Z

[Draco-REX]

Why do I think it will be close? The S2K weighs more, though both cars have about the same torque. My money is on them being very close around an AutoX track, to the point where it would be driver-dependent. The S2K would pull away from the BRZ on a road course, however.

[Indestruct]

Nice read, but it quoted the brz at 0-60 in 7.5 seconds...

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Draco-REX

Why do I think it will be close? The S2K weighs more, though both cars have about the same torque. My money is on them being very close around an AutoX track, to the point where it would be driver-dependent. The S2K would pull away from the BRZ on a road course, however.

The AP2 has 40 more hp and 11 more tq and weighs 75 more lbs than a BRZ premium. I dont think the weight is a issue unless it was 300 lbs more heavier.

[blu_]

Ap2 also loses 800 rpms of its powerband for the extra torque over the ap1.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by blu_

Ap2 also loses 800 rpms of its powerband for the extra torque over the ap1.

Yeah, some of AP2 owner isn't liking that 800 rpm lost

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Unless you can prove it wrong, my statement to be true

An ESTIMATE is NOT a CONFIRMED MEASUREMENT! It's, um, an *ESTIMATE*! I.e., you don't know.

Yes, which they have posted/stated several official papers, so I'll take that as official #.

Numbers being "official" does NOT ensure that they are accurate (to wit: official manufacturers "dry" weights for sportbikes are always WAY lower than actual). Also, specs can easily change, right up to production. For all we know they added 1/2" of ride height (it sure looks like it).

*pretty sure* isn't a proof.

Neither is anything you've shown.

*ANYWAY*, I'm looking forward to this car, as I'm sure we all are, but if you think that it will run with an S2000, I think you're in for a small disappointment.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by ZDan

An ESTIMATE is NOT a CONFIRMED MEASUREMENT! It's, um, an *ESTIMATE*! I.e., you don't know.

K, here you go
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regr...nd%20final.pdf

Numbers being "official" does NOT ensure that they are accurate (to wit: official manufacturers "dry" weights for sportbikes are always WAY lower than actual). Also, specs can easily change, right up to production. For all we know they added 1/2" of ride height (it sure looks like it).

If that's the case, everything official statement must not be accurate.

Neither is anything you've shown.

More than you have

*ANYWAY*, I'm looking forward to this car, as I'm sure we all are, but if you think that it will run with an S2000, I think you're in for a small disappointment.

Never did I stated that I have higher expectation on FRS/BRZ than S2k, did I? Please do not add a word in my mouth that I did not state.

[blu_]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Yeah, some of AP2 owner isn't liking that 800 rpm lost

it definitely is questionable whether the added torque is worth the loss.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

If that's the case, everything official statement must not be accurate.

??? logic > you
It does not logically follow that if not ALL "official statements" are accurate, then NONE of them are.

Never did I stated that I have higher expectation on FRS/BRZ than S2k, did I? Please do not add a word in my mouth that I did not state.

Read what I wrote again. Note the presence of the word "if".

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by ZDan

??? logic > you
It does not logically follow that if not ALL "official statements" are accurate, then NONE of them are.


Read what I wrote again. Note the presence of the word "if".

Let's not go into off-topic. Let's go back to CoG & weight shall we?

You haven't show any proof of any sort yet

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Let's not go into off-topic. Let's go back to CoG & weight shall we?
You haven't show any proof of any sort yet

Proof of WHAT?! I never claimed to have any. Unlike you who readily take *estimates* and *claims* and then say:

Unless you can prove it wrong, my statement to be true

Hilarious!

[SUB-FT86]

AP1 curb weight.


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...tech_data.html

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Proof of WHAT?! I never claimed to have any.

I'll just take your statements as your "guessing" & w no facts. Well then that's end of debate.

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

AP1 curb weight.


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...tech_data.html

This site says differ for NA ver ('00~'03)
NA ver weight 2809 lbs
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/mo...nda/s2000.html

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

I'll just take your statements as your "guessing" & w no facts. Well then that's end of debate.

You can't take manufacturer CLAIMS on the one hand, and estimates from another source for another car, and definitively say that the difference between the two is the *actual*, real-world, physical difference.

Different methods can easily result in different measurements on the same exact car.

Anyway, checking your link (thanks), the S2000 has a static stability factor of 1.57. Front track 57.9", rear track 59.4", average = 58.65"
c.g. height from that = (58.65"/1.57)/2 = 18.7"
No idea where you got your 19.8" number...

Anyway, if we had another result measured by the same independent body (NHTSA) by the same method for the BRZ, we could compare them.

But we KNOW that they are willing to put masses in the car to improve the numbers, when they gave us 53/47 as the weight distribution with full fuel and a driver and passenger, when empty weight distribution is more like 55/45. But 53/47 sounds better (though still not all that great)...

Maybe Toyobaru gave a c.g. height number with full fuel/no occupants to improve (lower) c.g. height. Maybe NHTSA is for empty fuel, with occupants, which (I think) raise the c.g.). We don't know.

When NHTSA gives an SSF, I'd say we then would have a better basis for comparing c.g. height of these cars.