Frs vs s2000

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Our data is all from the ACS front straight... the front straight of an oval. The BRZ enters slower, and exits the same speed as the s2k...

Yep, I knew you guys had done extensive testing on the S2000 and BRZ, so I figured you'd have hard data as well.

[iLuveKetchup]

There are things I like about both cars. Wish the BRZ was more reliable. Hopefully it will change since the BRZ still in its infancy.

[boxer 2.5]

I'm anxious to see if 2014 owners see all the "odd" issues fixed from 2013

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Our data is all from the ACS front straight... the front straight of an oval. The BRZ enters slower, and exits the same speed as the s2k...

Unless you have a big wing, something's wrong with your S2k...

[DarkSunrise]

Out of curiosity, I checked the BRZ against some other competitors:

S2000CR: 86.3 mph entry, 121.5 mph peak
BRZ: 87.0 mph entry, 116.6 mph peak
RX-8: 88.7 mph entry, 116.4 mph peak
Miata: 83.0 mph entry, 108.6 mph peak

Interesting that the BRZ slightly out-accelerates the RX-8. Did not expect that.

This test isn't entirely conclusive though, as braking distances and driver skill will play a role.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Unless you have a big wing, something's wrong with your S2k...

Just the boy racer wing... but my entry speed is on par with all the other s2ks I drive with...

The BRZ speed is also on par with the other BRZ/FRS I drive with...

ACS is 100% a power track, and I'm barely 3 seconds behind with the BRZ compared to the S2k, and that time is all lost on the infield accelerating from 40mph to 80-100...

S2k enters 2nd lap.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCWz5ymLKrI"]Scion FRS vs Porsche GT3 86Fest II - YouTube[/ame]

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Stop right there. You were not looking at a 38k sticker in 2005.

Like I said, 'approaching'. How much do think adding a hardtop, tax and license cost along with adjusting for inflation? You are the only one claiming 'sticker' price here. Some of us figure actual cost of buying.

Also by your standard, the non CR was not a $35K car, it's $34,999. So why don't you be consistent rather than applying hypocritical standards? See how lame your argument is?? Reductio ad abusrdum. To me a $38K car is what I'd classify as a $40K car as in playing in cars at that bracket. Same for a $27K car playing in the $30k bracket. You don't like it, don't understand, tough shit. Not my problem. You're competent, you should be able to fill in the blanks rather than scrutinizing meaningless minutiae that doesn't change anything meaningful we are discussing.

For shits and giggles, you might want to re-check your incorrect claims about inflation:

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

2000: $35000 = $47535.98 in 2013
2005: $35000 = $41,913.44 in 2013
2009: $35000 = $38,155.17 in 2013
2009: $38000 = $41,425.61 in 2013

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by regal

And Honda lost money on every S2k they sold. Its obviously over-engineered (good) and an has more money invested in nearly every part of the car from the engine to the suspension. IMHO It did weigh too much for a pure" sports car roadster." I think the base Elise did every thing the S2k did, better. And in 2005 they were priced very close.

The S2k is not a Gran Tourer. The FRS is a GT in the spirit of GTs before they became 4k lb behemoths but with some roadster like traits. The FRS just doesn't have the go-cart feel of a true sports car like the Elise or Toyotas sports car the (MRS.) But it does great on sweeping highways and interstates. I'd much rather take a 10 hour drive on the interstate with the FRS than an S2k or Elise.

For a little GT it has very sports car like handling on flat roads/tracks.
But driving on really twisty hilly roads it becomes apparent that the handling isn't roadster like, I'm not the only one to report a rear wheel lift on a tight downhill turn. I don't think track guys would ever notice this. But this car is not a top class handling car on turns with sharp elevation changes . It may just be the silly soft springs upfront, it may just need better struts.

A guess the point is we are comparing apples and oranges.

QFT

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Anaxilus

Like I said, 'approaching'. How much do think adding a hardtop, tax and license cost along with adjusting for inflation? You are the only one claiming 'sticker' price here. Some of us figure actual cost of buying.

It's a 40k car like the FR-S is a 30k car. But you referred to the FR-S as being "around $25k".

Also by your standard, the non CR was not a $35K car, it's $34,999. So why don't you be consistent rather than applying hypocritical standards? See how lame your argument is?? Reductio ad abusrdum.

Are you kidding? I continue to make the entirely valid point that the car was not $40k (and further from it than I'd thought as it turns out) and you keep insisting it is (and do again below). I don't see how calling me a hypocrite in equating $34,999 with $35k accomplishes anything constructive...

To me a $38K car

Why are you still going on about the CR's price? There was a "special" limited model for only '08 and '09 that was $38k that had limited appeal to most buyers. Why do you remain so fixated on THAT car's price? The vast majority of S2000's from '08/'09 stickered at $35k.

is what I'd classify as a $40K car as in playing in cars at that bracket. Same for a $27K car playing in the $30k bracket. You don't like it, don't understand, tough shit. Not my problem. You're competent, you should be able to fill in the blanks rather than scrutinizing meaningless minutiae that doesn't change anything meaningful we are discussing.

Your problem is you were wrong, and rather than admit it you'd rather call the FR-S a "30k car", but you couldn't quite bring yourself to do that, instead saying it's in the $30k "bracket".

Here's what you originally said:

Don't forget, the S2000 cost around $40K in 2000 while the 86 is around $25K in 2013.

That claim I took issue with and still take issue with. With a little research I found that the sticker price in 2000 was actually $32k. That's a far cry from "around $40k".
http://autos.aol.com/cars-Honda-S2000-2000/pricing/

For shits and giggles, you might want to re-check your incorrect claims about inflation:

I never said a SINGLE THING about inflation! Although clearly you'd like to... news flash: general inflation doesn't apply to cars the same way as it applies to other things (which your made up numbers clearly demonstrate). Corvette MSRP went up barely over $1000 from 2009 to 2013. Scaling that increase to the S2000 puts it a bit over $35.7k in 2013. Not $38k, not $42k, and not $47.5k. Not that I'm saying this is "correct", but it's a better approach than yours at coming up with what today's sticker on an S2000 would be.

What I did was point out that you were full of it saying it cost "around $40k" in 2000 when it actually stickered at $32k, in the same breath as saying the FR-S costs "around $25k". Complete and utter B.S.

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Why are you still going on about the CR's price? There was a "special" limited model for only '08 and '09 that was $38k that had limited appeal to most buyers. Why do you remain so fixated on THAT car's price? The vast majority of S2000's from '08/'09 stickered at $35k.

Asked and answered in the prior posts, read them again w/o blinders on.

I do however apologize about attributing Mike's post to you. These things happen on the interwebs. After reading his post another way, getting at his intent through the lexical ambiguity, I see he wasn't referring to inflation necessarily depending on how you take the context. So yes, unlike yourself, I can admit making a mistake and not communicating perfectly w/ exact numbers about my experiences over the past 13 years when I was actually shopping cars and not googling search boxes. I'm sure you'll continue to disreagrd all valid claims I made about your selective and literal interpretation regardless of how many times I try to explain it to you in English despite not holding yourself to your own standards. But since you say it was $32k in 2000, that means we were all wrong doesn't it? Of course you aren't applying my valuation criteria because it doesn't support your own argument does it.

So yes, I stand firm that you are focused on largely irrelevant minutiae w/o even attempting to understand the other person's PoV or argument. That is: A NEW S2000 WAS A SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE CAR THAN THE 86 WHETHER IT WAS 2000, 2005, OR 2009 RELATIVE TO ANY QUESTIONABLE OVERALL ADVANTAGE. Whether it's a difference of $7K, $10K or $15K, that's a lot of dough that can be spent to improve the FRS/BRZ to compete w/ the same amount of resources input into a stock S2000.

Nothing you have said invalidates that fundamental point. So feel free to soldier on your crusade w/o a cause.

Btw, your Economics are miserable and completely false. Dollars are dollars, regardless of if it is a car, house or horse. Increases in manufacturer stickered MSRP are not indicative of dollar value and factor in a multitude of other factors. If you disagree w/ my numbers take it up w/ DC and most economics professors. Anyway, at least I've given you another red herring to chew on for entertainment.

[regal]

Here is a 6 year old stock S2k with 10k miles $35k

http://www.cars.com/go/search/detail...ema&listType=1



Point is the S2k is at least a $10k more car than an FRS today.

But new vs old car pricing comparisons can be difficult. In 2009 like new 2005 Lotus Elise's were selling for $20k, now they are going for near $40k. Probably because people figured out that the Elise did everything the S2k did better. When the base Elise was launched (in the USA) it wasn't much more than an S2k.

The S2k was just too heavy for a roadster sports car, main reason it didn't last imho.

The FRS for $25k has advantages over both cars, but mainly because it is not a conv roadster sports car. Its amazing to me just how close in performance the $25k FRS is to the S2k.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by regal

Here is a 6 year old stock S2k with 10k miles $35k

http://www.cars.com/go/search/detail...ema&listType=1



Point is the S2k is at least a $10k more car than an FRS today.

But new vs old car pricing comparisons can be difficult. In 2009 like new 2005 Lotus Elise's were selling for $20k, now they are going for near $40k. Probably because people figured out that the Elise did everything the S2k did better. When the base Elise was launched (in the USA) it wasn't much more than an S2k.

The S2k was just too heavy for a roadster sports car, main reason it didn't last imho.

The FRS for $25k has advantages over both cars, but mainly because it is not a conv roadster sports car. Its amazing to me just how close in performance the $25k FRS is to the S2k.

Wut? So a 10 year run was "not lasting"?

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Anaxilus

Whether it's a difference of $7K, $10K or $15K, that's a lot of dough that can be spent to improve the FRS/BRZ to compete w/ the same amount of resources input into a stock S2000.

Where would you propose this cost difference go?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Anaxilus

So yes, I stand firm that you are focused on largely irrelevant minutiae w/o even attempting to understand the other person's PoV or argument.

Inflating a car's MSRP by 25% is not what I'd call "minutia".

That is: A NEW S2000 WAS A SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE CAR THAN THE 86 WHETHER IT WAS 2000, 2005, OR 2009 RELATIVE TO ANY QUESTIONABLE OVERALL ADVANTAGE. Whether it's a difference of $7K, $10K or $15K, that's a lot of dough

Yes, $7k is a lot of dough (note that your price exaggeration of the original S2000 was by an amount MORE than that!). $15k is a lot more! You can't just say "more is more", there are degrees of "moreness"! I never disputed that the S2000 was significantly more expensive. Again, I only took issue with your characterization of it as a $40k car vs. the FR-S being a $25k car.

that can be spent to improve the FRS/BRZ to compete w/ the same amount of resources input into a stock S2000.

Of course you can get a good stock S2000 for $15k or less...

Btw, your Economics are miserable and completely false. Dollars are dollars, regardless of if it is a car, house or horse.

OK. So $32k is $32k and $40k is $40k. If indeed "a dollar is a dollar", you lied about the year 2000 S2000's price to the tune of +25%, since the dollars between $32k and $40k count the same as the first $32k.

Increases in manufacturer stickered MSRP are not indicative of dollar value and factor in a multitude of other factors.

So we're going by "dollar value" and not MSRP? So the first FR-S's were $30k-$35k cars.

If you disagree w/ my numbers take it up w/ DC and most economics professors. Anyway, at least I've given you another red herring to chew on for entertainment.

Your numbers that I disagreed with:
Year 2000 S2000 was $40k. Wrong, it stickered at $32k, and many people bought them for that or less.
Later S2000's were $38k. Misleading at best. The vast majority of the last S2000's were $35k, and deals could be and were had on them.

It's a BIG jump from being ~$10/11k more expensive to being $15k more expensive.

Anyway, the BRZ Limited is the car closest to the S2000's trim level (HIDs + leather), and it's $27.5k, so the delta is more like $7.5-8.5k like for like, so your exaggeration of the price difference is on the order of TWICE the real difference.