FR-S/BRZ vs. Genesis Coupe

[glorydays]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

You know I find it funny about these 2 cars. These 2 cars are the only cars I care for in the sporty car world for the money. I have a problem with every other sporty car that prevents me from buying them because they don't follow what I want in a sporty car to a T.

RWD
2+2
Low slung good looking GT shape(I can't do Muscle car boxyness or hatchback funny egg shape)
Sports seats with a low to the ground feeling and a nice size steering wheel
Feel through steering and what the tires are doing
Sport suspension that favors handling over comfort
Great engine
Great brakes
Good auto(Sport) transmission
Good handling
Features
Affordable

And the FRS and GC is the only cars to offer all that I want.

[zoomzoomers]

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

The problem is you're grouping it based solely on paper performance specs (and the 2013 GC isn't out yet so none of us can for sure how the car will drive, all we have is the previous generation GC which isn't a solid point of comparison). What most people are saying is they're going to be cross shopped based ENTIRELY on pricing; which the argument then becomes "Which is the better bang for your buck." Truthfully it's looking like the GC may take the cake as far as bang for your buck goes; for likely 24.5k-25.5k you're looking at brembo's, pretty good interior, 274bhp 275ft-lbs, better stock sound system and gearing that supports forced induction (a huge factor a lot of people are seemingly overlooking). If you're like me and you aren't sitting on stacks of cash that you're waiting to use on buying a 2013 dedicated track vehicle then you plan on DD this thing also.

Not everyone is going to want to stick with the stock horsepower or just a little over, many people are going to want to put some serious work into the car which will include forced induction. The way it's looking right now is with the FR-S/BRZ/GT-86 there'll be two major problems in addition to gearing: Engine compartment space and the extremely high compression ratio.


Edit: Also I'll ask a solid question. When all is said and done and let's say for example we've got two heavily modded cars. A heavily modded GC and a heavily modded FRS. Is the 400-450lb difference in weight actually going to make a big enough difference in handling to put one of them far out of the others league? Probably not unless you're a seriously skilled professional driver. But will the difference in horsepower put one out of the others league? On everything outside of a short track/AutoX, I'm going to subjectively say yes.

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I totally agree with you. But from what I have gathered in this thread is people are more concerned about lightweight feel. I understand the GC looking like the better bang for buck and I also believe it will be but these other guys on here don't care about that.

I too like the "idea" of a lightweight sporty car, but I think some people seem to be a bit obessed about weight. Like I've said before, there are some heavy cars out there that drive very nimble and make short work of any track. And I do understand that weight is costly and difficult to take off, but if you've got a fairly well set up car with good power to weight ratio it shouldn't be too much of an issue. No?

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by zoomzoomers

I too like the "idea" of a lightweight sporty car, but I think some people seem to be a bit obessed about weight. Like I've said before, there are some heavy cars out there that drive very nimble and make short work of any track. And I do understand that weight is costly and difficult to take off, but if you've got a fairly well set up car with good power to weight ratio it shouldn't be too much of an issue. No?

I agree 100%

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Sully

Question for all you really weight worrying people: Is your prospective FR-S/BRZ/GT86 going to be your daily drive?

Yes.

Do you need it to be?

No, I could keep dailying the S2000, or I could daily the RX-7 (which I've been doing the past few weeks). If I get a new DD car, though, it'll be an FR-S (or possibly BRZ).

If no? Why not just go all out and get yourself a Lotus 7 kit? Or used Elise/Exige? RX-7? Miata?

This car has one advantage as a non-daily track car over the others you mention: It can carry its own race tires! Just like I did in my 240Z

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by zoomzoomers

I too like the "idea" of a lightweight sporty car, but I think some people seem to be a bit obessed about weight.

It's right up there with rwd and independent suspension for me. It would take a very special car indeed (for a very reasonable price) to make me compromise on those three criteria.

Like I've said before, there are some heavy cars out there that drive very nimble and make short work of any track.

I have yet to drive a heavy car on the street or on the track, that didn't *feel* heavy.

And I do understand that weight is costly and difficult to take off,

If you try to add "lightness" after the car has been designed to be a big heavy tourer, yeah, it costs thousands of $$$ to shed 10s of pounds. BUT, if you design a car with minimalist approach instead of a maximalist approach, you can SAVE money while saving weight. This car is a case in point. Very standard construction, no costly weight-savings techniques, it was just designed to be small and relatively lightweight.

To anyone who thinks that less weight costs MORE money, I tell you the opposite is true. There are outliers of course, but if you plot weight vs. cost of cars, you'll see a very definite relationship: Lighter-weight cars are cheaper.

but if you've got a fairly well set up car with good power to weight ratio it shouldn't be too much of an issue. No?

If all you're interested in is maximum acceleration performance, maybe. Me, I want to drive as minimalist/lightweight a car as possible for my daily usage, for which I pretty much never use more than ~150hp in the s2000. Even driving "sportily" on curvy roads, on the street I typically conserve fuel and brakes while carrying highish cornering speeds (where practical/safe/possible). For this usage, light weight is more FUN, and 2700 lb/200hp is plenty of power/weight for me.

[MTD]

Im currently a Genesis owner and Im very interested in the FRS/BRZ. I love the styling and compact size of the FRS/BRZ, 200hp is enough for me, price is affordable, etc. The only real faults I can find it the car is the interior. But, it may look and feel better in person, so I'm not going to pass judgment until I see one with my own eyes.

I love my Genesis and the 13 is very appealing to me. More HP, way nicer interior and I actually prefer the new exterior to my car. My biggest complaint with the Genesis isn't the weight, but the physical size of the car. It's a biotch to park and commute in.

Toyota/Subaru is bringing back their heritage with an affordable, RWD, lightweight sporty car. An enthusiasts dream from two very highly respected companies.

Hyundai pulled the Genesis out of thin air in producing their first real sporty car. Sure it isn't perfect, but it's a helluva first try. Mine has been bulletproof and I wouldn't hesitate to buy another.

Either car will be a great choice to whomever buys one.

[catharsis]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

here is an example..

in our local time attack series, we have these two very good drivers that post nearly identical lap times on all of our tracks.

one is a lightly modded 2004 mustang on RPF11's and RS3's (mods include welded subframe bracing and race alignment, and a removal of the rear and passanger seat for racing)

the other is a stripped 1989 CRX Si with a roll bar, coilovers and on Nitto NT05.. but OEM engine.

they are in the same class (as far as our classification goes, but i won't get into the details of it)

so take from that what you will.

CRX: 105 crank hp, probably around 1950lb with the rollbar (interiors back then weight nothing anyway)
Mustang: 260 crank, and probably around 3150lb (with the missing interior, no spare, and much lighter wheels)

so now imagine the same CRX had 260 crank, or not even, lets give it 200 crank by simply dropping in a STOCK K20.

one other thing to keep in mind, is that this mustang has won this year's championship, he is our best driver.

so i think the battle between a stock GC and a stock FT86 is going to be good. On paper the GC should win but i have faith in the FT86



but the thing to take away from all this, weight does matter.

Holy skewed numbers bat man. I mean the mustang you listed is almost as heavy as the frs will be. 2750ish is way closer to 3100 than it is 1950. This car on paper isn't looking so good.

[serialk11r]

It isn't looking good from a pure performance standpoint, but it's probably as good as it gets when you want to build a car with great crash safety, a stiff chassis made of steel, and an affordable price. Hell, it'll have the most advanced direct injection system in the market too.

From what I've heard about the Hyundai, it offers a ton of features for the price, but it lacks refinement. In the FRS/BRZ you are sacrificing some of the features for more refinement (and I don't mean the interior).

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by catharsis

Holy skewed numbers bat man. I mean the mustang you listed is almost as heavy as the frs will be. 2750ish is way closer to 3100 than it is 1950. This car on paper isn't looking so good.

actually the base weight of the Mustang is listed at around 3350, but i accounted for all the removed hardware and modified rims. [edit, i'm getting my numbers mixed up, anyway its not AS heavy but its not light either)

also of note, the mustang had to upgrade it's tires to 255 from 235, the OP driver confirmed that had he been on 235's he would have lost grip quickly.

but regardless

what i'm putting my money on is the suspension of the FT86

time will tell.

[SUB-FT86]

Both the FRS and GC have the same suspension.

[catharsis]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Both the FRS and GC have the same suspension.

Same suspension yes, but no doubt the frs will handle much better. It's not just about having double wishbone suspension or whatever, it's also how the whole cars chassis is prepped and set up, the lower center of gravity, the weight, how rigid the chassis is, and the damping on the struts and shocks all play a part.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by catharsis

Same suspension yes, but no doubt the frs will handle much better. It's not just about having double wishbone suspension or whatever, it's also how the whole cars chassis is prepped and set up, the lower center of gravity, the weight, how rigid the chassis is, and the damping on the struts and shocks all play a part.

out of all the things you mention, one of them is suspension. if you are going to talk about the cars as a whole, the genesis probably has more going for it

[Exage]

Originally Posted by Dimman

That's kind of my point. I think they were maybe planning on gradually dialing the power up and leaving some for the 'tuners' but felt a bit threatened by the FT86 coming in with a better power to weight than the 210 hp 2.0T, so they jack it up pretty close to its limit.

With the guy SUB says going to ~230 whp, that's going to be pretty close to what the new DI goes stock. So part of the argument of (+60 whp for $2k) is going to be no longer, or less, valid.

Edit: (No 'Official' new thread for you welcoming yourself back, Exage? Heh... How was the boat?)

Well from what I gathered from the basic knowledge Hyundai put a twin scroll turbocharger and a larger intercooler as the main reasons why it now develops 274hp. I'm therefore under the belief that the engine itself hasn't changed significantly (The 2.0T is still not DI; the V6 is though). This results in that the engine that will not see easy significant gains like the previous.

No no, I'm no superstar hahaha. It's was good, lots of fun things to get the hands dirty and boggle the mind!

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Do you even know how much gains was achieved with the old 2.0t on stock turbo? The stock whp is 180whp/190 wtq and with $1,700 it was making 230-240whp/295wtq. So if that isn't spectacular on stock turbo I don't know what is.

Yes you misread my post. Re-read my comment: I figure they'll achieve only slightly better outputs as the previous, so gains aren't going to be as spectacular.

[serialk11r]

Exage is right, if the engine only has a different turbo, then it just means that the gains people were making with easy mods has been partially eaten up at the factory already.