FR-S vs. 370z, end all be all of discussions

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Never seen an actual curb weight under 3300. Have seen measured curb weights of 3355 (M/T) and 3360 (Car and Driver).
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html
3355 lb.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...ro-vehicle.pdf
3360 lb.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...370z-road-test
>>the car is only 33 pounds heavier than the 350Z we tested in June of ’07<<

The 370Z was supposed to be a lighter-weight car than the 350Z. It was not and is not

Power/weight = very important. Torque/weight = practically meaningless. A 287hp 350Z has ~12.5 lb-ft per pound of car, S2000 more like 17.5 lb-ft per pound, not even close! But they're approximately equivalent in performance, because they have similar power/weight.

POWER is what tells you how much thrust you're getting at the drive tire contact patches. Engine torque by itself tells you nothing.

If you're making, say, 250hp at 60mph, that's 1562 lb at the wheels (minus losses), whether you're making that 250hp with 250 lb-ft at 5252rpm or with 125 lb-ft at 10,504rpm.




Those are all measures of tire performance as much as car performance. Would be interesting to see how the cars compare on the same make/model of rubber.

Fine. Whatever. so under 3400. Your lightweight "sports car" is still easily out-handled and out-braked by it.

And to answer your question, the answer is: Put equally sticky tires on both and the Z will clearly, easily out-maneuver it.

I am officially completely disenchanted with the FR-S/BRZ.

Actually, I did some more research... although the twins achieve more g's on the skidpad than a 7th gen Celica GT-S, it also has poorer braking from 0-60, and poorer slalom times. Straight line acceleration and 1/4 mile runs are about equal.

And I hate to say this but: Sports cars are, contrary to what Toyota has cleverly marketed, about numbers.

Sports implies competition, and competitive sports evaluate performance quantitatively (i.e., numbers) not qualitatively.

A fun car may or may not be a sports car (although most sports cars are considered fun to drive) -- the FR-S/BRZ is more of a "fun" "sporty car" than a sports car. It can't accelerate, brake, or handle -- it is designed to go sideways and feel connected to the road. Funnily enough, even in sports where that matters, they rip out the engine and put in a bigger one with a turbo.

Other than the RWD, it is basically no better than a 7th gen FWD Celica. And in some stats, it is way worse. The Celica GT-S was often panned as a "sporty", "fun" car, but not a sports car.

The FR-S/BRZ may be a lot of fun, but it's not much of a sports car either.

As to fun factor, a bulldozer could be fun to drive too, and so could a shopping cart, raced down a hill.The twins can probably out perform those vehicles , tho', so that's good

Sorry, but the stats on handling and braking have lost me for good. Bring out the super sport version and I will be interested again.

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

The answer is: Put equally sticky tires on both and the Z will out maneuver it.

I am officially completely disenchanted with the FR-S/BRZ.

Actually, I did some more research... although the twins achieve more g's on the skidpad than a 7th gen Celica GT-S, it also has poorer braking from 0-60, and poorer slalom times. Straight line acceleration and 1/4 mile runs are about equal.

And I hate to say this but: Sports cars are, contrary to what Toyota has cleverly marketed, about numbers.

Sports implies competition, and competitive sports evaluate performance quantitatively (i.e., numbers) not qualitatively.

A fun car may or may not be a sports car (although most sports cars are considered fun to drive) -- the FR-S/BRZ is more of a "fun" "sporty car" than a sports car. It can't accelerate, brake, or handle -- it is designed to go sideways and feel connected to the road. Funnily enough, even in sports where that matters, they rip out the engine and put in a bigger one with a turbo.

Other than the RWD, it is basically no better than a 7th gen FWD Celica. And in some stats, it is way worse. The Celica GT-S was often panned as a "sporty", "fun" car, but not a sports car.

The FR-S/BRZ may be a lot of fun, but it's not much of a sports car either.

As to fun factor, a bulldozer could be fun to drive too, and so could a shopping cart, raced down a hill.The twins can probably out perform those vehicles , tho', so that's good

Sorry, but the stats on handling and braking have lost me for good. Bring out the super sport version and I will be interested again.

sports car

noun

Definition of SPORTS CAR

: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving


I dunno it seems to fit the bill to me. You do realize that the Celica GTS is also lighter by 200+ lbs, right? Overall power does not determine what makes a sports car either. The Miata/MX5 is a great example of this; it's no powerhouse but is a very capable platform especially around the track.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Fine. Whatever. so under 3400. Your lightweight "sports car" is still easily out-handled and out-braked by it.

Tires...

And to answer your question, the answer is: Put equally sticky tires on both and the Z will clearly, easily out-maneuver it.

Do you have ANY empirical evidence of this? I'd put my money on the FR-S over a base 370Z (225/245) on the same model tires. FR-S vs. track might be a different story. But it's not a foregone conclusion either way.

In any case, smaller/lighter-weight is more fun to me even if it makes for worse performance numbers.
370Z is WAY overweight.
My S2000 on Winter tires (piss-poor grip) is way more fun to drive.

And I hate to say this but: Sports cars are, contrary to what Toyota has cleverly marketed, about numbers.

People who define their driving enjoyment of street cars by pointing to numbers in magazines, don't get it. Like knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Sports implies competition, and competitive sports evaluate performance quantitatively (i.e., numbers) not qualitatively.

If the intent was to make a fast-by-the-numbers car, Toyobaru have failed. But that was not the intent. The intent was to make a FUN car to drive.
Mission accomplished.

Competition = RACE car
"Sports car" usually implies "street car" (that you can have a good time with at HPDEs)

A fun car may or may not be a sports car (although most sports cars are considered fun to drive) -- the FR-S/BRZ is more of a "fun" "sporty car" than a sports car. It can't accelerate, brake, or handle

Er, points 2 and three easily addressed with tires.
But anyway, to me an MG TC is much more a REAL sports car than an all-singing-all-dancing 370Z, and it for SURE can't accelerate, brake, or handle!

The FR-S/BRZ may be a lot of fun, but it's not much of a sports car either.

It's more of a sports car to me than the 370Z.

Opinions do vary...

[industrial]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Fine. Whatever. so under 3400. Your lightweight "sports car" is still easily out-handled and out-braked by it.

And to answer your question, the answer is: Put equally sticky tires on both and the Z will clearly, easily out-maneuver it.

I am officially completely disenchanted with the FR-S/BRZ.

Actually, I did some more research... although the twins achieve more g's on the skidpad than a 7th gen Celica GT-S, it also has poorer braking from 0-60, and poorer slalom times. Straight line acceleration and 1/4 mile runs are about equal.

And I hate to say this but: Sports cars are, contrary to what Toyota has cleverly marketed, about numbers.

Sports implies competition, and competitive sports evaluate performance quantitatively (i.e., numbers) not qualitatively.

A fun car may or may not be a sports car (although most sports cars are considered fun to drive) -- the FR-S/BRZ is more of a "fun" "sporty car" than a sports car. It can't accelerate, brake, or handle -- it is designed to go sideways and feel connected to the road. Funnily enough, even in sports where that matters, they rip out the engine and put in a bigger one with a turbo.

Other than the RWD, it is basically no better than a 7th gen FWD Celica. And in some stats, it is way worse. The Celica GT-S was often panned as a "sporty", "fun" car, but not a sports car.

The FR-S/BRZ may be a lot of fun, but it's not much of a sports car either.

As to fun factor, a bulldozer could be fun to drive too, and so could a shopping cart, raced down a hill.The twins can probably out perform those vehicles , tho', so that's good

Sorry, but the stats on handling and braking have lost me for good. Bring out the super sport version and I will be interested again.

You really don't get it. Sports cars are definitely not about numbers. And by competition in sports, you do understand it should be about the driver right?

Let me guess, you are the type of guy that brings an AK-47 to hunt rabbits?

Nissan could've had a massive hit in the 370z. Instead they have an awkward car. Too heavy to be a sports car. Too weak to be a muscle car. Too impractical to compete with hopped up econoboxes. I mean, the car weighs the same as a STI. A car that looks like a mini-van, can carry 5 adults comfortably and has awd. A car that is pretty much just as competitive or more so in most metrics as the 370z. This is what happens when you use the mass market skyline platform for your sporty car. You get the bloat of a luxo-car in what should be a hard edged sports car.

[2forme]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Fine. Whatever. so under 3400. Your lightweight "sports car" is still easily out-handled and out-braked by it.

And to answer your question, the answer is: Put equally sticky tires on both and the Z will clearly, easily out-maneuver it.

I am officially completely disenchanted with the FR-S/BRZ.

Actually, I did some more research... although the twins achieve more g's on the skidpad than a 7th gen Celica GT-S, it also has poorer braking from 0-60, and poorer slalom times. Straight line acceleration and 1/4 mile runs are about equal.

And I hate to say this but: Sports cars are, contrary to what Toyota has cleverly marketed, about numbers.

Sports implies competition, and competitive sports evaluate performance quantitatively (i.e., numbers) not qualitatively.

A fun car may or may not be a sports car (although most sports cars are considered fun to drive) -- the FR-S/BRZ is more of a "fun" "sporty car" than a sports car. It can't accelerate, brake, or handle -- it is designed to go sideways and feel connected to the road. Funnily enough, even in sports where that matters, they rip out the engine and put in a bigger one with a turbo.

Other than the RWD, it is basically no better than a 7th gen FWD Celica. And in some stats, it is way worse. The Celica GT-S was often panned as a "sporty", "fun" car, but not a sports car.

The FR-S/BRZ may be a lot of fun, but it's not much of a sports car either.

As to fun factor, a bulldozer could be fun to drive too, and so could a shopping cart, raced down a hill.The twins can probably out perform those vehicles , tho', so that's good

Sorry, but the stats on handling and braking have lost me for good. Bring out the super sport version and I will be interested again.

There you have it folks. You pissed the almighty Jordo off!

Come on man, seriously? We get it, you have a boner for the Z. But you're having a **** measuring contest on an 86 forum to try and make yourself look/feel better than everyone else.

The tire comment? I guess you've done extensive testing in the matter? The stock tires on the 86 aren't anything great. Hell there are some all-seasons that stick better than them. All this prick waving and what not means nothing unless its proven. Paper racing two different drivers under two different conditions with two different cars is POINTLESS. There are two many variables that can contribute.

Comparing the 86 to a Celica? Really? I've owned both. Have you? There were 2 years of the 7th gen Celica that could even come close to the potential of the 86 (3 if you want to ECU swap an 02). Even then, on stock ecu, they required skill to drive at the limit. Most drivers couldn't break 15.3 in a stock GT-S including magazines. Mag's got 14.9 in a stock 86. How long did it take a 2ZZ to hit 200whp without a PFC or F/I? That's a bit of a trick question.

I'm not saying the Celica is a sucky car by any means. I loved mine. It was a blast. But the 86 is a different animal, as it should be.

This thread is going to be locked soon. I can sense it.

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by industrial

Nissan could've had a massive hit in the 370z. Instead they have an awkward car. Too heavy to be a sports car. Too weak to be a muscle car. Too impractical to compete with hopped up econoboxes.

Honestly, I feel this is one of the most spot on viewpoints of the 370z, and I like the car. It just doesn't fit in anywhere. If you want to carry more than two people you can count it out, if you want to get decent gas mileage you can count it out, if you want to make big horsepower numbers out of it you can count it out(without investing a shitload of money into it). The problem is it is a big niche car, most people who buy the Z either A. are Nissan fans and buy it based on heritage or owned an older model and wanted to stick with it or B. wanted something more expensive but couldn't afford/justify it I.E. Porsche Cayman.

[Superhatch]

FWIW I ran against a 350Z in C Stock at my last auto X event. He was running Star Specs and put down a time +2s faster than mine (although hit hit two cones in the process). Looking at all of the cars there that day in any Stock class if any of the cars had Azenis or Star Specs they were up about +2s on their competition. If I had Star Specs/Azenis I would have likely been right with him.

Granted...this is an auto-x course and on a track the hp of the 350/370 would likely end up making it pull faster times.

Also, the base Z is 33K, the base FRS is 25K...Imagine what an FRS could do with 8k in mods? Why is this even a debate before that happens?

Let's have that test and see how close the two cars are.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by 2forme

There you have it folks. You pissed the almighty Jordo off!

Come on man, seriously? We get it, you have a boner for the Z. But you're having a **** measuring contest on an 86 forum to try and make yourself look/feel better than everyone else.

The tire comment? I guess you've done extensive testing in the matter? The stock tires on the 86 aren't anything great. Hell there are some all-seasons that stick better than them. All this prick waving and what not means nothing unless its proven. Paper racing two different drivers under two different conditions with two different cars is POINTLESS. There are two many variables that can contribute.

Comparing the 86 to a Celica? Really? I've owned both. Have you? There were 2 years of the 7th gen Celica that could even come close to the potential of the 86 (3 if you want to ECU swap an 02). Even then, on stock ecu, they required skill to drive at the limit. Most drivers couldn't break 15.3 in a stock GT-S including magazines. Mag's got 14.9 in a stock 86. How long did it take a 2ZZ to hit 200whp without a PFC or F/I? That's a bit of a trick question.

I'm not saying the Celica is a sucky car by any means. I loved mine. It was a blast. But the 86 is a different animal, as it should be.

This thread is going to be locked soon. I can sense it.

Call it a frustrated boner for the FR-S

I really, really wanted the car to be... well something it's just not, and I'm irritated that Toyota glossed over performance by chaging the rules on how it's assessed.

I loved my Celica -- this car was intended to be the replacement, but if I had kept my Celica, I probably would have been torn once I realized that the FR-S would have felt slow and awkward unless I sank another 5-10 grand into it.

More "meaningless" numbers I found...

RX8 - Mean Skid = .896 g's, Mean slalom = 67.5, braking 60-0 114' (better grip, a bit slower, better braking)

Mx-5 - Mean skid = .895, mean slalom = 64.15, braking 60-0 = 117' (better grip, a bit slower, better braking)

Oh well. Like I said, good thing its not about the numbers -- ANY numbers.

And to whomever said the Z is awkward, heavy,whatever, it's not. The numbers speak for themselves -- unless you ignore them because they don't matter...

Again, I think the car is beautiful and nicely designed, but it needs better brakes, better rubber, more power, and way more torque. And that means you will be spending around 5-10 grand to get it there... I just wish Toyota had offered that car too.

I really wanted to discover that it shined in handling and braking... but it doesn't. Period.

BTW: Why lock the thread? I'm not the only one who would like to see a "super sport" version. At worst, this will open discussion about what needs to be improved. My criticisms are based on data (gasp! heretic!), not on just coming in here to troll (you believe me, right... ).

Do we need three hundred threads here on tinting windows?

[crazyyankeefan]

It seems to me a lot of people in this thread neither even test drove a Z nor even a little research to at least get the facts right. Many simply just write whatever to "make yourselves feel better" or to "justify the decision" of getting the 86 by bashing other cars to junk without any hard evidence.

One argued that 86 is a better track performance car, which is simply just not true according to real stats. Sure due to its weight, it will definitely put down less stress on tires and brakes, so it's a more "economical" track car, not a "better performance" one. Besides, if you track your car regularly, would you still care about how many tires and brakes you have burnt out? I think not. If you don't track your car often, then one track event is not gonna matter that much from 500-600 lb difference. Finally, if weight is the only argument for someone to say it performs better w/ lighter weight, then the lighter Civic Si with the same hp would have better track performance than the 86, wouldn't it? But we all know that's not the case

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

Besides, if you track your car regularly, would you still care about how many tires and brakes you have burnt out? I think not.

??? Of COURSE I care how many tires and brakes I go through! They are a HUGE part of the expense of tracking a car. This is the main reason Miatae are BY FAR the most popular cars to track.

If you have enough money that it doesn't matter how much you spend on tires and brakes, there are much better (and faster) track cars than the 370Z, btw...

If you don't track your car often, then one track event is not gonna matter that much from 500-600 lb difference.

Great argument for a Mustang GT...

Finally, if weight is the only argument for someone to say it performs better w/ lighter weight, then the lighter Civic Si with the same hp would have better track performance than the 86, wouldn't it? But we all know that's not the case

For one thing, rwd>fwd. For another, a Civic Si weighs 100 lb. more than an FR-S/BRZ.

[Lonewolf]

This thread...kill it with fire

[crazyyankeefan]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Fine. Whatever. so under 3400. Your lightweight "sports car" is still easily out-handled and out-braked by it.

And to answer your question, the answer is: Put equally sticky tires on both and the Z will clearly, easily out-maneuver it.

I am officially completely disenchanted with the FR-S/BRZ.

Actually, I did some more research... although the twins achieve more g's on the skidpad than a 7th gen Celica GT-S, it also has poorer braking from 0-60, and poorer slalom times. Straight line acceleration and 1/4 mile runs are about equal.

And I hate to say this but: Sports cars are, contrary to what Toyota has cleverly marketed, about numbers.

Sports implies competition, and competitive sports evaluate performance quantitatively (i.e., numbers) not qualitatively.

A fun car may or may not be a sports car (although most sports cars are considered fun to drive) -- the FR-S/BRZ is more of a "fun" "sporty car" than a sports car. It can't accelerate, brake, or handle -- it is designed to go sideways and feel connected to the road. Funnily enough, even in sports where that matters, they rip out the engine and put in a bigger one with a turbo.

Other than the RWD, it is basically no better than a 7th gen FWD Celica. And in some stats, it is way worse. The Celica GT-S was often panned as a "sporty", "fun" car, but not a sports car.

The FR-S/BRZ may be a lot of fun, but it's not much of a sports car either.

As to fun factor, a bulldozer could be fun to drive too, and so could a shopping cart, raced down a hill.The twins can probably out perform those vehicles , tho', so that's good

Sorry, but the stats on handling and braking have lost me for good. Bring out the super sport version and I will be interested again.

Thanks for the voice of reasoning!

Originally Posted by ZDan

370Z is WAY overweight.

Again, please explain this by using real stats. You 86 drivers keep bragging about how light the 86 is and how "heavy" the Z is, but you people constantly fail to realize the idea of "power-to-weight". By calculating power-to-weight ratio, the 86 is actually the one that's overweight. It's delusional to make the argument of saying the 86 is better than Z, GTR, Lambo, etc just cuz it's lighter

[crazyyankeefan]

Originally Posted by ZDan

For one thing, rwd>fwd. For another, a Civic Si weighs 100 lb. more than an FR-S/BRZ.

Actually, you're right. It just proves more that Honda is declining......

[industrial]

Originally Posted by justaquestion

Anyone who says the 370z is not a sports car is honestly just talking out of their ass...

You act like it's indisputable. If you were talking about a exige or even a cayman, you might have a point. This is what I'm talking about with 370 owners, they think they drive a Ferrari.

How do these sound:

Anyone who says the Genesis Coupe v6 is not a sports car is honestly just talking out of their ass...

Anyone who says the Evo is not a sports car is honestly just talking out of their ass...

Anyone who says the 135i is not a sports car is honestly just talking out of their ass...

Anyone who says the Camaro SS is not a sports car is honestly just talking out of their ass...

Sounds like...fanboy.