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

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by blu_

Drinking is bad

depends.

:happy0180: is good

:happy0180: + is bad

:happy0180: + is the worst

[ST185RC]

HAI GAIZ, AM I A SPORTS CAR BECAUSE I AM FREAKIN' FAST IN A STRAIGHT LINE.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

Many true, classic sports cars (Triumph, MG, the original Boxster, etc.) weren't particularly powerful as compared to other cars of their day. A sports car requires fantastic handling and minimum weight.

The FR-S is about as "pure" a sports car as you can get at any price. 2+2 seating is atypical but not a disqualifier (911 and 944, anyone).

Apparently, it doesn't have fantastic handling.

Excellence is always assessed based on established benchmarks. For performance cars, that means we look to high end, high output cars that win races as benchmarks

Performance cars, in general, are all influenced by technologies developed on the race track, where high performance (and measurement) is key.

The FR-S follows the same strategy. It compares it's COG to Porsche and it's overall layout and styling to other high performance sports cars (isn't there a thread on here likening the FR-S to a Maserati?)

Toyota just waffles on the speed part and oversells the handling a bit...

Toyota knew this and that is why they point to very specific objective details that they can legitimately praise (e.g., COG) and turn towards imaginative flights of fancy on the rest ("It's not about numbers, but about driving excitement!").

It will be interesting to see what happens as time goes by. To see what other cars appear to compete with it, what other models or options are offered, and what the track guys do with it.

[blu_]

I think your posts are imaginative flights of fancy

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by blu_

I think your posts are imaginative flights of fancy

Touché!

[Shagaliscious]

Originally Posted by blu_

You see the part where he said for him better is subjective?

Clearly he didn't.

The power isn't overwhelming in this car because it wasn't in the AE86, and they did sort of build the FR-S/GT86 with that in mind. From day 1 they wanted a lightweight, powerful enough, RWD sports car. They never tried to hide that fact.

Do you not buy a car for the driving excitement? I know I do.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Shagaliscious

Clearly he didn't.

The power isn't overwhelming in this car because it wasn't in the AE86, and they did sort of build the FR-S/GT86 with that in mind. From day 1 they wanted a lightweight, powerful enough, RWD sports car. They never tried to hide that fact.

Do you not buy a car for the driving excitement? I know I do.

i dont know. if you relate the ae86 to current cars of the time (lets say the mustang gt since we, and by we i mean i, always refer to), the current ae86 would have had like 270hp. the corolla engine was a marvel but the whole package wasnt a cheap sports car. in fact it was quite expensive

[Shagaliscious]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i dont know. if you relate the ae86 to current cars of the time (lets say the mustang gt since we, and by we i mean i, always refer to), the current ae86 would have had like 270hp. the corolla engine was a marvel but the whole package wasnt a cheap sports car. in fact it was quite expensive

The power to weight was much better, but the AE86 certainly didn't have overwhelming power.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Shagaliscious

The power to weight was much better, but the AE86 certainly didn't have overwhelming power.

it most certainly did for the early 80s. back then huge v8s were putting out under 200 hp. the 112-128 or whatever you call it was most impressive for a 1.6. equally impressive was its huge price tag

[Shagaliscious]

Originally Posted by fatoni

it most certainly did for the early 80s. back then huge v8s were putting out under 200 hp. the 112-128 or whatever you call it was most impressive for a 1.6. equally impressive was its huge price tag

Have you even driven in one? Stock? They are slow.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Shagaliscious

Have you even driven in one? Stock? They are slow.

ive owned one. they are piss slow and gigantic pieces stock but they werent for 1983 standards.

[crazyyankeefan]

I will say this...the AE86 was a freaken Corolla. Repeat, a Corolla...no offense, but it was like shit when compared to the Skyline GT-R at the time

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by Shagaliscious

Clearly he didn't.

The power isn't overwhelming in this car because it wasn't in the AE86, and they did sort of build the FR-S/GT86 with that in mind. From day 1 they wanted a lightweight, powerful enough, RWD sports car. They never tried to hide that fact.

Do you not buy a car for the driving excitement? I know I do.

You know what's exciting? Torque. Lots of torque. Tire shredding torque.

Of course, struggling to merge into traffic can also be exciting.

How much does that motor lose in torque in the mid range -- like 20+ lb ft?

Exciting









































Okay, now I'm just messing with you

But seriously now, given what the FR-S and BRZ have to work with, they are no more exciting than a Miata and probably a lot less exciting than a more capable sports car.

This is the marketing hype... and clearly it has taken hold of people's imaginations -- and that is pretty cool.

But I don't see how this car is any more exciting or dynamic or whatever than a Mx-5, Rx8, 370Z, etc. etc.

But I do see where it trails in handling, braking, and acceleration relative to many other cars. And the first two issues are really disappointing

On that note, they should have added in a 7th gear on the AT -- no reason to have it falling behind the MT.

And better tires.

And that's not even getting into build quality issues... hopefully they'll spruce it up a bit on the 2nd model year.

How much is a loaded BRZ again?

[crazyyankeefan]

It's all about marketing and hype. After all Toyota want to sell bunch of this car, and...let's be real; this is basically the only interesting car Toyota have made in recent years. Hence the hype...