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

[Kunzite]

The GT 86 has what, 13 cm ground clearance? How is that "very little for a modern car"? That's about half a cm lower than my Auris, and 2cm lower than a Golf VI.
Your post is misleading, it's as if the GT 86 has less ground clearance than a Porsche, though it might be true if you're talking about Cayenne.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Embarrassed

Yes, and no. Once a car is at minimum ride height, then taking ANOTHER inch out is very very difficult to do. Before you hit that criteria it is much easier.

Checking out the twins, the main reason why it has a "low" c.g. stock is because it has very little ground clearance for a modern car. The reason we see it played up is simply marketing. They they can say , "see, we are better than a Posche", and because it is so narrowly focused, you can't really say much about it. Subaru plays up the boxer layout, but frankly that has very little effect.

Actually the 86 has the best ground clearance (4.9") of any car with a comparable CG, except the Ferrari 360 Modena. Look at the specs:

[CG -- Ground Clearance]

370Z: 20.0" -- 4.8"
Miata: 19.0" -- 4.6"
FR-S: 18.1" -- 4.9"
Cayman R: 18.0" -- 4.3"
LFA: 17.8" -- 4.5"
360 Modena: 17.6" -- 4.9"
911 GT3: 17.4" -- 3.7"

And if you eliminate cars above $50k, no car is even close. In fact, the FR-S could even be lowered another 0.4" and beat the CG on the Cayman R and LFA (while matching or beating their ground clearance).

Originally Posted by Embarrassed

That's a piece of cake. Lowering the cg from 19" to 18" will reduce weight transfer by a little over 5% (1/19). Assuming a 60" track, the 19"cg would have 81.6% vehicle weight on the outside tires, and the 18"cg would have 80%. This has about the same effect on grip as moving your battery from one side of the car to the other. In other words, not much.

For those wishing to get an idea of what other cars have for cg heights, you can look at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809868.pdf

You will need to find the vehicles average track width, the SSF number from the above report and use the following forumla:

cg = track/ (2 * SSF#)

What doesn't make sense to me about that is, given this formula:

g = [weight transfer x track width] / [weight x CG]

If CG has a direct (proportional) relationship with weight transfer, then lateral grip isn't affected at all by a reduction in CG, but we all know that's not the case. So something is not right there.

Originally Posted by Embarrassed

Just to keep this conversation inline, I tried to find a calculation for the 370z, but couldn't. In substitute, the 350z has a c.g. height of ~19.3 inches.

O

FYI, a 2002 vette has a cg of 17.8".

The 370z CG was already measured by Cayman Dynamics at 20".

[Embarrassed]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Actually the 86 has the best ground clearance (4.9") of any car with a comparable CG, except the Ferrari 360 Modena.

Maybe it would have been better if I said rocker panel height. But then again, the point was that for a non competition car it is essentially irrelevant.

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

What doesn't make sense to me about that is, given this formula:

g = [weight transfer x track width] / [weight x CG]

If CG has a direct (proportional) relationship with weight transfer, then lateral grip isn't affected at all by a reduction in CG, but we all know that's not the case. So something is not right there.

The equation is right. What you are missing is the tire - the equation assumes that the grip is available, which it may or may not be. If you want to try and determine if grip is available, you need to look at tire sensitivity. Oddly enough, if the tire is senstive enough that cg makes a significant difference in grip, it would be easier and more effective to put on a wider tire.

O

[DetroitJake]

I'm not sure why I feel the need to contribute to the noise here, but I'm going to do it anyway

Regarding 370Z vs FR-S.

It depends on personal choice. Test drive both. Decide what works for you. Thats what I did.

To be honest I've had my eye on the Nissan Z since they introduced the 350Z in 2003. It was and still is such a sexy car. I've driven 350 and 370s. Buuut, I've never quite been able to drop the cash on it. It just feels like too much car for me personally. Also, it is marketed as a bit higher end sports car, which is terrible in my mind. The stripped down one is the one you can 'afford'. But they taunt your conscience with the options you want at prices you don't want to pay. You can easily price that car out to $40k and up with things you feel like you deserve in the $30k braket.

What I've wanted was a small, sexy, tight car that is fun to drive, reasonable to afford, light on its feet, corners with thrift and excitement, where the driver can easily see the road in front, and feels engaged & connected to the vehicle in the cockpit. Toyota & Subaru answered my prayers with the FR-S / BRZ.

I'm pretty sure the Nissan Z is indeed a faster car in some / most circumstances, but does that really matter? Honestly how many of you bought the FR-S / BRZ with the intention of spending most of your time on a track? I don't yet know where I can go to track my car, but I live in Detroit and I'm sure I can find something. When I find that, yes I may track my car someday and I expect to have an absolute blast even if I am many seconds slower than hardend track veterans with fast track tuned cars.

What I DO plan to do with my car everyday is drive to work, run errands, visit friends, etc. While doing that I will be looking great, really feeling the road under my tires, and not blowing all my hard earned dollars on a car payment or gasoline, and that puts an enormous smile on my face.

I think thats what 95% of us will be doing with our FR-S / BRZ.

Already I am shocked at how fast I can corner in this car, and I'm sure I can corner faster than would be necessary to get the attention of the local law enforcement authorities. As far as acceleration, sure many cars with all brawn and no balance can take it from a light, but again, its still fast enough to get you in trouble if thats what you need to be excited.

If after owning an FR-S, finding a track, becoming addicted to racing (spending money on tires and parts all the time) and then I decide the FR-S isn't fast enough, then maybe I'll swear off a financial future and try to get a used Porsche or something, spending bigger money to simply shave a few seconds off lap time.

I think Subaru / Toyota did an excellent job with this car and it is a perfect balance for guys and gals like us that want a car that is attractive and driver focused and won't break the bank. Its not just driving focused balance. Its fuel economy balance, performance balance, cost balance, utility balance.

For me, the Nissan Z always felt a little out of balance. Cost to high, performance 'more than necessary', feels to weighty, less forward road vision with high doors and high hood, cheesy looking dash with so many plastic gauges everywhere, popping up like weeds... etc. Not saying I don't like the Z. And not saying the FR-S is perfect. I'm just saying the FR-S was a better car for me.

If you really want a Nissan Z, but don't want to pay new car prices. Check for a used one. There are tons for sale on places like Autotrader.com. I considered that option, but even with that option, again, I still prefer the feel of the FR-S.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Embarrassed

Maybe it would have been better if I said rocker panel height. But then again, the point was that for a non competition car it is essentially irrelevant.

Why do you think it's irrelevant? The better handling cars I've enjoyed driving all have CG heights of 20" or less, with the exception of cars that have torque-vectoring differentials (Evo X GSR) or a combination of a short wheelbase and lighter curb weight (Mini Cooper S). And it seems pretty clear that the absolute best handling cars in the world all have CG heights of ~18" or less. To me, that correlation seems too strong to dismiss as irrelevant. In fact I'd say there's a fairly strong relationship between CG height and handling/subjective feel, and from what I've read, most automotive engineers would seem to agree. I'm curious why you would think it's irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Embarrassed

The equation is right. What you are missing is the tire - the equation assumes that the grip is available, which it may or may not be. If you want to try and determine if grip is available, you need to look at tire sensitivity. Oddly enough, if the tire is senstive enough that cg makes a significant difference in grip, it would be easier and more effective to put on a wider tire.

O

Interesting, I'll have to look into that. Thanks for the info.

[jadewbj]

Base 370Z is $33,120 and the FR-S is $24,995. Seriously that is $8,125. Dats a lot a dimp!

On that basis alone you would have to give the nod to the FR-S.

You could drive the FR-S stock and take have enough money to ship it to Europe, drive the ring and all the other great driving roads in europe and still have money left over instead of buying the 370Z.

Or you could spend the 8 grand to modify the FRS and make it a beast.

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by jadewbj

Or you could spend the 8 grand to modify the FRS and make it a beast.

I have yet to see a 'beast' frs for ~$8K.

[jadewbj]

Originally Posted by chulooz

I have yet to see a 'beast' frs for ~$8K.

I think 8K would probably provide this and it looks quite beastly to to me.

Youtube Video:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX8Cx47ofz8"]Turbo Scion FR-S 324WHP First Drive - YouTube[/ame]


Turbo Scion FR-S 324WHP Dyno Chart:

[chulooz]

That is a prototype in testing stage(on e85).... nothing production wise. Besides, just adding power doesnt turn a car into a beast.

[jadewbj]

Originally Posted by chulooz

That is a prototype in testing stage(on e85).... nothing production wise. Besides, just adding power doesnt turn a car into a beast.

In this comparison the only thing the 370 has over the FR-S is raw HP. The suspension on the FR-S is as good or superior, the balance is better, the car is lighter and just an overall better handling car.

So adding HP would make the car a "beast" IMO, especially compared to the 370Z.

It may be a prototype but there will be production kits shortly, from many tuners.

[2forme]

Originally Posted by jadewbj

In this comparison the only thing the 370 has over the FR-S is raw HP. The suspension on the FR-S is as good or superior, the balance is better, the car is lighter and just an overall better handling car.

So adding HP would make the car a "beast" IMO, especially compared to the 370Z.

It may be a prototype but there will be production kits shortly, from many tuners.

You don't understand, obviously the 370z is far superior and "beastly" to anything on the road.

I can't believe this prick waving contest is still going on. Z fanbois, enjoy your car... you paid for it, we didn't. 86 owners, enjoy your car... you paid for it, they didn't. Can't we all just get along?

[shadoquad]

I agree. I much prefer the Z to the FT86, but that's personal opinion, and I still think that both are terrific cars. To each their own. If someone else much prefers the FT86 to the Z, I don't hate them for it. That just means that the twins fit that person's needs and desires better.

Each car has its advantages/disadvantages to the other, and many of the qualifiers are subjective (looks, feel). Drive both cars and buy what's right for you, and then come cruising with me and let's have fun.

[Hachiroku]

See what Chris Harris has to say about the FR-S versus the 370Z

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14699

Awesome review, as always from Chris Harris!

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Hachiroku

See what Chris Harris has to say about the FR-S versus the 370Z

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14699

Awesome review, as always from Chris Harris!

Having driven all three cars I agree with everything he said. I never considered buying the Porsche but did consider the Z for a little while until I drove one. Although it may be the slowest of the bunch, the FR-S is by far the most fun to drive