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

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by brewksy

Just because people don't look to closely at COG doesn't mean that it isn't a much more important metric than f/r ratio, hp/weight figures, etc. Of those metrics, the COG tells a much better picture of a car's ability to transfer weight. COG, suspension effectiveness, and weight seem to be the most important to me.

Originally Posted by brewksy

Huh? Reread my post over again?

I said COG should be more important than hp/weight, not weight. My only problem is we look at F:R ratios as the ultimate determinant of balance when by itself it says almost nothing about a car's ability to transition weight quickly. Then we'll look at COG differences of 2 inches and think "meh, that doesn't matter much..."

i dont think it was my fault that when you said etc., you meant weight balance, power to weight and then some more stuff. i never look at the weight balance and look at that as the ultimate determinant. if i had to pick an ultimate determinate of handling characteristics i would probably have to say frc but even still its only a piece of the puzzle...still a far more important piece than cog

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i dont think it was my fault that when you said etc., you meant weight balance, power to weight and then some more stuff. i never look at the weight balance and look at that as the ultimate determinant. if i had to pick an ultimate determinate of handling characteristics i would probably have to say frc but even still its only a piece of the puzzle...still a far more important piece than cog

Roll center, suspension, tires, weight distribution, etc. are derivatives built from a foundation. What is at the foundation next to chassis and engine? CoG. The remaining pieces of the handling "puzzle" feel important because, traditionally, they more directly affect the driver where CoG is a distant abstraction closer to the foundation. But this is not your traditional car. CoG plays such a huge role that the driver feels its effect more directly and doesn't require as sophisticated a suspension to compensate for roll center, etc. Simplification starting from the foundation makes it easier for the remaining handling derivatives to be executed properly. If you just go out and drive one, you'll realize all pieces of the handling puzzle were done to the point of excellence thanks to its low CoG.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

Roll center, suspension, tires, weight distribution, etc. are derivatives built from a foundation. What is at the foundation next to chassis and engine? CoG. The remaining pieces of the handling "puzzle" feel important because, traditionally, they more directly affect the driver where CoG is a distant abstraction closer to the foundation. But this is not your traditional car. CoG plays such a huge role that the driver feels its effect more directly and doesn't require as sophisticated a suspension to compensate for roll center, etc. Simplification starting from the foundation makes it easier for the remaining handling derivatives to be executed properly. If you just go out and drive one, you'll realize all pieces of the handling puzzle were done to the point of excellence thanks to its low CoG.

this is a traditional car. it isnt anything new. there have been multiple cars in the history of cars with a lower cog. you could even argue that the way they attained the cog is hindering other pieces and not helping considering the constraints on the space the suspension could have been using. roll center is independent of cog so i fail to see what that whole not needing sophisticated suspension has to do with it. driving the car will tell you that it may be an excellent driver but in no way tells you that it is thanks to the cog

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

this is a traditional car. it isnt anything new. there have been multiple cars in the history of cars with a lower cog. you could even argue that the way they attained the cog is hindering other pieces and not helping considering the constraints on the space the suspension could have been using. roll center is independent of cog so i fail to see what that whole not needing sophisticated suspension has to do with it. driving the car will tell you that it may be an excellent driver but in no way tells you that it is thanks to the cog

2.0 flat-4, FR layout, sub-$30k, sub-2800 lbs isn't anything new? Is that traditional? Roll center is a derivative of the suspension which is a derivative of the foundation - chassis/engine placement/CoG. Not the other way around. And to explain the relation of CoG to the sophistication of suspension: solid foundation = solid everything else. The moment arm around roll center is dictated by CoG. The engineers didn't just set a low CoG and stop there. They built everything around it. Hence, the roll center feels just sublime.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

2.0 flat-4, FR layout, sub-$30k, sub-2800 lbs isn't anything new? Is that traditional? Roll center is a derivative of the suspension which is a derivative of the chassis/engine placement/CoG. Not the other way around. The moment arm around roll center is dictated by CoG. The engineers didn't just set a low CoG and stop there. They built everything around it. And the roll center feels just sublime.

look you can get super specific like that if you want but then everything is going to be special. the miata was fr, sub 25k, sub 2400 lbs and had a lower cog twenty years ago. i dont know why you think the roll center is a derivative of cog. they are not a cause and effect. they are two points that together, describe how hard you expect the suspension to have to work. you cant feel a roll center, maybe you can feel the distance between the cog and the roll center but even that is stretching it since stiffer rates would mask much of that.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

look you can get super specific like that if you want but then everything is going to be special. the miata was fr, sub 25k, sub 2400 lbs and had a lower cog twenty years ago. i dont know why you think the roll center is a derivative of cog. they are not a cause and effect. they are two points that together, describe how hard you expect the suspension to have to work. you cant feel a roll center, maybe you can feel the distance between the cog and the roll center but even that is stretching it since stiffer rates would mask much of that.

How a car feels is king and if you can't feel a roll center then I fail to understand why you're claiming it to be the most important factor? This car's low CoG warrants less stiffer rates (and less sophisticated suspension) so less is masked from the driver. I'm only getting super specific because you are arguing at the level of super specific. If we want to continue your path of argument, we would have to analyze the engineering drawings of said lowest CoG cars in history and compare roll centers, moment arms, and such. But rather than bean count on specs, a much better "metric" for argument would be to just drive and compare. I don't know how qualified you are at evaluating but this has been thoroughly done by professionals more qualified than I am.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

How a car feels is king and if you can't feel a roll center then I fail to understand why you're claiming it to be the most important factor? This car's low CoG warrants less stiffer rates (and less sophisticated suspension) so less is masked from the driver. I'm only getting super specific because you are arguing at the level of super specific. If we want to continue your path of argument, we would have to analyze the engineering drawings of said lowest CoG cars in history and compare roll centers, moment arms, and such. But rather than bean count on specs, a much better "metric" for argument would be to just drive and compare. I don't know how qualified you are at evaluating but this has been thoroughly done by professionals more qualified than I am.

sorry when i said frc i was talking about the front roll couple so there is a lot of confusion there that is partly my fault. lower cog might allow you to run softer rates but not as much as closing the gap between the roll center. i whole heartedly agree that driving it is the best assessment for the consumer

[sho220]

Originally Posted by brewksy

I believe, with the seats folded down, this is easily a 2-dead-hooker trunk.

Possible...just make sure to save room for a few shovels and a twelve pack...

[brewksy]

Originally Posted by sho220

Possible...just make sure to save room for a few shovels and a twelve pack...

That's going too far.


And by too far, I mean, I brought the cold ones and my F:R balance is "perfect".

[brewksy]

Originally Posted by Embarrassed

Your call. I think it's silly, but it's your call.



F:R isn't the best, but until they start giving us things like spring rates, effective bar rates, installed motion ratio curves, frame and bushing stiffness measurements, it's the best we got. That, and when it comes right down to it, there are some pretty fundemental reasons why it actually says A LOT about what a car should handle like at the limit. It also says lot about how it will handling combined loading (braking+cornering)



That's becuase the CG has compartively little effect on how or how fast weight transfers. Dropping CG height by 10% will only get you a 10-15% response improvement in repsonse time - an amount that can be barely felt by even pretty competant drivers. By comparison, I've measured 300% improvements by changing damping, and up to 700% changing springs, dampers and tires.

When it comes right down to it, CG tells you almost nothing about how a car transfers weight. IT'S BEING USED BY TOYOTA AS A MARKETING GIMMICK. Nothing more.

O

Uh... Low center of gravity is not a marketing gimmick - weight, how low to the ground that weight is located (in all 3 dimensions, so F:R and COG), and the ability of your springs to absorb and counteract that weight ALL combine to create a driving experience. Throw some amazing suspension on a truck, some extra weight to balance it front:rear, and it'll move 700% better but still feel terribly heavy and top-heavy.

Quit measuring your experience through percentages - that's silly. There's no single equation that = driving feel. My primary point in all this was that COG should be a more important metric, not to get into a passing match about exactly how important.

[unknown_370]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

It doesn't. It weighs between 3200 and 3300 depending on the options.

While it wouldn't hurt for the 370Z to be 200 lbs lighter, it has a very good power to weight and torque to weight ratio out of the box.

The 350Z was often panned for poor handling, but not the 370Z. At worst it's not as nimble as the FR-S, but it's hardly a clumsy car.

On that note: What's the average slalom times for the Z vs the FR-S? 60-0 braking? Skidpad?

EDIT: Well, the Z did better than I expected and the FR-S/ BRZ way worse, at least from what data I could fine.

Mean 370Z coupe skidpad g's = 0.965
Mean 370Z coupe Slalom mph = 70.53

Mean FR-S/BRZ skidpad g's = 0.88
Mean FR-S/BRZ slalom mph (note: only 2 data points) = 68.2

Didn't bother gathering braking data, but looked like around 110' for the Z and 120' for the FR-S/BRZ.

Good thing it's not about the numbers... er... any numbers.

Data for 370Z from:

http://www.insideline.com/nissan/370...ssan-370z.html

http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/370z/2010/road-test1.html

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/ca...an_370z_page_3

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html

http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/370z/2010/road-test1.html

http://www.insideline.com/nissan/370...-bmw-135i.html


Data for FR-S/BRZ from:

http://www.insideline.com/scion/fr-s...full-test.html

http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz...and-video.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html

I have to completely agree with this statement. It's easy to read magazines, watch reviews on you tube and fall in to the corporate sponsor hype on what is and isn't a sports car. To me a sports car is the one that you can push at the limit and inspire driver self confidence. agility also makes a sports car. Also there's alot of debate on the Z being too heavy for track duty... Right now im going to call bullshyt on these statements because they are ringing off as plain ignorance and in some cases auto-envy.
When the Z came out, it weighed 3232lbs as a base manual, 3269lbs as a sport manual, 3280lbs as a sport manual auto, base touring 3300lbs as a touring 3315 as a touring sport 3330 as a toring sport nav. versions of the tourings. The 12 and up models now weigh an extra 20lbs on that to 3350.

But lets talk about the base and base sport. 09-11 3232/3269lbs manual trans. add 20lbs for the 12 and 30lbs for the 13.

At the time the 09 Z came out, it was the lightest and still is the lightest 300+ hp sports car that can be obtained under 40k. Approx weights for the evo, wrx, mustang are in the 3500-3600lb range. G37 and 1/3 series BMW in the 3600-3800lb range. Camaro and challenger are in the 3850-4200lb range. All the cars mentioned make substantial power, all can achieve 60 in less than 5.5 seconds or less and hit the quarter in 13.8 seconds or less. all these cars can great grip of .90g or better at 68mph or better. (except the challenger).
The Z can out acceleare the v8 challenger R/T and outhandle every car on here and do it with half the displacement of the muscle cars.
The Z isn't without flaws. The Z needs $2k in mods to make it track assured. But its a small price to price for near-supercar handling in a raw and unrefined inexpensive sports car.

I think many people here are overpowering there idealogy of true sports car driving with insignificant stats.
At the end of the day, you may believe or feel the BRZ/FRS is more sports car than a Z, but we all agree that on a track, The FRS-Z challenge on two stock cars is suicide. The FR-S may beat me in a downhill drift challenge in a japanese perfecture but will lose in everything else. In other words, these cars offer different sports car driving entertainment.



There's no argument the FRS is a great car and deserves its place next to S2k and miata. But understand that segment only focuses on balance only. Nissan is trying to play multiple roles. It can do 9/10th's of everything. the Z may not do it as gracefully as an FRS but in 80% of cases. The Z will get the job done faster... And if you think the Z isn't fun? There's only two profiles you fit in...
1. You never drove a Z.
2. You never driven a car over 90mph.
And thats kool. Not everyone is Andretti. But remember, your limited experiences also mean your opinions are limited...

Some people need to feed there egos by putting down other cars or find some sort of superiority from one car to the next in order to feel good about there purchase... It's unnecessary. Any true enthusiast knows the sports car arena has focused cars and median cars. If i were a pro drifter/auto-x/canyon runner ONLY? i know which car i'd buy first. But since my driving entertainment/sport mood changes constantly. I chose what can do it all cuz my skills behind a wheel are multi-faceted. Any true enthusiast knows that one sports car is never enough to master the game. And if i were to want to master one style of sport driving only... There are better cars than the Z... but ican do more than just those 3 at deadly high speeds so the Z is perfect for me though its not as focused as a car geared to one-three sports.

[crazyyankeefan]

Originally Posted by unknown_370

I have to completely agree with this statement. It's easy to read magazines, watch reviews on you tube and fall in to the corporate sponsor hype on what is and isn't a sports car. To me a sports car is the one that you can push at the limit and inspire driver self confidence. agility also makes a sports car. Also there's alot of debate on the Z being too heavy for track duty... Right now im going to call bullshyt on these statements because they are ringing off as plain ignorance and in some cases auto-envy.
When the Z came out, it weighed 3232lbs as a base manual, 3269lbs as a sport manual, 3280lbs as a sport manual auto, base touring 3300lbs as a touring 3315 as a touring sport 3330 as a toring sport nav. versions of the tourings. The 12 and up models now weigh an extra 20lbs on that to 3350.

But lets talk about the base and base sport. 09-11 3232/3269lbs manual trans. add 20lbs for the 12 and 30lbs for the 13.

At the time the 09 Z came out, it was the lightest and still is the lightest 300+ hp sports car that can be obtained under 40k. Approx weights for the evo, wrx, mustang are in the 3500-3600lb range. G37 and 1/3 series BMW in the 3600-3800lb range. Camaro and challenger are in the 3850-4200lb range. All the cars mentioned make substantial power, all can achieve 60 in less than 5.5 seconds or less and hit the quarter in 13.8 seconds or less. all these cars can great grip of .90g or better at 68mph or better. (except the challenger).
The Z can out acceleare the v8 challenger R/T and outhandle every car on here and do it with half the displacement of the muscle cars.
The Z isn't without flaws. The Z needs $2k in mods to make it track assured. But its a small price to price for near-supercar handling in a raw and unrefined inexpensive sports car.

I think many people here are overpowering there idealogy of true sports car driving with insignificant stats.
At the end of the day, you may believe or feel the BRZ/FRS is more sports car than a Z, but we all agree that on a track, The FRS-Z challenge on two stock cars is suicide. The FR-S may beat me in a downhill drift challenge in a japanese perfecture but will lose in everything else. In other words, these cars offer different sports car driving entertainment.



There's no argument the FRS is a great car and deserves its place next to S2k and miata. But understand that segment only focuses on balance only. Nissan is trying to play multiple roles. It can do 9/10th's of everything. the Z may not do it as gracefully as an FRS but in 80% of cases. The Z will get the job done faster... And if you think the Z isn't fun? There's only two profiles you fit in...
1. You never drove a Z.
2. You never driven a car over 90mph.
And thats kool. Not everyone is Andretti. But remember, your limited experiences also mean your opinions are limited...

Some people need to feed there egos by putting down other cars or find some sort of superiority from one car to the next in order to feel good about there purchase... It's unnecessary. Any true enthusiast knows the sports car arena has focused cars and median cars. If i were a pro drifter/auto-x/canyon runner ONLY? i know which car i'd buy first. But since my driving entertainment/sport mood changes constantly. I chose what can do it all cuz my skills behind a wheel are multi-faceted. Any true enthusiast knows that one sports car is never enough to master the game. And if i were to want to master one style of sport driving only... There are better cars than the Z... but ican do more than just those 3 at deadly high speeds so the Z is perfect for me though its not as focused as a car geared to one-three sports.

Very fair assessment. I feel like Toyota/Subaru have paid off a lot of magazines to promote and market this car. I have never seen a 200-hp car gets hyped up as much as the 86...seriously. You see in magazines and reviews of this car being compared to a lot of sports car which are way out of its league. If that's not marketing scheme, then I don't know what that is.

[brewksy]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

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

*sigh* No. It's unfortunate that magazines have sold you on what should be important because in the Internet generation, numbers and stats are more exciting than actually feeling. It's even sadder when Toyota creates a "feeling" car that has no numbers to brag about at all and people like yourself still feel somehow betrayed that this car doesn't beat other cars with numbers. Don't you see how silly that makes you look? Why did you even bother to create an account on this website if you were after numbers anyhow?

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

Only professional, televised, or marketed sports. If you want to win a bunch of money and take all of the soul out of a sport, sure - it's all about the numbers. Does that mean that when I go out and kick the soccer ball around with friends that we're only happy when we win?

Funnily enough, even in sports where that matters, they rip out the engine and put in a bigger one with a turbo.

In every highly commercialized vehicle sport they rip out the engine and all the other parts and build from the ground up. They rip the seats out of the Z, the suspension out of the Mustang, etc. etc. But, then again, those people play sports for money, not for the enjoyment.

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

Whatever floats your boat - take a test drive. You either like this car, or you don't. And go ahead and buy a bulldozer if that's what you want. But to come to this forum and complain about the numbers because Toyota told you it would, you've been lying to yourself a long time.

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.

No one will miss you.

Originally Posted by unknown_370

At the end of the day, you may believe or feel the BRZ/FRS is more sports car than a Z, but we all agree that on a track, The FRS-Z challenge on two stock cars is suicide. The FR-S may beat me in a downhill drift challenge in a japanese perfecture but will lose in everything else. In other words, these cars offer different sports car driving entertainment.

I don't get your point? That each car succeeds in different areas? Sure do! But, then again, the review even from Chris Harris said nothing about the overall performance of these cars on tracks and everything to do with how they felt to him. Is that so wrong?

There's no argument the FRS is a great car and deserves its place next to S2k and miata. But understand that segment only focuses on balance only. Nissan is trying to play multiple roles. It can do 9/10th's of everything. the Z may not do it as gracefully as an FRS but in 80% of cases. The Z will get the job done faster... And if you think the Z isn't fun? There's only two profiles you fit in...
1. You never drove a Z.
2. You never driven a car over 90mph.
And thats kool. Not everyone is Andretti. But remember, your limited experiences also mean your opinions are limited...

Two things:

1. The S2K is in B-Stock and the Miata is in C-Stock in Solo. Guess where the Z is?
2. Chris Harris drove the Z and didn't like it. He has more experiences than you do about cars. Does that make the Z inferior? To Chris Harris, probably. To everyone else - that's your opinion and you're free to make it. But to assume that I *must* like the Z when I drive it, is presumptuous and egotistical.

[Jordo!]

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here.

Almost everyone who reviews the car likes how it feels -- but there is also almost unanimous agreement, even by those giving rave reviews, that the car needs more grunt.

Actually, if we're being fair: It needs better tires, bigger brakes, and another 50 lbft of torque. Hopefully all three will be factory options within 2 years.

They should probably do something about the wonky cam sensors too...

Chris Harris' views carry no special weight with me. This is a guy who put four spares on a high powered saloon just to slide around. That's fine, but I think his reviews are biased by self-perceived hooning potential.