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

[DarkSunrise]

An otherwise stock FR-S on performance summer tires will put up some pretty phenomenal handling numbers. Thought this might be useful to see (skidpad / slalom / 60-0):

[1.00-1.04 g]
1.04 g / 71.3 mph / 102 ft -- 911 Carrera S (Pirelli P Zero P-spec)
1.03 g / 71.6 mph / 109 ft -- Elise (Yoko A048 LTS)
1.00 g / 70.3 mph / 107 ft -- FR-S (Yoko AD08)

[0.95-0.99 g]
0.99 g / 72.3 mph / 102 ft -- Boxster Spyder (Bridgestone RE050a P-spec)
0.99 g / 70.7 mph / 112 ft -- Evo X GSR (Yoko A048)
0.98 g / 71.0 mph / 103 ft -- R8 (Pirelli P Zero A-spec)
0.98 g / 69.7 mph / 103 ft -- Corvette (Eagle F1 Supercar)
0.98 g / 69.1 mph / 109 ft -- Shelby GT500 (Eagle F1 Supercar G:2)
0.97 g / 71.3 mph / 105 ft -- Cayman R (Bridgestone RE050a P-Spec)
0.96 g / 74.0 mph / 98 ft -- GT-R (Bridgestone RE070R)
0.95 g / 73.3 mph / 100 ft -- E90 M3 Coupe (Michelin PS2)

[0.90-0.94 g]
0.93 g / 70.4 mph / 105 ft -- 370z (Bridgestone RE050a)
0.91 g / 71.1 mph / 119 ft -- MS3 (Dunlop SP Sport 2050)
0.91 g / ???? mph / 109 ft -- E46 M3 Coupe (Yoko AD07)
0.91 g / 70.4 mph / 115 ft -- Nismo 370z (Yoko Advan Sport)
0.90 g / 70.2 mph / 112 ft -- STI (Dunlop SP Sport 600)
0.90 g / 69.7 mph / 108 ft -- 135i (Bridgestone RE050a)

[0.85-0.89 g]
0.89 g / 69.6 mph / 112 ft -- GC 2.0t R-Spec (Bridgestone RE050a)
0.88 g / 69.3 mph / 131 ft -- NSX (Bridgestone RE730)
0.88 g / 68.5 mph / 114 ft -- GC 3.8 Track (Bridgestone RE050a)
0.87 g / 67.1 mph / 121 ft -- Civic Si (Michelin PE2)
0.87 g / 66.1 mph / 112 ft -- Mustang V6 PP (Pirelli P Zero)
0.86 g / 64.9 mph / 110 ft -- NC Miata (Bridgestone RE050a)

1) Only compares cars with performance summer tires (no R compounds or all-seasons).
2) Only uses numbers from Edmunds track tests to keep methodology and venue the same.
3) FR-S and competitors bolded.

Anyway you look at that, the FR-S on performance summer tires is clearly a class or two above its peers. Its competition really is more expensive sports cars and some exotics when it comes to handling (on street summer tires).

[fatoni]

i say this:

Originally Posted by fatoni

okay well remove e85 and just flash the ecu. still leaves us with wear and tear items like clutch, shocks and pads. removing backseats is less of a modification that changing tires. my point is that when you change things, things are changed. its an arbitrary point to choose to be acceptable. stock v stock: dont change tires. mod v mod:why stop at tires? thats all im saying


its unfair to change things in a stock comparison...because thats not stock

and then you say this:

Originally Posted by Kunzite

I know what you're saying, is just that you don't make any sense. You're claiming that if the car with the least power is not using much worse tires it would be "unfair"...
And by the way, there's nothing arbitrary there; we're specifically asking just for the same tires, nothing else. rice_classic explained very well why, but logic and common sense are lost on you.

Originally Posted by rice_classic

For WHAT comparison?!

Now I can't tell if you're trolling or not. You just keep insisting on your non-sequitur argument.

It was clear as day: Non-sequitur = Your conclusion is not supported by the premise.

Premise: Comparing the ability of the car/chassis corning ability between multiple cars (with their own laundry list of variables). In order to do so there needs to be a controlled variable (that control is the tires). ECU flashing, E85 or even a FLUX CAPACITOR are irrelevant to the premise.

i assure you im not trolling and im not saying that the premise supports the conclusion. im just saying that every objective argument you make for tires can be made for some other alteration to the car. you keep using tires as the controlled variable and im just saying that i could just as easily use anything else as a controlled variable. i wouldnt even say that any of these reviews and comparisons are about cornering ability but the cars in general. even if they were, is there a counter argument to saying that equalizing suspension or weight is any different than changing tires? i havent thought of any

Originally Posted by wlfpck

Please think back to the days of high school chemistry lab.

Remember how you set things constant to determine what variables caused what change?

You can't say that you'll run x, y, z mods on the 86 and then compare it to the stock mustang, rx-8, etc. UNLESS the point that you are trying to make is that the 86 can be modified to beat a stock mustang, rx-8, etc.

If your HYPOTHESIS is that the 86 with the same amount of horsepower/torque as the mustang, rx-8, etc. will win... then yes. The 86 will have to be modified. But then you are contraining the experiment to test the HYPOTHESIS stated above.

If your HYPOTHESIS is that better tires will make the 86 faster than a stock mustang, rx-8, etc., then the ONLY change you can make to the 86 would be new tires.

This is how you design experiments to prove a point in order to generate EVIDENCE BASED results that are properly experimented with CONSTRAINTS.


NOTE: the capitalized words are not "yelling" they are simply there to draw attention to the key words of the scientific process and the design of an experiement.

this hasnt been the hypothesis in any of these comparisons we see and that is where i think a lot of these arguments fall short. none of those tests are any less valid than the other tests but people relentlessly try to say that somehow it is. all im doing is using the same exact premise they are and coming to a conclusion they dont like. i have yet to hear a situation where changing tires would make sense where changing other things wouldnt. if people are going to stand by their premise, it is only fair to accept all the possible conclusions.

[wlfpck]

You do realize my post was more of a blanket post. That there should be evidence based statements that are made.

For instance, like back to my example, there would be no point in saying the 86 is faster than a _______ car because we can turbo it and make 450+ whp.

That's the point that needs to get across. Constraints must be placed when making comparisons. Are we talking Stock vs Stock? 86 with new tires vs Stock? 86 with new tires and more power vs Stock?

Simply by making a broad statement like the 86 is faster than ______ based off the fact that modified it makes _____ whp or w/e is a pointless arguement. Because with that kind of logic, the blanket statement of a 93 civic is faster than a 86 can be made as well. And we KNOW stock vs stock, that this statement is false.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by wlfpck

You do realize my post was more of a blanket post. That there should be evidence based statements that are made.

For instance, like back to my example, there would be no point in saying the 86 is faster than a _______ car because we can turbo it and make 450+ whp.

That's the point that needs to get across. Constraints must be placed when making comparisons. Are we talking Stock vs Stock? 86 with new tires vs Stock? 86 with new tires and more power vs Stock?

Simply by making a broad statement like the 86 is faster than ______ based off the fact that modified it makes _____ whp or w/e is a pointless arguement. Because with that kind of logic, the blanket statement of a 93 civic is faster than a 86 can be made as well. And we KNOW stock vs stock, that this statement is false.

yeah. i think that by quoting people it always sounds like an attack or something. i just used that because, while what you say makes sense, it isnt what is happening.

i understand that there constants are important. it just seems like many people are just picking constants to support the conclusion they want.

[wlfpck]

Originally Posted by fatoni

yeah. i think that by quoting people it always sounds like an attack or something. i just used that because, while what you say makes sense, it isnt what is happening.

i understand that there constants are important. it just seems like many people are just picking constants to support the conclusion they want.

Lol. Nah, I'm not that thin-skinned that I'll take everything as an attack. I just wanted to clarify to make sure any others reading wouldn't misinterpret anything.

And I agree. Too often, people pick certain things to support the conclusion that they want and ignore all the facts. Or they go off of one time events that could just simply be a freak accident. Or better yet, my personal favorite, the "I refute everything you say because I'm better even if your arguement is the laws of physics. I refute them all." attitude that some people have as well. :P

[RAYSSPL]

Can someone give me a summary of all 60 pages here? I think there really didn't have to have a dreadfully long 60+ page here...

It's really simple when you critically think about it...

[Kunzite]

fantoni, I'd say you are trolling while not making sense. Otherwise, it would be impossible not to understand, with so many examples and explanations (last being DarkSunrise with an excellent example).
Talking about DarkSunrise's example: the "100% stock" FR-S did 0,88g on the skidpad and 67.3 mph slalom. Only by using the same or similar tires can we find out if the talk about balance and low CoG is real or BS. And guess what...
But you simply refuse to admit anything which could put the GT 86 in a good light.

By the way, who died and gave you the right to decide how one should compare cars? (i.e. either 100% stock, or free to change anything)

[ERZperformance]

Let's put the money aside. If you are looking for a true performance race car, you should consider the Z. But if you want a fun sport car and still have the ability to have more then one passenger in the car, then go with the FR-S. Every simple.

And I wouldn't compare the FR-S with the Genesis either. Both of them are in the "fun sport car" category but the Gen couple has a bit more luxury to it. Kind of like the G37 and 370z comparison.

I would want some more comparison between the FR-S and the Mazdaspeed 3 2012. THat will be more a interesting topic.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Kunzite

fantoni, I'd say you are trolling while not making sense. Otherwise, it would be impossible not to understand, with so many examples and explanations (last being DarkSunrise with an excellent example).
Talking about DarkSunrise's example: the "100% stock" FR-S did 0,88g on the skidpad and 67.3 mph slalom. Only by using the same or similar tires can we find out if the talk about balance and low CoG is real or BS. And guess what...
But you simply refuse to admit anything which could put the GT 86 in a good light.

By the way, who died and gave you the right to decide how one should compare cars? (i.e. either 100% stock, or free to change anything)

if my point is lost on you, it might not be because im not making sense. how does showing what a stock frs skid pad and slalom numbers support any part of your argument? i dont refuse to believe anything. i think that the frs is the coolest new car to come out since the elise. i dont hate the thing, i love it.

nobody gave me any rights. im just pointing out that you dont have them either. the problem is that we are complaining about reviews of stock vehicles because they arent changing the tires...thats not a stock comparison

[Boxer-86]

Originally Posted by ERZperformance

Let's put the money aside. If you are looking for a JDM Camaro you should consider the Z. But if you want a fun sport car and still have the ability to have more then one passenger in the car, then go with the FR-S.

Fixed that for you..

[xwd]

Originally Posted by ERZperformance

Let's put the money aside. If you are looking for a true performance race car, you should consider the Z. But if you want a fun sport car and still have the ability to have more then one passenger in the car, then go with the FR-S. Every simple.

And I wouldn't compare the FR-S with the Genesis either. Both of them are in the "fun sport car" category but the Gen couple has a bit more luxury to it. Kind of like the G37 and 370z comparison.

I would want some more comparison between the FR-S and the Mazdaspeed 3 2012. THat will be more a interesting topic.

If I wanted a pure performance racecar I'd buy a used Porsche, not a 370Z or a FR-S. The 370Z is NOT a performance racecar you can't even get more than a degree of camber out of it stock...Same goes for the FR-S.

[rice_classic]

I think if I wanted a race car, either of those three are just fine. Once you strip them, cage them, add a few ponies, super stiff suspension and super wide R-comps with big brakes... guess what... all good race cars for whatever class rule set one chooses to build them to.

[Kunzite]

Originally Posted by fatoni

how does showing what a stock frs skid pad and slalom numbers support any part of your argument?

Sigh... if even putting the numbers (1.0g vs. 0.88g) on the table won't convince you how important the tires are, and how much they can influence the results - what will?
No wonder subtler things, like "what do we test - the car itself, or the tires" are lost on you.

You claim to "love" this car, but it seems you're here only to make sure people don't like the 86 too much

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

1.03 g / 71.6 mph / 109 ft -- Elise (Yoko A048 LTS) - UTQG = 60
1.00 g / 70.3 mph / 107 ft -- FR-S (Yoko AD08) - UTQG = 180

Dark, are you as blown away by this as I am?

I've been around a track plenty in an Elise and they are something special but this skid pad test is almost unbelievable.

To put it this way. In back to back testing on my race car the Hoosier R6 (R-comp) has a UTQG of 40 and the Toyo RA1 (R-comp) has a UTQG of 100. I know the UTQG rating has some margin of error but the R6 is at least 1 second faster, usually 2 seconds and the difference in grip is noticeably different on track.

So here we have a UTQG rating delta of 120 in favor of the Elise and the FRS turns .03 G less in the skidpad. Astonishing.

After reading this my experience 2 weeks ago flashed through my memory where I was out on track after instructing for the day and I had the school director in my car. After deliberately trying to get the car to slide at entry or apex (and it not doing so) the director yelled out: "I think you lied to me about the prius tires, the grip is incredible!"

I think this car would have been fun even if they put forklift tires on it.