3 things: Even after reading many reviews, I still can't fathom these...

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by Jahdai42

What we have here is a blank canvas to be painted on. The handling dynamics are spot on and a simple tune with better breathing will make this car fly. Paint on your canvas how you like.

^ What I was trying to say earlier. lol

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited

Another thing, the BRZ/FRS does 150 mph, the Mustang V6 can't even do 130. The drive shaft explodes at 127.

i think thats more a testament to the v6 stang considering how it beat the brz and a bunch of other cars despite spending a reported 9 seconds on that electronic governor.

[AsphaltLover]

Originally Posted by Clipdat

I notice the same thing with my 07 tC, feels sloppy and huge now after getting used to my FR-S. Even though the tC only weighs 100lbs more than the FR-S...

This is it exactly. I still have my 06 tc and when I drive it, I always end up heading into turns a tad too fast. The handling on the frs really really spoils you.

I don't zoom around like an idiot but heading into the turn you do have to break a whole lot more in the tc.

test drive it, it would be insane not to.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited

Another thing, the BRZ/FRS does 150 mph, the Mustang V6 can't even do 130. The drive shaft explodes at 127.

the drive shaft actually will explode before that lol... what are the governed at? 117? 113? i know my 05 corolla s had a higher govenor

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i think thats more a testament to the v6 stang considering how it beat the brz and a bunch of other cars despite spending a reported 9 seconds on that electronic governor.

o rly?

One individual recently learned firsthand what happens when you remove the factory's 112-mph speed limiter on the Ford Mustang V6 and proceed to accelerate to 135 mph. The vehicle lost its driveshaft, which turned itself into a spinning hunk of metal that tore into the floorpan, bashed through its interior bits and generally caused mechanical mayhem.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZXBjVIrR08"]2011 Ford Mustang V6 Driveshaft Fails At 135mph - YouTube[/ame]

http://jalopnik.com/5869650/why-do-2...keep-exploding

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

o rly?

http://jalopnik.com/5869650/why-do-2...keep-exploding

i think exploding driveshafts are bad. i also think that it is a bit irrational to say that the mustang is is only faster because of the power it cant use on a track. vir is a fast track and the mustang went around it faster than cars with more power, less weight and "better" suspension. something has to give right?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by fatoni

true. it was also more expensive than the mustang of the same vintage. im not going to make the case that the mustangs were ever light.:

64-66 Mustangs were fr-s/brz weight, ~2750 lb!

was just responding to a statement about the corollas lightness. my corolla was heavier than my mazda2.

By how much, 15 lb? A Scion iQ is lighter than a Lotus Elise, that doesn't mean the Elise isn't a lightweight! C'mon, at 2300 lb, the ae86 was a light car, even in the 80s.

[boead]

Originally Posted by solidONE

With $10~15K invested in the right places, I think you can build the 86 into something that will run against the Cayman at about half the cost. If that's what you are into. lol Then again, with half of the money you would spend to get an 86 there, you can probably build a old miata that runs circles around both those cars.

I understand but I want a new(er) car and not a Miata. My budget for a car was $35k. Im not a fan of first model year cars so im apprehensive. I was ok spending $25 for now.

Entry-level turbo and supercharger kits that retain (utilize) more stock components like the exhaust, clutch and so forth are still $3500 PLUS installation ($2500) and will only raise HP between 250-260 and apparently will suffer from some sort of lag or compromise. Still im sure I can keep it to just over $6000 which includes keeping the rims and finding a better tire for everyday driving. Id have to be convinced this option will yield enough to justify the cost but im thinking that a "honest" 50 HP will do the trick!

Stepping up to a 300+ HP SC or twin-turbo kit will add at least another $2500 plus the cost of a proper exhaust, stronger clutch and other incidentals further raising the cost (with labor) at least another $2500. PLUS other unforeseen necessities and repairs, problems and issues with NYS inspections! That's $11k AND im sure the stock rims will need to be changed with a new set of tires so you can tack on another $3000.
At this level the car would be a street beast but not a very good or economical everyday driver and likely not last nearly as long.

[Timmy_Jones]

Is the FR-S fast? NO
Is the FR-S quick? YES

You need to make that distinction. I own a fast car, but can enjoy the quickness of the FR-S. You do need to go drive one...the weird lag at 4K RPMS was my only major turn off from the car.

[boead]

Originally Posted by Timmy_Jones

Is the FR-S fast? NO
Is the FR-S quick? YES

You need to make that distinction. I own a fast car, but can enjoy the quickness of the FR-S. You do need to go drive one...the weird lag at 4K RPMS was my only major turn off from the car.

Yes and fast is somewhat relative.
The GT86 is faster than the Acura RSX I have, its faster than the Mustang GT's Ive owned from the last decade or two. Its faster than my CLK and most cars ive owned in the last 20 years. Its faster than most regular cars my family and friends own. The only cars that beat it by any substantial margin are V8's. I see people showing how his or that car beats it by a half second 1/4 mile or tents of a second 0-60 which is not a win, its a tie and driver dependent at that point.

Are people saying that a standard stock Camry or Altima or Accord or Fusion, or Sebring (shall I go on??) beats this sports coupe? I don't think that's the case. SPECIAL versions of regular cars don't count much to me. You hardly see them and they are just sort of stupid! Its a main reason why I passed on the Civic SI because, well...its still a Civic!

Also remember "perceived" speed vs "actual" speed.
You want both but if you can only have 1, I'll take perceived because unperceived speed is boarding and meaningless unless you're in a contest.

[shawnperolis]

Originally Posted by ZDan

64-66 Mustangs were fr-s/brz weight, ~2750 lb!
By how much, 15 lb? A Scion iQ is lighter than a Lotus Elise, that doesn't mean the Elise isn't a lightweight! C'mon, at 2300 lb, the ae86 was a light car, even in the 80s.

If by light car you mean heavier than most Honda Civics until about 1996. My 91 CRX was only 1800lbs.

The AE86 is cool though, I'd love to have one.

[Timmy_Jones]

Originally Posted by steve87j

speed is subjective. sit in a fast camaro and go 0-60....

then go 0-60 in an frs

being closer to the ground feels just as fast. its an experience. nobody races a daily driver but when u push it u want it to be fun

frs = fun car

camaro = goes straight fast which the only thing that means it the the mph increases faster.....

What year Camaro? A new one....I agree those carss are pigs. I would never own one. How about 98-02? A few bolt ons and those are fast and feel fast, I promise you that.

[Timmy_Jones]

Originally Posted by boead

Yes and fast is somewhat relative.
The GT86 is faster than the Acura RSX I have, its faster than the Mustang GT's Ive owned from the last decade or two. Its faster than my CLK and most cars ive owned in the last 20 years. Its faster than most regular cars my family and friends own. The only cars that beat it by any substantial margin are V8's. I see people showing how his or that car beats it by a half second 1/4 mile or tents of a second 0-60 which is not a win, its a tie and driver dependent at that point.

I could see an FR-S beating a 99-04 stang GT, but not an 05+. Just too much torque.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by shawnperolis

If by light car you mean heavier than most Honda Civics until about 1996. My 91 CRX was only 1800lbs.
The AE86 is cool though, I'd love to have one.

Oh, so if it's heavier than a CRX it can't be considered "light"?

A pre-96 Civic should HARDLY be considered the dividing line between "lightweight" "not-so-lightweight".

Come ON, 2300 lb. is/was a fairly lightweight car, particularly for rwd. Are there/have there been lighter cars? Of course.

Coming up with cars like a Mazda2 or early 90s Civic, as evidence that the AE86 wasn't that light? Pretty ridiculous!

Presumably a 60's Lotus Elan shouldn't be considered lightweight either, as it's WAY heavier than a Mini from that era...