FR-S vs S2000

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by blur

Ill argue that the FRS is more racing oriented than the s2000, simply from having a solid roof. It is more bare bones in the sense that it does not deem a convertable top a necessity.

However, seeing as a convertable version is planned, I'd guess that it'll feel like a slightly underpowered s2000 ap2.

my ls430 has a solid roof while the elise doesnt. i dont think that argument works. also you say its barebones but the car has back seats. that doesnt sound like a race oriented car to me

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by fatoni

my ls430 has a solid roof while the elise doesnt. i dont think that argument works. also you say its barebones but the car has back seats. that doesnt sound like a race oriented car to me

I love how you brought logics in. In F1 the cars are more like roadsters too.

[cyde01]

Originally Posted by leechungsr

It's impossible for the FRS to match the performance of the CR. It's just not going to happen, especially at its pricepoint.

Have you driven a CR? You may not like it. It's precise and cuts like a knife with unlimited grip. Unfortunately, it's also really noisy, stiff, and tiny. On top of that, every douchebag on the freeway tries to race me...which gets annoying really fast.

I almost prefer an AP1 S2000 over the CR at this point. The ricer in me still likes the torqueless F20C, and I can appreciate the luxuries in the standard S2000.

Prefer the ap1 over a cr? That's surprising, but then again I've never driven either. I had an ap2 for 2 years and loved it. Frs is a lot more practical and livable but it definitely will be a downgrade performance wise. The trade off will be worth it for me because I like having a real roof and room for tires in the back that much; if a back seat and fixed roof is not a big deal then the pros of the frs over the s2k are slim. Although, as someone mentioned, the frs will prob be easier to control at the limit because of the front biased weight distribution (53/48). S2k's 50/50 might be better for lap times but it also adds to that snap happy feeling in the corners.

[Mr.Jay]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I love how you brought logics in. In F1 the cars are more like roadsters too.

other than a open cockpit F1 cars have very little in common with roadsters
I think the S2k is an amazing car if you can live with having no roof and no back seats. I enjoyed all the time I have ever spent behind the wheel of a S2k but could never own one myself.

S2k CR wayyy more race car like the FRS thats for sure even the S2k I would say is more racecar like especially at the pricepoint Honda could afford to put more into R&D than Toyobaru ever could for their entry level sports car.

[ft86Fan]

I had a CR and sold it a few months ago to make room for the FT-86. I don't want to have to add a roll bar and get a trailer to transport tires to the track. Also since they don't make them anymore, parts will become more and more difficult to find and new products for the car will also be less and less. Also, the CR is essentially a regular S2000. Honda didn't do too much to make it more track oriented. I agree with others that the FT-86 will have more potential in the long run.

[quik1987]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I love how you brought logics in. In F1 the cars are more like roadsters too.

Comparing production cars to F1 makes ZERO sense. Why not compare FIA GT cars?

Originally Posted by fatoni

my ls430 has a solid roof while the elise doesnt. i dont think that argument works. also you say its barebones but the car has back seats. that doesnt sound like a race oriented car to me

They are developing an version R of this car, if we're gonna seriously compare it to the CR.

Chief Engineer Tetsuya Tada:

He a said that an R version of the FT-86 was coming with less weight, Brembo brakes (our test car’s stoppers were from Hitachi), a rollcage, a larger rear wing, no rear seats and, yes, a mechanical LSD but no more power.

[blur]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I love how you brought logics in. In F1 the cars are more like roadsters too.

What's logical in making a convertable race car?

@fatoni as quik said the R version wont have rear seats either. The FRS also has a lower weight AFAIK.

[vang]

Both comparisons made were daft.

Just because a car has a fixed roof, that doesn't mean it is more track oriented. Those unfamiliar with the chassis design of the S2000 should do a little searching. The X-bone frame of the S2000 was well-designed and provided the roadster with more torsional rigidity than most hardtop sports cars. Also, S2000 does not = F1 racecar because it is a convertible. Just think, the convertible Chrysler Sebring and convertible Toyota Solara are even less sporty than a Toyota Sienna SE (aka swagger wagon).

The S2000 is an amazing sports car with fun and responsive as top priority. The FT86 is suppose to have the same goals in mind, which is why I'm interested. If there were to ever be a turbocharged FT86 model, I think I'd switch over without a doubt.

[Jordo!]

Buy a hard top for your S2K. It's a more powerful and, overall, as good if not better car.

[SUB-FT86]

You guys are missing my point. I never said a convertible defines a sports car. I just agreed with Fatoni's point that a hardtop doesn't make a sports car and that F1 cars don't have a top just like a s2k.

[blur]

@vang: Sure it's more rigid than most hardtop sport cars, but it would have been even more rigid had it came with a hard top. It would also have been safer, lighter, and easier to race competitively. It came down to the fact that a convertible was more fun than a hard top, and they made compromises to make it happen.

All in all, the FRS-R should be the perfect stock HPDE warrior. I'd take that over the S2000 CR. The only thing an s2000 has over the FR-S(besides power) is a double wishbone suspension.

[vang]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Buy a hard top for your S2K. It's a more powerful and, overall, as good if not better car.

Have a Mugen top already. Car is good looking now.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by blur

@vang: Sure it's more rigid than most hardtop sport cars, but it would have been even more rigid had it came with a hard top. It would also have been safer, lighter, and easier to race competitively. It came down to the fact that a convertible was more fun than a hard top, and they made compromises to make it happen.

All in all, the FRS-R should be the perfect stock HPDE warrior. I'd take that over the S2000 CR. The only thing an s2000 has over the FR-S(besides power) is a double wishbone suspension.

making compromises in the name of fun is exactly what a sports car is and these arent race cars. i dont know how you can say this car that you havent sat in is going to have any advantage of one of the most visceral modern cars. i hope the frs is going to be a great car but i just dont see it being better than the honda in any capacity other than passenger capacity

[vang]

Originally Posted by fatoni

making compromises in the name of fun is exactly what a sports car is and these arent race cars. i dont know how you can say this car that you havent sat in is going to have any advantage of one of the most visceral modern cars. i hope the frs is going to be a great car but i just dont see it being better than the honda in any capacity other than passenger capacity

Well said. I was going to say the same, but didn't feel the need to defend the S2000 based on other's speculations of how the FT86 will perform. For comparison sake, my hardtop SW20 turbo feels sloppy compared to my AP1 S2000 (both weigh almost the same and stock). I would not call the open top S2000 a compromise, it's really an engineering feat and I applaud Honda Motor Co. for being able to deliver.