The 2nd gen BRZ will have similar performance to…?

[Dirty Harry]

OK. So the first gen twin had similar performance to a DC2 Integra Type R.

‘12 to ‘16 BRZ vs DC2 Integra Type R —> https://zeperfs.com/en/duel4320-176.htm

‘17+ BRZ vs DC2 Integra Type R —> https://zeperfs.com/en/duel6893-176.htm

Where do you think the 2nd gen twin will land? Journalists have always bemoaned the lack of power, hopefully this gen will shut them up. I’m thinking similar or maybe slightly better performance than an S2000.

Can’t wait for the reviews to come through in the coming months!

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Where do you think the 2nd gen twin will land? Journalists have always bemoaned the lack of power, hopefully this gen will shut them up. I’m thinking similar or maybe slightly better performance than an S2000.

S2000 has slightly better power/weight and much better weight distribution, but 2nd-gen probably has stronger midrange pull. I expect 0-60 a similar to a couple of ticks behind and a 1/4-mile trap speed of ~98-99mph for 2nd-gen, same to ~2mph slower vs. S2k.

[Transport3r]

Originally Posted by ZDan

S2000 has slightly better power/weight and much better weight distribution, but 2nd-gen probably has stronger midrange pull. I expect 0-60 a similar to a couple of ticks behind and a 1/4-mile trap speed of ~98-99mph for 2nd-gen, same to ~2mph slower vs. S2k.

The GR86/BRZ2 has 22 ft*lbs more torque though. Considering the S2000 has 9 horsepower more, I think this will all come down to gearing.

Not so sure the weight distribution is a real detriment, it may just change the ideal tire stagger setup and/or the way you drive the car. 50/50 vs 53/47 isn’t a huge difference. According to Nissan (citing development of the Z33), 53:47 weight distribution is actually better than pure 50:50 because, when the car is accelerating, weight transfer will lead to 50:50.

[Baldeagle]

I think ZDan’s 98-99 mph trap speed prediction will be dead-on accurate. Does anyone think it is kind of sad that we are using a 20 year-old car as a benchmark for 2022 sports car, and potentially still falling short in some key performance parameters?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Transport3r

The GR86/BRZ2 has 22 ft*lbs more torque though. Considering the S2000 has 9 horsepower more, I think this will all come down to gearing.

*Power* pretty well takes gearing into account. Torque by itself is meaningless. The real story is that the updated 2.4-liter powerplant should have relatively fatter power curve up to peak, vs. current-gen and S2000's more linear/straight-line power curve.

Not so sure the weight distribution is a real detriment, it may just change the ideal tire stagger setup and/or the way you drive the car. 50/50 vs 53/47 isn’t a huge difference.

The real difference is 50/50 vs. 55/45. And it *is* significant. It isn't a 5% difference in static load on the drive wheels, it is a 10% difference. It is significant enough that a not-even-50/50 Miata beats the FT86 to 60 and in the 1/4-mile by about half a second despite similar power to weight and same 1/4-mile trap speed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78...uXfT1q4d2rUvGA
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ne-more-power/

According to Nissan (citing development of the Z33), 53:47 weight distribution is actually better than pure 50:50 because, when the car is accelerating, weight transfer will lead to 50:50.

HA! Pure marketing b.s. "50/50" isn't perfect, and you want *more rearward bias* for best FR sports car performance. Also there's a LOT more weight transfer at max acceleration off the line than they are suggesting here...

[Dirty Harry]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

I think ZDan’s 98-99 mph trap speed prediction will be dead-on accurate. Does anyone think it is kind of sad that we are using a 20 year-old car as a benchmark for 2022 sports car, and potentially still falling short in some key performance parameters?

Depends on how you look at it. Yeah a lot of turbo hot hatches will perform better these days. But the S2000 is pretty well regarded even today and was a different class of car, compared to what a twin is in. I think for a corner carver that you can drive on the street the power should be about spot on. I want a decent amount of power but I don’t want to drive a car where if I redline it in third on a spirited drive I wind up in court. I’ve also been pretty content with the current gen’s power for the past few years. If I end up getting the new one down the track the extra bump in power will still be welcome. If it is at around the S2000 performance, I think it is a good incremental step and should be celebrated.

[mazeroni]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

I think ZDan’s 98-99 mph trap speed prediction will be dead-on accurate. Does anyone think it is kind of sad that we are using a 20 year-old car as a benchmark for 2022 sports car, and potentially still falling short in some key performance parameters?

Nope! The S2000 cost about as much as a 2.0 Supra in today's dollars ($45K or there about). Add in we get 7 airbags, keyless entry and other standard features, plus having to hit all modern emissions and safety regulations, the car is $10~15K less with *almost* comparable performance. It is a steal.

Alternatively, if you wanted a better value and more performance, the Veloster N is probably the performance bargain king right now. But I don't think the GR86/BRZ will be that far off from the N.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

I think ZDan’s 98-99 mph trap speed prediction will be dead-on accurate. Does anyone think it is kind of sad that we are using a 20 year-old car as a benchmark for 2022 sports car, and potentially still falling short in some key performance parameters?

The big issue with using a 20 year old car as a benchmark is that it wasn't subject to the same restrictions as one now. If you applied all the emissions, mileage and crash requirements from 2022 to anything 20 years old then it's performance would reflect it.
There is also the small thing about price that can not be ignored. The Integra being compared to would be around a $45,000 car in today's money. Not exactly comparing apples to apples.
No doubt without the restrictions and at almost double the price a new Twin would blow the doors off any 20 year old car.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

Nope! The S2000 cost about as much as a 2.0 Supra in today's dollars ($45K or there about). Add in we get 7 airbags, keyless entry and other standard features, plus having to hit all modern emissions and safety regulations, the car is $10~15K less with *almost* comparable performance. It is a steal.

Alternatively, if you wanted a better value and more performance, the Veloster N is probably the performance bargain king right now. But I don't think the GR86/BRZ will be that far off from the N.

Beat me to it by 3 minutes! I shouldn't have taken so long to type.

[Transport3r]

Originally Posted by ZDan

*Power* pretty well takes gearing into account. Torque by itself is meaningless. The real story is that the updated 2.4-liter powerplant should have relatively fatter power curve up to peak, vs. current-gen and S2000's more linear/straight-line power curve.

How? Power (kW) = Torque (N.m) x Speed (RPM) / 9.5488
Power output is not dependent on gearing. Effective wheel torque is.

The real difference is 50/50 vs. 55/45. And it *is* significant. It isn't a 5% difference in static load on the drive wheels, it is a 10% difference. It is significant enough that a not-even-50/50 Miata beats the FT86 to 60 and in the 1/4-mile by about half a second despite similar power to weight and same 1/4-mile trap speed.

I could only find published data that says 53/47. I’m sure that’s with both seats all the way back and all that, but every manufacturer will play with those numbers.

The miata’s power to weight is 0.076, the BRZs is 0.072. Add to that that the Miata has less inertia to get off the line with the 400lbs missing and that it comes with much better tires, and I’m not surprised.

HA! Pure marketing b.s. "50/50" isn't perfect, and you want *more rearward bias* for best FR sports car performance. Also there's a LOT more weight transfer at max acceleration off the line than they are suggesting here...

I’m sure some of it is marketing, but the principle holds true. Nobody cares about the exact weight distribution when launching, you just want as much as possible over the drive wheels. You care about the exact figure during cornering, during which the weight transfer is in the single digit %s. That’s how you figure out your tire stagger. It’s also a fairly steady state condition once you’re settled so you don’t square the difference. You could argue that 53/47 is enough to warrant a 235/215 F/R stagger, but I think it’s entirely reasonable to assume 53:47 is close enough to 50:50 that you can account for that with alignment.

[Sasquachulator]

Whatever it is, it'll still be too slow.

Benchmarks are:
Hypercars = Less than 2 seconds
Supercars = less than 3 seconds
"super" sport sedans = Less than 4 seconds
"regular" sport sedans/luxury sedans = Less than 5 seconds
Sports car = Less than 5 seconds
Family sedans = Less than 6 seconds
everything else = dont bother, too slow and unsafe


And it still needs a turbo.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Transport3r

How? Power (kW) = Torque (N.m) x Speed (RPM) / 9.5488
Power output is not dependent on gearing. Effective wheel torque is.

Yeah, but what is *important* is how much wheel torque you have *at a given speed*. With torque only, you don't know that. With power, you have a good idea.

Power = thrust at the wheels * road speed
Torque = you know nothing without having all the gear ratios

In the end, power is what tells you about acceleration. When you adjust engine torque with gear ratios, you're basically calculating power. With no other knowledge than engine power, you can have a good idea of acceleration performance. With only engine torque, you know nothing about performance potential. Power is more "complete" info.

I could only find published data that says 53/47. I’m sure that’s with both seats all the way back and all that, but every manufacturer will play with those numbers.

Measured numbers >>> manufacturer numbers. See my link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78...uXfT1q4d2rUvGA
55.2F/44.8R.
I weigh my car every track event to verify I'm OK for my classification. Stock with me in it and a full or nearly-full tank is indeed 55/45 and not 53/47.

The miata’s power to weight is 0.076, the BRZs is 0.072. Add to that that the Miata has less inertia to get off the line with the 400lbs missing and that it comes with much better tires, and I’m not surprised.

Have to include driver weight in there, I get 0.072 hp/lb (13.9 lb/hp) Miata and 0.070 hp/lb (14.3 lb/hp) for BRZ with 165-lb driver. They're comparable, with the BRZ's greater *peak* power/weight somewhat made up for by the Miata's "fatter" power curve.

The MIata's "less inertia to get off the line" is entirely accounted for in "power/weight". It's REAL advantage is *much better weight distribution*.

I’m sure some of it is marketing, but the principle holds true. Nobody cares about the exact weight distribution when launching, you just want as much as possible over the drive wheels.

Yeah, and 10% difference in load on the drive wheels is *significant*.

You care about the exact figure during cornering, during which the weight transfer is in the single digit %s. That’s how you figure out your tire stagger.

Which is why I was considering running 255 fronts with 235 rears... Static weight distribution is so piss-poor on the BRZ that with square setup the fronts are overworked and the rears underutilized...

55/45 should be a lot worse under *braking* as well (all other things equal), as again the fronts are way more overworked, and the rears contributing even less.

It’s also a fairly steady state condition once you’re settled so you don’t square the difference. You could argue that 53/47 is enough to warrant a 235/215 F/R stagger, but I think it’s entirely reasonable to assume 53:47 is close enough to 50:50 that you can account for that with alignment.

And more importantly front/rear roll stiffness distribution. Just installed adjustable (two-hole) Eibach sways front and rear, set to soft setting front, stiff setting rear. Looking forward to track days coming up this weekend!

[Transport3r]

Originally Posted by ZDan

And more importantly front/rear roll stiffness distribution. Just installed adjustable (two-hole) Eibach sways front and rear, set to soft setting front, stiff setting rear. Looking forward to track days coming up this weekend!

Fair points.

Yea I found my car benefitted from adjustable bars with more stiffness in the rear, much more noticeable than I was expecting.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

I think ZDan’s 98-99 mph trap speed prediction will be dead-on accurate. Does anyone think it is kind of sad that we are using a 20 year-old car as a benchmark for 2022 sports car, and potentially still falling short in some key performance parameters?

I don't think it's sad. I sold my uber-fast 200+mph LS3 FD supercar because my BRZ was more fun on the street, and pretty much as fun at the track!

What's sad to me is that manufacturers are aiming more and more for performance specs and uber-super-megaperforrming cars rather than making smaller, lighter-weight cars that are inherently more fun