'22 BRZ vs. Ferrari 348

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Red-86

HP aside, much of the improvement in things like 0-60 and track times is suspension and tyre tech. The old high HP sports cars would spin their wheels easily... fun, but terrible for timed performance tests. Nowadays with better suspension, tyres, traction and launch control, you can send a less powerful car to 60 and down the 1/4 in times that could match a car with double the power 40 years ago.

I've never found this to be particularly true for 1/4-mile times and speeds. For the most part cars before ~1972 were just massively OVERrated for power as they went by "gross" horsepower. Basically no parasitic losses, no intake or exhaust restrictions, and even then most were optimistic...

Here's a list of tests of cars going way back into the past.
http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm
A 1967 L71 427 Corvette (435hp, ~3100 lb.) did the 1/4 in 12.9 seconds at 111 mph. Compare to a 2006 M5 (500hp, 4000lb) that did the 1/4 in 12.9 seconds at 114.9mph. The Corvette running the same ET with a lower trap speed suggests it's not having much trouble with wheelspin relative to the BMW...

Anyway, running the usually close-enough hp = ((trap speed/234)^3)*weight formula (assuming 175 lb. driver) we get
494hp for the M5 (99% of claimed 500 hp)
350hp for the Corvette (80% of claimed *gross* 435hp)

Those cars from the 60s weren't nearly as powerful or fast as people think...

[dpfarr]

I can imagine one’s sexual prowess increasing having almost any red Ferrari. Having any difference due to having an ft seems negligible. Having said that, I am a fan of the former. Both having it and being with it, so...

[Willpower]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Occasionally I'll check out "affordable" Ferraris on the webz to remind myself how unremarkable their performance was and how I don't *really* want one. Still I'm surprised at how not-that-fast the 348 was. 296hp at 5800rpm from 3.4 liters, 7500rpm redline, 3300 lb., couldn't do better than 14.5 at 99mph in the 1/4! At a time when a 4-cylinder Lotus Esprit did it in 13.5 at 103mph!
348 vs 911 vs Esprit vs NSX vs ZR1

The '22 BRZ/GR86 should put up the same 1/4-mile ET and trap speed as a Ferrari 348. Damn!

It probably won't sound as sweeet while doing it tho...

You’re right about their performance. But look at em. Damn.
80s-90s Ferraris were some of the hottest looking cars ever IMO. I thought about pulling the trigger on an old 328 when they were at the bottom of their curve, but maintenance and the lack of anyone local I had confidence in to do it kept it at dream status.

[woodchip]

Originally Posted by LimitedSlip

Which makes a compelling argument for going with a current twin rather than a 30 year old money pit.

This is my thinking. Like to drive it every day... not fix it everyday

[ng-86]

Originally Posted by woodchip

This is my thinking. Like to drive it every day... not fix it everyday

As someone who just finished rebuilding their ‘79 RX7 engine, this is a very wise statement and I recommend it to anyone who is thinking of an older car. Especially one where certain parts are unobtanium.

[Ernest72]

Originally Posted by ng-86

As someone who just finished rebuilding their ‘79 RX7 engine, this is a very wise statement and I recommend it to anyone who is thinking of an older car. Especially one where certain parts are unobtanium.

I think it’s good to have an old project, but you need a newer car that you enjoy as well. If it’s your only sports car then it’s tough when it’s down.

I go back and forth on it, right now I want a 14 cayman s, but for a little bit more I could get a 993. But that 993 will definitely need more work than the cayman. So let’s see. The good thing is the BRZ is my daily and I am done modding with a header and tune, other than maybe some cosmetic stuff. So it’s reliable and fun.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Ernest72

I think it’s good to have an old project, but you need a newer car that you enjoy as well. If it’s your only sports car then it’s tough when it’s down.

I go back and forth on it, right now I want a 14 cayman s, but for a little bit more I could get a 993. But that 993 will definitely need more work than the cayman. So let’s see. The good thing is the BRZ is my daily and I am done modding with a header and tune, other than maybe some cosmetic stuff. So it’s reliable and fun.

You might also want to think about the repair and ongoing maintenance costs of a Porsche. A cheap, high-mileage water-cooled Porsche can turn out to be the most expensive car you'll ever own (unless you have the skills, tools, and facility to do your own work).

Check out the youtube videos of just the process to remove all the panels and get access to the engine on a Cayman. Yes, it's possible, but it's a lot easier to just pop the hood on a BRZ.

[sato]

Not sure if it was mentioned, but this thread also brought the thought of leaded fuel to mind. Since it was being phased out as a health issue, manufacturers also suffered a lot, struggling with engine performance / dropped engine compression to compensate for knock. It's also impressive that four poppers have CR as high as 13.5-14.5:1 running 87 octane unleaded gasoline (in some cases)!

[Ernest72]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

You might also want to think about the repair and ongoing maintenance costs of a Porsche. A cheap, high-mileage water-cooled Porsche can turn out to be the most expensive car you'll ever own (unless you have the skills, tools, and facility to do your own work).

Check out the youtube videos of just the process to remove all the panels and get access to the engine on a Cayman. Yes, it's possible, but it's a lot easier to just pop the hood on a BRZ.

Totally agree and that’s what has kept me from pulling the trigger. I can do a lot of work on my own, but I am still worried about big things like engine failure. A lot more expensive then a BRZ. The car would be a weekend car so it will be easy to do the maintenance. Take my time, no rush if you don’t need the car. I have the BRZ and WRX that are reliable. I am not afraid of working on cars, took almost the entire interior out of my WRX to fix rust recently. It’s like a puzzle to me and fun, as long as you are not rushed. It’s worse when it’s your only car, then you have no choice but to finish the job. If I get frustrated, I just walk away, come back to it later. I need projects in my life.

[pope]

I have zero Porsche experience, but I have heard Porsche evangelists say the key to keeping a Porsche running is drive it frequently and drive it like you stole it; let it sit or baby it and it will become an expensive driveway ornament.

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I've never found this to be particularly true for 1/4-mile times and speeds.

It is absolutely true for timed 0-60 runs that do not include roll out. It is the improved traction from tyre development that enabled regular road cars on road legal tyres to dip into the 2s range 0-60. Prior to the tyres getting to that stage, there were plenty of cars that had the power to weight, but simply lacked the traction to do it without racing slicks.

It is less important over the 1/4m especially when you allow roll out, because the tyres have time to hook easier.

My point was that tyres are absolutely one of the biggest performance improvements made in the last few decades. They are worth several seconds a lap on most tracks and vital in timed acceleration runs from a complete stand still (which is more common outside the US).

Those cars from the 60s weren't nearly as powerful or fast as people think...

Depends on the car. I think a late 60s/early 70s sports car like the 917 still stacks up... in turbo Can-Am trim they put out between 1,100-1,500HP, could do 0-60 in 1.9s and close to 250mph in top speed - in the early 1970s! Although to be fair, the 917 was always a race car masquerading as a sports car for homologation purposes.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by ng-86

As someone who just finished rebuilding their ‘79 RX7 engine, this is a very wise statement and I recommend it to anyone who is thinking of an older car. Especially one where certain parts are unobtanium.

and it's usually the really stupid stuff that gets hard to find. bumper clips/trim, and door handles. sounds dumb, but all of a sudden, you're getting in/out through the passenger side because the drivers side always breaks, and there's no more parts anywhere.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Red-86

My point was that tyres are absolutely one of the biggest performance improvements made in the last few decades. They are worth several seconds a lap on most tracks and vital in timed acceleration runs from a complete stand still (which is more common outside the US).

Drag racing is from a stand-still, it's just a foot before the first timing beam... Granted that tires are a lot better now, particularly for lateral grip, handling, and lap times. My point is that tires aren't reall why a car with lower *rated* horsepower today is so much quicker vs. a similar weight car from the 60s. They rated power differently and none of those cars was making "modern" net horsepower anywhere near their gross horsepower ratings. You can confirm this yourself by comparing 1/4-mile times and speeds of older cars vs. new, If older cars had more power and substantially less launch grip, their ETs would be much slower and trap speeds much faster, but you don't see that...

Depends on the car. I think a late 60s/early 70s sports car like the 917 still stacks up... in turbo Can-Am trim they put out between 1,100-1,500HP, could do 0-60 in 1.9s and close to 250mph in top speed - in the early 1970s! Although to be fair, the 917 was always a race car masquerading as a sports car for homologation purposes.

Might as well bring up the Chapparal or Brabham fan cars!

For SURE the CanAm 917 had GOBS more power than any road car of the time! Horsepower in racing is more regulated now, and some road cars have more power than sports prototypes and F1 cars :O

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I've never found this to be particularly true for 1/4-mile times and speeds. For the most part cars before ~1972 were just massively OVERrated for power as they went by "gross" horsepower. Basically no parasitic losses, no intake or exhaust restrictions, and even then most were optimistic...

Here's a list of tests of cars going way back into the past.
http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm
A 1967 L71 427 Corvette (435hp, ~3100 lb.) did the 1/4 in 12.9 seconds at 111 mph. Compare to a 2006 M5 (500hp, 4000lb) that did the 1/4 in 12.9 seconds at 114.9mph. The Corvette running the same ET with a lower trap speed suggests it's not having much trouble with wheelspin relative to the BMW...

Anyway, running the usually close-enough hp = ((trap speed/234)^3)*weight formula (assuming 175 lb. driver) we get
494hp for the M5 (99% of claimed 500 hp)
350hp for the Corvette (80% of claimed *gross* 435hp)

Those cars from the 60s weren't nearly as powerful or fast as people think...

So true. And gearing was a huge variable in those old equations. That Vette was probably running 4.11 if not 4.56 gears, which implies at 60 mph in top gear it cranked at between 3,200 -3,600 rpm. With 3.55 gears (about 2,800 rpm at 60 mph), the 427 Vette was a mid-13 second car with a 105 mph trap speed. With 3.08 gears (about 2,400 rpm at 60 mph), it was almost a 14-sec car. Unless geared for the dragstrip, very few muscles cars of that era were quick by today’s standards.