FRS vs all the perf. cars I've'd own the last 25 years

[regal]

Owning the FR-S for 9 months now and keep reading that it is not a fast car got me thinking, being a moderate income "car guy" I've owned quite a few average budget "performance" cars over the years, so I looked up all their stock reported 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. This is the list and is not in order as I owned them (always bought used well taken care of bargains):

1970 Olds Cutlass Ralley
1983 BMW 633csi
1985 VW GTI
1985 Buick Turbo Regal Grand National
1989 Ford Thunderbird Supercoupe 5 spd
1991 BMW 535is spd
1995 Civic Si 5spd
1995 Caprice Interceptor (LT1, basically an Impalla SS))

Around 1999 I quit buying cars and drove the civic for a decade ( it was the slowest of the list but after upgrading the suspension it was my favorite of the list!)

I finally gave up looking for a 240sx in good shape and resorted to my first new car with clash for clunkers getting a new Yaris in 09 for a song (it is OK after installing a TRD suspension but far from fast.)



I know this list doesn't include the most expensive or most powerful cars in the world but all were considered "fast" in their time.

Any way the point I am getting to is that the FR-S has better 0-60 and better 1/4 mile times than anything I have ever owned. The FR-S the fastest straight-line car I've owned in 20 years of "collecting" performance car bargains!

Adjusted for inflation the FR-S is also the least expensive. I never would have guessed an affordable lightweight FR stick LSD coupe would ever be made again after the 240sx was discontinued.

So in my mind the FR-S isn't just a well handling sports car but is also quick in a straight line, at least quick enough for a span of four decades of cars considered to have good performance.

I like driving the FR-S more than anything I've owned, the FR-S is well balanced best described as a combination of my old 6 series BMW (stiff chassis LSD RWD) with my Civic SI (great suspension, lightweight.)

I am more than satisfied with its straight line performance, this is a quick car, and that's not even its best feature.

[gzpermadi]

yeah, what is 1-2 seconds mean for normal daily drive.
Unless you are stuck at railroad. lol.

For me this is the best affordable new sporty car for the price.

[chulooz]

The FRS is faster than the grand national?

[Sellout]

1986 Buick Regal Grand National 0-60 mph 4.8 Quarter mile 13.7

Nope.

[switchlanez]

My G35 coupe was faster but the BRZ feels way more like a sports car/engaging to drive.

[EAGLE5]

The G35 and G37 are funny cars. On paper, they're amazing. In reality, they're mediocrity incarnate. I test drove my first G35 a decade ago. Didn't buy it. Test drove again 5 years ago. Didn't buy it. Now I don't even look at them.

And yes, the GNX is way faster, but not the 85 GN. OP is correct. Imapala SS is almost as fast in the 1/4 and to 60, but not quite.

[Sellout]

The 85 GN times are listed in my previous post. It was the same car from 85-87 and did 13.7 in the quarter. The GNX did 13.3

[SUB-FT86]

If you're only into lightweight cars a G35 will be terrible in comparison. I love mines in comparison to my RSX. It feels like a better car in every way except for being lightweight.

[m.wood0213]

Ive owned 2 MK3 Supras and the turbo does make it faster but the car feels SO much heavier than my BRZ.

[whaap]

If I remember correctly the 0-60 on my '87 Porsche 911 Cabriolet was 6.1 seconds. I don't feel underprivileged with my FR-S.

[regal]

Originally Posted by Sellout

The 85 GN times are listed in my previous post. It was the same car from 85-87 and did 13.7 in the quarter. The GNX did 13.3

The 84-85 Grand Nationals/GN T-Type were only 15 seconds in the quarter, they didn't have an intercooler till '86.

See http://www.zeroto60times.com/Buick-0-60-mph-Times.html

[Sellout]

Originally Posted by regal

The 84-85 Grand Nationals/GN T-Type were only 15 seconds in the quarter, they didn't have an intercooler till '86.

See http://www.zeroto60times.com/Buick-0-60-mph-Times.html

I stand corrected. I was under the mistaken impression that the intercooler was added in 85.

[regal]

Originally Posted by Sellout

I stand corrected. I was under the mistaken impression that the intercooler was added in 85.

Even without the intercooler it was still a lot more fun than the mid 80's cutlass my friend I grew up with owned.

IMHO the FR-S has plenty power, no doubt I would like to cure that torque dip with a proper set of headers & tune, more power than that it would require a race track to use it.

[Sellout]

Originally Posted by regal

Even without the intercooler it was still a lot more fun than the mid 80's cutlass my friend I grew up with owned.

IMHO the FR-S has plenty power, no doubt I would like to cure that torque dip with a proper set of headers & tune, more power than that it would require a race track to use it.

True. I grew up with a guy who had an 85 turbo Regal. We caused a lot of trouble in that thing...