High horsepower, straight line car forums...

[husker741]

So many times I see people post on here "If you wanna go fast in a straight line, you bought the wrong car," to people that want more horsepower and faster 1/4 mile times. Well, when people with muscle cars or these said "straight line cars" mod their car to have better handling, do people on their forum say "If you wanna turn fast, you bought the wrong car"?

It makes me think that a lot of these people are just fanboys who want one or the other, and tell others that because their opinions differ, they should get a different car. As we have seen with our cars, some people are building them to go fast in turns, but some build them to go fast in a straight line.

It just got me thinking when so many people on here tell others get a different car because they want more power. No flaming intended at all. Discuss.

[Hanni_0176]

It's not a matter of this car not being able to be built for straight line power so much as it's just much cheaper (cost wise) to get a different car for that purpose.

On the flip side, it isn't going to be cheaper for someone with a fast straight line car to buy a good/great handling car vs upgrading their suspension/tires/etc. A Mustang GT, for example, is a straight line car, but will still smoke an FR-S around a track stock for stock.

EDIT: BUT, in all fairness, I'd much rather build up an FR-S to 300-500whp, than to try and make a Mustang GT handle as well as the FR-S, regardless of whatever the cost(s) difference is.

[dem00n]

For someone looking for straight line speed or pleasure. Sure they could mod the car, but most people don't have

A. The skill do so themselves.
B. The money to get it done by someone else or buy the parts in the first place.
C. Don't want the shady reliability (There's always a factor of failure in any form of modifying)

Just go try a Mustang GT, that is plenty enough for most.




We have to think, most guys here aren't hardcore car guys who know the difference between a pushrod and pullrod suspension. Some guys just want a car that's easy fast, a stick and that looks good. And that's a lot of guys, which is why i think one of the reasons why cars like the Camaro and Mustang sell so well. Besides the looks and the factor of nostalgia.


But of course, what do i know? Not much.

[strat61caster]

Car forums are all the same.

Amusing circlejerk on how awesome their car is:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...-dodge-102010/

Should I buy a Manual or Automatic:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...-manual-70095/

How do I heel/toe/ better/other driving technique:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...hnique-118825/

What should my first mod be?
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...st-mod-101685/

And finally, my car isn't good at something it really wasn't designed to be good at in the first place:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...fidence-85657/

http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...tml#post129104

http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...ml#post1308575


Don't forget bagging on the competition:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...ar-year-89858/

Note: I've never visited these forums before, just some diligent googling.

I believe I linked to threads where people straight up say "If you want better handling go get a BRZ/FRS" which I think answers the OP's question. If you check out their track thread it's all drag oriented, whereas ours is much more track day/autocross. As I posted somewhere else on here recently "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

The guy building the Autox Challenger probably understands the guy building the 10 second FRS better than their fellow owners do.

[Hanni_0176]

One thing that I'd like to mention, that seems to get neglected in most discussions, is how well a car responds to mods.

Most people complaining about lack of power are complaining about the stock horsepower. Why anyone would purchase this car and complain about the stock power is beyond me. The fact that the car has 200hp is readily available information. If you purchased the car, had no intentions of modding the car, and are complaining about the stock power... why the hell did you buy the car?

On the other hand, from all of the empirical data we currently have, our FA20 engines respond very well to boost on e85. For around $10k, this car can break into 400whp territory. For reference, a stock 2013 Mustang GT has roughly 360whp (420 crank), and once you add the sport package and whatever other options, is roughly around $10k more. A 400whp FT86 is easily a (stock) Corvette/Porsche/etc slayer.

Another great thing about having a low power stock car transformed with boost, is that it is a total sleeper. Everyone (well, everyone who knows about this car anyway) expects a slow car, until they hear the whine or pewsch sound and then watch your tail lights getting smaller and smaller.

I don't know about everyone else, but tuning/modding was half the reason I bought this car. I fully expected it to be slow until I go turbo'd. If I wanted a fast stock car, I would have bought a 2003/2004 Ford Cobra.

EDIT: Scratch that on the Ford Cobra, because if I bought one of those, it wouldn't be stock for long. If I wanted a fast stock car, I would have gotten a used Vette for around $20k. But then again, one of the main reasons I bought my FR-S was because I wanted a practical daily driver with good gas mileage that could turn into a track monster via boost controller and/or ECU reflashing.

[Muaddib]

We brought the FRS because it is the closest thing to the original AE86.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Hanni_0176

On the other hand, from all of the empirical data we currently have, our FA20 engines respond very well to boost on e85. For around $10k, this car can break into 400whp territory. For reference, a stock 2013 Mustang GT has roughly 360whp (420 crank), and once you add the sport package and whatever other options, is roughly around $10k more. A 400whp FT86 is easily a (stock) Corvette/Porsche/etc slayer.

Well, yes and no. First off, a stock corvette or porsche (assuming 911 here) is in the 350+WHP range as well, and if you go to a high performance model, you're pushing 425-500+. In addition, a 400hp 86 is going to be pushing a LOT of boost, and given that there aren't any twin turbo (or even twin scroll turbo) setups available right now, that means you'll tend not to have much low end power, and you'll have a fair amount of turbo lag. A stock 'Vette or 911 will be (in my opinion) a better car to drive, since it will be significantly more responsive, and potentially significantly more reliable than a 400whp 86.

[Prog]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Car forums are all the same.

Amusing circlejerk on how awesome their car is:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...-dodge-102010/

Should I buy a Manual or Automatic:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...-manual-70095/

How do I heel/toe/ better/other driving technique:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...hnique-118825/

What should my first mod be?
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...st-mod-101685/

And finally, my car isn't good at something it really wasn't designed to be good at in the first place:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...fidence-85657/

http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...tml#post129104

http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...ml#post1308575


Don't forget bagging on the competition:
http://www.challengertalk.com/forums...ar-year-89858/

Note: I've never visited these forums before, just some diligent googling.

I believe I linked to threads where people straight up say "If you want better handling go get a BRZ/FRS" which I think answers the OP's question. If you check out their track thread it's all drag oriented, whereas ours is much more track day/autocross. As I posted somewhere else on here recently "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

The guy building the Autox Challenger probably understands the guy building the 10 second FRS better than their fellow owners do.

That's what Camaro5 is like also. I've found that most enthusiast boards have this strange anti-other car groupthink, but it isn't so prevalent here. I personally love cars, not only Subaru or Toyota or Japanese cars. It's really frustrating to see muscle car owners say that the 86 isn't a sports car (muscle cars aren't technically sports cars either), just like it's really frustrating to see people here say that straight line cars are no fun (ever driven one? They're a different kind of fun). I wish people would just enjoy cars for cars. Buy what you like and enjoy it; don't worry about other people.

[Hanni_0176]

Originally Posted by chrisl

Well, yes and no. First off, a stock corvette or porsche (assuming 911 here) is in the 350+WHP range as well, and if you go to a high performance model, you're pushing 425-500+. In addition, a 400hp 86 is going to be pushing a LOT of boost, and given that there aren't any twin turbo (or even twin scroll turbo) setups available right now, that means you'll tend not to have much low end power, and you'll have a fair amount of turbo lag. A stock 'Vette or 911 will be (in my opinion) a better car to drive, since it will be significantly more responsive, and potentially significantly more reliable than a 400whp 86.

Well, I wasn't talking about a ZR1 or other top end models of these already expensive cars (expensive in comparison to the FT86, anyway). I was talking about the ones with less +/- 400whp, that also weigh 500+ lbs more.

Secondly, if you take a look at alot of the turbo threads in the F&I forum, the turbos that are being used for 400whp aren't really THAT large. In fact, on pump gas, the same cars are making roughly 100whp less than they are with e85, which allows them to push upwards of 16 psi of boost. Regardless, with the 12.5:1 compression ratio of this car, even at 16 psi of boost, the turbo lag isn't all that bad. Even more regardless is the fact that, in terms of straight line power, the turbo lag is nearly irrelevant. Around a track, the turbo lag is obviously a bigger deal, but you're also tossing around a car through the corners that weighs 500+ lbs less... and in the case of some of the beefier muscle cars like Camaro SS or even Mustang GT, you're looking at nearly 1,000 lbs less weight.

In terms of reliability... well, this platform is still too new to really say. There have been quite a few that have gone boosted and are pushing into the high 300's on e85, with several members making high 300's on pump gas and mid 400's on e85, without any problems so far. Only time will tell what the reliability of those power figures are on the stock block.

Regardless, I think you missed the point of my post. It wasn't to say that the FT86 is a better platform than a Corvette or a Porsche. My point was that the FT86 responds well to mods, and that a turbocharger + e85 on the FT86 will be faster than most of the Porsches/Corvettes/Mustangs/etc that you'll see out on the road... and it's a sleeper.

[Luis_GT]

Originally Posted by Prog

That's what Camaro5 is like also. I've found that most enthusiast boards have this strange anti-other car groupthink, but it isn't so prevalent here. I personally love cars, not only Subaru or Toyota or Japanese cars. It's really frustrating to see muscle car owners say that the 86 isn't a sports car (muscle cars aren't technically sports cars either), just like it's really frustrating to see people here say that straight line cars are no fun (ever driven one? They're a different kind of fun). I wish people would just enjoy cars for cars. Buy what you like and enjoy it; don't worry about other people.

<---- had a Mustang GT... Found it boring and a POS...

<--- Has driven 1M, M3s and M5s Awesome at the corners, boring in a straight line...

Ergo, Straight line is NOT fun....

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by Hanni_0176

One thing that I'd like to mention, that seems to get neglected in most discussions, is how well a car responds to mods.

Responds to mods? Aside from forced induction or fuel you arent getting far past 30, maybe 40whp in the power sector... thats not great compared to many cars available. Now theres no question that aftermarket support in general is great for this car, but that was a given.

To some extent yes, other car forums do tell their whiners that their GTO isnt going to be a ballerina at the autoX nor will a supra tear up the canyons... but the first thing most people think of doing in a car is going forward and if its a sports car they want that to happen fast.

[Hanni_0176]

Originally Posted by chulooz

Responds to mods? Aside from forced induction or fuel you arent getting far past 30, maybe 40whp in the power sector... thats not great compared to many cars available. Now theres no question that aftermarket support in general is great for this car, but that was a given.

To some extent yes, other car forums do tell their whiners that their GTO isnt going to be a ballerina at the autoX nor will a supra tear up the canyons... but the first thing most people think of doing in a car is going forward and if its a sports car they want that to happen fast.

Well, when I said responds well to mods, I should have said responds well to boost and e85. You're right in that simple N/A bolt-on's aren't making tons of power numbers like they would on a larger displacement engine... but then again, +5whp on a 2800 lb car is doing alot more than +5whp on a 3800 lb car, so you also have to take that into context as well.

[Hanni_0176]

While I'm at it, there's also a few other things I'd like to point out.

Alot of people measure how fast a car is, based on their 0-60 and 1/4 times. For the AT, the gearing is taller than the MT, which affects the 0-60 and 1/4 times. For the MT, the car redlines in 2nd at 58 mph, which has a huge impact on the 0-60 mph times.

If the MT 0-60 was measured in terms of 0-57 instead, or if the gearing was just a bit taller to where the car could remain in 2nd gear for the 0-60, those times would be significantly better.

Another factor is the stock rubber. Most other sports cars (whether GT's, muscle cars, sports luxury cars, whatever) typically come with summer sport or some sort of performance tires, stock. Our cars come with all season rubber. This has a pretty big impact on all of our measurable performance numbers on paper, whether it be 0-60, 1/4, lateral g's, braking distances, etc.

tl;dr this car wasn't built to look good on paper.

[SigmaHyperion]

As an owner of a variety of different cars, and always active in the community of each, I can definitively say that, yes, other forums have a lot of the same comments in regards to "buying the wrong car".

Automakers don't get props for making cars that are pretty good at everything; they need to excel at something so they can be 'the best' at it, forcing vehicles into various niches. This forces buyers to buy cars into those same niches, where most people bought the car for that particular reason. Someone wanting to 'buck the trend' and move the car more towards the centerline has "bought the wrong car" when, truth is, in almost all cases there is no 'correct' car for them to buy, which is why they bought the one they did in the first place.

But, I will say, that they seem to make up a much larger percentage here. Which makes sense really.

Not a lot of people are all that surprised when their Challenger or GTO doesn't compete well in AutoX. Many more people are seemingly 'surprised' about the "lack of power" that the twins have, and many of those are surprised by the relative lack of response of NA mods when they attempt to fix it. This leads to an inevitable increase in the "you bought the wrong car" comments when said people voice their critiques.

Unlike most forums I've been on, this market here seems to have been overcome with the marketing more than most. Rave reviews from about every rag out there has caused a number of people to buy the car even sight-unseen or certainly without due diligence on researching the car appropriately. A young (and sometimes not) demographic making quick decisions because the car looks cool and the consensus about its 'performance' leads them to be underwhelmed when said 'performance' is not of the type they were expecting it to be.