Open Letter to Potential FR-S Buyers & Disillusioned Owners

[jebuwh]

Originally Posted by SlowButFun

LOL at anyone seriously claiming FRS can REMOTELY keep up with current 5.0 GT ON ANY ROAD.

FRS = Speck in rear view mirror...

...fading away quickly.

(FRS would be have to masterfully driven to keep up with a current V6 Mustang)

But I know...I know...that's not why you bought your FRS...yada yada (that's what I tried to convince myself of before I bought my FRS)

On any road? I wouldn't be that bold. I have seen more than one built v6 disappear in the rear view. The v6 mustang isnt a sports car. Its not built for handling or the track or autocross. Its built for rental companies and mid life crisis. The gt is a little different but still... Not built to be the ultimate handling car. Its fast as hell, but not the same driver experience like i said. I would love the challenge of a gt in the canyons though. Would be a fun experiment.

Bottom line is a lot of us don't need/care about having power. The handling isn't even in the same league.

You seem pretty hell bent on convincing us out of our twins to a mustang... What's the reason for that?

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by SlowButFun

I am merely trying to inject some objectivity, as a former FRS owner, into what can be an echo chamber of positive comments about the twins that sometimes borders on the disingenuous.

But then again, such an echo chamber like effect is in no way unique to this forum, as every single forum I've been a member of has had the exact similar type of group think & commentators who try to drown out/dress down/insult anyone who dares to relay negative experiences.

I found most of the technical information on this site to be very accurate, and I also believe the overwhelming majority of members to be as helpful to other members as any forum I've had exposure to (in short, good people with pure intentions being great neighbors).

It's SOME of the subjective comments about the twins that have caused me to seriously wonder if they're made in jest or delusion.

Maybe your objectivity is actually subjectivity.

[tennisfreak]

To be completely honest when I started shopping for a sports car between $25-$35k the first thing I did was look at specs and think DAMN why is the FRS so much??

So I test drove in this order (largely because I was going off price and spec sheet):
Used Porche Cayman S
2013 Genisis Coupe (2.0T followed by 3.8)
2013 Ford Mustang GT
2013 Nissan 370Z
2013 Scion FRS

Came close to getting a used Cayman, then a 370Z. The Genisis and Mustang were out of contention immediately after driving. Regardless of all the power and "luxury" they had the driving experience was nowhere near what I wanted out of a car.

Drove the FRS last.

Definitely the slowest of the bunch, even on my test drive I wish it had more power.
BUT it was an instant winner.
Good friend of mine bought a 2013 Camaro SS 1LE and he loves it to death.
I let him drive my FRS and he absolutely smiled the entire time.
I asked him about the power and he said two different cars with two different purposes each great in their own regard.

[jebuwh]

Originally Posted by tennisfreak

To be completely honest when I started shopping for a sports car between $25-$35k the first thing I did was look at specs and think DAMN why is the FRS so much??

So I test drove in this order (largely because I was going off price and spec sheet):
Used Porche Cayman S
2013 Genisis Coupe (2.0T followed by 3.8)
2013 Ford Mustang GT
2013 Nissan 370Z
2013 Scion FRS

Came close to getting a used Cayman, then a 370Z. The Genisis and Mustang were out of contention immediately after driving. Regardless of all the power and "luxury" they had the driving experience was nowhere near what I wanted out of a car.

Drove the FRS last.

Definitely the slowest of the bunch, even on my test drive I wish it had more power.
BUT it was an instant winner.
Good friend of mine bought a 2013 Camaro SS 1LE and he loves it to death.
I let him drive my FRS and he absolutely smiled the entire time.
I asked him about the power and he said two different cars with two different purposes each great in their own regard.

Yes.

[PHLonomenal]

Originally Posted by tennisfreak

To be completely honest when I started shopping for a sports car between $25-$35k the first thing I did was look at specs and think DAMN why is the FRS so much??

So I test drove in this order (largely because I was going off price and spec sheet):
Used Porche Cayman S
2013 Genisis Coupe (2.0T followed by 3.8)
2013 Ford Mustang GT
2013 Nissan 370Z
2013 Scion FRS

Came close to getting a used Cayman, then a 370Z. The Genisis and Mustang were out of contention immediately after driving. Regardless of all the power and "luxury" they had the driving experience was nowhere near what I wanted out of a car.

Drove the FRS last.

Definitely the slowest of the bunch, even on my test drive I wish it had more power.
BUT it was an instant winner.
Good friend of mine bought a 2013 Camaro SS 1LE and he loves it to death.
I let him drive my FRS and he absolutely smiled the entire time.
I asked him about the power and he said two different cars with two different purposes each great in their own regard.

I too test drove a used 2011 Cayman 6mt(non S) shortly before buying this car. I gotta say there are A LOT of similarities between the 2 cars. Particularly in feel. The Cayman was obviously faster but not dramatically. One huge advantage of the Cayman was the sound of that flat-6 engine basically in the car with you, epic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blackhawkdown]

So much fan boy logic for the twins. Stock for stock, gt will walk over the twins on the track and autocross.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

[tennisfreak]

Originally Posted by blackhawkdown

So much fan boy logic for the twins. Stock for stock, gt will walk over the twins on the track and autocross.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

Jeeze there really is no getting some people to understand is there?
Why are we focusing on track and autocross numbers, there is so much more to a car than numbers on paper.

THINK EINSTEIN!!! We know the FRS is slow but love the car for other reasons.

[totopo]

Originally Posted by tennisfreak

Jeeze there really is no getting some people to understand is there?
Why are we focusing on track and autocross numbers, there is so much more to a car than numbers on paper.

THINK EINSTEIN!!! We know the FRS is slow but love the car for other reasons.

I think he is talking about autocross and track time because of what other 86 owners have said in this thread. I feel like a lot of it is due to the imprecise term of "handling". Especially as it pertains to this thread. In my view, handling can either mean driving feel, or it can mean lateral traction, especially as it pertains to transitions and track use.

So the debate comes about when people say the brz is a great handling car (true in the first sense of a driver's car). And then equate it to being objectively fast, a la the people saying it is great in autox(debateable) and canyon roads(wothless comparison imho in terms of objective speed. You aren't in initial d).

I think What the op and slowbutfun is trying to say is that he wishes people would recognize and appreciate the car for what it is (a driver's car) and not pretend it is something it isn't (a fast car around corners).

Along those lines, calling the Cayman s as only slightly faster than the 86 is pretty disingenuous. It would be better to stick with it feels and drives similarly and is similarly a joy to drive.On the same day Randy pobst did 1:41.26 in the Cayman s and 1:51.30 in the brz on Laguna seca. 10 seconds is huge, they aren't anywhere in the same class.

That being said, pobst enjoyed driving the brz as much if not more than the Cayman s, and more than the all the other expensive sports cars that review.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by blackhawkdown

So much fan boy logic for the twins. Stock for stock, gt will walk over the twins on the track and autocross.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

Uhh what? I agree with tennisfreak that the intangibles (driver feedback and handling dynamics) are what set the Twins apart, but they also happen to be faster for the most part than Mustang GTs in autocross, stock for stock.

Twins are in C Stock, Mustang GTs are F Stock. You can look up the results yourself.

[paulca]

It's like when you are grinning ear to ear, car skittering all over the place on bumps on a twisty country road, reving the nuts off it and all of a sudden there is a Range Rover in your rear mirror, for a moment you are like, "WTF?", but then the next corner is there and you don't care anymore.

It's fast if it feels fast. The less speed you are actually doing the better!

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by totopo

Along those lines, calling the Cayman s as only slightly faster than the 86 is pretty disingenuous. It would be better to stick with it feels and drives similarly and is similarly a joy to drive.On the same day Randy pobst did 1:41.26 in the Cayman s and 1:51.30 in the brz on Laguna seca. 10 seconds is huge, they aren't anywhere in the same class.

The guy you're quoting is comparing an early Cayman to a Toyobaru, not a 981 ('12+) Cayman.

A 2006 Cayman S lapped Laguna in 1:47.58

http://www.motortrend.com/features/l..._s_laguna_lap/

[totopo]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

The guy you're quoting is comparing an early Cayman to a Toyobaru, not a 981 ('12+) Cayman.

A 2006 Cayman S lapped Laguna in 1:47.58

http://www.motortrend.com/features/l..._s_laguna_lap/

Fair enough, though that time is also not directly comparable because Randy pobst is an awesome driver.

[totopo]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Uhh what? I agree with tennisfreak that the intangibles (driver feedback and handling dynamics) are what set the Twins apart, but they also happen to be faster for the most part than Mustang GTs in autocross, stock for stock.

Twins are in C Stock, Mustang GTs are F Stock. You can look up the results yourself.

Honest question. I don't really understand how solo2 works.

http://www.scca.com/assets/2013%20So...s%20FINAL1.pdf

can you explain a little about the classes? I tried looking it up and I still don't really understand. what is the super touring xtreem class, is it more modded than stock? but with worse tires? Why are there no 86s in stock c?

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by totopo

Honest question. I don't really understand how solo2 works.

http://www.scca.com/assets/2013%20So...s%20FINAL1.pdf

can you explain a little about the classes? I tried looking it up and I still don't really understand. what is the super touring xtreem class, is it more modded than stock? but with worse tires? Why are there no 86s in stock c?

The rules are pretty complicated, but you can find them here:
http://www.scca.com/solo/content.cfm?cid=44517

I think last year, the Twins were new/under-developed and most guys jumped straight to STX because they felt they would be most competitive there, it fit the mods they already had, and/or they didn't want to run hoosiers. This year though (2014), there are some Twins competing in CS in the championship tour. You can see the 2014 results here:
http://www.scca.com/solo/content.cfm?cid=44511&tag=60

STX class cars are limited to 140 treadwear, so all street tires. Here's a good breakdown of STX:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25779

With CS, you're a lot more limited. Just one sway change, stock wheel width, shocks/struts only, etc. But you can run r-comps like A6's.