NikoFab Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) I think people forget that the FR-S is supposed to be a descendant of the AE86 Corolla platform that was so popular in Japan with the motorsports crowd. That car was agile, small and light, and fun to drive. It wasn't high powered and never was intended to compete with Z's, Silvias, Supras, RX-7's or any of those sports cars out at the time. It was the underdog car, an upgraded econobox, and has a huge following. The FR-S was built with that concept in mind, it has narrow tires so you can have fun with it at a lower speed and fling it around. It's small and light, and relatively cheap, and easy to drive quick. Now for my money on a new car in that segment, I'd take the Genesis. If they put the STI turbo boxer motor in the FR-S it would be a different animal, but that wasn't what they were trying to achieve, they wanted a balanced car. Better off comparing it to a Honda S2000. I heartily agree with everything here except for the S2000 bit. I've test driven an FR-S. One of my staff bought one, and I was afforded the opportunity to play around with it on two different occasions as well. I've also owned two S2000s, an '01 AP1 and an '05 AP2. I have to say I'd never compare these two cars. Yes, the FR-S was purpose built...keep it cheap, light, fun to drive. Narrow tires so even my grandmother can kick the rear end out. The S2000 was not cheap, but it was light and fun to drive...extremely fun to drive. No skinny tires. It put nice meat on the ground so it could handle like on rails. I could take an intersection turn in that car at 35-40 miles an hour...and the only thing that lost traction was my butt in the seat. These cars are completely different animals. Edited February 26, 2014 by NikoFab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GINASQ Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 C5 z06 or just base c5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikoFab Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 It does not pull corners so hard your passenger is pissing themself ...like the S2000 does. Sorry I'm an S2K homer...owned two of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikoFab Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Also I have an S2000 and it destroys the FRS in pretty much every category. Even any review magazine says the same thing ^^^ Agree, agree, agree. "Destroy" is an accurate description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikoFab Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I know this will suprise everyone but I'm about to defefnd the FRS here........... The S2000 was at a much higher price point when new though. And suffers just as bad in the torq catagory. However you do have allot more overhead for performace both in HP/torq and in the suspension, grip in the s2000 The S2000 does feel allot more solid when spiritedly driven....... as in you can drive it hard and it performs where as the FRS you drive it hard and it's getting all out of line. While it is easy to contorl, and pull back into line..... it's like they made the car loose just to give thrills. The S2000 just becomes really twitchy and gives little to no feed back when really pushed (which I also hate) and it's also made for people who are short and little. I hate to be that guy, but I've owned two S2K's. I never saw twitchy, either on the road or on the race course. As far as feedback, not sure which S2000 you were driving, but in both of mine I could tell you what brand was used to paint the lines on the road. The feedback was incredible. And the short and little thing doesn't add up either. I'm 6'2", and had to move my seat up from the rear-most setting two clicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jszucs Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I hate to be that guy, but I've owned two S2K's. I never saw twitchy, either on the road or on the race course. As far as feedback, not sure which S2000 you were driving, but in both of mine I could tell you what brand was used to paint the lines on the road. The feedback was incredible. And the short and little thing doesn't add up either. I'm 6'2", and had to move my seat up from the rear-most setting two clicks. They do not provide feedback as to when they are going to let go.... IE when pushed to the limit. They are fine.....actuly great up to that point. The wheel does not provide great feedback but is not as bad as the drive by wire cars. They are twitchy when drive 100+ I fit just fine length wise not width wise other then how close your head is to the roof (and no I'm not fat) but at 210-215 with 44" jacket.... you don't fit well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jszucs Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 C5 z06 or just base c5? Ether one is lack luster untill you replace major parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikoFab Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 They do not provide feedback as to when they are going to let go.... IE when pushed to the limit. They are fine.....actuly great up to that point. The wheel does not provide great feedback but is not as bad as the drive by wire cars. They are twitchy when drive 100+ I fit just fine length wise not width wise other then how close your head is to the roof (and no I'm not fat) but at 210-215 with 44" jacket.... you don't fit well. I can agree a little with the letting go part, but only on the AP1s...different suspension geometry. But road-feel on both variants was spot on. Still don't get the 100+ twitchy claim...I've had both of mine over 100...well...more often than I should have. My best AP1 topout was 167mph (with the hard top on, and go-pro verified, and that car was supercharged). My best in my AP2 was 141mph (top down). Now the top down run felt a little scary past 130mph...massive wind convection. But on neither run, did I feel the cars lose composure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jszucs Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I can agree a little with the letting go part, but only on the AP1s...different suspension geometry. But road-feel on both variants was spot on. Still don't get the 100+ twitchy claim...I've had both of mine over 100...well...more often than I should have. My best AP1 topout was 167mph (with the hard top on, and go-pro verified, and that car was supercharged). My best in my AP2 was 141mph (top down). Now the top down run felt a little scary past 130mph...massive wind convection. But on neither run, did I feel the cars lose composure. maybe twitchy is the wrong wording for it. It was also not my car so not use to it. What I guess it is would be the car is very quick to react, but going fast it felt like you were forever making little itty bitty corrections and then correcting your corrections. Like you could not move the wheel a small enough amount to make the corection without having to correct in the other direction. Road feel though the car is great, but though the wheel is lacking something. And maybe that is where I got into truouble feeling like I was always messing with the stearing. Or maybe his toe was out of wack. IDK just one mans impression of another mans car. I still don't get what all the fan boy hopla is about with them. I just wrote it off as typically Honda fanboy hopla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuze Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) yeah well I'm hardly stock, and the c5's just fall into nothing ness at 100+ totally disapear at 130 like they hit a speed limiter and dont' even think they get to 160. So the new golf R would not slauter a C5? And if not a simple retune and up the boost a bit and it sure will. Hilarious. Compare a modded Vette to a modded VW, there simply is no comparison. Stock to stock there is no comparison. Let's get even more specific, and compare a 2004 VW to a 2004 Z06 or C5. Never mind, it's foolishness.The LS motor is cheap to mod and power potential is almost unlimited. Of course you upgrade parts to handle power, just like in the VW. I can make 500 WHP with bolt ons for the cost of your VW turbo upgrade kit. Truthhfully, I look at VW's like Hondas and most of the time won't even bother with them, like most ppl driving a Vette. There's a reason the SCCA magazine is full of C5's every month winning their classes. Still trying to compare GTI's to Z06 corvettes? I love WV's too, but you've lost your damn mind. You're trying to compare apples to cheeseburgers. Indeed! Edited February 28, 2014 by Fuze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuze Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 I heartily agree with everything here except for the S2000 bit. I've test driven an FR-S. One of my staff bought one, and I was afforded the opportunity to play around with it on two different occasions as well. I've also owned two S2000s, an '01 AP1 and an '05 AP2. I have to say I'd never compare these two cars. Yes, the FR-S was purpose built...keep it cheap, light, fun to drive. Narrow tires so even my grandmother can kick the rear end out. The S2000 was not cheap, but it was light and fun to drive...extremely fun to drive. No skinny tires. It put nice meat on the ground so it could handle like on rails. I could take an intersection turn in that car at 35-40 miles an hour...and the only thing that lost traction was my butt in the seat. These cars are completely different animals. The way I am comparing them is in the marketplace, target buyer, layout, etc. Both are smallish rwd Japanese coupes with NA 4 cylinders, similar power output, aimed at young guys. The other cars I mentioned are aimed at a slightly older buyer with more money. Now that said, how these two cars respond to upgrades like wide rubber, coilovers and power adders is likely similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jszucs Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Hilarious. Compare a modded Vette to a modded VW, there simply is no comparison. Stock to stock there is no comparison. Let's get even more specific, and compare a 2004 VW to a 2004 Z06 or C5. Never mind, it's foolishness.The LS motor is cheap to mod and power potential is almost unlimited. Of course you upgrade parts to handle power, just like in the VW. I can make 500 WHP with bolt ons for the cost of your VW turbo upgrade kit. Truthhfully, I look at VW's like Hondas and most of the time won't even bother with them, like most ppl driving a Vette. There's a reason the SCCA magazine is full of C5's every month winning their classes.Indeed! Ok fine show me and LS upgraded with retail $719 of new parts I still don't spank? that is BARELY scraping at cam and labor in the 719 range. Heck an HP programer is going to cost you 500 of that. I have no turbo upgrade or any of that stuff. just 2 generic pipes and a retune. My point was only that a C5 is not that much even for Fantas Miata to beat. The car was purpose built but they do stupid stuff like OK lets use thiner glass to drop weight yet we still put power windows AC and stuff like that in the car? Still use heavy fiber glass (yes fiberglass is very heavy) And yes I know I could not get one from a dig...... I HATE the FWD even with the limited slip Edited February 28, 2014 by jszucs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GINASQ Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Idk I've seen stock CTS-V's eat up modded GTI's all day in multiple situations. To say a corvette can't is ehhh....nevermind. This arguement is pretty comical. Please continue jscuzs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jszucs Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Idk I've seen stock CTS-V's eat up modded GTI's all day in multiple situations. To say a corvette can't is ehhh....nevermind. This arguement is pretty comical. Please continue jscuzs. Sure from a dig, doubt the CTS-V is getting to 160 to quickly... besides I think they cut off at 132 stock. CTSV's are also a bit past a C5 in terms of tec. C5's were in the 350 HP range and CTSV's are in the 600 range. Edited February 28, 2014 by jszucs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_99 Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt93/BC_99/annoying%20funnies/internettroll2_zps43a053b4.png BC_99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GINASQ Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 I was talking first gen V's but I guess you're right a gti will def eat a vette (c5, c5 z06, c6) on everything except a dig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GINASQ Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Is this you http://www.golfmk6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18917 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starion86ESI Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Lol turns out this info is a bit false. The FRS is actually outselling the GTI. http://jalopnik.com/everyone-is-wrong-about-subaru-brz-and-scion-fr-s-sales-1540661520 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creakyjoints Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Golf beats Corvette? What the? Magic Mushrooms are cool. Just stay off the internet when under their influence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts