+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 63
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Toyubaru video review.

  1. #21
    momofoolio Racing momofoolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Taipei
    Posts
    981
    Liked
    15 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silversprint View Post
    I think this is the GReddy formula D drift car that will be driven by Ken Gushi in the 2012 season
    momofoolio Racing - http://momofoolio.webs.com

    2nd Gen momofoolio Racing Time Attack S2000 - 07 Laguna Blue

    Now Full Time Drift Machine - 93 Silvia 240SX S13 KA24DE"T"

    New Drift Project - 98 LS14

    W2W Companion - 90 NA6 Miata

    Special Thanks: WestEnd Alignment, Rising Star Motors, APR Performance, SportCar Motion, Pit Garage, eXtremeSpeed, PuddyModRacing, Berk Technology & Amsoil

    Forever Missed: 04 G35, 04 Miata, 04 BMW 325ci, 02 S2000, 91 & 98 Nissan 240SX

  2. #22
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,797
    Liked
    542 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emilio700 View Post
    Not really up to me, it's up to the car. If it's worth messing around with like an S2000 or NA/NB Miata, I'll keep it and develop stuff. If it's a tuner unfriendly platform, I'll pass. My feeling is that it will be good.

    Not having driven the car, I already have regrets that it uses Mac Struts. Huge handicap right from the start. That front end will never go over bumps, stop and turn s as well as a wishbone suspension. But you can't fit wishbones and the Boxer in the same space with having really bad instant centers from too short arms. I wonder how Porsche makes it work. It's also a cost saving measure as struts are cheaper to build. Sad though, it's just that detail away from being a nearly perfect sports car isn't it?

    To get it to turn with race tires, we'll probably have to run like -4 or -5° front camber, 1" thick roll center adjusters and bump steer kit. That's gonna suck on the street. We'll see.
    Struts are far from the end of the world. The Porsche GT3RSR still uses struts as does the GT3 that won the Daytona 24 this year. I dont think its an issue.

    And none of said cars run that much camber. I doubt that would be needed. A larger front bar and -2 to -2.5 wouldn't be an issue for street or track.
    Last edited by Stuntman; 02-09-2012 at 02:37 PM.

  3. #23
    dirty smack talker hakeem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,076
    Liked
    977 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by f20kills View Post
    What makes this car better than the Genesis Coupe? I dont know much about either car but an NA 2.0 putting 200hp doesn’t sound like too much fun :P Ive been looking at the Gen Coupe as a daily car....

    At least the Gen Coupe is turbo which to me sounds like a fun car. As much hype there is around this car, it doesn’t do much for me.
    I'm with you. The Genesis is much more interesting to me. A 200hp strut-laden car doesn't really get me going, even if it is reasonably cheap.

  4. #24
    http://www.trackhq.com/Banners/yellowsitesponsor.gif emilio700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,628
    Liked
    2395 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuntman View Post
    Struts are far from the end of the world. The Porsche GT3RSR still uses struts as does the GT3 that won the Daytona 24 this year. I dont think its an issue.

    And none of said cars run that much camber. I doubt that would be needed. A larger front bar and -2 to -2.5 wouldn't be an issue for street or track.
    I didn't say that struts were the end of the world. I inferred that they are inferior to, and less desireable than a wishbone or multi link suspensions for performance use. Honestly, I'm kind surprised at someone as knowledgeable as you making that GT3 argument.

    Comparing a $350K Rolex spec GT3 with factory support and >1000 in/lb spring rates and <2° total body roll to a daily driven BRZ with maybe 600 in/lb springs, DOT radials, 4-5° total body roll? Apples to pears.

    You know, as well as everyone else reading this, that Porsche wins races with the 911 despite the config, not because of it.

    Struts taint the sweet smell of rwd-a-liciousness that the BRZ could be. It's a good car and I want one. I just wish Subaru had found a way to package and pay for wishbones up front.
    Last edited by emilio700; 02-09-2012 at 06:24 PM.
    JJ1 likes this.
    WWW.949RACING.COM
    SuperMiata

    Aside from their cost I never understood why people race them.
    But obviously I just dont get it. -fatbillybob

  5. #25
    Pro Lurker GreyFocus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LA eerr day
    Posts
    2,038
    Liked
    103 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by f20kills View Post
    ^^Really!! hmmmm didnt know what :P
    But im sure there are some easy turbo upgrades that can get it to 300hp easy...2.0 NA, not so much Ill have to do some more research on these cars lol
    yeah the 2.0 turbo genesis is like 100lbs heavier then my 370, and the 3.8 genesis is close to 200lbs heavier. So 3400lbs genesis compared to a 2700lb BRZ/FRS sounds like a no brainer. in my opinion if you wanna deal with the higher weight just get a Z cause it'll handle better LOL

  6. #26
    Senior Member pucsicsal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    597
    Liked
    97 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emilio700 View Post
    . It's a good car and I want one. I just wish Subaru had found a way to package and pay for wishbones up front.
    Those guys on ebay who made the protype rocker suspension for that 911 got this covered

  7. #27
    Senior Member Todd R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    111
    Liked
    38 times

    Default

    How much weight does the Porsche 911 have out front? Probably limited benefit to anything better than a strut. Now the rear suspension on the other hand is a bit more important on the 911.

    Back to the Toyubaru, if the car's weight numbers are fudged upward when it shows up on dealers floors the car will be nothing special. I'll wait to reserve judgment until I see it on track.

  8. #28
    Pro Lurker GreyFocus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LA eerr day
    Posts
    2,038
    Liked
    103 times

    Default

    thing is, on track i dont feel they will be particularly fast, but i dont think its suppose to be. its suppose to be fun and engaging with minimal mechanical fuss. i bet a stock one doesnt get under 2.10 at buttonwillow, but im sure behind the wheel it will be a hoot. But Emilio is right, the front end is going to need all that stuff WRX guys buy from companies like whiteline(roll center, bump steer, anti lift kit) to get a solid amount of front grip. Also people taking about turbo charging i think wont get the car as fast lap time wise as they think cause the car doesnt look to fit alot of rubber and has a significant amount of rear anti-squat built into the rear suspension geo. But im sure at NA power levels with moderate tires, suspension, its going to be a blast to drive which is the point

  9. #29
    Senior Member bellwilliam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    La Verne, California, United States
    Posts
    7,644
    Liked
    2282 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nurburgring View Post
    I disagree. The WRX is ugly, has know reliability issues (ringlands), brakes are inadequate for the power, understeers like mad and gets horrible mileage. It's not cheaper either.

    I think the BRZ/86 will be a success. It will go head to head on pricing with the Golf GTI, Cooper S, Civic SI, WRX and Genesis, while offering a nice balance of power/weight/handling/mileage.

    949Racing involvement would be great news.
    I see you own a 1985 Corolla GTS, you are obviously biased
    in U.S. WRX is cheaper. I do agree with ugly, bad brakes, understeer, low mpg... I owned one..
    Supermiata S1, SuperMiata S2, Supermiata S3
    13 Tesla, ma: no engine !!
    17 GT350 !!
    08 M3 - Carmax warranty !!
    96 NSX
    06 EVO MR
    15 Mini Cooper S

  10. #30
    Senior Member bellwilliam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    La Verne, California, United States
    Posts
    7,644
    Liked
    2282 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreyFocus View Post
    i bet a stock one doesnt get under 2.10 at buttonwillow,
    I bet it does. bone stock S2000 is 2:05. FRS has similar power to weight... tiny bit smaller tire, so I am guessing 2:07s.
    I also think it is going to be front camber limited... so first mod is probably going to be camber kit.
    Last edited by bellwilliam; 02-09-2012 at 09:31 PM.
    Supermiata S1, SuperMiata S2, Supermiata S3
    13 Tesla, ma: no engine !!
    17 GT350 !!
    08 M3 - Carmax warranty !!
    96 NSX
    06 EVO MR
    15 Mini Cooper S

  11. #31
    Captain Planet tq3z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    OC CA
    Posts
    1,667
    Liked
    366 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bellwilliam View Post
    I bet it does. bone stock S2000 is 2:04s. FRS has similar power to weight... tiny bit smaller tire, so I am guessing 2:06 - 2:07
    Okay let's not go saying its similar power levels to the S2000 please. lol 40 horsepower is going to make a BIG difference.
    Do you understand?

  12. #32
    Senior Member bellwilliam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    La Verne, California, United States
    Posts
    7,644
    Liked
    2282 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tq3z View Post
    Okay let's not go saying its similar power levels to the S2000 please. lol 40 horsepower is going to make a BIG difference.
    I am also assuming stock, but not stock tires. what I've read is FRS use exact same tire (same compound) as oversea Prius, 17".
    Supermiata S1, SuperMiata S2, Supermiata S3
    13 Tesla, ma: no engine !!
    17 GT350 !!
    08 M3 - Carmax warranty !!
    96 NSX
    06 EVO MR
    15 Mini Cooper S

  13. #33
    The Real Captain Slow Red_5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    4,188
    Liked
    704 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tq3z View Post
    Okay let's not go saying its similar power levels to the S2000 please. lol 40 horsepower is going to make a BIG difference.
    How much does a stock S2K weigh?
    99 Mazda Miata SuperMiata #515 - AKA Sparky SOLD
    '91 Mariner Blue Miata project AKA Napoleon

  14. #34
    BMW Master bawareca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,711
    Liked
    641 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tq3z View Post
    Okay let's not go saying its similar power levels to the S2000 please. lol 40 horsepower is going to make a BIG difference.
    And 2000 rpm makes a huge difference as well.As mentioned in another discussion,with a higher redline one can run higher diff ratios=more actual power to the wheels.

  15. #35
    dirty smack talker hakeem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,076
    Liked
    977 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red_5 View Post
    How much does a stock S2K weigh?
    Wikipedia says 2765-2864lbs depending on year and options.

  16. #36
    Senior Member robburgoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,853
    Liked
    1429 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bawareca View Post
    And 2000 rpm makes a huge difference as well.As mentioned in another discussion,with a higher redline one can run higher diff ratios=more actual power to the wheels.
    Must resist... making fun of bmw owners....

    The higher redline is why the peak horsepower is so high and the peak torque so low. It's already taken into account in the horsepower number.

  17. #37
    Pro Lurker GreyFocus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LA eerr day
    Posts
    2,038
    Liked
    103 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bellwilliam View Post
    I bet it does. bone stock S2000 is 2:05. FRS has similar power to weight... tiny bit smaller tire, so I am guessing 2:07s.
    I also think it is going to be front camber limited... so first mod is probably going to be camber kit.
    Yeah similar power to weight but not even close to similar suspension geo

  18. #38
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,088
    Liked
    2165 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robburgoon View Post
    Must resist... making fun of bmw owners....

    The higher redline is why the peak horsepower is so high and the peak torque so low. It's already taken into account in the horsepower number.
    Just think if it made 197 HP at 12,000 RPM!

    My Corvette only makes 197 HP at about 2,000 and zero at 12,000, but what am I to do?
    bellwilliam and bawareca like this.
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

  19. #39
    BMW Master bawareca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,711
    Liked
    641 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robburgoon View Post
    Must resist... making fun of bmw owners....

    The higher redline is why the peak horsepower is so high and the peak torque so low. It's already taken into account in the horsepower number.
    Rob,I appreciate your...resistingI am sure this time around it can become a great discussion.
    Honda S2000:
    162 lbf·ft at 6,500 rpm ,237 hp at a lower 7,800 rpm
    Scifitoybar:
    150 pound-feet of torque at 6,600 rpm 197 HP at 7,000 rpm

    If we simplify it just for the sake of simplicity it is 1300 RPM power band against 400 RPM,not even taking the absolute numbers into account.And with a 800 RPM difference,oh boy......

  20. #40
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,088
    Liked
    2165 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bawareca View Post
    Rob,I appreciate your...resistingI am sure this time around it can become a great discussion.
    Honda S2000:
    162 lbf·ft at 6,500 rpm ,237 hp at a lower 7,800 rpm
    Scifitoybar:
    150 pound-feet of torque at 6,600 rpm 197 HP at 7,000 rpm

    If we simplify it just for the sake of simplicity it is 1300 RPM power band against 400 RPM,not even taking the absolute numbers into account.And with a 800 RPM difference,oh boy......
    That is completely wrong. You are concluding the powerband is from peak torque to peak horsepower. Those two stats have absolutely nothing to do with useable powerband.

    Here is a dyno sheet from my car. The ideal gearing on my car would be to keep all my shifts between about 5,300 RPM to the 7,000 RPM redline. Peak torque starts much earlier, but that is not the highest output of my engine.

    2010-2-c5-dyno-results-final-rpm.jpg


    I went out to Google images and quickly grabbed this dyno sheet. Although this engine torque peaks at about 4,800 RPM, I would argue the ideal powerband is around 6,600 RPM to the 8,000 RPM redline.

    dyno_hp_tq_20070717.jpg
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 6593d1158173735-ecotec-2-0l-turbo-dyno-sheet-0609_c_saturn_sky_dyno.jpg  
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts