So you want to build a BRZ/FRS Competitor

If the Mazda2 was RWD, I'd be ~$12k more in debt than I am currently.

Nissan's probably not in the right position to make a new Silvia/SX, not so long as they have the Altima coupe. It's basically everything a new Silvia would be other than RWD.

Also, dollars-to-donuts says if that concept went into production, it would carry with it two more doors, at least for the USDM. VW seems to be the only manufacturer that's willing to sell a 3-door hatchback in the states anymore.

I think the perfect Frisbee competitor would be a fast back miata

Javelin wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I don't see too many MR econocars...

Excepting of course the MR2 Just pointing out that it's *drivetrain engineering* that makes a car fuel efficient or not, driven wheels (and in some cases, layout) has not much to do with it. In fact, funnily enough, a lot of the new electric designs coming down the pike are RWD platforms in part to make the nose narrower (and smaller front tires, etc) for better aero, which = more MPGe.

The funny thing about the MR2 is that the FWD cars using the same motors in those years got better gas mileage. Which is fine, because MR2s were designed and marketed as sports cars, not econocars. (That was the Corolla/Tercel/Paseo's job.)

Nobody said it was the drivetrain engineering that made a car fuel efficient or not. Just that in most cases, it's advantageous to go FF for purposes of efficiency and efficiency alone.

It's clear at this point that we're just arguing semantics, so carry on.

Just associating it with the Juke in any way makes me hate it by extension.

In terms of looks, it's a step up from most of the crap that Nissan has been putting out recently, which makes me confident that Nissan designers will ruin it somehow before a production model appears.

190hp FWD (or FWD-based AWD) doesn't excite me in the least. There are plenty of small FWD/AWD cars out there with similar/more power out there already.

190hp alone isn't exciting. But if you tell me it's SLA front and rear and weighs <2500 lbs, that suddenly becomes a lot more interesting.

For example, again the Mazda2. Put 190hp in that and tell me it's not at least somewhat exciting.

It's a Nissan. It will be a Mac strut front (and probably rear) suspension.

And I mean 190hp in that car.

190hp in my e30 would be EXTREMELY exciting, lol....

Autoblog said: Inside the company the project is being called the "Mini-Z," despite the fact it would almost certainly be front-wheel or all-wheel drive. That would help differentiate it from the BRZ/FR-S, but would certainly turn off those of us with sportier intentions.

Considering the vast amounts of people who fufill their sportier intentions with front or all wheel drive vehicles, I'm gonna go ahead and call this statement a little off base.

Here's the plan Nissan, make that little car awd, give it 200 hp, make it corner, call it the mini GTR and laugh your ass off all the way to the bank.

If it's cheaper than a new WRX people will buy it. If it's even close to matching the performance of the frisbees people will buy it. Hell, people will buy it anyway.

Also, this is the first new Nissan I've seen in a while that I didn't think was hideous.

People fulfill their sporting intentions because that is what is available. I don't think anyone has ever said "I wanted a 240sx, but bought an integra because it's fwd"

yamaha wrote: Why do I think the perfect competitor for the brz/frs is this

The bean counters would never let anything this cool hit our shores. I can dream though!!

True Mazda frisbee fighter

ReverendDexter wrote: If the Mazda2 was RWD, I'd be ~$12k more in debt than I am currently.

No, more than that. RWD Mazda2 would probably cost close to what a new Miata costs. Or somewhere in the middle.

Storz wrote:

yamaha wrote: Why do I think the perfect competitor for the brz/frs is this

The bean counters would never let anything this cool hit our shores. I can dream though!!

Nor the insurance companies. IIRC the 1st. gen. Clio V-6s had some nasty snap oversteer. The 2nd. gen. Clios were better but would still bite you when pushed. Sure the gov. mandates traction control on all new cars, but that won't save your ass if you're hooning it harder than the nannies can take -or if you turn them off altogether the way nature intended.

bravenrace wrote: All I really need is an AWD Focus ST. It's not FWD that I don't like, it's torque steer. Get rid of that and I don't care.

Did you see this? http://jalopnik.com/ford-focus-st/

Apparently Ford actually did a great job on the torque steer bit

In reply to RexSeven:

Unfortunately, you are correct. I doubt the government would allow anything like that these days, if they were available over here, I would own one.......

I guess I'll just have to completely part out the parts sho and find a rust free festiva Even less safe

Jaynen wrote:

bravenrace wrote: All I really need is an AWD Focus ST. It's not FWD that I don't like, it's torque steer. Get rid of that and I don't care.

Did you see this? http://jalopnik.com/ford-focus-st/ Apparently Ford actually did a great job on the torque steer bit

I built an ST on the Ford website. The price came within $1k of a V-6 Mustang equipped equally. Not good enough to make me go FWD.

In reply to Jaynen:

Having the brakes electronically activate during a turn is not the same as a real LSD or suspension tuning...

Storz wrote: True Mazda frisbee fighter

As a rabid M Coupe fan, I fully support this concept.

Storz wrote: True Mazda frisbee fighter

Gremlin?

Having the brakes electronically activate during a turn is not the same as a real LSD or suspension tuning...

No, it has the potential to do MUCH more.

Whether or not it does in any given instance has more to do with the choices made by the manufacturer than the simple fact of whether or not a mechanical bandaid is present or not.

Feel free to try to take my basic point apart with semantics, though. Nobody likes a quitter.

B430 wrote: People fulfill their sporting intentions because that is what is available. I don't think anyone has ever said "I wanted a 240sx, but bought an integra because it's fwd"

But nobody who's bombed an Integra around a road course has ever said, "Man, I'd be having SO much more fun if this were a 240sx." The Integra is the more engaging car in every way that doesn't involve powerslides or burnouts, and it's faster to boot. Who DOESN'T have fun in an Integra? Communists, that's who.

That's why I don't understand people who refuse to consider FWD cars. I look at driving dynamics first, cost second, and the spec sheet somewhere on down the line. If a car is cheap, reliable, plentiful, and fun to drive, crossing it off your list because it makes the "wrong" wheels smoke in a burnout is just dumb.

In reply to steronz:

Thank you for making my point before me. Saves me some effort.

In reply to steronz:

I've never driven either the Integra or the 240sx. My question is: how is the steering of the Integra vs. the typical rwd car? Far more than the endless understeer, what turns me off of fwd and awd cars tends to be the dead, numb, or muted steering.

I've driven a few fwd cars with decent steering, but never one which seemed truly alive. On the other hand, old body-on-frame GM and Ford products aside, it's been rare that I've driven a rwd car with dead steering.

I've owned one awd car and a number of fwd cars, but most that have passed through my hands have been rwd, and that's had a lot to do with steering feel that makes it feel as though I'm actually driving, even if I'm tooling down a suburban residential street at 10 miles per hour.

Good handling at the limit pays off at the track, no doubt. Good steering pays off everywhere. (So does agility, which explains why I keep buying things with the engine behind the seats.)

I'll consider any fwd car, I guess, but the first thing I'd ask is, how does it feel at the wheel.

The best steering car I've ever driven was a 95 mirage base model. Light, responsive and that little E36 M3pile loved being flung through the corners, 90hp and 3spd auto or not.

I've actually yet to drive anything that put as big of a E36 M3eating grin on my face as that thing did. Stupid pine tree murdering it ruined all my fun.

steronz wrote:

B430 wrote: People fulfill their sporting intentions because that is what is available. I don't think anyone has ever said "I wanted a 240sx, but bought an integra because it's fwd"

But nobody who's bombed an Integra around a road course has ever said, "Man, I'd be having SO much more fun if this were a 240sx." The Integra is the more engaging car in every way that doesn't involve powerslides or burnouts, and it's faster to boot. Who DOESN'T have fun in an Integra? Communists, that's who. That's why I don't understand people who refuse to consider FWD cars. I look at driving dynamics first, cost second, and the spec sheet somewhere on down the line. If a car is cheap, reliable, plentiful, and fun to drive, crossing it off your list because it makes the "wrong" wheels smoke in a burnout is just dumb.

I guess I have been outed as Chairman Mao's retarded brother.

And actually, your point about having fun is dead wrong; I would be having A LOT more fun in the RWD even though I might be going a lot slower.Why do you think so many people restore old sportscars when it would be smarter to just buy better FWD modern cars. They are fun in a way that FWD can not be.

The good news is that I have about ten years ahead of me where I don't have to settle for FWD, hope y'all get this replacement for the twins thing sorted out by then cause I don't want to drive another FWD anything unless I have to, and I imagine the Frisbee and its Twin will go the way of all Japanese sports cars and bloat up.

Perhaps I should consider getting my order in now so as to avoid the rush and dealer gouging.

steronz wrote:

B430 wrote: People fulfill their sporting intentions because that is what is available. I don't think anyone has ever said "I wanted a 240sx, but bought an integra because it's fwd"

But nobody who's bombed an Integra around a road course has ever said, "Man, I'd be having SO much more fun if this were a 240sx." The Integra is the more engaging car in every way that doesn't involve powerslides or burnouts, and it's faster to boot. Who DOESN'T have fun in an Integra? Communists, that's who. That's why I don't understand people who refuse to consider FWD cars. I look at driving dynamics first, cost second, and the spec sheet somewhere on down the line. If a car is cheap, reliable, plentiful, and fun to drive, crossing it off your list because it makes the "wrong" wheels smoke in a burnout is just dumb.

My '90 Integra RS that I had modded for track (weight down to ~2300lbs, F/R weight balance shifted more towards 65/35, battery weight reduced by 1/2 and location dropped and moved forwards to sit on front crossmember, 8lb racing flywheel, 949 15x8 UL6 wheels with 225/45-15 Nitto NT-01 tires, power steering devalved/depowered/drained and sealed, rear trailing arm bushings windo-welded to get the rear end to come around quicker) was fun autocrossing and on track. I knew it was going to be fun when the first time autocrossing after most of the mods I was having trouble blowing gates because it would turn in way too much compared to what it did before...

But it's not as fast on track or nearly as fun as my stock FR-S (other than wheels/tires) ... mainly because of the better chassis balance and RWD nature of the FR-S. I would much rather drive the stock FR-S than modded G2 Integra in any circumstance... whether daily or on track, especially with the seats it has. The point of the FR-S is that stock its an incredible handling and communicative machine, more so than a seriously modded G2 Integra can be. I like the G2 integra's (I've owned 3) and they really are one of the top handling FWD cars you can get. But stock they are not comparable at all to an FR-S...totally different level of car. They are closer when modded heavily for track use (not really street legal), but still are not quite comparable to a bone stock FR-S.