Car Talk 5: The Juice is Loose!

[wap]

That's legit
Thanks for posting the pics.

[MexicanYarisTK]

That's legit
Thanks for posting the pics.

Thanks! I took it to some twisties after my run. This thing just handles. Not even a hint of understeer. Review coming up sometime today. Don't sleep on these, they're very eager to accelerate

[troyguitar]

So I got some time freed up, went for a run again in the crack of dawn. Unpacked and all that jazz and I got super tired of the mitsu outlander (its god fucking awful to drive) that I decided to fuck it and call to change it. Went to the airport rental on my "lunch break" and they said they had elantra available for me. Guy was like we have a kia forte, is the same engine, his words. There was also corolla and civic available, but went ahead and pulled the kia plunge. Got the paperwork exchanged and on my way. Except he said the car is at this spot and there is no car there. But the license plate was listed, so I looked around and found it. But man kia really has come a long way, the car drives pretty good, feels good and tight.

The Forte GT is a solid car. Still needs a hatch but is otherwise a good value. Looks almost exactly like a Stinger too.

[MexicanYarisTK]

So I got some time freed up, went for a run again in the crack of dawn. Unpacked and all that jazz and I got super tired of the mitsu outlander (its god fucking awful to drive) that I decided to fuck it and call to change it. Went to the airport rental on my "lunch break" and they said they had elantra available for me. Guy was like we have a kia forte, is the same engine, his words. There was also corolla and civic available, but went ahead and pulled the kia plunge. Got the paperwork exchanged and on my way. Except he said the car is at this spot and there is no car there. But the license plate was listed, so I looked around and found it. But man kia really has come a long way, the car drives pretty good, feels good and tight.

The Forte GT is a solid car. Still needs a hatch but is otherwise a good value. Looks almost exactly like a Stinger too.

Its seriously slept on underrated. If I were to drive blindfolded, I would not even think of a modern japanese or korean car. Feels kinda better than my gti as well, except for the of course. I wouldn't mind autocrossing it.

Mitsubishi on the other hand (the one i had earlier), are pretty much like 90's hyundai's and kia's

[RLWake]

That's legit
Thanks for posting the pics.

Thanks! I took it to some twisties after my run. This thing just handles. Not even a hint of understeer. Review coming up sometime today. Don't sleep on these, they're very eager to accelerate

Yeah they really seem like great cars. It’s crazy that you can get all the features like cooled seats and active cruise with a nice turbo 4 and dual clutch for like 27 out the door…

[Desertbreh]

Everybody gets the 10 speed in the new IRS Tahoes.

Nice! Yeah, the plan was to eventually use it in everything. Any word on any gas mileage improvements switching to the 10speed?

I have a buddy who bought the new one. I will report back.

[Desertbreh]

Pop-up headlights

Like I said, the C6 is better in every way.

THANK YOU.

[Desertbreh]

If I can un-shitbox the C5 interior enough… I could go for something like that. Everything just felt so… intuitive. Right. Easy. Like… “well yes, this is how a proper grand touring sports car should be!”

Dude, just wait out the madness and bypass the C5/C6 and get a reasonably modern car in the C7. The only versions of those cars are worth getting are a Z06/ZR1 or manual GS. The C5 interior is seppuku.

[troyguitar]

If I can un-shitbox the C5 interior enough… I could go for something like that. Everything just felt so… intuitive. Right. Easy. Like… “well yes, this is how a proper grand touring sports car should be!”

Dude, just wait out the madness and bypass the C5/C6 and get a reasonably modern car in the C7. The only versions of those cars are worth getting are a Z06/ZR1 or manual GS. The C5 interior is seppuku.

I don't know about that. Depending on prices, I'm still a big fan of the C6 Z51. That's coming from having some time in every flavor of NA C5, C6, and C7. The C7 competition seats are the only real upgrade from a C5/C6.

[RLWake]

Nah, I'm not gonna go after a vette. I went and drove my buddy's 2020 BRZ today and I was quite impressed. Given that the new GR86 is supposedly better in every way... I think I'm gonna go with that.

I'm hopefully gonna get a phone call tomorrow morning saying I have a job offer... and if so, I think I'll go ahead with putting down a deposit.

Which one of you guys was it that has the hookup for an early allocation at MSRP?

[RLWake]

I do need to drive one... a buddy of mine has a 2020 BRZ so I might ask to drive his to get an idea. I'm annoyed about availability in all of these. Who knows if I could get my hands on one of those or a new GLI in a good spec in any reasonable time frame. I want to minimize time dealing with

If you want to take delivery from [user not found]'s back yard again, I can get you the number 2 spot on the list behind me at MSRP.

Ah yes. Had to read back a bit.

I'll send you a DM if I move forward with this.

[wap]

[D Griff]

Pop-up headlights

Bruh they aren't worth it.

They are cool and fun for sure, but they break on every single car... Meh.

re: unshitboxing the C5 interior... , it is what it is. Are they ugly? 100% Are the quality standards meticulous? 100% NO.

That said, they are actually really durable and functional. I think my 18 year old C5 with 120K mile interior was actually in better condition than my seven year old, 42K mile BMW that has been taken care of really well. If you can't live with the look of the C5 interior, just move on to another car. If you can, it's not as bad as you think and you won't care once you're driving it.

[D Griff]

Dude, just wait out the madness and bypass the C5/C6 and get a reasonably modern car in the C7. The only versions of those cars are worth getting are a Z06/ZR1 or manual GS. The C5 interior is seppuku.

I don't know about that. Depending on prices, I'm still a big fan of the C6 Z51. That's coming from having some time in every flavor of NA C5, C6, and C7. The C7 competition seats are the only real upgrade from a C5/C6.

I haven't been in a C7, but I hear they are also way smaller inside, I would be as comfy in a helmet.

I am kind of mixed if I get a Corvette again. Newer is better for reliability and the C7 interior is , but I think they are ugly. C6 widebody is

[D Griff]

It's also almost a 40 year design. Things have changed a lot.

Exactly. So, having a vehicle handle well with a hatch shouldn't be a challenge.

I think it has to do with all of the stats lovers... every gen needs to be XX% stiffer and all of that. Sure, they could make it a hatch and it could still be way stiffer than a 944, but it would be less stiff than it is today.

Would it actually matter? I doubt it, the practicality would be worth it, but stats sell or at least manufacturers seem to think that way.

[Huckleberry]

Exactly. So, having a vehicle handle well with a hatch shouldn't be a challenge.

I think it has to do with all of the stats lovers... every gen needs to be XX% stiffer and all of that. Sure, they could make it a hatch and it could still be way stiffer than a 944, but it would be less stiff than it is today.

Would it actually matter? I doubt it, the practicality would be worth it, but stats sell or at least manufacturers seem to think that way.

This whole stiffness stat is rather perplexing to me since stiffness doesn't have a direct correlation with handling. Just ask anyone who replaced every bushing with solid aluminum/Delrin, set their coilovers to full stiff, and then still couldn't keep up with a stock GTI. I'd think that lap times and other similar stats would be more important than a stiffness percentage. Of course, there will always be people like this clown who will add hundreds of pounds of metal to an SN95 in the name of stiffness:

[MrH42]

There are crash standards, NVH, etc kind of expectations customers have now. I don't think a 40 year old 944 would sell

Granted, I don't think I have driven a 944, but I'm guessing it would get trounced by something like a new 86.

The new 86 has the same HP rating as a 944 TURBRO did. And that thing was at the time. So you're right, a new 86 would probably keep up with a TURBRO and trounce a base 944.

I loved my 944 turbo, I bet I'd love a new 86. Too bad (good?) I don't need another car.

There are crash standards, NVH, etc kind of expectations customers have now. I don't think a 40 year old 944 would sell

Granted, I don't think I have driven a 944, but I'm guessing it would get trounced by something like a new 86.

What I'm saying is that 40 years ago, Porsche was able to develop a parts bin car that handled very well with an incorporated hatch. I'd like to think that improvements in manufacturing and engineering over that time would allow for the same feat to be done again on something like the 86. These are niche vehicles already that you know are going to have lower sales volumes than the other models, so to me, it would make sense to try to make the vehicle as single car-friendly as possible. Including a hatch is a great way of doing that.

The 944, in base trim, debuted in 1983 with a starting price of $18,980. That's $52k in today's money. So yes, while it was a parts bin car, you're looking at something that's 70% more than a BRZ in cost.

I agree, it's a niche vehicle. It doesn't make sense to me to add weight, cost, and rigidity for a hair more practicality. If it added 200 lbs, a substantial rigidity loss, and cost $1,500 more, would that be worth it to you? The whole purpose of the 86/BRZ is cheap, good driving dynamics. Straying away from that for a handful of buyers just seems like a recipe for disaster.

I think if the handling and driving dynamic bar was that of a base 944 from 40 years ago, no one would buy the thing at all. If it doesn't handle exceptionally well, it's dead.

[MrH42]

Nah, I'm not gonna go after a vette. I went and drove my buddy's 2020 BRZ today and I was quite impressed. Given that the new GR86 is supposedly better in every way... I think I'm gonna go with that.

I'm hopefully gonna get a phone call tomorrow morning saying I have a job offer... and if so, I think I'll go ahead with putting down a deposit.

Which one of you guys was it that has the hookup for an early allocation at MSRP?

My dealer has committed to giving me Subaru VIP pricing if I order one (it's like Subaru's supplier discount kind of thing). But they would sell you one at MSRP I'm sure, if not lower, without it. Let me know if you need more info.

[ChrisoftheNorth]

I think it has to do with all of the stats lovers... every gen needs to be XX% stiffer and all of that. Sure, they could make it a hatch and it could still be way stiffer than a 944, but it would be less stiff than it is today.

Would it actually matter? I doubt it, the practicality would be worth it, but stats sell or at least manufacturers seem to think that way.

This whole stiffness stat is rather perplexing to me since stiffness doesn't have a direct correlation with handling. Just ask anyone who replaced every bushing with solid aluminum/Delrin, set their coilovers to full stiff, and then still couldn't keep up with a stock GTI. I'd think that lap times and other similar stats would be more important than a stiffness percentage. Of course, there will always be people like this clown who will add hundreds of pounds of metal to an SN95 in the name of stiffness:

Absolutely this. But most of OEM marketing people are idiots that DGAF about cars, same with a surprising amount of the media. So XX% increase in rigidity sounds 5/7 to idiots.

One of the last things I did at Stellanus was obtain a rigidity improvement stat for the new Grand Cherokee. The head of the brand was adamant that we publish it because they spent billions on a new platform and got no statistical improvement out of it. I countered that nobody cared and it was a worthless statistic, but it didn't matter. So much stupidity.

[MrH42]

I think you guys are missing the point of chassis rigidity. It's totally different than suspension stiffness or bushing stiffness. It's not about a number you can brag about, because you're right. No one cares or understands it.

It enables everything else. That's the benefit of it. With a stiff chassis, you can make the suspension more compliant and get better handling out of it. You get better NVH. It allows for more precise placement and control of wheels. It's a big contributor in how the car feels and drives. Chassis rigidity itself isn't the end game.

[Huckleberry]

The new 86 has the same HP rating as a 944 TURBRO did. And that thing was at the time. So you're right, a new 86 would probably keep up with a TURBRO and trounce a base 944.

I loved my 944 turbo, I bet I'd love a new 86. Too bad (good?) I don't need another car.

What I'm saying is that 40 years ago, Porsche was able to develop a parts bin car that handled very well with an incorporated hatch. I'd like to think that improvements in manufacturing and engineering over that time would allow for the same feat to be done again on something like the 86. These are niche vehicles already that you know are going to have lower sales volumes than the other models, so to me, it would make sense to try to make the vehicle as single car-friendly as possible. Including a hatch is a great way of doing that.

The 944, in base trim, debuted in 1983 with a starting price of $18,980. That's $52k in today's money. So yes, while it was a parts bin car, you're looking at something that's 70% more than a BRZ in cost.

I agree, it's a niche vehicle. It doesn't make sense to me to add weight, cost, and rigidity for a hair more practicality. If it added 200 lbs, a substantial rigidity loss, and cost $1,500 more, would that be worth it to you? The whole purpose of the 86/BRZ is cheap, good driving dynamics. Straying away from that for a handful of buyers just seems like a recipe for disaster.

I think if the handling and driving dynamic bar was that of a base 944 from 40 years ago, no one would buy the thing at all. If it doesn't handle exceptionally well, it's dead.

I don't think that a hatch along the design of the Stinger or TC would add a ton of weight, and I honestly don't think it would lose a whole bunch of rigidity in the process. I think having the hatch, at the price point the GR86 is at, would add practicality and steal sales from GTIs, Velosters, and the like. I had actually looked at the FRS and BRZ when I was trying to dump my Cruze back in 2014. The small trunk opening was one of the main reasons I wrote it off.

I also just listed the 944 as an example of a well-handling car with a hatch. We could discuss the 240SX, which looks to be adjusted for inflation at the $29,500 mark starting price, and came in both coupe and hatch form. It's another chassis that is known to handle better than most.

[D Griff]

The 944, in base trim, debuted in 1983 with a starting price of $18,980. That's $52k in today's money. So yes, while it was a parts bin car, you're looking at something that's 70% more than a BRZ in cost.

I agree, it's a niche vehicle. It doesn't make sense to me to add weight, cost, and rigidity for a hair more practicality. If it added 200 lbs, a substantial rigidity loss, and cost $1,500 more, would that be worth it to you? The whole purpose of the 86/BRZ is cheap, good driving dynamics. Straying away from that for a handful of buyers just seems like a recipe for disaster.

I think if the handling and driving dynamic bar was that of a base 944 from 40 years ago, no one would buy the thing at all. If it doesn't handle exceptionally well, it's dead.

I don't think that a hatch along the design of the Stinger or TC would add a ton of weight, and I honestly don't think it would lose a whole bunch of rigidity in the process. I think having the hatch, at the price point the GR86 is at, would add practicality and steal sales from GTIs, Velosters, and the like. I had actually looked at the FRS and BRZ when I was trying to dump my Cruze back in 2014. The small trunk opening was one of the main reasons I wrote it off.

I also just listed the 944 as an example of a well-handling car with a hatch. We could discuss the 240SX, which looks to be adjusted for inflation at the $29,500 mark starting price, and came in both coupe and hatch form. It's another chassis that is known to handle better than most.

Celica, Integra, Mustang, Camaro... it's a long list. I don't think anyone disagrees with any of this, it's just the matter of manufacturers concerning themselves with stats. I would be curious if Mustang coupe versus hatch, 240 coupe versus hatch, etc. have any meaningful difference in performance, stats, or feel.

[MrH42]

If you're designing the car for both a hatch and coupe, you've already made compromises in the coupe design.

[ChrisoftheNorth]

If you're designing the car for both a hatch and coupe, you've already made compromises in the coupe design.

Exactly. The only tangible difference between a coupe and hatch sports car would be weight. And there's benefits of the lower weight, but overall performance probably won't be that different.

[troyguitar]

I don't think that a hatch along the design of the Stinger or TC would add a ton of weight, and I honestly don't think it would lose a whole bunch of rigidity in the process. I think having the hatch, at the price point the GR86 is at, would add practicality and steal sales from GTIs, Velosters, and the like. I had actually looked at the FRS and BRZ when I was trying to dump my Cruze back in 2014. The small trunk opening was one of the main reasons I wrote it off.

I also just listed the 944 as an example of a well-handling car with a hatch. We could discuss the 240SX, which looks to be adjusted for inflation at the $29,500 mark starting price, and came in both coupe and hatch form. It's another chassis that is known to handle better than most.

Celica, Integra, Mustang, Camaro... it's a long list. I don't think anyone disagrees with any of this, it's just the matter of manufacturers concerning themselves with stats. I would be curious if Mustang coupe versus hatch, 240 coupe versus hatch, etc. have any meaningful difference in performance, stats, or feel.

Nerds wanting the notchback (coupe) Mustang over the hatch in the 80s started this shit. It was good for a couple of hundredths of a second in the quarter mile, therefore necessary.