[Red Bread]

Oh noes, Massa crashed a car in practice? Good, that's what it's for.

Pedro de la Rosa and Marc Gene aren't exactly fresh on the scene, bringing in Kobi seems like a reasonable risk for Fezza.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

You can keep making fun of my wife's car

I'm not! Just wanted to make it clear that it's a female oriented car. That's all.

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Your 1M isn't exactly a light car either

That's the only thing you said right.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

That's the only thing you said right.

So you won't even say the 1M is a good car? I guess I didn't realize you'd soured that much on it.

I really don't care if you've decided to see the X1 as a girly car. The 1er was that way too. Neither were my car, and neither were purchased with regard to how others felt about them. I only drive cars that look like male genitalia. The 4C may very well fit into that category.

[GoingTooFast]

I just love it... in the name of lightness and beauty :

[Tåst]

Only who thinks that 4C looks girls and hairdressers car? Lotus look ten times better and Kimi Raikkonen drives Lotus too.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Holander

Only who thinks that 4C looks girls and hairdressers car? Lotus look ten times better and Kimi Raikkonen drives Lotus too.

Personal preferences aside... the fact is to get in and out of a Lotus is TEN times more difficult than with the 4C... that's for sure!

BTW, as Jeremy Clarkson would say:

Now, Lotus is run by a company called DRB-Hicom. Which doesn't sound very romantic. The original Lotus Sevens are now made by an outfit whose F1 car turns up at the track every other weekend to come last. And then there's the actual Lotus F1 car which isn't a Lotus at all.

[GoingTooFast]

This guy owns a Honda S2000 CR and claims the Toyobaru is faster than his S2000 with equal modds. So, nothing to be surprised about there. (You can read it here: http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/9701.../page__st__125)

However, what I would like to call your attention to which is just one more reason that leads me to insist on the CRUCIAL importance of having a diesel lightweight true sports car - the Toyobaru could very well be that car with a boxer diesel engine - is how the Toyobaru's engine, 13-years younger and equipped with Toyota latest D-4s direct fuel injection technology (explained in the vid below), which is the industry trend for modern petrol engines (except for the port injector), «runs through more gas than the S2k on the track. About 60-70% more» based on his observations. Mind you, we are talking about stock engines and similar car weights here!!!

This is a huge, HUGE difference and just proves my point... when you drive hard like you suppose to with a true driver's car NOTHING CAN BEAT A DIESEL engine AND in terms of fuel-efficiency even a modern-day petrol engine can perform considerably worse than a 13-years older, 40 hp more powerful, slightly bigger (2157cc or 132 cu in) and 8200 rpm capable engine when they are both revved hard.

Only when cruising and street driving you can get the direct petrol injection fuel-efficiency advantage over past petrol engines while with a diesel engine not only you get even a greater advantage on such conditions but also in EVERY way possible.

Here's my experience in my (heavy) s2k vs the CSG BRZ. I'd put myself at a solid 5 out of 10 for driver skill. I'm neither the fastest nor slowest driver around, just a junkie with a lot to learn.

S2k setup:
08 S2000 CR
Lightweight battery (-18 lbs)
Ti exhaust (-55 lbs)
Tein SRC (CSG spec)
Misc brake pads (Typically either XP12 or Club Racers, but I'll use whatever is around)
255/40/17 RS3 on 17x8.5 (I really REALLY wish my rims were wider...)
Brake ducting
ACT clutch and 8lb flywheel.
Recaro SPG (driver's side only)
Total weight with me in the car and 1/4 tank is about 2920 lbs.

CSG BRZ setup:
2013 BRZ Premium
225/45/17 RS3 on 17x8 RPF1
Tein SRCs (Custom valving is in the works... but not on the car yet)
Essex AP Racing BBK
Berk axleback prototype
Total weight with me in the car: 2850 (2770 base - 5 rpf1 - 45 quarter tank - 10 SRCS - 20 BBK + 160 driver)

Consumable use rates:
Tires: ~6 track days to the cord on the S2k, ~4 track days to the cord on the BRZ. The BRZ uses tires more efficiently, and also wears the front/rear almost perfectly evenly (with the SRCs). The S2k uses rear tire much faster, and the 6 days is with constant rotation of the tires to even out the wear. Both cars are driven with maximum driving time in mind, rather than absolute fastest lap times; I'm on a really right budget, and CSG is probably 1/100th the size of Evasive. A day is typically 4 or 5 sessions, with an average of 2 out/in laps, 2 "cooldown" laps, and 2 "hot" laps. CA tracks are REALLY harsh on tire wear (except Laguna, Infineon, and Chuckwalla).

The BRZ heats up tires much faster, although this is probably the result of more efficient (therefore faster) warmup laps, and a smaller tire holding a similar amount of weight.

I'm pretty convinced that a larger front sway would make my s2k use tires more efficiently, but I don't know how much more front sway, so I haven't done any experimenting yet (and I don't have the funds to do so...). Alternatively I could use stiffer front springs, but I'd rather not mess with my damper settings since they're exactly how they should be... (every KW owner that rides in my car agrees that the ride quality is SIGNIFICANTLY better... working on a CSG spec SRC to achieve the same with the FRS/BRZ).

Brakes:
XP12 and Club Racers Fronts typically last me about 4 days on the s2k. I can probably run a few sessions on what's left, but I'd rather change before to prevent having to do it at the track. Rears last 2-3x longer than fronts; fronts have 2.5" brake ducting. Auto Club Speedway (ACS) and Laguna Seca will eat over 1/2 a set of pads in 4 sessions; both have HUGE braking zones. You already know my brake rotor woes with the S2k, but I tend to go through rotors slower with Club Racers and DTCs, since they have less surface heat.

The BRZ with stock calipers and XP10 looks to use brakes much slower. ACS used up about 40% of a set of fronts over ~60 laps, which is about 2x as many laps as a normal track day; we were driving at 86Fest, taking passengers and potential sponsors all day. The remaining 50% were used up over the course of 4 other track days. No ducting on the BRZ. Zero issues with rotor cracking over that set of XP10; we barely started getting microfractures, and they were so minimal that I wasn't concerned. The rotor would get too thin before cracking. Pads made no noise, as with properly bedded Carbotech pads on the S2k. Comparable results with a set of Project Mu Max900i. I got just a hint of fade at ACS with the XP10 if I did more than 3 laps back to back, whereas the Max900i had no fade even at the 5 lap mark; I would expect XP12 to not fade for 5 laps too.

The BRZ with the Essex "Sprint" kit slowed down brake wear tremendously. I'm in the process of finalizing my review for the kit. I didn't like the C300 that came with the kit (glazed em), and went straight to XP12. Currently at about 6 track days worth of driving with mixed tires (some r-comp, some RS3) and mixed tracks, and still have around 70% pad life left. Still no ducts, although we're planning on eventually getting some; it just isn't a priority at the moment compared to other product development and testing.

Gas:
The BRZ runs through more gas than the S2k on the track. About 60-70% more, based on my observations. Why? I don't know. This is only at hot lap pace though. For stuff like lead-follow, cruising, and street driving, the BRZ's MPG is better than the s2k. ~27mpg mixed vs ~22 mpg mixed. Sticky tires aren't good for MPG

Maintenance:
We run similar maintenance schedules on the BRZ to my S2k. S2k sees an oil, diff, and trans fluid change every 10k miles (yes, you read that right!). I also do a valve adjustment and replace the spark plugs every 10k. Rear wheel bearings seem to need replacement once a year; I do both as soon as I hear one; I've always caught it early enough that the hub isn't damaged. I don't run a oil-to-air oil cooler, just the factory oil-to-water. UOA suggests that all the fluids can go longer and don't experience any breakdown.

BRZ long term maintenance is unknown. However, we saw no evidence of abnormal wear per UOA with a 7500 mile interval on the engine oil. Diff and trans were changed at about 10k, also with no signs of abnormal wear. We haven't pulled plugs or done any extra maintenance, as we have nothing that changes the output of the engine.

Motul fluids all around (300V, Gear 300, Gear 300 LS).

Car Prep:
The S2k needs camber modifiers front/rear with stock suspension; front only with coilovers. Geometry correction is nice, but not necessary with lowering. Basically, all you need to efficiently run a s2k is a front camber modifier, pads, fluids, and ducting.

The BRZ only has toe adjustment f/r. You'll need camber plates in the front for caster/camber (crash bolts are a band-aid fix that won't be enough for serious tracking), and camber arms in the rear (unless you're okay with adjusting camber via height, which was good enough for us). Brake pads, fluids are requisite as usual. Duction is nice, but optional.

Conclusion:
Tire cost on the BRZ is lower, but you go through them faster. BRZ needs mods to keep up with the S2k, so initial investment is higher (although you can wait for the mods...). Maintenance, hopefully, is roughly the same.

The BRZ/FRS requires a different driving style from the S2k, but should be a very easy transition. While both cars are "fast in fast out" type cars, the BRZ rewards braking earlier more, since you can't just crank the steering anytime you want the car to turn as you can with a square tire s2k. The terminal cornering speed of the BRZ is higher than the S2k, stock for stock. Aero vs aero is TBD... putting a full voltex s2k against a APR BRZ wouldn't be fair now. I think. Andrew Brilliant has been toying with aero on a BRZ model

[GoingTooFast]

So, without a diesel engine option there's only one solution for both fuel-efficiency and performance, to go to an even higher extreme towards lightness... I 4C A LEGEND!

[GoingTooFast]

And, for those of you dismissing cars just because they don't have a clutch pedal... please, think twice because this eight-speed ZF 8HP automatic combined with the lighter M135i (1520 kg vs 1570 kg) just proves you wrong ... LESS POWER, BETTER FUEL CONSUMPTION, BETTER EMISSIONS, LOWER PRICE TAG and yet:

[Red Bread]

A Viper left in third gear would walk away from either. What's your point?

Some of us like clutches. I shave with a straight razor. I use a fountain pen and mechanical watches. I know computers can shift for me, be quicker and get better mileage, but I prefer to have the option of screwing that all up myself.

[BoostedTerp]

Someone please lock this abortion of a thread.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Some of us like clutches. I shave with a straight razor. I use a fountain pen and mechanical watches. I know computers can shift for me, be quicker and get better mileage, but I prefer to have the option of screwing that all up myself.

Yes, yes... and yet you not only drive a X1 but an automatic X1 with 6-speed STEPTRONIC automatic transmission and Adaptive Transmission Control (ATC). Most probably, even without the optional Sports leather steering wheel with paddle shifters. Who is the dolt, then?!

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Oh noes, Massa crashed a car in practice? Good, that's what it's for.

Maybe the problem for Massa is that his one-year contract extension with Ferrari is only valid until the end of the 2013 season.

[GoingTooFast]

This is probably the most sexy ass of the present car industry...

[GoingTooFast]

In this vid is possible to see how big and tall the 3 series coupe is next to the 4c:

[Soorena]

What was the thread title?

[GoingTooFast]

This is something I've been finding out... so, it's nothing of surprise just a cultural characteristic of different countries people... some deceive more than the others :


Car fuel efficiency falls further below EU makers' claims -study

* EU seeking to tighten testing, implement new CO2 goal

* German carmakers show greatest divergence

* Some EU member states play for time, flexibility

BRUSSELS, May 28 (Reuters) - The gap has widened between the fuel-efficiency that carmakers declare for their models and the reality for drivers, with luxury German vehicles showing the biggest divergence, a study has found.

The research by the non-profit International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found "real-world" carbon emissions for new cars based on fuel consumption are about 25 percent higher on average than carmakers say, compared with 10 percent a decade ago.

The findings will add to pressure for the reform of EU vehicle testing procedures to ensure that advertised fuel-efficiency values better reflect normal use. That in turn could make it harder for manufacturers to meet a new EU carbon dioxide (CO2) vehicle emissions target proposed for 2020.

BMW reported emissions figures for its vehicles on average 30 percent lower than those found in actual use, said the report, published on Tuesday. BMW was not immediately available to comment on the findings reported by the ICCT, which aims to improve efficiency in transportation to benefit public health and mitigate climate change.

Volkswagen AG's luxury unit Audi had the second widest disparity, with reported emissions some 28 percent below actual use, while Mercedes showed a gap of 26 percent.

Figures for emissions from Toyota vehicles were found to be about 15 percent less than in real use and Renault and PSA Peugeot Citroen's published data was about 16 percent lower than for vehicles on the road.

"This means that the actual fuel consumption experienced by the average driver is typically 25 percent higher than what is printed on the sales sticker," Peter Mock, managing director of ICCT Europe, said. That difference in fuel use costs drivers on average an extra 300 euros ($390) per year, said the report, which was based on data from nearly half a million private and company vehicles across Europe.

Previous research has shown how carmakers have perfected the art of lowering fuel use and thus emissions in laboratory tests, through measures such as using tyres with extra traction or unrealistically smooth driving surfaces. Driving habits vary, meaning there will always be a discrepancy and exploiting loopholes is not illegal. But the car industry agrees on the need for change. VDA, which represents the German industry, has said it is "working actively" on reform of the testing regime. The United Nations is leading a worldwide effort to update test procedures that date from the 1980s.

In parallel, the European Union is working on how to tighten EU law on vehicle testing and also to enforce a 2020 emissions goal of 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre (g/km) across the European Union. Legislators in the European Parliament have said a tougher testing procedure should be introduced by 2017, but some EU member governments have been seeking a delay until 2020. The 95 g/km target for new cars from 2020 has been broadly agreed. However, Germany has led calls for exceptions that campaigners say would seriously weaken enforcement of the goal.

Reality gap widens on car fuel efficiency claims in EU - study

But BMW questioned whether the research was representative.

“The number of vehicles per car maker that have been analysed varies considerably and is based on only a very small and subsequently less representative section of our customer base,” the car maker said in a statement.

The ICCT, which aims to improve efficiency in transportation to benefit public health and mitigate climate change, said its report was based on data from nearly half a million private and company vehicles across Europe.

From Laboratory to Road

Summary

Comparison of official and "real-world" fuel consumption and CO2 emission values for passenger cars in Europe and the United States, which shows that the average discrepancy between them rose from less than 10% in 2001 to 25% in 2011.


DOWNLOAD (PDF, 2.62MB)


Fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emission values for new cars in Europe are determined via the so-called type-approval process, which involves testing vehicles under laboratory conditions using the new european driving cycle (NEDC). The type-approval values are the basis for consumer information, CO2 regulation, and CO2-based vehicle taxation, and therefore ought to provide a reliable and stable indication of fuel consumption and emission levels observed under "real-world" conditions on the road.

This analysis, aggregating several large sets of on-road driving data from various European countries, shows that that expected correspondence between type-approval and real-world values is not as strong as it should be, and is getting progressively weaker. While the average discrepancy between type-approval and on-road CO2 emissions was below 10 percent in 2001, by 2011 it had increased to around 25 percent.

The observed increase of the gap is most likely due to a combination of factors:

• increasing application of technologies that show a higher benefit in type-approval tests than under real-world driving conditions (for example, start-stop technology)
• increasing use of ‘flexibilities’ (permitted variances) in the type-approval procedure (for example, during coast-down testing)
• external factors changing over time (for example, increased use of air conditioning)

The increase in the gap was especially pronounced after 2007–2008, when a number of European Union Member States switched to a CO2-based vehicle taxation system and a mandatory EU CO2 regulation for new cars was introduced.

The public policy implications are significant. The growing gap between reported efficiencies and actual driving experience halves the expected benefits of Europe’s passenger vehicle CO2 regulations. It creates a risk that consumers will lose faith in type-approval fuel consumption values, which in turn may undermine government efforts to encourage the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles through labeling and tax policy. For tax authorities, the gap between type-approval and real-world CO2 values translates into a gap between actual and potential revenues from vehicle taxes. And increasing discrepancies between type-approval and on-road CO2 emissions can result in a competitive disadvantage for some vehicle manufacturers, as it tilts the playing field.

[GoingTooFast]

If you think carefully about the above study results you'll easily realize that those figures get even worse when we are talking about driver's cars that you are supposed to drive hard.

The Toyobaru is such an example... thus, there's NO TRUE alternative to the diesel engines if car manufacturers want to TRULY comply with the 2020 emissions goal of 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre (g/km) across the European Union.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Soorena

What was the thread title?

And still is... «Subaru BRZ Concept STI - Amazing!!!»


The question is... Why is it amazing?


If you read the thread hopefully you'll find out if that claim is really true in comparison to what the rest of the car industry has to offer in the present and near future global economics context, mainly, in the driver's car departement.

However, this raises another question and an essential one... What is a true driver's car?


And, to help us to better understand what a driver's car truly is we can't lose sight of the motorsport scene and, naturally, of its pinnacle - F1.


Last but not the least, we have to try to realize to where the global economics context is leading the car industry and that poses to us another and definitive question... What is the best driver's car option?


So, this thread is just a mere attempt to find some of the answers to these three questions not necessarily in the following order:

• Why is it amazing?
• What is a true driver's car?
• What is the best driver's car option?

And, among all the car characteristics that can answer to these three questions at the same time there's ONE you definitely can't avoid no matter how hard you'll try - lightweight!



I really hope you can participate in that debate.

[Vigilante375]

WTF is going on in this thread? Someone who's jerking off about a lightweight car and puts Nico Rosberg at the top of the list over Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian, Jenson, Mark or Kimi?

Someone is going full retard and no one is stopping him.

If we're talking about the BRZ/FRS, it is a amazing little car but it's underpowered like a mofo. It's never going to have enough power from the factory to do anything other than some young punk kids being able to afford it and wreck it because they think it's the fastest thing in the world. It might be a drivers car but it's not going to be driven by this driver. Give it at least 300-330 hp and then I might consider it.

[GoingTooFast]

[GoingTooFast]