Who else would like to see a review like this?

[300bhp/ton]

A group test, either a video or written article (or both ).


The test should include some timed tests:

0-60mph
0-100mph
20-80mph trough the gears
5-60mph
1/4 trap and ET
Timed rolling start hot lap of 'x' circuit
Max cornering G
Average cornering G over a figure of 8 course


Some objective and subjective reviews of how the cars feel and drive in comparison to each other, along with running costs and amenities, etc etc.

The cars:



Toyota GT86/Subaru BRZ

Mazda RX-8 R3

Toyota MR2 2.0 GT (168hp) MK2

Nissan 200SX (s13)

Nissan 370z




This mix of cars would show "similar" types of RWD fixed roof coupes available at different money but all trying to fulfil a similar market niche. Ok the MR2 is a two seater and M/R, but it was also Toyota's last mass market RWD coupe, so I think is worth comparing.


Can we interest PH central or any of the car mags with this idea?

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Monday 23 July 15:07

[10 Pence Short]

You mean Best Motoring, but without the bias...

[irocfan]

sounds a cracking idea...

[DanDC5]

10 Pence Short said:

You mean Best Motoring, but without the bias...

There's only bias if some of the cars aren't jap

[Captain Muppet]

300bhp/ton said:

Toyota GT86/Subaru BRZ

Mazda RX-8 R3

Toyota MR2 2.0 GT (168hp) MK2

Nissan 200SX (s13)

Nissan 370z

Needs an E30 M3 in the test, and maybe an S15 Silvia as the last of the previous generation of 4 cylinder RWD Japanese coupes. Or an ITR to annoy the RWD vs FWD crowd.

Can't see the point of the MR2 as it's conceptually too far from the others.

Also if I were doing the test I'd replace the RX8 with an FD, because my definition of "coupe" includes only one door per side (and no amount of logic will make me view it in any other way).

[kambites]

If you must have performance numbers, I'd rather see things that I actually use fairly frequently like 40-70 through the gears. Add in actual achieved fuel economy during various test routes and weight of the cars as tested.

Ultimately though, I think magazines focus too much on numbers. The only bit which really matters to me when buying a road car is the subjective bit.

[300bhp/ton]

Captain Muppet said:

Needs an E30 M3 in the test

Nope, hugely expensive when new, not RHD and not UK market. Also not many of them. Just can't see the comparison.

Captain Muppet said:

and maybe an S15 Silvia as the last of the previous generation of 4 cylinder RWD Japanese coupes.

I did think this, but again the non UK market thing crushed it as a viable option for comparison I think. S14 is ok, but a bit soft, hence why I think the s13 would be a good/interesting car to see side by side. Also the price of a good s13 is about the same as a deposit for a GT86, so it could represent two options to any potential buyer. Stump up your cash and buy outright, or place a deposit and have a monthly payment.

Captain Muppet said:

Or an ITR to annoy the RWD vs FWD crowd.

I think that would be a separate comparison. DC5 vs Clio200 vs GT86 maybe

Captain Muppet said:

Can't see the point of the MR2 as it's conceptually too far from the others.

Only if you are being difficult

Seriously who says you have to want 4 seats to buy a 2+2? The MR2 is "similar" weight and speed. And I personally would find it interesting to see how much better/worse the GT86 is as a drivers car given the period of time between the two. I certainly think in the UK it has more relevance the AE86 does if you want to do a new vs old Toyota coupe shoot out.

Captain Muppet said:

Also if I were doing the test I'd replace the RX8 with an FD, because my definition of "coupe" includes only one door per side (and no amount of logic will make me view it in any other way).

That's your choice. But an RX-7 is vastly older and quite a different car. The RX-8 is still fairly new, especially in R3 guise.

e.g. £9k will get you a 2009 one, it might still have warranty on it. So it's a "new" car still in many ways. And aims very much at many of the core principles of the GT86. The only real difference is mpg, but you do have a £16k+ saving on purchase price.

I'd love to know how they compare on track, in the corners, feel, drifting and directly against the clock.

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

If you must have performance numbers, I'd rather see things that I actually use fairly frequently like 40-70 through the gears. Add in actual achieved fuel economy during various test routes and weight of the cars as tested.

Brilliant points I'll amend the OP.

kambites said:

Ultimately though, I think magazines focus too much on numbers. The only bit which really matters to me when buying a road car is the subjective bit.

I think magazines don't concentrate enough on stats, all they do is produce/publish a miss mash of meaningless ones. I think broader coverage of a cars ability would be great to see.

Subjective is good, but each person will have different views.

[SWoll]

300bhp/ton said:

I think magazines don't concentrate enough on stats, all they do is produce/publish a miss mash of meaningless ones. I think broader coverage of a cars ability would be great to see.

Subjective is good, but each person will have different views.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't EVO do all of the above and more when doing a full review of a car?

[kambites]

300bhp/ton said:

Subjective is good, but each person will have different views.

And this is why reviews are largely useless to me. The only things I care about in a car are almost entirely subjective.

The numbers are interesting at an intellectual level, but that's all to me.

Edited by kambites on Monday 23 July 15:15

[300bhp/ton]

SWoll said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't EVO do all of the above and more when doing a full review of a car?

If they do they certainly don't publish them on their website. The articles I've read on there are always mixing up 0-60mph and 0-62mph stats, even with in the same article, so they are totally useless as a comparison tool.

They also don't seem to list anything more than those stats either. Motor Trend and to an extent Car & Driver usually do some pretty comprehensive stats, but I don't recall many/any UK publications really offering anything all that useful.

[kambites]

In fact, if they're going to publish any performance figures, why not just publish a full peak acceleration graph from zero up to something like 100? From that, you can work out any of the other straight-line figures that you want.

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

In fact, if they're going to publish any performance figures, why not just publish a full peak acceleration graph from zero up to something like 100? From that, you can work out any of the other straight-line figures that you want.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd personally love that. In fact I'd go so far to say if a mag consistently produced good data I'd happily subscribe monthly.

I would like to see some rolling start acceleration times though, as for road use I think they are far more useful. Rarely on a public road can you pull off a perfect launch, but frequently you get the opportunity to go WOT off round abouts and out of junctions.

[RobCrezz]

DanDC5 said:

10 Pence Short said:

You mean Best Motoring, but without the bias...

There's only bias if some of the cars aren't jap

Yeah Best motoring does have a bit of bias towards JDM cars, but its one of the best car shows IMO. I love how they test the cars (and tuned cars) with the battles at Tsukuba and other tracks and also the Touge battles.

[SWoll]

300bhp/ton said:

SWoll said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't EVO do all of the above and more when doing a full review of a car?

If they do they certainly don't publish them on their website. The articles I've read on there are always mixing up 0-60mph and 0-62mph stats, even with in the same article, so they are totally useless as a comparison tool.

They also don't seem to list anything more than those stats either. Motor Trend and to an extent Car & Driver usually do some pretty comprehensive stats, but I don't recall many/any UK publications really offering anything all that useful.

They always used to have a stato's paradise page which included a huge amount of detail. Will have a look later at home.

Not sure on the website, although TBH they always seem to be a bit light on content. Probably because they want to sell you the magazine I would have thought.

[300bhp/ton]

SWoll said:

They always used to have a stato's paradise page which included a huge amount of detail. Will have a look later at home.

Not sure on the website, although TBH they always seem to be a bit light on content. Probably because they want to sell you the magazine I would have thought.

Ta. I admit I can't recall the last time I bought a copy.

And I know stats don't make a car. But in reality I'm never ever going to get to drive a selection of cars under a controlled environment one after the other. And it'd be great to see how things have/haven't changed and improved over the years. And stats are a good way of showing some of the comparisons.

[DanDC5]

RobCrezz said:

DanDC5 said:

10 Pence Short said:

You mean Best Motoring, but without the bias...

There's only bias if some of the cars aren't jap

Yeah Best motoring does have a bit of bias towards JDM cars, but its one of the best car shows IMO. I love how they test the cars (and tuned cars) with the battles at Tsukuba and other tracks and also the Touge battles.

The Touge course seems to be quite a good test of a car to be fair, off camber corners tight hairpins and long sweeping bends, and the high speed dip as a ride test. I want to have a go on it.

[Captain Muppet]

300bhp/ton said:

Captain Muppet said:

Needs an E30 M3 in the test

Nope, hugely expensive when new, not RHD and not UK market. Also not many of them. Just can't see the comparison.

Same sort of purchase price now (though only one of them is going to depreciate), and as for the rest of it - would any of that be a problem with a Mustang?

As for the comparison: go drive them. One is supposed to be the best handling front engined 4 cylinder RWD car ever, and so is the other one. Find out which clique is right.

[300bhp/ton]

Captain Muppet said:

Same sort of purchase price now (though only one of them is going to depreciate)

That I can concede, although I still don't really see the comparison. If you want an e30 M3 you won't consider a GT86 as an alternative. If you want a GT86 but don't have the money you also are highly unlikely to consider the old BMW.

Captain Muppet said:

and as for the rest of it - would any of that be a problem with a Mustang?

Yes. And it's not included, despite the fact the BRZ/GT86 (F-RS) are pitched and priced against the V6 Mustang in the US market.

Captain Muppet said:

As for the comparison: go drive them.

Easier said than done. Do you have any of the vehicles listed that you'd happily let me rag and drive to the limits of my ability - all with no intention of buying?

I also don't have ready access to a race track, nor all the timing gear that'd I need to log stats.

[chevronb37]

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

In fact, if they're going to publish any performance figures, why not just publish a full peak acceleration graph from zero up to something like 100? From that, you can work out any of the other straight-line figures that you want.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd personally love that. In fact I'd go so far to say if a mag consistently produced good data I'd happily subscribe monthly.

I would like to see some rolling start acceleration times though, as for road use I think they are far more useful. Rarely on a public road can you pull off a perfect launch, but frequently you get the opportunity to go WOT off round abouts and out of junctions.

Fast Lane used to do that didn't they? I think Road & Track in the States tend to do a bit more of the numbers stuff. Personally I sit in the Kambites camp - my enjoyment of a car is so subjective that a journo's road test isn't of much interest beyond the superficial. I'd sooner figure out what I like myself with an introduction to the concept and basic specification from the journos.