im not that stuck up

Mustang not sti lol

Its your logic idiot. I never said the longer the better. Its proportional to power. Im posting from my phone and i'll quote what I want. You get the point.

I've made my point more than once. You just failed to realize it. I dont care that Pontiac was dissolved. Petty little insults like that show you have nothing technical to back up your pov.

what? forgive me for not putting a period...

any brz owner knows they can't take on a 5.0. A stock sti can't even do that in a straight.



Any idiot who thinks those cars are meant to go fast in a straight are idiots. any person trying to race one and show off after going faster is a bigger idiot. there's a 3 l difference in both cars... It's like punching 12 year old just because he was talking shit to you...

Subaru/Toyota even claim that there is a lack of power in the 2.0 and they stated that they are adding more power with the next gens but who knows what will happen. The compression ratios on the brz is nice though and the balance is really incomparable. It's flat out through all turns and body roll is near zip. I believe it hits around .95 on the lat gs which is pretty damn nice off the assembly line


/edit:

LOL at the guy who thinks that a shorter wheelbase in an FR car is better.
have you ever driven a viper before? now what about a vette? if you have the same power/tq/whateveryouwannacallit in both of these cars, you can tell that the vette is a better car for the typical driver to handle.

But in a general sense, a shorter wheel base allows for a tighter turn ONLY if you can maintain the grip. I mean the nurburgring times proves this case. but for the general public, you need a longer wheel base when you have more power. you can have superglue on your tires but if you're a fucking tard it won't even matter in the end if you don't know throttle control.

This post was edited by sicksynergy on Jan 1 2013 05:50am

marketing at its finest. if they hadnt related it to the old yotas. this thing would have been downed and shamed for being so sporty but no balls...but instead people defend the shit out of it.

Well since you dodged my reply twice now i guess you're done attempting your futile argument.

Is there any irony in someone who can throw out insults then get his panties in a twist when they get thrown back at him?
I think it's called punkassbitchness???
IDK I'm not a doctor so i won't speculate, kinda like you not being race engineer, but your mental retardation allows you to speculate anyhow.

Your black and white argument of ... Quote (FMX_89 @ Dec 27 2012 10:05am) The more power a car has the longer the wheelbase needs to be to keep it planted.... is wrong.
Tell me again how weight distribution plays no role.
Tell me again how tire surface area plays no role.
Tell me again how delivery of power to the wheels plays no role.
Tell me again how center of mass plays no role.
Tell me again how roll angular inertia plays no role.
Tell me again how aerodynamics plays no role.

Your formula is 1+1
The actual formula is outrageous in comparison.

It's ok to be wrong FMX, but you keep trying to climb back up on the sinking ship. You're just going to drown eventually.

This post was edited by Morphmcmanerson on Jan 1 2013 09:05am

I'm not dodging shit. I already answered that. All of those things are the variables I was talking about.


Guess what? What I said is still true. Quit trying to have a logical argument like a child. If we are talking about wheelbase, obviously all other things would have to be held constant or it's null and void. I thought that went without saying. Your argument is so flawed it's spectacular.


I'll try to break it down for you 1 more time. Say I have a BRZ. I add 200 horsepower to it. Nothing else has changed, I just added a significant amount of power. It is now going to be squirrely as fuck. Keeping the back end in line is going to be extremely hard. When it breaks loose, it's going to snap loose and spin out before you can catch it.

Yes you can say adding more grip and downforce while lowering the weight will help. It is only masking the issue though. If the wheelbase was longer it wouldn't need the extra downforce and grip to remain stable.


It's painfully obvious. Lets look at modern cars with really short wheelbases.


S2000 - 240hp
Miata - 130-160hp
BRZ - 197hp
SmartForTwo - 70hp
Fiat 500 - 160hp


The top 3 are all performance cars. They are intended to be fun little 2 seaters that have good handling, balance, and driver feedback. They accomplish those things. No one intended on them being fast. Thus, they were designed with short wheelbases and light weight. It gives them that "Zippy" feeling everybody loves. If you try to add a lot of power to any of them, you suddenly have a rollerskate on your hands. They were not supposed to have 450hp. They are not supposed to compete on full length road courses with much faster (and longer) cars. If they wanted to BRZ to have 500hp and compete with supercars it would be longer. Oh wait, that already exists. It's called the Corvette.

Longer isn't always better, but it has to have a wheelbase proportional to it's power level. I said that several pages ago. The point is still the same. Please oh great automotive genius, please explain how that simple statement is wrong and back it up with something technical instead of bashing my post like a broken record. You are trying to turn the attention away from your own naïveté. I know where I've been and where my experience has come from. You seem to have a personal vendetta against me. I hate that I pissed you off (not really) but arguing like this is futile. You are wrong. Just walk away.

Hey the answer I was looking for!!

I'm on my phone and its terrible at quoting anything.
I'll get back to you when I'm home.

I said the same shit i've been saying all along. You were too dumb to understand. Would you let this die now that you've accepted you are wrong?

hopefully he does im tired of reading his rage essays and talking around himself in circles.