Well sure, the GR4 is Val Kilmer in Top Gun, the GRC is Val Kilmer 10 years later. Homologation special vs conventional hot hatch.I had the same reaction. I saw the GRY for the first time on my trip to Japan 2 years ago and it blew me away. Love that car. It looked extremely aggressive in person. Like a very bespoke car, which it is.
To me, the GRC is a huge disappointment in the looks department. It has too much Corolla hatch going on on the inside and outside, which I’m not a fan of.
In order of want, I would take:
GRY > CTR > … > GRC
Which is fine, to each their own. I like both types (lightweight and heavy/fast).I don't drive slow cars, weight doesn't matter to me. It can be heavy or light. Weight is just a Stat line.
I mean you can have you "feel" cars. Doesn't change the fact that they are slow in a straight line, on track etc.
You're so hung up on weight it's LOL. I'll take a turbo S over your s2k or miata anyday.
In all seriousness, if this is your stance, why do you want an FL5? Plenty of cars will be faster and can be had for probably the same money or less.I don't drive slow cars, weight doesn't matter to me. It can be heavy or light. Weight is just a Stat line.
I mean you can have you "feel" cars. Doesn't change the fact that they are slow in a straight line, on track etc.
You're so hung up on weight it's LOL. I'll take a turbo S over your s2k or miata anyday.
And who are you racing all the time?I on the other hand would prefer not to lose in a shitbox if possible haha.
I'm not buying the FL5 specifically for speed in this case. The scope is here JDM collectors car, potentially last ICE Honda Type R manual. This checks the box of "fast enough" for its intended purpose. Same with the GRC.That was a fun bout.
In all seriousness, if this is your stance, why do you want an FL5? Plenty of cars will be faster and can be had for probably the same money or less.
But isn't this just "fluffy shit" as well? Like, what gives it significance? For you, what's the difference between this "fluffy shit" (which matters) and other "fluffy shit" (that doesn't, like "feel")?The scope is here JDM collectors car, potentially last ICE Honda Type R manual.
Can u measure it with a KPI, or metric and be compared directly using a number or ratio that relates to an overall target?But isn't this just "fluffy shit" that you can't make measure as well? For you, what's the difference between this "fluffy shit" (which matters) and other "fluffy shit" (that doesn't, like "feel")?Is it because the former can be easily validated by others, but the latter cannot?
Ah, so you're saying that meaning/significance is intrinsic to any trait that can be quantified. Would you say that's true?"Feel" is a catch all for MAYBE G-force, rigidity etc. If those metrics although at Tier 1, end said car is#100 on ABC track with in XYZ segment, its a BS "fluffy" stat that is meaningless.
To a certain extent, that was the basis of the thought process. But not the entire sum of it.Ah, so you're saying that meaning/significance is intrinsic to any trait that can be quantified. Would you say that's true?
That's certainly an interesting worldview.
Can we talk about crypto investing next? or cooking recipes? I think we are running out of things to discuss at this point ROFL. I'm partially to blame for this.This forum is the equivalent of shipwrecked sailors on an island… and we’ve reached the part where some of the sailors have decided to eat one of their own… this damn car needs to come already.
I see where you're coming from, but even in this example, the "X is good despite Y" argument is an arbitrary thing to place value on. It's not untrue per se, but it's not necessarily inherently "good" or "valuable," because we must first define what "good" and "valuable" mean.A perfect example is the FK8 and what it achieved as an FWD platform as a segment leader (regardless of FWD, RWD or AWD) even against cars that SHOULD have bested it with its "flaws".
Yeah, then we can complain about getting gapped by mortgage-term Hellcats.This forum is the equivalent of shipwrecked sailors on an island… and we’ve reached the part where some of the sailors have decided to eat one of their own… this damn car needs to come already.
** clap clap clap ** lol I think the topic has run its courseI see where you're coming from, but even in this example, the "X is good despite Y" argument is an arbitrary thing to place value on. It's not untrue per se, but it's not necessarily inherently good or true.
To bring it back to cars, another example would be "the 13B-MSP is the most powerful naturally-aspirated mass-produced rotary engine." The statement is true, but, for a lot of practical purposes, it's still a garbage engine for a bunch of reasons. This fact doesn't have meaning or significance unless we arbitrarily choose to give it some, because, say, we're dorito enthusiasts. But even so, why would we be dorito enthusiasts? For that matter, if we're not, why do dorito enthusiasts exist at all?
At some point, even behind very measurable facts and figures, significance comes from something arbitrarily and necessarily nebulous. "Fluffy shit." The question of "what makes a good sports car?" doesn't have an objectively correct answer until we start attaching stipulations and context to it (e.g. "under $X?", "that I can buy new?", etc.). And of course, we attach these stipulations arbitrarily, based on our needs, means, purpose... And feelings.
Objectivity is a practical foundation for discourse, but we mustn't forget it's always built on shifting sands.
Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk.
I compare the sport touring to Mercedes c class. Can’t be denied.Yeah, Mazda is in a different playing field fighting with Audi (ahead of BMW).