Question about aftermarket parts in general

[oohhh yeah]

Hi guys,

I've been pondering this for a while. Many sports cars have a variety of aftermarket to choose from. Let's take these two cars for arguments sake. The STi and the GTR (R35). GTR aftermarket costs substantially more than STi aftermarket. Makes sense, because the GTR costs three times the amount of the STi. The whole point of going aftermarket is because it's better than stock; or else nobody would go aftermarket. So, aftermarket parts for the GTR will be better than the stock GTR parts. Aftermarket parts for the STi will be better than the stock STi parts.

A nice coilover for the STi would the RaceCompEngineering's "yellows". They cost $2000~.

A nice coilover for the GTR would be the KW Clubsports. They cost $4000~.

An STi modded with the yellows' can't keep up with a stock GTR in the corners. Do you guys see what I'm getting at? Why is GTR aftermarket better than STi? I'm sure all the aftermarket manufacturers of parts for the STi (there are LOTS)can make extreme high performance products if they wanted to. Humanity has set foot on the moon. Modded STi's on the road can't keep up to a stock GTR. Now, is it because aftermarket manufacturers are holding back in order to reduce the price? Or is there limits on the car that I'm not seeing?

Another way to see the issue is, let's say I have money and I need to make the STi faster than the GTR around a track. Who/where would I purchase parts from that is capable of this?

Can't figure it out.

 

[Slash]

The whole point of going aftermarket is because it's better than stock

Not always. Sometimes it can be worse but cheaper.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Coilovers for a Miata can be had for $800 if you put together a ground control setup.

That car will be faster around a track than LOTS and LOTS of cars, and decent coilovers don't get too much cheaper than that.

Basically what I'm getting at is that it's not always more expensive and better. It depends on the car a lot. A GTR is, out of the box, more capable than a STI, so it's going to perform relatively better until you get into some serious modifications. Parts cost more because people will pay more, because obviously if someone can afford the car, they can afford the modifications.

For this reason I don't purchase a car like an E36 M3. It's a great car, and even though I could easily save for a bit and purchase one, I don't like the cost of modifications that comes with it. I don't have one because what I'd like to do with one would cost more money than I would be willing to spend.


EDIT: Also, it would take a LOT for an aftermarket coilover to be better than stock on a GTR. Some people buy them for the adjustability.

 

[Bopop4]

A GT-R is going to be faster than the Sti regardless.
If you spent 10k on truck suspension it wouldn't be as good as a GT-R with crayons for dampers.
It's not that the aftermarket is better than STi, it's just that the GT-R has so much of a headstart.

 

[oohhh yeah]

Not always. Sometimes it can be worse but cheaper.

If it's worse, but considered cheap compared to other aftermarket parts, then what is the point of downgrading? If stock is better, no point spending money for worse performance.

Coilovers for a Miata can be had for $800 if you put together a ground control setup.

That car will be faster around a track than LOTS and LOTS of cars, and decent coilovers don't get too much cheaper than that.

Basically what I'm getting at is that it's not always more expensive and better. It depends on the car a lot. A GTR is, out of the box, more capable than a STI, so it's going to perform relatively better until you get into some serious modifications. Parts cost more because people will pay more, because obviously if someone can afford the car, they can afford the modifications.

For this reason I don't purchase a car like an E36 M3. It's a great car, and even though I could easily save for a bit and purchase one, I don't like the cost of modifications that comes with it. I don't have one because what I'd like to do with one would cost more money than I would be willing to spend.


EDIT: Also, it would take a LOT for an aftermarket coilover to be better than stock on a GTR. Some people buy them for the adjustability.

Can you elaborate on a "ground control setup"?

So, you are saying that manufacturers raise up the price just because it is an expensive car? Is that it? There has to be differences in aftermarket for a GTR and for a STi. GTR aftermarket is higher performing than GTR stock parts. And STi aftermarket is higher performing than STi stock parts. What I'm saying is, why don't manufacturers just make parts of GTR caliber for the STi? Are they just holding back? Can some economics experts chime in on this?

Also, can you elaborate on your edit?

A GT-R is going to be faster than the Sti regardless.
If you spent 10k on truck suspension it wouldn't be as good as a GT-R with crayons for dampers.
It's not that the aftermarket is better than STi, it's just that the GT-R has so much of a headstart.

I understand out of the box the GTR is much higher performing. But, if you swap out the parts, then doesn't that negate what advantage the car has out of the box? I don't understand.

 

[hawkeye122]

The GTR is, dynamically, much better already. Better weight balance, chassis stiffness, 4wd system, etc.

Edit: If you swap out the suspension on a GTR, it still has a much faster Engine, better brakes, better gearbox...

 

[Punknoodle]

A car is more than the sum of its parts.

 

[speed junkie]

^There, in a nut shell, is the answer to your question.


EDIT:

It's also important to consider that key elements of cars cannot be changed with aftermarket parts.

Yup.

 

[Zenith]

It's also important to consider that key elements of cars cannot be changed with aftermarket parts. The STi has its components and chassis arranged in such a way that it has a higher center of gravity. The wheel wells aren't designed to take the same fat tires This goes for dozens of other aspects of each car.

Aftermarket parts often bring disadvantages as well. Stiffening braces add weight, etc.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

Don't forget, the price of research and development is added into the price, and its not cheap buying a GTR to build suspension parts for/on.

 

[CodeRedR51]

So, you are saying that manufacturers raise up the price just because it is an expensive car? Is that it?

Because I work at a shop that sells aftermarket parts and which also deals with high-end customers, I wondered this in the past and it's basically like this:

Most of the general public can afford an STi or similar $30k car, so Subaru sells quite a bit of them and that means there are more on the road. More cars on the road equals more parts being purchased. More parts being purchased, the cheaper they will be.

Now, more expensive cars like the GT-R won't sell as many cars, so aftermarket companies won't sell as many parts. Therefor they have to sell them at a much higher price to make up for the lack of sales.

Has nothing to do with one car being better than the other.

 

[Perfect Balance]

If it's worse, but considered cheap compared to other aftermarket parts, then what is the point of downgrading? If stock is better, no point spending money for worse performance.

A lot of people aren't looking for outright performance when they buy an aftermarket part. They may just be looking to reduce weight, lower the car, make it sound nicer, ect.

Can you elaborate on a "ground control setup"?

Ground Control is a company that makes coilover "conversion" kits using Eibach springs. Then you buy a damper suited to your needs and assemble them as a unit. For example, it's like building a turbo kit as opposed to buying one. Usually for the same amount of money you can put together a better performing unit than you can buy, assuming you know what you're doing.

GTR aftermarket is higher performing than GTR stock parts. And STi aftermarket is higher performing than STi stock parts.

I assume you don't have much experience or knowledge in the aftermarket parts world, but this is simply not true. Moton coilovers for a GTR are more or less the same as Moton Coilovers for an STI. Also, frequently people buy things the degrade performance simply because it makes the car look cooler, ect.

Also, can you elaborate on your edit?

A GTR is EXTREMELY well set up from the factory. Chances are buying some coilovers might have a more solid feel, but actual track performance numbers may suffer. Even in the case of buying some $6k Motons for the car or something, they have the potential to outperform a stock suspension, but setting it up properly to do so requires a lot of knowledge that most people don't have.

I understand out of the box the GTR is much higher performing. But, if you swap out the parts, then doesn't that negate what advantage the car has out of the box? I don't understand.

The GTR has a massive power, tire, and brake advantage out of the box. If the car had 300hp and was running some regular tires, an STI would likely keep up.

 

[Slash]

If it's worse, but considered cheap compared to other aftermarket parts, then what is the point of downgrading? If stock is better, no point spending money for worse performance.

Some people don't realise that it can be worse than stock and see it as a cheap alternative if something breaks.

 

[oohhh yeah]

The GTR is, dynamically, much better already. Better weight balance, chassis stiffness, 4wd system, etc.

Edit: If you swap out the suspension on a GTR, it still has a much faster Engine, better brakes, better gearbox...

Yeah, weight balance, chassis stiffness, you can't change that stuff. I was taking suspension as an example.

A car is more than the sum of its parts.

You mean weight balance, chassis stiffness?

It's also important to consider that key elements of cars cannot be changed with aftermarket parts. The STi has its components and chassis arranged in such a way that it has a higher center of gravity. The wheel wells aren't designed to take the same fat tires This goes for dozens of other aspects of each car.

Aftermarket parts often bring disadvantages as well. Stiffening braces add weight, etc.

Makes sense.👍

Don't forget, the price of research and development is added into the price, and its not cheap buying a GTR to build suspension parts for/on.

So, do you think R&D costs is higher on parts for the GTR?

Because I work at a shop that sells aftermarket parts and which also deals with high-end customers, I wondered this in the past and it's basically like this:

Most of the general public can afford an STi or similar $30k car, so Subaru sells quite a bit of them and that means there are more on the road. More cars on the road equals more parts being purchased. More parts being purchased, the cheaper they will be.

Now, more expensive cars like the GT-R won't sell as many cars, so aftermarket companies won't sell as many parts. Therefor they have to sell them at a much higher price to make up for the lack of sales.

Has nothing to do with one car being better than the other.

Ok, simple supply and demand. They have to make up for their development costs with higher prices.

A lot of people aren't looking for outright performance when they buy an aftermarket part. They may just be looking to reduce weight, lower the car, make it sound nicer, ect.

Ground Control is a company that makes coilover "conversion" kits using Eibach springs. Then you buy a damper suited to your needs and assemble them as a unit. For example, it's like building a turbo kit as opposed to buying one. Usually for the same amount of money you can put together a better performing unit than you can buy, assuming you know what you're doing.

I assume you don't have much experience or knowledge in the aftermarket parts world, but this is simply not true. Moton coilovers for a GTR are more or less the same as Moton Coilovers for an STI. Also, frequently people buy things the degrade performance simply because it makes the car look cooler, ect.

A GTR is EXTREMELY well set up from the factory. Chances are buying some coilovers might have a more solid feel, but actual track performance numbers may suffer. Even in the case of buying some $6k Motons for the car or something, they have the potential to outperform a stock suspension, but setting it up properly to do so requires a lot of knowledge that most people don't have.

The GTR has a massive power, tire, and brake advantage out of the box. If the car had 300hp and was running some regular tires, an STI would likely keep up.

Yeah...good point with the Moton coilovers. The main issue I made this thread is what you mention in your last answer (bolded). So, the Moton coilovers are just as good for the GTR and STi? I don't think anyone directly answered the question.

Bottom line is:
What I think you guys are saying is: STi aftermarket is just as good as GTR aftermarket. There are things that can't be swapped out, which is why the GTR is still a faster car when both are modded. The aftermarket for cheaper and more expensive cars are just as good. More expensive cars have more expensive aftermarket, because they sell less and need to make up for lower sales by higher prices in order not to lose money. Right?

So, the GTR would benefit less from aftermarket suspension, since its stock suspension is already good. But the STi would benefit a lot more, since its stock isn't that good.

Also...going aftermarket for suspension is just so you can fully adjust settings right? I don't see how they can make a suspension better than stock. The design is the same.

How about brakes? If I purchase new rotors and pads for each car, could the STi brake just as well as the GTR? The stock out of the box advantage of the GTR would be thrown out the window right?

 

[Perfect Balance]

Yeah, weight balance, chassis stiffness, you can't change that stuff.

Sure you can. Strut bars, roll cages, subframe braces, stitch welding all stiffen the chassis. Weight balance can be adjusted by doing things like removing a/c, relocating the battery, buying lighter body panels.

The rest of your post has a lot of issues as well, but I simply don't have the time right now to address them all.

BTW braking distance depends more on the tires than the brakes. Better brakes mainly increase modulation, endurance, stuff like that,

 

[savage388]

Yeah, weight balance, chassis stiffness, you can't change that stuff. I was taking suspension as an example.

You mean weight balance, chassis stiffness?

Makes sense.👍

So, do you think R&D costs is higher on parts for the GTR?

Ok, simple supply and demand. They have to make up for their development costs with higher prices.


Yeah...good point with the Moton coilovers. The main issue I made this thread is what you mention in your last answer (bolded). So, the Moton coilovers are just as good for the GTR and STi? I don't think anyone directly answered the question.

Bottom line is:
What I think you guys are saying is: STi aftermarket is just as good as GTR aftermarket. There are things that can't be swapped out, which is why the GTR is still a faster car when both are modded. The aftermarket for cheaper and more expensive cars are just as good. More expensive cars have more expensive aftermarket, because they sell less and need to make up for lower sales by higher prices in order not to lose money. Right?

So, the GTR would benefit less from aftermarket suspension, since its stock suspension is already good. But the STi would benefit a lot more, since its stock isn't that good.

Also...going aftermarket for suspension is just so you can fully adjust settings right? I don't see how they can make a suspension better than stock. The design is the same.

How about brakes? If I purchase new rotors and pads for each car, could the STi brake just as well as the GTR? The stock out of the box advantage of the GTR would be thrown out the window right?

Ok the reason that a modified sti can't keep up with a gtr is because of the platform its based on. The chassis, suspension and engine weren't designed with extreme performance levels in mind. Also the sti is still just an impreza after all no matter how much it's modified and that's a very low performance vehicle. In other words a sti has a performance "ceiling" because it wasn't designed for outright performance. On the other hand Nissan spent tons of money to maximize the performance of the gtr and give the platform itself high performance capabilities that there's that much more to improve upon as the car was designed with outright performance in mind.

 

[niky]

If I had the price difference between the GT-R and STI to spend on modifications, I could sure as hell get close to GT-R performance with the STI.

(And if I were allowed to cheat on the tires... within the budget... I could surpass it).

The big issue is the GT-R has so much more in terms of transmission, all-wheel drive and chassis, that an STI would have to be nearly completely rebuilt to match it. And even then, the budget won't stretch to the kind of transmission and aerodynamic upgrades needed to match what comes stock on the GT-R.

 

[Zenith]

Niky's Subaru would also give up lots as a result of the modifications. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I can't see into his head, of course. But things like engine modifications can change how the car runs during normal driving or affect reliability. Suspension mods will obviously make the car feel different over bumps. Stripping weight means saying goodbye to whatever benefit the weight offered. Grippy tires often wear more quickly or are downright dangerous in less than ideal conditions. You get the idea. Unless something in the design is just plain wrong (which extremely rare in modern cars), you're unlikely to get performance improvements without any repercussions.

Working off of a car that was created to do a specific job and then asking it to do something completely different than what it was designed to do is going to lead to big drawbacks and limitations.

It comes to a point (when modifying a road car) when the builder will ask himself "Why didn't I just build the thing from the ground up?"

If you really want to go as fast as possible for as little money as possible, look into cars like Radicals, Atoms, or something like a Formula Mazda track car.

 

[TheCracker]

It comes to a point (when modifying a road car) when the builder will ask himself "Why didn't I just build the thing from the ground up?"

If you really want to go as fast as possible for as little money as possible, look into cars like Radicals, Atoms, or something like a Formula Mazda track car.

Agreed. Spending vast amounts on a road car to make it quick on a track, is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The mods you make to be quick on track, will generally make it a worse road car - in most situations. The money you'd spend on uprated GT-R suspension would get you a modest used single seater, which would be quicker around a track than the modified GT-R anyway. So other than bragging rights, why bother investing that money into a car you'll use on track maybe 5% of the time, when the other 95% of the time your car is going to be compromised on the road?

The R35 GT-R (as opposed to previous generation 'Skyline' GT-R's) also benefits from being designed ground-up to be what it is. Where as an STi Impreza still shares it's basic chassis design with mom's cooking grocery getter.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Ok, simple supply and demand. They have to make up for their development costs with higher prices.

Exactly.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

So, do you think R&D costs is higher on parts for the GTR?

If you had to buy a car in order to use it for R&D, would it cost more to buy an STI or a GTR?

 

[Zenith]

If you had to buy a car in order to use it for R&D, would it cost more to buy an STI or a GTR?

This and the fruit of your efforts will be purchased by a much smaller group of buyers.

I'm going to engineer aftermarket suspension components for one of these cars...

The Subaru would be cheaper to start with and easier to improve.

The Nissan would be more expensive to start with and harder to improve. I'm going to spend more time testing and tinkering in order to beat the best work of Nissan. It's going to make development costs expensive.

Once I've done this I have to produce my product. The Subaru's new suspension could be less expensive. The Subaru could share components with previous designs I've made or are already in production. The components for the Nissan could be made from exotic material or completely proprietary to my company. The production costs are often more expensive.

Finally I have to sell it for a profit. There are far more Subaru owners than Nissan GTR owners. I'll be able to sell more of a more easily developed and produced product. In order to even come close to the profits I would see with the Subaru by making the GTR, I would need to dramatically increase prices. There are less potential customers for the GTR product.

Inevitably, the Subaru is a more popular market. There are lots of people who have experience driving and working on Subaru's. They often apply their knowledge and market to the owners. If I'm going to compete, I better know my stuff. The Subaru market is (probably) more competitive.

Engineering is tough. Do I enter into a popular and profitable but competitive market like the Subaru, or do I try my luck with the GTR and hope that my R&D and production costs are made up for by the purchases of a small community?

The Subaru and GTR's are just examples I'm using. A certain car model's owners might be more or less inclined to buy aftermarket parts. I doubt there's a big market for performance coilovers for Toyota Corolla's.

Most of this has been said before. Heck, this could be a reiteration of an already made point.

 

[oohhh yeah]

A car is more than the sum of its parts.

Sure you can. Strut bars, roll cages, subframe braces, stitch welding all stiffen the chassis. Weight balance can be adjusted by doing things like removing a/c, relocating the battery, buying lighter body panels.

Punknoodle, can you explain more please? Everything can be swapped out.

Ok the reason that a modified sti can't keep up with a gtr is because of the platform its based on. The chassis, suspension and engine weren't designed with extreme performance levels in mind. Also the sti is still just an impreza after all no matter how much it's modified and that's a very low performance vehicle. In other words a sti has a performance "ceiling" because it wasn't designed for outright performance. On the other hand Nissan spent tons of money to maximize the performance of the gtr and give the platform itself high performance capabilities that there's that much more to improve upon as the car was designed with outright performance in mind.

If I had the price difference between the GT-R and STI to spend on modifications, I could sure as hell get close to GT-R performance with the STI.

(And if I were allowed to cheat on the tires... within the budget... I could surpass it).

The big issue is the GT-R has so much more in terms of transmission, all-wheel drive and chassis, that an STI would have to be nearly completely rebuilt to match it. And even then, the budget won't stretch to the kind of transmission and aerodynamic upgrades needed to match what comes stock on the GT-R.

Niky's Subaru would also give up lots as a result of the modifications. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I can't see into his head, of course. But things like engine modifications can change how the car runs during normal driving or affect reliability. Suspension mods will obviously make the car feel different over bumps. Stripping weight means saying goodbye to whatever benefit the weight offered. Grippy tires often wear more quickly or are downright dangerous in less than ideal conditions. You get the idea. Unless something in the design is just plain wrong (which extremely rare in modern cars), you're unlikely to get performance improvements without any repercussions.

Well, the GTR has race caliber parts stock. What's the difference?

Agreed. Spending vast amounts on a road car to make it quick on a track, is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The mods you make to be quick on track, will generally make it a worse road car - in most situations. The money you'd spend on uprated GT-R suspension would get you a modest used single seater, which would be quicker around a track than the modified GT-R anyway. So other than bragging rights, why bother investing that money into a car you'll use on track maybe 5% of the time, when the other 95% of the time your car is going to be compromised on the road?

The R35 GT-R (as opposed to previous generation 'Skyline' GT-R's) also benefits from being designed ground-up to be what it is. Where as an STi Impreza still shares it's basic chassis design with mom's cooking grocery getter.

I still don't get it. Everything can be swapped out. Look at slow cars converted to race cars for racing. Look at Super GT. Or other racing series.

This and the fruit of your efforts will be purchased by a much smaller group of buyers.

I'm going to engineer aftermarket suspension components for one of these cars...

The Subaru would be cheaper to start with and easier to improve.

The Nissan would be more expensive to start with and harder to improve. I'm going to spend more time testing and tinkering in order to beat the best work of Nissan. It's going to make development costs expensive.

Once I've done this I have to produce my product. The Subaru's new suspension could be less expensive. The Subaru could share components with previous designs I've made or are already in production. The components for the Nissan could be made from exotic material or completely proprietary to my company. The production costs are often more expensive.

Finally I have to sell it for a profit. There are far more Subaru owners than Nissan GTR owners. I'll be able to sell more of a more easily developed and produced product. In order to even come close to the profits I would see with the Subaru by making the GTR, I would need to dramatically increase prices. There are less potential customers for the GTR product.

Inevitably, the Subaru is a more popular market. There are lots of people who have experience driving and working on Subaru's. They often apply their knowledge and market to the owners. If I'm going to compete, I better know my stuff. The Subaru market is (probably) more competitive.

Engineering is tough. Do I enter into a popular and profitable but competitive market like the Subaru, or do I try my luck with the GTR and hope that my R&D and production costs are made up for by the purchases of a small community?

The Subaru and GTR's are just examples I'm using. A certain car model's owners might be more or less inclined to buy aftermarket parts. I doubt there's a big market for performance coilovers for Toyota Corolla's.

Most of this has been said before. Heck, this could be a reiteration of an already made point.

Fabulous post! We need more posts like this. At the bolded, you say the Subaru is cheaper to start, and the GTR is more expensive to start. You are referring to the costs to purchase the car right? Also, the bolded basically sums up the whole point of me making this thread. I don't think it has been explained yet. The GTR is going to be harder to improve because stock is already so good. The STi is going to be easier to improve because stock isn't as good. So, GTR aftermarket would be better than STi aftermarket...right? I doubt manufacturers would spend that much R&D, not to mention production costs, to make GTR caliber aftermarket for the STi. Because a STi with modded suspension probably can't keep up with a GTR in the corners even if we throw out the window all the advantages the GTR has.


Also....the GTR is build ground up for performance. That doesn't really mean anything right? Everything can be swapped out. Like I said, look at cars converted to full race cars.

I don't get it

 

[savage388]

What I'm trying to say is that some cars have qualities that are advantageous to performance on the most basic level, like chassis design, suspension geometry, and engine durability. Generally more expensive performance oriented cars that have been designed from the ground up have a higher level of engineering put into them. Often it also is this high level of engineering and innovative design that drives up development costs on aftermarket parts, the gtr being a prime example. Nissan designed it so well and balanced it so well using new tech it tool the aftermarket quite a bit of time to make improvements which shows in a higher cost. An sti is really just a riced out impreza which means that the parts are of a conventional design and improvements can be made with much less r&d work which translates to lower costs.

 

[niky]

Also....the GTR is build ground up for performance. That doesn't really mean anything right? Everything can be swapped out. Like I said, look at cars converted to full race cars.

I don't get it

Eventually, you could rebuild an STI into a GTR destroying track machine or a rally car that could run rings around it on the open road... but it wouldn't be much of an STI, anymore... And with what you're spending, someone else could take a secondhand GTR and apply a little aftermarket to it to make it even faster... (a Switzer 1000 hp kit is "only" 25k) ...which is why GTRs are proving relatively popular for Tarmac rallies and road racing, given the price.

Those "slow" cars converted into racers can cost hundreds of thousands each. Want to buy a touring car for the price of an STI? Sure! But it'll have several seasons of racing under its belt and will come with two or three extra engines, because those motors only last three or four races. Buy a GTR and you get an (overweight) road and track car whose only vice is eating up tires... Better yet, replacing a worn out transmission every year or two in racing (there are upgrades, though) is cheaper than replacing a blown motor every other month.

 

[hawkeye122]

Super GT cars are in NO WAY a road car. As i recall, the frame is totally different. They build a new car, and then shape the body panels to look GTR-ish.

Most race cars have been soooo modified, they really arent the car the badge says anymore.

Sure, I could pour $100,000+ and make the Subaru as fast as a GTR. But there are a few things-

-Set up: I really have no idea what settings everything should go at
-Time: I can buy a GTR already built. This, I have to buy the STi, find a workshop, order parts, hire a mechanic, wait for him to build it.
-Maintenance: Ah! My Nissan just had something happen to it! Luckily, I can take it to the dealer and they can fix it. But with my Uber-STi, noone has likely fixed one like yours before. Expect the repair bills to be higher.

The GTR has the frame of a car built for someone who wishes to go fast.
The 370Z has the frame of a car built to be enjoyed on the road.

Once you change the frame, you no longer have the car you started with. But yes, in theory, you COULD make a STi as fast as a GTR.

If you "Swap everything out", with "Everything" Including the frame, then you really dont have the car you started with.

 

[Zenith]

Not everything can be swapped out. Take that to an extreme...

I give you a school bus and tell you to make it as fast as a Ferrari. Everything can be swapped out, right? Of course not. The bus will never be as fast as a Ferrari.

Cue obligatory school bus dragster video.

 

[oohhh yeah]

What I'm trying to say is that some cars have qualities that are advantageous to performance on the most basic level, like chassis design, suspension geometry, and engine durability. Generally more expensive performance oriented cars that have been designed from the ground up have a higher level of engineering put into them. Often it also is this high level of engineering and innovative design that drives up development costs on aftermarket parts, the gtr being a prime example. Nissan designed it so well and balanced it so well using new tech it took the aftermarket quite a bit of time to make improvements which shows in a higher cost. An sti is really just a riced out impreza which means that the parts are of a conventional design and improvements can be made with much less r&d work which translates to lower costs.

At the bolded...those things can be changed/improved upon with aftermarket parts.

You worded it in a way I couldn't. This is my question. The way you're explaining it, then GTR aftermarket IS better than STi aftermarket. Because aftermarket has to improve upon the design of stock. I don't think it has been explained in this thread before. There is the simple supply and demand, which results in them jacking up the costs, but there's also the simple fact that GTR aftermarket is better. I don't think aftermarket manufacturers try to make their STi aftermarket as good as GTR aftermarket...because then it would cost too much for R&D, and if they used expensive materials...it would cost too much for STi owners to afford it. AM I RIGHT?? AM I RIGHT?

At the guy on the first page who said GTR aftermarket is NOT better than STi afermarket...can you explain more?

Eventually, you could rebuild an STI into a GTR destroying track machine or a rally car that could run rings around it on the open road... but it wouldn't be much of an STI, anymore... And with what you're spending, someone else could take a secondhand GTR and apply a little aftermarket to it to make it even faster... (a Switzer 1000 hp kit is "only" 25k) ...which is why GTRs are proving relatively popular for Tarmac rallies and road racing, given the price.

Those "slow" cars converted into racers can cost hundreds of thousands each. Want to buy a touring car for the price of an STI? Sure! But it'll have several seasons of racing under its belt and will come with two or three extra engines, because those motors only last three or four races. Buy a GTR and you get an (overweight) road and track car whose only vice is eating up tires... Better yet, replacing a worn out transmission every year or two in racing (there are upgrades, though) is cheaper than replacing a blown motor every other month.

This post is also saying that GTR aftermaket is better than STi aftermarket. Both cars modded, the GTR will be faster. Because the parts are better.

Super GT cars are in NO WAY a road car. As i recall, the frame is totally different. They build a new car, and then shape the body panels to look GTR-ish.

Most race cars have been soooo modified, they really arent the car the badge says anymore.

Sure, I could pour $100,000+ and make the Subaru as fast as a GTR. But there are a few things-

-Set up: I really have no idea what settings everything should go at
-Time: I can buy a GTR already built. This, I have to buy the STi, find a workshop, order parts, hire a mechanic, wait for him to build it.
-Maintenance: Ah! My Nissan just had something happen to it! Luckily, I can take it to the dealer and they can fix it. But with my Uber-STi, noone has likely fixed one like yours before. Expect the repair bills to be higher.

The GTR has the frame of a car built for someone who wishes to go fast.
The 370Z has the frame of a car built to be enjoyed on the road.

Once you change the frame, you no longer have the car you started with. But yes, in theory, you COULD make a STi as fast as a GTR.

If you "Swap everything out", with "Everything" Including the frame, then you really dont have the car you started with.

This goes back to the fundamental aspect of this thread. Who and where would I buy aftermarket that will make the STi perform better than a GTR?

Also...the cars converted for racing such as Super GT...where do they get their parts? I'm sure they don't buy from conventional tuner manufacturers. Those parts aren't high performing enough.

Not everything can be swapped out. Take that to an extreme...

I give you a school bus and tell you to make it as fast as a Ferrari. Everything can be swapped out, right? Of course not. The bus will never be as fast as a Ferrari.

Cue obligatory school bus dragster video.

"A car is more than the sum of its parts" from the first page. Stuff like the chassis can be strengthened. Even weight distribution can be changed. Can somebody explain the quote more?

Also...a school bus is a terrible example. It's too big, too long, too high.

A car is just a piece of engineering. All the parts work together to make a fast machine.

Thanks for your time guys...I really appreciate it.

 

[hawkeye122]

Super GT cars arent converted from road cars. Thats what you're missing.

Super GT cars have a bespoke chassis. The Chassis was specifically built to be a racing car. The chassis is all-new, and has NOTHING to do with ANY road car AT ALL.

Basic instructions to build a GTR Super GT car:

Design/Fabricate custom frame (NOT USED BY THE ROAD CAR)
Insert Engine (May or may not be similar to the one in the Road Car)
Insert Gearbox (NOT USED BY ROAD CAR)
Add suspension (custom, likely built by Nissan. NOT USED BY THE ROAD CAR)
Pick Tyres and wheels
Design Body panels (Done by Nissan. Designed to SOMEWHAT resemble the GTR, but with added aero efficiency, cooling ducts, etc)
Paint.

As you can see, the only thing which is actually a part of a Road-going GTR is the engine. And even that is just the block- Every piece that can be switched out would be switched out for a more racy version. What you end up with is a Nissan-Designed Super GT car, which has to words "GTR" written on it, with some fancy body panels. They could easily fabricate a "Skyline 370GT" set of body panels, and then it becomes a 370GT Super GT race car.

Most Super GT cars have parts prepped by their specific manufacturer, unless there is a Massive Sticker on the livery, which may denote otherwise.

Super GT cars are at NO POINT in their lifetime a road car. And they could not be made into road cars. They share a SINGLE part, and that is the Engine block.

Where would you buy aftermarket parts for a STi to make it faster than a GTR? I'd start with the STi website. Then, go to a forum with Subaru owners, and ask them where to get the best aftermarket stuff.

Im going to go out on a limb and say that either Subaru or Prodrive make the best Suspension sets for a STi. I could be wrong though, as I dont actually own or modify Subarus.

I'm really not sure what it is you are asking...

 

[TheCracker]

Comparing the tuning of a GT-R and tuning an STi is like comparing apples to oranges. Comparing either to a custom made professional race car is like comparing fruits to moon rock.

The GT-R is starting from a much higher platform than an Impreza. It's designed from the ground up to be a different sort of car to a factory tuned small family hatch-back. It's a heavier and more powerful beast than the STi, therefore even it's stock parts are designed and engineered to meet different requirements than those needed on a lighter less powerful STi. Therefore, the aftermarket scene for both cars also follows different paths. Like others have mentioned, lower volume cars such as the GT-R mean a smaller market for aftermarket parts, add to that the need for GT-R parts to be more substantial, to meet the requirements of the heavier more powerful car, and you have your reason for GT-R 'off-the-shelf' modifications having a higher price tag.

Off course you can buy the parts to make an STi as quick as a stock GT-R, but give the same money to a GT-R owner to modify his ride, and the performance gap is going to hardly close.