Frs vs s2000

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I definitely can't argue with that, however legroom is the most important measurement for me. I need enough legroom 100% of the time. I need to haul 2+ people and/or an extra set of tires way way less than 25% of the time.

And LOL at the people talking big about E85 tunes. Never in my life have I seen a fuel station that had E85. Granted I live on the east coast but we're talking about over 30% of the US's population here.

To mirror that, the only way to realistically DD a car on E85 is to either:

1. Live next to a station
2. Work next to a station
3. Pass a station on your daily commute.

With the FRS/BRZ's tank, a E85 NA tune would have a range of... 200 miles. Better start carrying an extra can of E85 in the back.

Considering we get ~6MPG on track, E85 would drop that down to 4-5

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Well, to be fair here, you need to convert the S2000 to E85 and tune it too...and that will make it more powerful than the FA20 once more.

Well, to be fair here, the amount of money you spend buying an S2000 and E85 tune should be the same as that on an FR-S with E85 tune. Engines must have the same mileage (so new vs. new or used vs. used, not used vs. new, to be fair). Total bill spent on each car should be equal (in the spirit of fairness) so whatever price difference is leftover after the tune is allowed to be spent on more upgrades ...and that will make it faster than the S2K once more.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

Well, to be fair here, the amount of money you spend buying an S2000 and E85 tune should be the same as that on an FR-S with E85 tune. Engines must have the same mileage (so new vs. new or used vs. used, not used vs. new, to be fair). Total bill spent on each car should be equal (in the spirit of fairness) so whatever price difference is leftover after the tune is allowed to be spent on more upgrades ...and that will make it faster than the S2K once more.

to be fair they should both have inline 4s and to be fair you should have to cut the roof off the top of the frs. change the front suspension to double wishbones. etc. nobody is saying it has to be fair. they are just saying the f20/22 is a better motor than the fa20. its not fair, it just is.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

to be fair they should both have inline 4s and to be fair you should have to cut the roof off the top of the frs. change the front suspension to double wishbones. etc. nobody is saying it has to be fair. they are just saying the f20/22 is a better motor than the fa20. its not fair, it just is.

...because it costs more.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

...because it costs more.

s2000s dont cost more. the fa20 isnt more powerful.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

s2000s dont cost more. the fa20 isnt more powerful.

See in your prior post you were referring to the engine only (not the complete car) and I responded "because it [the S2K engine] costs more." It's faster/more powerful because it cost more to develop/produce/manufacture and I'm going to bet it costs more than the FA20 to get new.

I was being sarcastic about bringing fairness into the argument hence the little smiley because the comparison isn't fair to begin with. In certain aspects the S2K has more sophisticated engineering which was, unsurprisingly, afforded by its higher price point. Comparing these two cars is almost like bringing the Cayman or Elise into the comparison... it isn't fair and shouldn't be a mystery what to expect.

[enigma]

I had this discussion with a friend the other day.

The reason I'm okay with the FA20 is because if the FR-S/BRZ had an engine that was of the same caliber as the F20C, it would've been $5-10k more expensive, just like the S2000 was.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by enigma

I had this discussion with a friend the other day.

The reason I'm okay with the FA20 is because if the FR-S/BRZ had an engine that was of the same caliber as the F20C, it would've been $5-10k more expensive, just like the S2000 was.

I've had this discussion on this forum many times already in the past year and on facebook. If the FR-S came with 240hp stock it'd cost more and go the way of the S2K and RX-8 (and lose even more horribly than those cars in sales because those cars already exist, used). That or it'd have horrible handling.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

See in your prior post you were referring to the engine only (not the complete car) and I responded "because it [the S2K engine] costs more." It's faster/more powerful because it cost more to develop/produce/manufacture and I'm going to bet it costs more than the FA20 to get new.

I was being sarcastic about bringing fairness into the argument hence the little smiley because the comparison isn't fair to begin with. In certain aspects the S2K has more sophisticated engineering which was, unsurprisingly, afforded by its higher price point. Comparing these two cars is almost like bringing the Cayman or Elise into the comparison... it isn't fair and shouldn't be a mystery what to expect.

i see where youre coming from. i do think that a new frs has more value to many people than a used s2k because performance isnt everything. i just dont think that in the current market (which means either new v used or used v used) the s2k is going to be faster for your dollar for at least five years. i try to avoid making new v used comparos but this is one that i think makes more sense than a lot of others

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

With the FRS/BRZ's tank, a E85 NA tune would have a range of... 200 miles. Better start carrying an extra can of E85 in the back.

Considering we get ~6MPG on track, E85 would drop that down to 4-5

200? That's what, 15mpg? I think a lot of people (at least the ones with fuelly stats in their sigs) are getting closer to 30mpg average on normal gas, so for E85 drop that to ~23mpg ish or 300 miles per tank. Which really isn't that bad, gas guzzling SUVs need to refill that often on normal gas.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by enigma

I had this discussion with a friend the other day.

The reason I'm okay with the FA20 is because if the FR-S/BRZ had an engine that was of the same caliber as the F20C, it would've been $5-10k more expensive, just like the S2000 was.

Its this sort of line of thinking that makes me counter with the comment of "why didn't they make the engine 2.5 liters instead of 2.0 liters? Then you would have an additional 20-40 hp without any fancy head or valvetrain components.

I realize that several countries place higher taxes on vehicles with engines over 2.0 liters but the US is a large enough market to justify the R&D. Subaru has proven this time and again.

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

With the FRS/BRZ's tank, a E85 NA tune would have a range of... 200 miles. Better start carrying an extra can of E85 in the back.

That surprisingly, wasn't unheard of when I was in the Evo community. But damn do they make some power on e85. I think in time it will become more widely available, but for now it might be wise for many people to hold off until that does happen.

As far as the S2000 Vs FRZ goes, they both have their places. The S2000 is a much more raw purpose built car that puts comfort second to performance. Where the FRZ is a fun daily that you can take out to the track if you want, but has all the amenities and space you'd need to carry extra things.

As far as engines go, the F20/22 are AMAZING engines, and can rev to 8-9k all day for a very long time. They came out in what 1999? Yet they still put out more horsepower per litre than most engines out today. That is some advanced engineering, and it was all done without direct injection. They are very capable when it comes to forced induction as well, there are several documented cases of them putting down 7-800 horsepower on stock internals, so I wouldn't go thinking that they can't make power.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxOLCybSvIE&feature=relmfu"]Ballistics Jake :: Record breaking WHP :: 800.06whp! - YouTube[/ame]

The FA20 so far seems like a great engine, but it is still too soon to determine any long term reliability. Yes, we have seen the numbers that are being put out by the aftermarket, but we still don't know how long it will last in that sense.

I said it once and I'll say it again. The best solution would be to have one of each in your garage as they are both great cars:happy0180: but I really don't think you can go wrong with either one.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Its this sort of line of thinking that makes me counter with the comment of "why didn't they make the engine 2.5 liters instead of 2.0 liters? Then you would have an additional 20-40 hp without any fancy head or valvetrain components.

I realize that several countries place higher taxes on vehicles with engines over 2.0 liters but the US is a large enough market to justify the R&D. Subaru has proven this time and again.

While this is practical thinking, it's also part of the reason why the US market gets shafted in terms of getting the better drivetrains sometimes. "Well, in America they don't care about fuel economy as much and they don't have displacement taxes, so let's dump our old higher displacement engines along with older crappier transmissions there. They've got slightly more power to make people happy too." In particular Toyota seems to think the US market is a great dumping ground for their cheap, old stuff. Though I suppose most people are happy with this arrangement.

Also I think they make less BRZs than they do WRXs, but not totally sure on that.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

200? That's what, 15mpg? I think a lot of people (at least the ones with fuelly stats in their sigs) are getting closer to 30mpg average on normal gas, so for E85 drop that to ~23mpg ish or 300 miles per tank. Which really isn't that bad, gas guzzling SUVs need to refill that often on normal gas.

Anyone on E85 is looking to make serious power, and anyone with that mentality will be getting lower than average MPG. They're also probably going to be rolling on stickier, wider tires, and possibly larger rims. The bottom line cost to get a E85 conversion right now is about $1800 with labor, and lets be real; there's not too many BRZ/FRS with that much money in their cars yet.

In our case, we average about 24-25 MPG on the street with EHP tires on (RS3/Z1SS) RPF1.

Additionally, the real usable capacity of the fuel tank is about 11 gallons. Can you use more? Sure, but I personally wouldn't want to risk getting stranded, especially with a fairly rare fuel. E85 isn't exactly common in most areas.

18 MPG x 11 gallons is roughly 200 miles.