Automobile mag first test of FR-S

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Dimman

The 'double-bubble' torque curve shows that they really did take your concerns to heart, SUB. It will be decent in normal driving, but sure it will be better when it's whipped. There's only so much that can be done with 2000cc (JDM insurance class could be why they didn't go bigger).

I think it will be a top class low/high compromise. But still a compromise. The reviews all seem to point that the chassis can handle a dump of more power/tq so why not give it to it?

(See my above solution.)

I just don't understand why people is so quick to say a 2.5 liter boxer engine doesn't belong in this car as if its a 6.2 liter V8 with 275 more lbs on the front end. The first boxster had a 2.5 albeit with 6 cylinders yet I don't hear any of these guys ripping Porsche to shreds for doing it instead of a flat 4 2.0 liter.

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Really? You going off several reviewer impressions? What have you reading? Only the negative ones? Have some positive mind, don't need high expectation of car. Take all positive and negative reviews as grain of salt. Cuz currently, you're only taking all the positive reviews are grain of salt and all negative review as a true and fact.

Now I know how Tada-san & other Toyota rep felt every time media ask about supercharger & turbo for this car... and be glad Tsuchiya-san isn't here, cuz Tsuchiya-san have yelled & scolded (& that's a true story).

Again, I think most of us have no interest in a turbo or even supercharger for this type of car. I agree that would be annoying to hear as a designer. But I have never heard anyone ask him, "Why not a 2.5L?" I think that's a fair question. As another guy said, it could be due to government based emission and fuel economy goals but I'm not so sure.

BTW, just a friendly reminder, this is just a discussion; not an arguement. I am not intending to offend anyone who thinks the 86/BRZ is perfect as it is. Perhaps if I drove this car with a "FA25" and FA20 back to back, I would prefer the FA20 even ...but I really doubt it.

[Spaceywilly]

I think the winding road article did a good job of explaining this

So, timing-wise the FR-S is a little slower than a Mini Cooper S and feels it. It’s a second or more slower than a late-model Honda S2000, which seems about appropriate. Again, it is also more than a second slower than a Subaru WRX, and feels at least that different. Compared with turbo cars (in our examples, the WRX and Cooper S) you really notice the difference in part-throttle street-driving, where the turbo gives you a nice kick, and small, normally aspirated engines (S2000 and FR-S) don’t.

So the possibly strange-sounding part of this story is that some fraction of you are going to understand that the lower power of the FR-S is actually part of what makes it compelling. Low-ish power is good.

Say what?

Yes, the lower power level of the FR-S is part of the charm in the right hands. That’s because of two scenarios. One occurs on the street where the FR-S allows you to work the car harder without getting up to arrest level or life-threatening speeds. Said the other way, the FR-S makes you work harder to get up to the same pace you might run with other, faster, cars. What some call work, others call pleasure. When things are too easy, some find that they aren’t that involving.

If right about now, you’re saying “hogwash” or some similar word, well, you’re just not an FR-S person. If you can’t imagine that what we’ve just said could apply to any mortal being with a brain, then this car is not for you.

But for most, the FR-S is easier to understand if you forget about one group of possible comparisons based on turbo hot hatches and sedans—the Mazdaspeed3, the Mini Cooper S, the, the GTI, the WRX, and the WRX STI, and the Evo. These cars, like the Mustang and Camaro mentioned above, are just plain different in character than the FR-S. This group is generally faster, often more exciting, and also cruder than the FR-S.

Closer comparisons come from the S2000 (sadly, no longer with us), BMW 128i, Porsche Boxster and Cayman, and the Mazda RX-8. While each of these cars has a desirable powerplant, in a way, most people think of the chassis dynamics and refinement of these cars first. What is astonishing about the FR-S is that it combines the cruising comportment and function of the 128i with the dynamics of the Cayman, or Boxster, or S2000. Which is to say that the ride and quiet of the FR-S are better than the old Cayman, with similar handling pleasure. Or that many people who liked the 128i for daily duty, could now pick the FR-S and get better handling in the process. And, of course, the FR-S is something between 40- and 80-percent of the money of these cars, while getting upper 20’s fuel mileage.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

Again, I think most of us have no interest in a turbo or even supercharger for this type of car. I agree that would be annoying to hear as a designer. But I have never heard anyone ask him, "Why not a 2.5L?" I think that's a fair question. As another guy said, it could be due to government based emission and fuel economy goals but I'm not so sure.

BTW, just a friendly reminder, this is just a discussion; not an arguement. I am not intending to offend anyone who thinks the 86/BRZ is perfect as it is. Perhaps if I drove this car with a "FA25" and FA20 back to back, I would prefer the FA20 even ...but I really doubt it.

& Tada-san will reply with thick Engrish accent "Why not a 2L?"

Yes, I know this is a discussion/debate not an argument. I never stated this is an argument.

Enjoy 2L vs 2.5L discussion, I'm out of this topic, but let me know when you drive this car and please PM me saying "This car lack tq." to prove me wrong & no, it's not a sarcasm.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I just don't understand why people is so quick to say a 2.5 liter boxer engine doesn't belong in this car as if its a 6.2 liter V8 with 275 more lbs on the front end. The first boxster had a 2.5 albeit with 6 cylinders yet I don't hear any of these guys ripping Porsche to shreds for doing it instead of a flat 4 2.0 liter.

Because that's the 'party line'?

They shot for the middle with this engine and did as good as is realistically possible for the most possible people with a set of parameters likely set by a committee, regardless of what the PR says.

2.0L choice was likely locked in due to the already mentioned JDM insurance classes as well as a hold back from being compared too directly to faster machines like the Z. And also because Europe prefers smsller motors in their cars. That being decided they had to tune it to satisfy guys like you (good low end response) and guys like me (wanted the GT5 engine specs and do not care below 4k rpm), AND hit fuel economy targets... So it ends up being not a toquey as you would like, not as high strung as I would like and still doesn't get great economy.

But... it comes pretty much as technically possible of doing all 3 at the same time. And we will have to take steps and dollars to do it ourselves. I/H/E/tune/cams for me, 5psi roots TVS sc for you. (I may do the sc thing too...)

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

& Tada-san will reply with thick Engrish accent "Why not a 2L?"

Yes, I know this is a discussion/debate not an argument. I never stated this is an argument.

Enjoy 2L vs 2.5L discussion, I'm out of this topic, but let me know when you drive this car and please PM me saying "This car lack tq." to prove me wrong & no, it's not a sarcasm.

To be honest, your review and autox video has me the most hopeful that this engine will indeed satisfy me. So let's hope that I don't PM you such a message.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

& Tada-san will reply with thick Engrish accent "Why not a 2L?"

Yes, I know this is a discussion/debate not an argument. I never stated this is an argument.

Enjoy 2L vs 2.5L discussion, I'm out of this topic, but let me know when you drive this car and please PM me saying "This car lack tq." to prove me wrong & no, it's not a sarcasm.

The way you feel about the torque band might not be the way he feels about it. On paper its about 10lb ft better than my RSX at the same weight. I'm just saying the feel is different amongst everybody.

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Because that's the 'party line'?

They shot for the middle with this engine and did as good as is realistically possible for the most possible people with a set of parameters likely set by a committee, regardless of what the PR says.

2.0L choice was likely locked in due to the already mentioned JDM insurance classes as well as a hold back from being compared too directly to faster machines like the Z.

I hear ya but then why are there so many engines slightly over 2.0L coming out of Japan as of late (2.2L & 2.4L)? Wouldn't we see more 2.0L engines across the board from Japan?

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Because that's the 'party line'?

They shot for the middle with this engine and did as good as is realistically possible for the most possible people with a set of parameters likely set by a committee, regardless of what the PR says.

2.0L choice was likely locked in due to the already mentioned JDM insurance classes as well as a hold back from being compared too directly to faster machines like the Z. And also because Europe prefers smsller motors in their cars. That being decided they had to tune it to satisfy guys like you (good low end response) and guys like me (wanted the GT5 engine specs and do not care below 4k rpm), AND hit fuel economy targets... So it ends up being not a toquey as you would like, not as high strung as I would like and still doesn't get great economy.

But... it comes pretty much as technically possible of doing all 3 at the same time. And we will have to take steps and dollars to do it ourselves. I/H/E/tune/cams for me, 5psi roots TVS sc for you. (I may do the sc thing too...)

I still wish they had a 2 engine choice like a lot of other cars.

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I still wish they had a 2 engine choice like a lot of other cars.

Yeah, that wouldn't be the most economical choice but maybe they'll offer a 2.5L mid-life like the S2000 did with the 2.2L. Hardcore guys can keep their 2.0L and those wanting a bit more push and driveability could then be reintroduced and be satisfied enough to purchase.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

I hear ya but then why are there so many engines slightly over 2.0L coming out of Japan as of late (2.2L & 2.4L)? Wouldn't we see more 2.0L engines across the board from Japan?

It could depend on how important home sales are for them. <2.0L is an insurance step, then <2.5L, then <3.0L then 3.0L+. You can see this with JDM R32/R33 Skyline available engine sizes.

And since they only developed the single motor, 2.0L hits the most potential targets (hp, insurance, economy...).

This is speculation, but well-founded speculation imho.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

Yeah, that wouldn't be the most economical choice but maybe they'll offer a 2.5L mid-life like the S2000 did with the 2.2L. Hardcore guys can keep their 2.0L and those wanting a bit more push and driveability could then be reintroduced and be satisfied enough to purchase.

That's not a bad idea but I highly doubt they would do this. The Japs have an obsession with 2.0L engines or smaller. Even if I don't get this car I can't hate on it. But I feel the engine being the area with only negative marks by reviewers could be to big of pill to swallow for me.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I still wish they had a 2 engine choice like a lot of other cars.

Everything about the project (parts sharing) is about getting the maximum return on development cost. We knew we would only get one motor at launch. Later, who knows? Factory positive displacement sc like the MR2 and very slightly revised suspension with sticky rubber would make this the performance car of the generation. Hopefully they have the ambition to see that...

[Sport-Tech]

Little late now, but this was a repost - a thread on this review was opened late the night before this one was created.