Automobile mag first test of FR-S

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

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

Got you covered... actually my bad for not noticing it

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

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

This isn't so much about the review... Thread title should be 'SUB finds more reasons to complain about torque, angering many faithful, and Dimman not sure whether to support SUB's arguments or not because though Dimman likes high rev screamers he concedes that SUB's complaint is reasonably well founded.'





Heh...


(Thanks for posting first.)

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Got you covered... actually my bad for not noticing it

Thanks ichi.

Actually had a chance for prolonged in-seat time tonight at a local car hangout, fantastic in virtually all respects (barring the shifter, which I found a bit notchy).

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

Thanks ichi.

Actually had a chance for prolonged in-seat time tonight at a local car hangout, fantastic in virtually all respects (barring the shifter, which I found a bit notchy).

MT? When car is off, shifter feels a lot stiff... but I didn't have any problem shifting while driving... but again, the FR-S I have driven went through several days of beating, so maybe that's why? lol

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

Thanks ichi.

Actually had a chance for prolonged in-seat time tonight at a local car hangout, fantastic in virtually all respects (barring the shifter, which I found a bit notchy).

I bet you were making engine noises and pretending like you were driving it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YrzwQZuQnc"]�MMD Cup Ⅳ】Reimu is shift change and ＲＥＤ　ＺＯＮＥ - YouTube[/ame]

[86'd]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

I just don't want to be disappointed. I want this car to be fun in all aspects. I drove a first year S2000 and was really disappointed with the low end torque and high strung engine characteristics. When I went back into my Eclipse which weighs 500 lbs more with 30 less hp but 60 more lb-ft of torque, I was like wow, this engine feels so much more road friendly and driveable and I can actually feel it pushing me into the seat.

Now I think the FA20 will be much more to my liking with more torque down low but an "FA25" would have me feeling much more at ease about it. I value the handling much more than power and I in fact prefer less power. But I just don't want to put my foot to the floor and go, "Oh God, where is the power!? Am I even moving?" *Looks out the window* "Yeah, I guess I am moving."

I get it. I want to go one way you want to go another, and that's fine.

TQ, although fun, isn't as fun as revving out an engine IMO. My Mini Cooper S was pretty fun, and felt like the car had tons of power, but honestly I'd rather have my 2000 SI. And that car had like 50 less TQ.

I can't really explain it but these are the kinds of cars I prefer and probably always will.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

MT? When car is off, shifter feels a lot stiff... but I didn't have any problem shifting while driving...

Yeah, that is exactly what the Scion engineer who brought the car told me - feels easier when the car is in motion. It will probably loosen up a bit with use too.

The engineer is a huge fan, buying one himself.

Oh and btw - all the whiners (including myself lol) complaining about the lack of a carpeted inner trunk lid can relax - all the back light wires are closely tethered to the trunk lid, there's no chance of them getting yanked out by trunk contents (an earlier photo was misleading about this).

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

I bet you were making engine noises and pretending like you were driving it.

LOL. Didn't need to - they fired it up a few times and revved it for us, so I heard it both from the passenger seat and outside, back of the car. Sounded great to my ears, better than it sounds on video - more complex engine harmonics.

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...13_scion_fr_s/


There is one very important part of this review.

At 6.2 and 6.4 seconds to 60 mph, these cars are certainly quick enough when giving their all. The problem is what happens when they’re not flat out. Remember the original Porsche Boxster? Its horsepower number (201) and weight (about 2750 lb) were virtually identical to the BRZ/FR-S twins, and it did 0-60 in the same amount of time -- 6.3 seconds. There was one crucial difference though: the newcars make do with a maximum of 151 lb-ft of torque. The Boxster’s 2.5-liter flat-six produced 180.
That extra nearly 30 lb-ft of torque went a long, long way towards making the Boxster feel quick in normal driving.

Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...#ixzz1t61qjm00

I read that and think nothing more than what I've been dealing with for 20 years on all my Civic's...and I had fun in all of them.

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

If you truly believe that? What's the point of having close ratio gears? Up to 3,000RPM it got 95% of TQ.

I think you might be reading into my statement too much.

I'm saying that I would sacrifice 400rpm for the additional torque and power a 2.5L would bring.

I am not saying the FT needs the torque. I have a BRZ on order and I'm eagerly looking forward to getting it.

But I don't think the small bump in torque that the extra .5L adds would be a bad thing. It doesn't need it, but I wouldn't mind having it.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

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

Yes, that article is spot on.

If you're the kind of person who feels that downshifting and winding out the motor is "fun", then you'll enjoy BRZ/FR-S. Most likely, your vehicle history includes a number of high-strung, NA cars like the S2000, RSX, Si, Elise, Celica GT-S, etc.

But if you're the kind of person who feels that having to downshift and rev to a 7400 rpm redline to get power is "work", then yes this car probably isn't for you. You would enjoy a turbo/supercharged or large-displacement engine more. Luckily, there are plenty of good cars in this price range that will suit: Mustang V6/V8, Genesis Coupe 2.0t/3.8, 370z, etc.

Personally, my last two cars have been turbocharged, and I realize that I enjoy the responsiveness and "fun" of a high strung, NA engine more than the torque of a turbocharged engine. But everyone has different preferences and that's why it's great that we have all these choices available.

[Aonarch]

Two words: Aftermarket turbo. Problem solved. I will go down that route.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Yes, that article is spot on.

If you're the kind of person who feels that downshifting and winding out the motor is "fun", then you'll enjoy BRZ/FR-S. Most likely, your vehicle history includes a number of high-strung, NA cars like the S2000, RSX, Si, Elise, Celica GT-S, etc.

But if you're the kind of person who feels that having to downshift and rev to a 7400 rpm redline to get power is "work", then yes this car probably isn't for you. You would enjoy a turbo/supercharged or large-displacement engine more. Luckily, there are plenty of good cars in this price range that will suit: Mustang V6/V8, Genesis Coupe 2.0t/3.8, 370z, etc.

Personally, my last two cars have been turbocharged, and I realize that I enjoy the responsiveness and "fun" of a high strung, NA engine more than the torque of a turbocharged engine. But everyone has different preferences and that's why it's great that we have all these choices available.

It's not so much that high revving is "work". Its that high revving IMO is stupid on FE and public roads unless you probably live in one of those Cali type back roads that I see in a lot of reviews. Also I feel high revving feels very abusive to the engine since it always feel so strained when doing it. It never feels smooth enough for me in 4 cylinder engines when revving real high. I rather be in the mid range while driving and still having a blast. I don't want to be at 9/10ths on public roads to feel like I am moving.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

It's not so much that high revving is "work". Its that high revving IMO is stupid on FE and public roads unless you probably live in one of those Cali type back roads that I see in a lot of reviews. Also I feel high revving feels very abusive to the engine since it always feel so strained when doing it. It never feels smooth enough for me in 4 cylinder engines when revving real high. I rather be in the mid range while driving and still having a blast. I don't want to be at 9/10ths on public roads to feel like I am moving.

Honestly, this car probably isn't for you. Look at this dyno:



Peak horsepower isn't until 7000 RPM. You're going to have to take the engine to redline to get your full money's worth. If you only want to rev to 5000 RPM on the street, for instance, then you're effectively driving a 150 hp (130 whp) car, not 200.

If you haven't spent seat time in a small displacement, normally-aspirated car before, it may be worthwhile to make sure you know what you're getting yourself into. I used to drive an RSX with *only* 160hp/140tq (2700 lb) and it was fine, but I also was willing to redline the engine when necessary (making passes on uphills, highways, etc.) That was part of the "fun" of that car.