"Underpowered"... compared to...?

[.Alex]

It's a 15 second car that might run a very high 14 second with a good driver. Other sport compacts were doing that 10+ years ago.

I do understand the the FR-S isn't about straightline power, but let's be real, its slow.

[R8]

Originally Posted by white_knight

I'm curious as to what other cars they're comparing it to?

They're not necessarily even comparing it to other cars even, as people often say this about cars which have a great chassis. It feels like it could handle more power, so they assume it *should* have more power.

[wbradley]

The car has plenty of power for the "average" consumer. I highly doubt the majority of the FR-S's sold will be heavily modded. The car is attractive enough for mainstream consumer demand as-is. Obviously it also will fill a niche in the pocket-rocket/tuner community but I am sure that will not be the majority of units.


Also I read a review/comparison here that indicated the FR-S is definitely faster off the line than a Veloster Turbo. HOwever, I think they got 6.2s 0-60 by dropping the clutch at 5000 RPM. I'd never do that with my own car with stock clutch. I think the V.T. did something like 7.4 ish 0-60?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Shizuma

Well really if Toyota/Subaru designed it right they shouldn't have an issue with fuel economy changing much, I mean if Ford can put a 305hp V6 in a less aerodynamic car that weighs about 700 pounds more and still get 29mpg highway then there's reason Toyota/Subaru shouldn't be able to still get 29-30 with a 260hp+ turbo model, though honestly the current fuel economy for the manual is pretty poor given the size/weight/aerodynamics of the car and the power of the engine.

Either way though Toyota/Subaru really should of went a little more aggressive with NA tuning on the 86 and got it into the 225-230hp range, even that relatively small jump would make a very noticeable difference in performance in such a light car and there would probably be a lot less complaints about it being underpowered.

I thought the gas mileage was pretty good at around 25-26MPG street and 33-34 highway. The Jetta 2.5L has only about 170 HP and gets about the same. Considering this is a 2.0L @ 200HP it's pretty efficient in my opinion.

I remember reading somewhere that it was originally around the 220HP range but was lowered due to emissions. I feel like somehow we're always getting screwed over by emissions related things. I think they're supposed to get stricter too...

[Gen]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Also I read a review/comparison here that indicated the FR-S is definitely faster off the line than a Veloster Turbo. HOwever, I think they got 6.2s 0-60 by dropping the clutch at 5000 RPM. I'd never do that with my own car with stock clutch. I think the V.T. did something like 7.4 ish 0-60?

5k clutch drops are VERY standard (but not good). They did the same thing in the S2000 when it was being reviewed and even the Lotus Elise / Exige. The Elise runs a mid 14 second quarter mile if you're lucky without dropping the clutch that high. The ironic part is the ECU logs the number of 'standing starts', which when brought in for service or warranty work is pulled and can be used to void your warranty.


Ultimately, engineering is all about compromise and tradeoffs. You give up something you want for something you need.

[Shizuma]

Originally Posted by Fish

I thought the gas mileage was pretty good at around 25-26MPG street and 33-34 highway. The Jetta 2.5L has only about 170 HP and gets about the same. Considering this is a 2.0L @ 200HP it's pretty efficient in my opinion.

34 highway is the EPA for the automatic, but the manual is only 30MPG due to different gearing, and 30MPG highway really is poor for a 200hp 2.0L 4 cylinder, the Hyundai Genesis coupe's 274hp 2.0 turbo also get's 30MPG highway on the manual, the Ford Mustang's 305hp 3.7L v6 gets 29MPG highway for the manual and the Chevy Camaro's 323hp 3.6L gets 28MPG for the manual, all produce significantly more hp and have around the same hp, and for the same hp range the Hyundai Veloster turbo's 200hp 1.6L turbo gets 38MPG highway with the manual.

[ABQautoxer]

For me I was shopping a WRX vs the FRS. There is a huge difference in power for the exact same money (both $25k as the WRX can be had for well under MSRP). Add to that the Genesis Coupe 2.0T and you can see why others around the same price are much more powerful so it's fair to say its underpowered, because it is as is the MX5. I just ordered my FR-S so that didn't phase me but don't be in denial it simply is underpowered and not too many of us would turn down an extra 50hp and tq, I know I wouldn't.

[Nazarite]

What's the saying? Fast, Cheap, Reliable, you can choose two?

[Snozzberries]

Originally Posted by .Alex

It's a 15 second car that might run a very high 14 second with a good driver. Other sport compacts were doing that 10+ years ago.

I do understand the the FR-S isn't about straightline power, but let's be real, its slow.

Compare this car to any other in the corners or with the back end out and tell me what it does not beat. The car can hang with Porches on down hills. Lets be real, this car is amazingly engineered and no one cares about how fast you can do the quarter when you are throwing third gear sweepers. No disrespect to you, but I think this whole under powered statement is a cop out. For 25k can you show me another car that can handle and drive like this car?

[GNS]

People here need to get a grip on reality. As good as the car is, it still has room to grow into a supercharger or turbocharger, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing such things as the first turbocharged BRZ making 210 whp, or even talk of turbo kits from the factory.

[D1cker]

I bought one for the chassis and light weight, but it is pretty slow.

Cars in the same price range that will kill you in a straight line:

WRX
MS3
GTI
Genesis Coupe
Focus ST
Lancer Ralliart
Camaro V6
Mustang V6


I'm scared of V6 sedans too

I drove a 95 miata for 6 years as a track car and DD so I'm used to having no power I guess

[empower-auto]

Most people who complain about a lack of power are purely street drivers or the type that want to flex on every other car on the road.

The definition of a sports car has been so diluted over the past couple decades .. it makes me sad.

You can google "sports car" and click on the Wikipedia link. It will put into perspective what this car is meant to do - and then you'll realize that it does it very well.

[ABQautoxer]

Originally Posted by Nazarite

What's the saying? Fast, Cheap, Reliable, you can choose two?

By just that criteria I would have opted for the WRX personally. Somethings are just hard to put on paper like the 86s have, the Miata had, the CRX had, etc.

[wbradley]

Originally Posted by ABQautoxer

By just that criteria I would have opted for the WRX personally. Somethings are just hard to put on paper like the 86s have, the Miata had, the CRX had, etc.

People refer to that special quality as "it".

I tend to think it just looks a heck of a lot nicer than any Impreza bodied model.