Automobile mag first test of FR-S

[Sport-Tech]

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

Found it great on the track, "not quite so great" on the road.

Interesting quotes: "The suspension is just firm enough to do its job without ever being harsh, and it's noticeably firmer than the Subaru's. "

"A beginner driver might have an easier time controlling the Subaru at the limit -- more experienced drivers might prefer the Scion. As the near-identical performance numbers show, neither has a clear performance advantage -- it's all about the feel. The Scion offers the best balance of any sports car within three times its price. "

[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

[ayau]

torque comparison is useless w/o actually seeing the torque curves.

as we all know, the brz puts out about 95% of its peak torque at about 2.5k rpm.

[ZDan]

I'd rather have 85% of 180 lb-ft at 2500rpm than 95% of 151 lb-ft...

[Spaceywilly]

Actually it looks like they both have about the same torque at 2500RPM, then the Boxster has more everywhere else. This is also crank power vs. wheel power so the BRZ probably has a bit of an edge at lower RPMS.

[Bristecom]

Wow, this guy is saying exactly what I've been saying. If the engine just made another 30 lb-ft of torque, it would be satisfying enough for all conditions.

[brillo]

while I'm not sure the whole dip can be removed, lets see what the tuning guys do first before passing judgement. OEM ECU tuning is often emissions first, economy second and power third. If you willing to toss aside emissions and economy (and I'm talking marginally here) there may be some more mid range power to gain. Not a guarantee there is more to be gained, but there are things that limit the manufacturers.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

Wow, this guy is saying exactly what I've been saying. If the engine just made another 30 lb-ft of torque, it would be satisfying enough for all conditions.

Then are you willing to put H6 with 2.5L extra weight & several thousands cash?

Again, 2L vs 2.5L & H4 vs H6... seriously

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Then are you willing to put H6 with 2.5L extra weight & several thousands cash?

Again, 2L vs 2.5L & H4 vs H6... seriously

2.5L H4 like the other Subaru engines... Would be minimal increase in weight and price.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

2.5L H4 like the other Subaru engines... Should be minimal increase in weight and price.

You're forgetting FA20 is totally new engine. Block isn't made out of FB25 engine.

Even they minimal increase in weight and price, but are you willing to loose the redline? It'll go through same thing as EJ engine, F20 (F22) engine. By gaining something, you loose something. It's not simple win-win equation here

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

You're forgetting FA20 is totally new engine. Block isn't made out of FB25 engine.

Even they minimal increase in weight and price, but are you willing to loose the redline? It'll go through same thing as EJ engine, F20 (F22) engine. By gaining something, you loose something. It's not simple win-win equation here

I understand that. But I, and many others would probably prefer a lower redline for more torque. Increasing the bore to 96 mm might do the trick to retain good revving while adding torque. But I'm no engineer. And yeah, I'm speaking theoretically here - as in I think they should have designed the engine to be 2.5L from the start like a FA25 of sorts. Boxer engines have an advantage over other 4 cylinder configurations over 2.0L due to the lack of need for a balance shaft. I just think such an engine would have been more impressive and more suitable for a Boxer type. But don't get me wrong, I also like the idea of a square engine so it's still impressive and I would prefer it over any Inline 4.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

I understand that. But I, and many others would probably prefer a lower redline for more torque. Increasing the bore to 96 mm might do the trick to retain good revving while adding torque. But I'm no engineer. And yeah, I'm speaking theoretically here - as in I think they should have designed the engine to be 2.5L from the start like a FA25 of sorts. Boxer engines have an advantage over other 4 cylinder configurations over 2.0L due to the lack of need for a balance shaft. I just think such an engine would have been more impressive and more suitable for a Boxer type. But don't get me wrong, I also like the idea of a square engine so it's still impressive and I would prefer it over any Inline 4.

I don't get this... FRZ/BRZ have 2 less tq then S2k. Now, several AP1 owner & reviewer complain & bitch that F20 don't have any guts, so Honda bore it & made AP2 w F22 engine, result they gain 6% more tq. Now, they complain & bitch that they can't rev as AP1. Do you want Toyota/Subaru to follow same path? Cuz if Toyota/Subaru really did follow Honda's path and make FRS/BRZ w 2.5L H4 engine, I bet it'll make 180TQ, but I can bet you redline will drop to 6,250RPM.

[86'd]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

I understand that. But I, and many others would probably prefer a lower redline for more torque. Increasing the bore to 96 mm might do the trick to retain good revving while adding torque. But I'm no engineer. And yeah, I'm speaking theoretically here - as in I think they should have designed the engine to be 2.5L from the start like a FA25 of sorts. Boxer engines have an advantage over other 4 cylinder configurations over 2.0L due to the lack of need for a balance shaft. I just think such an engine would have been more impressive and more suitable for a Boxer type. But don't get me wrong, I also like the idea of a square engine so it's still impressive and I would prefer it over any Inline 4.

Not me. I think the fact that it revs high is a defining characteristic.

Plus driving Honda's all of my life I'm more than comfortable with powerbands like this.

Heck people still think the S2000 is slow, even though it's a high to mid 5 second car 0-60.

So I'm not surprised people are wanting more power, but I honestly think too many of us are wanting more power, just for the sake of wanting more power.

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

I don't get this... FRZ/BRZ have 2 less tq then S2k. Now, several AP1 owner & reviewer complain & bitch that F20 don't have any guts, so Honda bore it & made AP2 w F22 engine, result they gain 6% more tq. Now, they complain & bitch that they can't rev as AP1. Do you want Toyota/Subaru to follow same path? Cuz if Toyota/Subaru really did follow Honda's path and make FRS/BRZ w 2.5L H4 engine, I bet it'll make 180TQ, but I can bet you redline will drop to 6,250RPM.

Well I think a lot of people complained about the lower redline in the newer Honda S2K because that's what made that engine really unique. It had the highest mean piston speed and I think the highest redline for a production car engine at the time. It was a screamer! But the FA20 isn't like that. It has a modest redline of 7400 rpm. So I would have rather them played to the advantages of Boxer engines rather than try to replicate the advantages of an Inline 4.