Automobile mag first test of FR-S

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

Definitely something to check out on a test drive - how comfortable are you going to be with a screaming engine when you are trying to change lanes quickly on an arterial road?

People complain about the delayed throttle response of a turbo, but if you suddenly see an opportunity to overtake but have to downshift to do it (whereas you don't in the turbo), that delay will be MUCH longer than the turbo's.

That's a good point. Honda guys used to give me crap about turbo lag all the time yet when I drove some Honda NA 4 cyl VTEC engines, It was like having massive turbo lag without a turbo. Instead of the power not coming in until 2k rpm with a turbo, it doesn't come in until about 6k rpm with VTEC. LOL

But I don't expect this engine to be as bad in that regard. It clearly has more torque than the Hondas down low.

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

the engine actually doesnt make 151 lb-ft its more around 169lb-ft so really the FA 20 is lacking 11lb-ft off the Porsche engine and its .5L smaller

143 wheel lb-ft ~ 169 crank lb-ft

Interesting. I wonder why it would have more power at the wheels? The Boxster obviously doesn't have a driveshaft but maybe the wheels and brake discs are too big and heavy.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

Interesting. I wonder why it would have more power at the wheels? The Boxster obviously doesn't have a driveshaft but maybe the wheels and brake discs are too big and heavy.

Having extra 2 cylinders goes long way

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

That's a good point. Honda guys used to give me crap about turbo lag all the time yet when I drove some Honda NA 4 cyl VTEC engines, It was like having massive turbo lag without a turbo. Instead of the power not coming in until 2k rpm with a turbo, it doesn't come in until about 6k rpm with VTEC. LOL

But I don't expect this engine to be as bad in that regard. It clearly has more torque than the Hondas down low.


Interesting. I wonder why it would have more power at the wheels? The Boxster obviously doesn't have a driveshaft but maybe the wheels and brake discs are too big and heavy.

Actually Carbonblue is quoting the insideline dyno which reads high. I wouldn't count on the torque being underrated by Subaru/Toyota. It isn't a turbocharged engine. I remember they dyno a 3.8 GC and the wheel torque was 262 lb ft to the wheels vs 266 lb ft to the crank.

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Where did this rumour come from?

I don't know. I remember reading it on another forum. Hence, me calling it a rumor.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Actually Carbonblue is quoting the insideline dyno which reads high. I wouldn't count on the torque being underrated by Subaru/Toyota. It isn't a turbocharged engine. I remember they dyno a 3.8 GC and the wheel torque was 262 lb ft to the wheels vs 266 lb ft to the crank.

ohh yeah so all the people on various dynos getting 387-398 whp on the 5.0L is wrong too? the engine is underrated thats all, everyone that has dyno'ed the car is getting between 141-143 wtq and ~170 whp it isnt just inside line ;P


if everyone is getting high numbers i would assume the numbers are correct...

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

the engine actually doesnt make 151 lb-ft its more around 169lb-ft so really the FA 20 is lacking 11lb-ft off the Porsche engine and its .5L smaller

143 wheel lb-ft ~ 169 crank lb-ft

The only one I believe is the JP one. On IL the 3.8 GC was making 279 whp/ 262 wtq but it makes 310hp/266 tq. Then owners started seeing 260 whp/ 232 wtq in independent testing.

[Dimman]

We need real engine dyno numbers...

Or someone to record the actual drivetrain loss which you can apparently do on a Dyno Dynamics by measuring while it coasts down or something.

There is an awesome post somwhere in here that explains that % calculations are not correct because certain losses are fixed.

[WolfpackS2k]

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.

High revving is fine for an engine if it is designed for it. When I attend track days with my S2000 the engine is running at 5500-8000rpm for 20-30 minutes straight. Then repeat that 8 more times over 2 days. And the engine coolant temp gauge doesn't so much as flinch. My Integra GS-R has 293,000 miles on it and I still run it up to it's 8000 rpm redline. I don't track it anymore but the last time I did (2004 with 235k miles) it was also run above 5000 rpm for 20 minutes straight.

As to the sound at these high rpms, I've not been hearing much positive stuff about the FA20's engine note. Maybe the stock exhaust sucks but if nothing aftermarket can fix it that would be a shame.

As to high revving large displacement boxer engines, seems like its no problem at all for Porsche. Their smallest engine is 2.7 and its redline is 7500.

The reason this engine is 2.0 liters and not 2.5 is 100% because of government regulation. Besides Japan, most European countries have higher taxes on vehicles with engines over 2.0 liters. If you build a performance car and want to get around that you make it forced induction, but here it seems they "don't think" we need more power. It's unfortunate that they stopped at an "amazing" sports car instead of a "world beating" sports car.

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

It's unfortunate that they stopped at an "amazing" sports car instead of a "world beating" sports car.

The car won't end here. There are more powerful versions in the works. I'm sure they wanted to establish there wa a viable market for a "amazing" sports car so they could later bring a "world beating" sports car to market.

[WolfpackS2k]

Sounds good to me but unless they're offering forced induction for under $28k it's not "world beating" IMO.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

High revving is fine for an engine if it is designed for it. When I attend track days with my S2000 the engine is running at 5500-8000rpm for 20-30 minutes straight. Then repeat that 8 more times over 2 days. And the engine coolant temp gauge doesn't so much as flinch. My Integra GS-R has 293,000 miles on it and I still run it up to it's 8000 rpm redline. I don't track it anymore but the last time I did (2004 with 235k miles) it was also run above 5000 rpm for 20 minutes straight.

As to the sound at these high rpms, I've not been hearing much positive stuff about the FA20's engine note. Maybe the stock exhaust sucks but if nothing aftermarket can fix it that would be a shame.

As to high revving large displacement boxer engines, seems like its no problem at all for Porsche. Their smallest engine is 2.7 and its redline is 7500.

The reason this engine is 2.0 liters and not 2.5 is 100% because of government regulation. Besides Japan, most European countries have higher taxes on vehicles with engines over 2.0 liters. If you build a performance car and want to get around that you make it forced induction, but here it seems they "don't think" we need more power. It's unfortunate that they stopped at an "amazing" sports car instead of a "world beating" sports car.

Well said!

[86'd]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

High revving is fine for an engine if it is designed for it. When I attend track days with my S2000 the engine is running at 5500-8000rpm for 20-30 minutes straight. Then repeat that 8 more times over 2 days. And the engine coolant temp gauge doesn't so much as flinch. My Integra GS-R has 293,000 miles on it and I still run it up to it's 8000 rpm redline. I don't track it anymore but the last time I did (2004 with 235k miles) it was also run above 5000 rpm for 20 minutes straight.

As to the sound at these high rpms, I've not been hearing much positive stuff about the FA20's engine note. Maybe the stock exhaust sucks but if nothing aftermarket can fix it that would be a shame.

As to high revving large displacement boxer engines, seems like its no problem at all for Porsche. Their smallest engine is 2.7 and its redline is 7500.

The reason this engine is 2.0 liters and not 2.5 is 100% because of government regulation. Besides Japan, most European countries have higher taxes on vehicles with engines over 2.0 liters. If you build a performance car and want to get around that you make it forced induction, but here it seems they "don't think" we need more power. It's unfortunate that they stopped at an "amazing" sports car instead of a "world beating" sports car.

I agree with most of this. Especially the first part. Engines like the F20/22 were made to rev.

About the sound: I think a lot of it has to do with the "sound tube." Magnifying the sound rather than changing it.

Though it could be the exhaust, or the header or something else, but to me out of all the videos I think it sounds great. The S2K does sound better though.

About the Porsche engine: It's a Porsche and they've developed high revving NA boxer engines for a while and are really the only ones doing it. So they command a premium price. And like you say taxes are a factor as well; it seems Porsche doesn't really care how much in tax you pay.

Again, it boils down to cost. I think the 86 will be the best car for the money.

Sure, you can slap a factory turbo or S/C but that's going to add cost, decrease gas mileage and all of that...

Figure $30,000 for a 2800 lb car making, what, 250-260hp, and it might very well be a better car for it but, I think they want to appeal to the masses and 25k does that a lot better than 30K.

Heck I'm sure they can make their own actual Cayman fighter with 300+hp and it would cost thousands less than actually buying one, but again, it would be a lot more than it is currently and that was never the point of the car.

[devo6273]

Originally Posted by 86'd

About the sound: I think a lot of it has to do with the "sound tube." Magnifying the sound rather than changing it.

This might be sacrilege but is anyone familiar enough with these sound tubes to know how easy it would be to keep it blocked? Perhaps it might be as simple as unplugging the actuator for the sound tube to keep cabin noise levels down while at higher RPMs.

[Tainen]

Originally Posted by JohnnyR

FI would have fixed that no problem, with zero bad side effects. Weight wouldn't be noticed with either option, and turbo-lag is a joke on a smaller turbo. People think lag like from a 2JZ-GTE with a huge single on it is how all turbos behave.

Then you have those saying "off-boost"/"lag" kills. But when confronted about this car's power, "just stay in the revs!". Double standards.

I drive a 2 liter "small turbo" car. And there is a HUUUUGE difference between what I have and a naturally aspirated car- I have terrible throttle response, turbo lag, and more. I don't get peak power, no matter what RPM, unless I wait for the turbo to completely spool up- so if you are at 4,000 rpm and you stomp on it, you aren't getting the WHP a dyno shows at 4,000rpm. Not until the turbo spools- and you're at 5,000 rpm by that time. Do you see what I mean? On a naturally aspirated car, when you smash that throttle, you get exactly the hp/tq numbers the dyno tells you, every time. Turbo cars aren't like that. They are crazy fast once you build boost pressure, but under that, they are very, very anemic. *especially* a 2.0 liter.