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...

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

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.)

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

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]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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

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:

http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...477-118670.jpg

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.

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.

You're about to laugh when I tell you this. I drive a 160hp/140tq RSX base since 07 and the engine is the only part of the car I despise.

After reading this comment, I can definitely tell you the FRS is not for you. If you don't want to rev the engine this car won't be any better for you than the RSX. You would be happier with any of the turbo cars mentioned in the article.

Hahaha... that is pretty funny. Auto or stick?

Auto and yes I know the stick had better acceleration by .8 seconds.

Yeah stick makes a big difference on small engines. Personally I loved that old RSX. I always felt it had just enough power for the street... I would redline it and still be below the speed limit :lol:Oh yeah, and 30 mpg in mostly city driving. Great car, it's probably the main reason I'm looking into a BRZ now.

Try the BRZ in stick if you can. I have a feeling it's much peppier that way.

Yeah it seems to be the only way to get the BRZ. I was hoping the auto could be a as quick as well.

Just putting a position out there, not saying I buy the argument. I have to rev my current car pretty high to get the most out of it and I don't find it a problem. If I am driving in a situation where I think I will have to pass on sudden notice I stay in a lower gear.

.5L extra is looking around ^~9% extra tq... so less than give or take about 10tq & don't forget boxer is well know for lack of redline. If you increase the tq, redline drop like crazy (GC8 vs 22B is a good example).

After test driving it, let me know, if you think you need more tq. Cuz I thought, it had well enough for DD. More tq = crappy MPG... & I don't want that in DD car

Again, not saying it needs, just that I wouldn't mind having more.

And Subaru already has 7K redline 2.5L boxers, so I think it's reasonable. I just think they chose 2.0L for emissions and tax reasons (I believe some countries tax by CO2 output and others by displacement).

Where? Which one? Which engine? Did I miss it?

Every US 2.5L STI has a 7K redline. EJ257 I believe.

You're thinking 2L ver STI. US 2.5L STI gauge looks like this
http://www.cartype.com/pics/5821/ful..._speedo_08.jpg

@ichitaka05- Incorrect:

2004-2007 USDM STi's w/ EJ257 had 7k redlines stock:
http://www.racingdentist.com/images/STi%20gauges03.jpg

Similarly, 2004-2007 JDM STi's with the EJ207 had 8k redlines stock:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4044/...271826b77c.jpg

Ahh, didn't realize they lowered the redline after 07. I have an 07 STI and it definitely hits 7K.
EDIT: My personal STI.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w05XTOsp9Y"]MadDad Ultra Boost Gauge - YouTube[/ame]

Thanks for the correction. But this proves more of my point. Getting more hp/tq = loosing more redline. Specially it's a same engine & to get extra 5hp lost 400rpm... yeah not for me

Yeah, I thought they had same redline as well as new STI, but o'well

??? Care to explain. Please don't compare the EJ257 to the FA20, two totally different engines, N/A vs Turbo...

Also the change in hp ratings from the 04-07 to 08+ STi engines were due to new SAE standards. The lower redline is easily removed via a tune in the 08+ STi, however if you know STi engines w/ factory turbo, you know its almost pointless spinning up to 7k rpm anyways.

I think Draco-REX is saying that a 2.5 N/A motor with 7k redline would be more favorable due to increased tq output, even if they kept the same hp targets of around 200hp.

To be fair, I was the one that started the comparison.

Essentially, since the peak torque is below 7K and peak HP is pretty much at 7K in the FA20, I don't believe adding .5L to the displacement would hurt anything *if* it cost 400rpm.

We're in the realm of the theoretical, anything is speculation at this point. I even wouldn't be surprised if the "STI" version ends up n/a 2.5L. But we'll see. No one's even cracked the ECU yet, so we don't know if there's any potential left in the FA20. There are a lot of rumors.....

You don't have to compare it to the FA20, you can also compare it to the EJ207 they have in the JDM STI. I would rather have the JDM 2.0L STI engine with 8500RPM redline than the 2.5L USDM one with a 7000RPM redline. And in the same vain, I would rather have the STI version of the BRZ keep the FA20 and increase the redline to 8500 than go with a 2.5L FA25 and lower the redline. Guess it all comes down to personal preferenece but I'm glad they kept the engine 2.0L and high revving.

Here's a news for you guys want open ECU. Currently Tada-san is changing the policy of Toyota co to make it open ECU, so it'll be easier to open & mapping it... so only time will tell

Agreed-It really is too early to speculate on the STI engine. If the FA20 is a 8500rpm monster de-tuned for base BRZ/GT-86/FR-S duties, then I could see toyota/subaru going with the high-output version of the same engine to save $$$..

On the other hand, seems like there is a ton of customer demand for some sort of forced induction. Seeing as subaru has confirmed that the next gen WRX will have a turbocharged version of the FA20, it would also make sense for subaru to dump this engine in the "STI" version of the BRZ...



Yes- all comes down to personal preference...

:party0030: Awesome... 1st thing people will try to eliminate is that dip in the torque-curve I bet.

That won't be in my mods list. First thing mod I'll be doing will be oil catch tank. If you gonna track it, autox'ing it, driftin' it, or any high lateral G is happening, I would recommend oil catch tank.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-W...rcent+loss.png

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