Guessing Scion FR-S specs??
 

So I think a thread like this was made a while back, but I'd like to see some more recent opinions (even thought our knowledge of the specs hasnt been really updated :()

What do you think the weight, 0-60 (not saying its important), compression ratio, gear ratios, redline? etc etc....

I wanted to bring this up and realized the current gen civic si has same hp in an inline four, but its porkier at about 2900 lbs! idk about you but i dont want a FR-S weighing that much and being so little it just wouldnt be cool....iirc an autocar interview said the car was about 2450lbs? if so id a lot of us would be happier. (Especially the ones who want turbos more than others)

My (new) guesses:

Weight: 1100-1150kg's (Based on Autocar's article)
0-60: not sure, never paid any attention to them as I don't find them important...
C.R.: at least 11.0:1, I'm guessing 11.5:1. Would be great if they managed 12.0:1!
Gear ratio's: Once again, not sure, but I would expect 1-5 to be short, and 6 to be a lot longer, for highway efficiency.
Redline: Guessing 8000rpm, just because the heads are being developed by Yamaha...

At first I was expecting 1200-1250kg, but after seeing the size of it, and from autocar's article, I think 1100-1150kg should be doable...

What he said.

Redline will need to be at least 8000. Going by the peak BMEP of previous yamaha developed engines with D4s, the FB should make between 150 and 160 ftls of torque. To produce the 200 hp that Toyota has been talking about, the engine will need to produce peak power at at least 6500 to 7000 rpm if not higher. A redline lower than 8000 wouldn't leave much room for a decent powerband.

I think,
Weight: 1100-1150kg's
Power: 190~220hp
0-60: 6~6.5 sec
C.R.: 11.5:1 (wish if they make it lower with same power output)
Gear ratio's: 1-5th close ratio, 6th would be tall
Redline: Guessing 7800rpm

I think toyota might underrate this car in terms of 0-60 and hp. Same way they underrated the supra. In japan it was an agreement, but here they might go after "feel" rather than specs, and to lower insurance. So I'm expecting a ~6.2s 0-60, 200hp, but official specs would be 7s and 180hp.

Higher compression ratio is better. It makes for a more efficient motor all around. The Lexus IS 250 has D4-S and brings 12:1 to the table. I'm hoping for the same here.

I hope they do something like Hyundai where the engine has high compression but can still run on 87 just with reduced power, shouldn't be too hard to implement right?

A knock sensor is pretty standard. With lower octane, it'll retard the timing but I believe it takes several tank loads before it advances it though but don't quote me on that.

Yes 87 would be fine. There is a chance they won't build it for premium anyway but cars have been designed to detune for poor fuel quality for over a decade :thumbsup:.

Close I think. I still hold by my early prediction that the GT5 concept was within 10% of the production car.

I say 1100kg/2420lbs (GT5 is 1000kg/2200lbs), 200 hp (GT5 is 220 hp), 7500 rpm redline (GT5 is 8200).

Further thoughts... I think the power peak will be around 6800 rpm if it's REALLY efficient (small smoothly curved ports sized for enough high velocity air, mid 12's CR, DS4, well designed combustion chamber, low friction, maybe some fancy temp-control coatings, lightweight reciprocating parts, etc...) I also think we will see a better torque curve than we are used to with small Toyota motors, due to the stroke, and if they use the Subaru AVLS.

I'm saying the lower redline, based on the 90mm stroke not going to be super rev-friendly. 7500 rpm will have much less stress on the rods than 8200 rpm.

(all the motor speculation is based on FB20 bore/stroke)

Hey don't hate. Power: weight is where it is at.

I really hope you guys are right and we get a high revving boxer engine. 200 HP should be the bare minimum for this car. 0-60 might be a bit slow on paper though, simply because it will probably require 3 shifts to get there.

When in real world driving does 0-60 matter? It is just a bragging thing. I am more worried about 40-60 or 60-80 times personally.

Hahaha, desert, don't you have a car meet with diesel and walker tonight?

Better not granny-shift on your way there.

I'd be happy if it could go 0-60 in under 6.5 seconds. If it got 30mpg too, with great handling, I'm sold.

X2

I'd be stoked if the car ran a mid 14...I know its not a drag car but that's about as fast as the two most balanced affordable sports cars that have been available for sale in recently memory...e.g. S2K and RX-8. Any faster than that and I feel it's hard to enjoy on the street legally...cough 350Z/370Z cough. Slower and well there's the MX-5 for that.

Mid 14s is probably a pretty good guess as far as straight line acceleration is concerned. I doubt it'll break into the 13s, and they probably wouldn't want to make it slower than the 7th gen Celica GT-S (high 14s low 15s). But hey, as long as it has enough grunt blasting out of turns to make me grin, I'll be happy.

With the new weight figures, if the FT gets 200hp, it will be right on par with the S2000 for power to weight ratio. I guess that dispels the "High School Girls Car" idea. If it had 240hp, the power to weight ratio would actually be slightly better than the 320HP Supra TT! Good luck with that coming from the factory.

In order to achieve the same power to weight as the 2011 Mustang GT V8, this car would need right at 290hp.

I think it's safe to say that this car will be a MONSTER if it's boosted at all.

Is that because you watched that "Jeans" video on youtube? lol And I never really thought of the s2k being a HS girls' car. O_O

No I was referencing Desertspool saying "Under 240hp = high school girls car".

He is insane... LOL

I think the S2K is THE (pronounced Thee) driver's car.

I refuse to get my hopes up.

Yeah I think I agree with you on this. No sense in dreaming big as it seems that is very doubtful.

Toyota/Scion talks about how it’s light, manageable and balanced, with good “MPG’s”. I am guessing the specs of this NA Engine care are going to be fairly modest. Toyota says that it gets its “DNA” from the AE-86. A car that was not overly powerful and fairly light for its day. At the same time Toyota knows how to get power out of a small engine. Look at the ZZT231 in the 2000 Celica. They managed 190hp out of a 1.8L NA engine. The Celica was also a fairly light car, weighing only a little more than my Yaris. The Celica also had a 2+2 seating configuration I believe. Using the Celica as a template for my guess, factoring in the extra weight for modern safely, a larger engine, gas tank, drive shaft, LSD. I am guessing a weight of around 2800lbs (hopefully less) and a less aggressive (compared to the Celica’s 1.8L) 190 hp. But I think they could easily get 210hp out of it if they wanted to. Even at 180hp with some nice gearing on the manual (I don’t know much about automatics) I think this car would still be a RIOT to drive, and it looks good too. I am hoping for some nice firm sporty suspension too. They are also trying to hit a price point. Power and light weight materials cost money. If they are going to hit an attractive price point (hopefully $23K or less) they are going to have to make compromises, but has to cost more than the tC.

I think it's fair to guess that the engine will be between 170-230hp. They are likely to go small and leave a bit on the table (Lexus D4-S engines leave a LOT on the table for intake/exhaust mods), but I hope they will at least to try go over 200hp.

I'm not worried about the power though, or the drive really, because I think that is one of their focus areas, and Toyota can pretty much engineer whatever they put their will to. More than anything else though, because of Toyoda's fascination with the Scirocco

The weight is what bothers me. A p/w in the 12.x lb range IMO is ideal, with the car hopefully not going over 2650lbs. If it is really 24xx-25xxlbs I'll be ecstatic, but like I said, I will no longer hazard a solid guess and say "It will do * "... The latest design was a pleasant surprise, I'd rather the specs and the drive be ones as well.

Yeah, this sounds about right.

It pretty much had the MOST ADVANCED motor in a Toyota production car at the time. It may sound pedestrian these days to say "16V DOHC, electronic fuel injection" but in 1983: ZOMGWTFBBQ!!!!

I know next to nothing of that era, and have no 'top of my head' knowledge to compare with but I would bet that in 1983, 112bhp (net not the old 'gross' hp ratings from the '60s) out of a 1.6L motor was ASTRONOMICAL.

Toyota should take that '86' historical reference seriously, and also give us some of their most advanced current tech in the heads, even if it is attached to a Subaru block.

lol
 

oh, it is. def.

@ Dimman
Let's all hope you're right...D4-S and Valvematic would be pretty intense.

I don't care what it looks like. The S2000 is not suitable for your typical high school girl. This car will be very close in terms of power to weight if it ends up with 200hp. As I stated before, 240hp will put it in MkIV Supra TT territory. That is way to much to expect from a car in this price range. Don't get me wrong, that would be AWESOME, but that will come from the Subie variant or the aftermarket.

I guarantee you that there will be boosted FR-S's within 90 days of release if not less.

Ok.

What is BBK?