2013 FR-S Product Technical Info and Specs (from Las Vegas press event)
 

Basic spec of Product Info

Thanks to Ichi for the awesome coverage! :)

Thank you Ichi.

Thanks Ichi! Finally some real specs about MPG and gear ratios. The wait is getting harder and harder!

LOL, 4lbs lighter than a BRZ Premium.

2,758 vs. 2,762

So much for that advantage that everyone was boasting about.:bonk:

:thumbdown:Damn I thought it was going to be closer to 2700 pounds, not 2800 pounds! WTF!

I guess HIDS, and nav don't really weigh that much..oh wait..4 pounds..

Please leave the FRS vs BRZ nonsense out of this thread. Some like the Scion. Some prefer the Toyota, and some prefer the BRZ. They are entitled to like what they like. Move on with your lives.

i know it's a sport car but i didn't know til now that premium gas is *required*, tsk guess i have to start paying attention to the bigger number.

Why is the 5th gear 1:1? Damn you Toyota. I dislike having to use premium on a car that will be my DD and I've resigned myself to that fact. Now the MT gets poorer MPG than the AT version because different ratios were chosen. WTF

The compression ratio and the Boxer motor itself are the reasoning. You get used to it. I've been stuck with Premium for the past 6 1/2 years with my WRX. You just only focus on the big number at the station, and ignore the little ones.

Am I the only one who thinks 25mpg combined is a bit low?

My WRX is a 2.0 with a turbo and gets 217HP and I get an average of 21 to 22. HWY is definitely higher, but only at the average for the FRS at best. It makes sense since the Boxer is not fuel efficient in any way when you want any sort of performance from it.

someone correct me if im wrong but isnt that turning circle radius of 17.7' (35.4' turning circle) is a little big on paper? That's the same as an S2000 and almost 5' bigger than the MX5. My current drive has 38 turning circle and I hate it and I remembered the FRS hugging the turn very well during my test drive in Long Beach so I was expecting something smaller.

You forgot to add destination ... oh wait.. :D

...looks like the difference in gear ratios between manual and automatic transmission versions might help explain the difference in EPA mileage estimates...

I cant believe people still hold MT EPA estimates as relative to actual MPGs. Wake up, produce one reasonable vehicle that has a better "real world" (thats where you are driving right? Yeah, not EPA land) AT vs MT.

Then again we are talking MPGs on a performance car, its like wanting a light 12ga with low recoil.... Under given cirumstances the relationship is a cause and effect.

Seriously? You do realize that moving the 1:1 gear to fifth means you have closer spaced 1-5 gears, right? It's basically a close-ratio gearbox, which means you'll have a better selection of gears for accelerating out of corners. Also the gearing on the manual is going to be much different than the automatic, where 4th is your 1:1. Personally, I'd rather have an awesome close ratio gear box at the cost of MPG...

I understand that, though I never felt Toyota's gearboxes needed closer ratios. They have needed a better final gear so that when I'm cruising down the highway at 70+, the car doesn't need to be at 3300rpm or higher. Never mind the fact that, when on the track, I'm never going to get to the 5 gear - 4 gear maybe on larger tracks with long straightaways and sweeping corners. The torque curve on this car is rather broad and flat, so I don't expect that this car will require searching for the right rev band.

I don't understand the "Standard Audio System." It says 300W and then it says 160W. Which is it?? Please advise.

They are including the 140W amp in the total.

Dadhawk beat me to it. That's also why you'll see that the bespoke may be advertised as a 340 watt system

200 for the bespoke HU + 140 for the amp

Oh cool! This system has the numbers, but not the looks lol. Saddddd

radio
 

Agree about the standard radio... it is the most b*tt ugly radio I've seen in a long time. Good features but ugly ugly.
:(

Yup. They couldve just given us a regular Toyota headunit, like in Corollas or something, and included the amp and aux setup. But noooooo, someone got high at the conference table and let this pass.

No Scion Security (factory alarm) option? I wonder if it will arrive later?

I hate having hack job car alarms installed by independent shops.

Thanks for the post Ichi!

So only 48 lbs. difference between the AT & MT. So the AT tranny must be fairly light. And only a 4 lbs. difference between the FRS & BRZ is good to know too. :thumbup:

anyone have further details on the CAI, lower springs, or 18" rims?

I'm down for a 6 spd auto and supercharged please! Days of driving stick on long ass day to day drives must and need to be over! Lolz...

Lots of stuff are coming out man...just wait...will have lots of options...and coilover kits are no problem...its super easy for any coilover shop to put together a set up for you...once they have the measurements here in the states, be popping out like popcorn, and wheels, no problem, just pick your size and offset, its not like its 5x100 which is a bitch...

I honestly don't mind the HU.

As long as it has Bluetooth and sounds OK, then I'm good. Right now I'm using a AUX jack that needs to be grounded badly. It's all crackly and I have to readjust the jack when I hit bumps. So, yeah, the stock Scion HU would definitely be an upgrade.

Of course I'd like the Bespoke unit more, but it's not worth $900 more.

It is 5x100... ;)

i'm asking about the factory accessories, not aftermarket. they're listed on page 5 of 5 in the original post.

I think almost all, if not all Toyota 6-speed gear boxes us a 1:1 5th gear.

Jeff

These are preliminary specifications as printed on page one. The numbers posted on Scion's and Subaru's websites paint a different picture:

Model\Trans MT AT
FR-S 2,785 2,806
BRZP 2,762 2,809
BRZL 2,776 2,882

So, the lightest is BRZP-MT, heaviest is BRZL-AT. If these numbers are accurate, my bets are that the differences are due to the following:

1. The BRZP-MT is lighter then the FRS-MT because the FRS's stereo unit is older/heavier, plus the external amp. Also the front fascia and headlight assembly is cheaper\heavier. They both have same amount of materials to control NVH.

2. The BRZP-AT should be lighter than the FRS-AT (add 31 lbs for AT), but the BRZ has more materials for NVH (AT users should welcome/expect this.)

3. The BRZL MT weight is wrong. No way that the features of the Limited cost only 14 lbs. Just the wiring harness for all the sensors and components of keyless entry will weigh more than 10lbs. We also got dual climate, spoiler, leather seats with heater. etc. This is a more sensible explanation than claiming that there is a 106 lbs difference between the MT and AT versions of the BRZL, even if the AT BRZL has the most NVH materials.

That's a typo on the website I think. 2758 on official documentation, 2785 on website. Considering the BRZ has a NAV headunit and HID headlights, it makes sense there's a 4lb difference; the FR-S shouldn't weigh less considering it has a few less things (e.g. trunk liner).

EDIT: SHOULD WEIGH LESS

Based on some articles, I am revising the weight lists as:

Model\Trans MT AT
FR-S 2,758 2,806
BRZP 2,762 2,809
BRZL 2,776 2,822

Now it makes more sense...

4 - 30 lb difference doesnt matter to me. I'm surprised that you would even think twice about such a marginal difference. They are the exact same machine. That being said I'm glad I got to see these specs.

No doubt, but the numbers were conflicting, and to this day, 2,882 for BRZL-AT on Subaru's website is wrong. There is quite a bit of difference between mid 2700 and almost 2900!

Are the accessory 18" wheels going to be these?

http://wot.motortrend.com/files/2011...ee-Quarter.jpg

Doubt it, they'll probably be sourced by Toyota USA, and be different from anything shown in Japan.

Jeff