Dropping 400rpm in favor of .5L of displacement is a worthwhile trade, in my opinion. Peak torque and hp aren't in that 400rpm anyways.

I don't think it'd take much to get that .5L either, or bring much of a weight penalty. I believe the 2.0L was chosen for mileage and emissions reasons.

K, this is all come down to. You haven't driven this car yet from the all the comments I read. Nakamura-san (Toyota rep from Japan) stated this to me
"If you look just the number for this car, it's nothing special. We can explain to media for an hr and they would not get how great this car really is. So we gave up talking and give them the keys and let the car talk to them. After they drive the car, most of them don't have any words to explain it."

I gonna say the same thing. Drive this car. I don't care FRS or BRZ. See if this car really is gutless. So called "need more power." After you test drive this car and you still think it needs turbo, supercharger, NOS, dynamite, go for it.

If you truly believe that? What's the point of having close ratio gears? Up to 3,000RPM it got 95% of TQ.

not me either. and dare i say it, those that prefer high revs probably out number those that prefer more torque on this board, and in all sports car circles outside the domestic muscle car crowd.

Without driving the car, we can't jump to conclusion like that.

Heck, I want more rpm. 7400rpm is fine, but 8000rpm would be perfect.

I just don't want to be disappointed. I want this car to be fun in all aspects. I drove a first year S2000 and was really disappointed with the low end torque and high strung engine characteristics. When I went back into my Eclipse which weighs 500 lbs more with 30 less hp but 60 more lb-ft of torque, I was like wow, this engine feels so much more road friendly and driveable and I can actually feel it pushing me into the seat.

Now I think the FA20 will be much more to my liking with more torque down low but an "FA25" would have me feeling much more at ease about it. I value the handling much more than power and I in fact prefer less power. But I just don't want to put my foot to the floor and go, "Oh God, where is the power!? Am I even moving?" *Looks out the window* "Yeah, I guess I am moving."

I am not going off of numbers; I am going off of several reviewer impressions. But yes, I will hold judgement until I drive it. Ultimately I will have to determine if the power feel is acceptable for me. I hope to be pleasantly surprised but am not being unrealistically optimistic. I really do want this car. But I'm not going to add a turbo or supercharger to it - reliability/warranty is a large reason I want a new car.

One of the reviews (I forget which one) described the Frs as "the world's slowest superbike." I don't think anyone would suggest that a superbike manufacturer reduce the rpm of their engine for better around town drivability. I don't think the Frs should be any different. If you want loads of torque so you don't have to downshift so much, there are plenty of cars that offer that. This car is focused on delivering the best, most fun and visceral driving experience, and a high revving NA engine is part of that.

FA24 94mm bore from FB25 86mm stroke from FA20. +1mm FA20 valves, 1.5mm more lift, D4-S, CR reduced to 12.0:1.

~30 more lb-ft ~20 more bhp no revs lost.

Win-win.

I wouldn't bother arguing with these guys as they only care about top end(7500+ rpms) that is frigging useless 95% of the time in the real world. I can understand if 95% of these guys eat,sleep, and live on the track. They will never get it. Daily driver trumps a track beast every time in my book as I couldn't care less about the track. I totally agree with this review out of all of the reviews and I always had a feeling the FRS would be a better tool on the track which this review and other ones have confirmed.

Really? You going off several reviewer impressions? What have you reading? Only the negative ones? Have some positive mind, don't need high expectation of car. Take all positive and negative reviews as grain of salt. Cuz currently, you're only taking all the positive reviews are grain of salt and all negative review as a true and fact.

Now I know how Tada-san & other Toyota rep felt every time media ask about supercharger & turbo for this car... and be glad Tsuchiya-san isn't here, cuz Tsuchiya-san have yelled & scolded (& that's a true story).

But you make it seem like the FA20 is a high revver and it really isn't that much of a high revver. I think high revving is over 8k rpms. A 2.5 liter engine should be able to hit the same 7400 rpms or close to what the 2.0 liter delivers.

Just about every reviewer have the same review so it sounds believable about the positives and negatives.

The 'double-bubble' torque curve shows that they really did take your concerns to heart, SUB. It will be decent in normal driving, but sure it will be better when it's whipped. There's only so much that can be done with 2000cc (JDM insurance class could be why they didn't go bigger).

I think it will be a top class low/high compromise. But still a compromise. The reviews all seem to point that the chassis can handle a dump of more power/tq so why not give it to it?

(See my above solution.)

Where's 2.5L engine w 7,400 rpm NA?

So you believe all the reviews? Even mine? Even I'm stating over and over, but only thing I'm getting is "But this"... "Well this"... "Cuz this".... "This reviewer"...

This is absolute loose-loose debate here. I'm done. When you guys drive this car take a pic or vid of you driving and truly feel this car lack TQ, I say "Sorry about that, let's go look at 370Z, V6 GC or do you prefer 2.0T? Maybe Mustang."