Automobile mag first test of FR-S
 

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...13_scion_fr_s/

Found it great on the track, "not quite so great" on the road.

Interesting quotes: "The suspension is just firm enough to do its job without ever being harsh, and it's noticeably firmer than the Subaru's. "

"A beginner driver might have an easier time controlling the Subaru at the limit -- more experienced drivers might prefer the Scion. As the near-identical performance numbers show, neither has a clear performance advantage -- it's all about the feel. The Scion offers the best balance of any sports car within three times its price. "

Automobile Magazine Review
 

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...13_scion_fr_s/


There is one very important part of this review.

At 6.2 and 6.4 seconds to 60 mph, these cars are certainly quick enough when giving their all. The problem is what happens when they’re not flat out. Remember the original Porsche Boxster? Its horsepower number (201) and weight (about 2750 lb) were virtually identical to the BRZ/FR-S twins, and it did 0-60 in the same amount of time -- 6.3 seconds. There was one crucial difference though: the newcars make do with a maximum of 151 lb-ft of torque. The Boxster’s 2.5-liter flat-six produced 180.
That extra nearly 30 lb-ft of torque went a long, long way towards making the Boxster feel quick in normal driving.

Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...#ixzz1t61qjm00

torque comparison is useless w/o actually seeing the torque curves.

as we all know, the brz puts out about 95% of its peak torque at about 2.5k rpm.

I'd rather have 85% of 180 lb-ft at 2500rpm than 95% of 151 lb-ft...

Actually it looks like they both have about the same torque at 2500RPM, then the Boxster has more everywhere else. This is also crank power vs. wheel power so the BRZ probably has a bit of an edge at lower RPMS.

http://www.awe-tuning.com/media/dyno...aust_crank.jpg

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

Wow, this guy is saying exactly what I've been saying. If the engine just made another 30 lb-ft of torque, it would be satisfying enough for all conditions.

while I'm not sure the whole dip can be removed, lets see what the tuning guys do first before passing judgement. OEM ECU tuning is often emissions first, economy second and power third. If you willing to toss aside emissions and economy (and I'm talking marginally here) there may be some more mid range power to gain. Not a guarantee there is more to be gained, but there are things that limit the manufacturers.

Then are you willing to put H6 with 2.5L extra weight & several thousands cash?

Again, 2L vs 2.5L & H4 vs H6... seriously

2.5L H4 like the other Subaru engines... Would be minimal increase in weight and price.

You're forgetting FA20 is totally new engine. Block isn't made out of FB25 engine.

Even they minimal increase in weight and price, but are you willing to loose the redline? It'll go through same thing as EJ engine, F20 (F22) engine. By gaining something, you loose something. It's not simple win-win equation here

I understand that. But I, and many others would probably prefer a lower redline for more torque. Increasing the bore to 96 mm might do the trick to retain good revving while adding torque. But I'm no engineer. And yeah, I'm speaking theoretically here - as in I think they should have designed the engine to be 2.5L from the start like a FA25 of sorts. Boxer engines have an advantage over other 4 cylinder configurations over 2.0L due to the lack of need for a balance shaft. I just think such an engine would have been more impressive and more suitable for a Boxer type. But don't get me wrong, I also like the idea of a square engine so it's still impressive and I would prefer it over any Inline 4.

I don't get this... FRZ/BRZ have 2 less tq then S2k. Now, several AP1 owner & reviewer complain & bitch that F20 don't have any guts, so Honda bore it & made AP2 w F22 engine, result they gain 6% more tq. Now, they complain & bitch that they can't rev as AP1. Do you want Toyota/Subaru to follow same path? Cuz if Toyota/Subaru really did follow Honda's path and make FRS/BRZ w 2.5L H4 engine, I bet it'll make 180TQ, but I can bet you redline will drop to 6,250RPM.

Not me. I think the fact that it revs high is a defining characteristic.

Plus driving Honda's all of my life I'm more than comfortable with powerbands like this.

Heck people still think the S2000 is slow, even though it's a high to mid 5 second car 0-60.

So I'm not surprised people are wanting more power, but I honestly think too many of us are wanting more power, just for the sake of wanting more power.

Well I think a lot of people complained about the lower redline in the newer Honda S2K because that's what made that engine really unique. It had the highest mean piston speed and I think the highest redline for a production car engine at the time. It was a screamer! But the FA20 isn't like that. It has a modest redline of 7400 rpm. So I would have rather them played to the advantages of Boxer engines rather than try to replicate the advantages of an Inline 4.

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."

I just don't understand why people is so quick to say a 2.5 liter boxer engine doesn't belong in this car as if its a 6.2 liter V8 with 275 more lbs on the front end. The first boxster had a 2.5 albeit with 6 cylinders yet I don't hear any of these guys ripping Porsche to shreds for doing it instead of a flat 4 2.0 liter.

Again, I think most of us have no interest in a turbo or even supercharger for this type of car. I agree that would be annoying to hear as a designer. But I have never heard anyone ask him, "Why not a 2.5L?" I think that's a fair question. As another guy said, it could be due to government based emission and fuel economy goals but I'm not so sure.

BTW, just a friendly reminder, this is just a discussion; not an arguement. I am not intending to offend anyone who thinks the 86/BRZ is perfect as it is. Perhaps if I drove this car with a "FA25" and FA20 back to back, I would prefer the FA20 even ...but I really doubt it.

I think the winding road article did a good job of explaining this

& Tada-san will reply with thick Engrish accent "Why not a 2L?"

Yes, I know this is a discussion/debate not an argument. I never stated this is an argument.

Enjoy 2L vs 2.5L discussion, I'm out of this topic, but let me know when you drive this car and please PM me saying "This car lack tq." to prove me wrong & no, it's not a sarcasm.

Because that's the 'party line'?

They shot for the middle with this engine and did as good as is realistically possible for the most possible people with a set of parameters likely set by a committee, regardless of what the PR says.

2.0L choice was likely locked in due to the already mentioned JDM insurance classes as well as a hold back from being compared too directly to faster machines like the Z. And also because Europe prefers smsller motors in their cars. That being decided they had to tune it to satisfy guys like you (good low end response) and guys like me (wanted the GT5 engine specs and do not care below 4k rpm), AND hit fuel economy targets... So it ends up being not a toquey as you would like, not as high strung as I would like and still doesn't get great economy.

But... it comes pretty much as technically possible of doing all 3 at the same time. And we will have to take steps and dollars to do it ourselves. I/H/E/tune/cams for me, 5psi roots TVS sc for you. (I may do the sc thing too...)

To be honest, your review and autox video has me the most hopeful that this engine will indeed satisfy me. So let's hope that I don't PM you such a message. ;)

The way you feel about the torque band might not be the way he feels about it. On paper its about 10lb ft better than my RSX at the same weight. I'm just saying the feel is different amongst everybody.

I hear ya but then why are there so many engines slightly over 2.0L coming out of Japan as of late (2.2L & 2.4L)? Wouldn't we see more 2.0L engines across the board from Japan?

I still wish they had a 2 engine choice like a lot of other cars.

Yeah, that wouldn't be the most economical choice but maybe they'll offer a 2.5L mid-life like the S2000 did with the 2.2L. Hardcore guys can keep their 2.0L and those wanting a bit more push and driveability could then be reintroduced and be satisfied enough to purchase.

It could depend on how important home sales are for them. <2.0L is an insurance step, then <2.5L, then <3.0L then 3.0L+. You can see this with JDM R32/R33 Skyline available engine sizes.

And since they only developed the single motor, 2.0L hits the most potential targets (hp, insurance, economy...).

This is speculation, but well-founded speculation imho.

That's not a bad idea but I highly doubt they would do this. The Japs have an obsession with 2.0L engines or smaller. Even if I don't get this car I can't hate on it. But I feel the engine being the area with only negative marks by reviewers could be to big of pill to swallow for me.