[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Deslock

I found the ITR slightly harsher than the stock S2k. My '95 GSR was much softer than both.

My 06 S2000 was definately stiffer/harsher than the ITR. Was the ITR you drove stock? After driving my modified GS-R for so long (with a track focused suspension and spring rates) when I picked up the ITR I thought it had GS-R springs the damn car felt so soft lol but yeah it's harsher than a stock GS-R for sure). The S2000 spring rates up front are higher than stock ITR so maybe that helped with the harsher feeling. The rear rates are slightly lower (although the 00-01 rear rates are much higher from the list I just read). Or maybe it was just the lack of a fixed room making it seem worse, or the seats, etc , etc. Either way, my stock suspension S2000 felt noticable harsher than my bilstein damper/stock spring ITR.

I expect the FT to attain better EPA MPG ratings than the ITR, but you bring up another good point: the Integra (at least the GSR from my experience, and the ITR from yours) routinely beat its MPG ratings.

I'd hope its rated for more, but they've also changed the rating system so I'm not sure how to recalculate that. Probably easiest to just see what I get with both in 7? months or whatever ITR's original rating was 25/30.

I expect wheel torque/weight (what really matters) to be very similar.

Agreed. In fact I hope it is. I really want the FRS/BRZ to be a RWD ITR with cruise control and HIDs...

Part of our differing opinions may be due to my probably being older than you, but even in my 20s I found the ITR too rough for a daily driver.

I'm 34 so I'm not that young (compared to most here). I know some 60-70 year olds with ITRs too The ITR is definately not the right choice for everyone though, it's a bit more raw and unpolished feeling compared to.. well.. most cars on the road. For those that love the car that's one of the main reasons they are loved though

130 mm (according to the leaked specs sheets in the other thread)

Nice, I totally missed that! So about 5.1".. I wonder what the lowest part would be. That's actually lower than an ITR (except for the damn lip) by ~.2" or so but the body work may be the lowest on the FR-S too. I'm wondering if the header will be the lowest though since the engine is mounted so low..

At this point, all specifications are subject to change. It's quite possible it was going to be 17.8", and they had to increase by 0.3" it for some reason (perhaps they increased ground clearance). IMO, it's a bit unfair to call them liars over that.

Maybe, but I just expect when they publically state a real number that it won't change.. the random "one of the lowest" type things are just guesses, same as "around 18" cog" but "The COG is one of the lowest of any production car, at 17.8"...." is a pretty exact statement and shouldn't have changed.

Then again, that was Toyota, Subaru probably changed it months ago and Toyota didn't find out :P