New FR-S BRZ Technology Info! Engine specs, CoG, Drag Coefficient, Dimensions, etc.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by Kostamojen

Actually, because of the reverse intake manifold the view is distorted , but it looks like there is quite a bit less space behind the motor.

What I'm surprised about is how much space there is in FRONT of the motor, like a good foot or so and I don't even see the radiator in that photo meaning its pretty far forward.

That makes me think there is going to be much more room in front of the motor than behind it.



Look at how much room is normally behind the motor with Subaru's:

Yep its definitely front mid ship...

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Doesn't that make it even more sad that even with today's technology and engineering they couldn't best that though?

Nah, the cars are not comparable. The ITR is so jarring, it's almost not drivable on the street. And with current safety standards, it's more difficult to make cars that low. That the FT has decent clearance and a COG height of 460 mm is a testament to today's technology and engineering. Especially when you also consider that that FT is RWD, has more power, more torque, better MPG, and 250 pounds less over the front wheels than the ITR!

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Also the frs has no sunroof so comparing it to cars that came with them by default like the rsx-s or gsr make less sense

You bring up a good point about the sunroof, but the FT is still more like the GSR and RSX-S than the ITR in terms of livability (at least going by reports so far).

According to what I read in this thread, the FT's COG is 5 mm higher than the ITR's. However, the JDM FT ground clearance is 25 mm higher than the JDM ITR (and 15 mm higher than the USA ITR). Lower the FT so it has the same ground clearance as the ITR, and it will have a lower COG than the ITR.

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

I'm also bitter that Toyota lied about the cog.

Meh. I remember reading somewhere that someone said it would have the lowest COG of any production car (I forget if it was an engineer or marketing person), but I knew at the time that wasn't going to happen. I suspect it was an embellishment that wasn't meant to be quoted, or a misunderstanding from bad translating.

In any case, until things are officially announced later this month, any of these specs are subject to change.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Aki

It's far too simplistic to say whether a car's supension geometry is superior just based on whether it has struts or not. Wheel rate/motion ratio, chassis rigidity, rebound/compression tuning all make an impact. In short, we can't draw any conclusions of how this car compares to a Miata or an ITR.

Dial in enough camber up front and the downside of Mac struts are compensated for, it's not that big of a deal.

Sure, I'm not claiming that every car with a wishbone setup handles better than every car with struts, but rather that wishbone suspension is inherently superior to struts.

[Aki]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Sure, I'm not claiming that every car with a wishbone setup handles better than every car with struts, but rather that wishbone suspension is inherently superior to struts.

If all other things are equal sure--but that's the thing, can never really have an all-things equal situation. Two main downsides of a double-wishbone setup is the size of packaging--Macphersons take up a smaller space--and weight. Given the obsession with compactness and lightweight, it's very understandable to go with Mac struts. Dial in a bit of negative camber up front and you're good to go.

Imo the difference is a lot less than multi-link rear vs live axle (eg Mustang).

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Nah, the cars are not comparable. The ITR is so jarring, it's almost not drivable on the street. And with current safety standards, it's more difficult to make cars that low. That the FT has decent clearance and a COG height of 460 mm is a testament to today's technology and engineering. Especially when you also consider that that FT is RWD, has more power, more torque, better MPG, and 250 pounds less over the front wheels than the ITR!

I don't find the ITR rough at all for a performance oriented car. It was softer than the S2000 was and softer than my GS-R before I put stock suspension bits back on it. It's loud though, that is the only thing that makes it someone annoying as a daily driver (well that and every honda theif in the area will follow you around to try to find out where you work/live so they can steal the damn 14 year old honda...). We haven't seen real MPG stats (ie EPA city/highway) yet, but I get mid 30s in the ITR on the highway so I'd guess it's fairly similar. The FT does have 2 more HP and a decent amount more torque, but it may not have more wheel torque due to gearing (I mean real wheel torque, not what will be measured on a dyno but with gearing multiplication). We don't know the gearing to figure that out yet

You bring up a good point about the sunroof, but the FT is still more like the GSR and RSX-S than the ITR in terms of livability (at least going by reports so far).

Maybe, we will have to see. I wish the ITR had cruise control (it's easy to install though but it only starts bothering me after 15 hours or so of driving, I've gotten use to not having it) but other than that the ITR is very livable and very useful to haul stuff with the hatchback. For long distance trips to tracks I bring 2 spare wheels/tires, tools, supplies, cooler, etc with no issue and space for a 2nd person (If I didn't have expensive stereo equipment in the back I probably could fit 2 passengers). I suspect the FRS will be quieter and will have cruise control, both of which I'll welcome if the rest of it meets my wants/needs

According to what I read in this thread, the FT's COG is 5 mm higher than the ITR's. However, the JDM FT ground clearance is 25 mm higher than the JDM ITR (and 15 mm higher than the USA ITR). Lower the FT so it has the same ground clearance as the ITR, and it will have a lower COG than the ITR.

We know the ground clearance of the FT? I didn't see the number, what is it? 5.5"? Most of the ITRs loss of ground clearance is just the front lip (which obviously isn't making the CoG much lower by itself). GS-R's are 5.9" and the ITR is only 15mm lower excluding the front lip, so it's real ground clearance is in the 5.3" range except for the damn lip. Luckily it just gets scratched and the bumper flexes so they rarely break when hitting the ground

I'd suspect the FT would be around 5-5.5" stock, but not sure.

Meh. I remember reading somewhere that someone said it would have the lowest COG of any production car (I forget if it was an engineer or marketing person), but I knew at the time that wasn't going to happen. I suspect it was an embellishment that wasn't meant to be quoted, or a misunderstanding from bad translating.

The Chief Engineer stated 17.8" specifically. That random "lowest of any production car" type quotes I don't pay attention to but when I get a specific number I want to hold them to it..

[BobbyBalaz]

Originally Posted by madfast

it probably means rev matching?

anyways the best case scenario for the AT is a 6 speed version of the ISF's tranny. more realistically it is a version of the IS 6AT, but hopefully they used some of the ISF tech to "sport" it up a bit. you expect smooth shifts in a lexus, but for this car? you can make it shift faster at the expense of smoothness and call it part of the driving experience that's what they did on the LF-A. they went with a single clutch auto-manual with intentional shift shock for the "experience"...

Wow. Hopefully more 'intentional shift shock for the experience'. I'ed rather it shift faster, then smoother. Exciting, exciting.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Aki

If all other things are equal sure--but that's the thing, can never really have an all-things equal situation. Two main downsides of a double-wishbone setup is the size of packaging--Macphersons take up a smaller space--and weight. Given the obsession with compactness and lightweight, it's very understandable to go with Mac struts. Dial in a bit of negative camber up front and you're good to go.

Yes, that is of course true. Every car is a compromise and as I wrote before, "But it's OK... with this engine/layout, we knew all along it would have struts in the front."

Originally Posted by Aki

Imo the difference is a lot less than multi-link rear vs live axle (eg Mustang).

Certainly. I never intended my commented to be interpreted as meaning that struts suck. As I wrote before, "It's not a deal breaker."

I've been following development of this car for over two years and put down my deposit as soon as the dealership would take one, so clearly I'm not bashing the FT. Just being realistic about struts' deficiencies.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

I don't find the ITR rough at all for a performance oriented car. It was softer than the S2000 was and softer than my GS-R

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

On a side note: I test drove a heavily modded S2k (N/A 265 hp at the wheels!) that made the most beautiful sounds I've ever heard from a 4 banger. I almost bought it, but the car was so stiff it would've put me in traction (plus it was so pristine, I couldn't in good conscience use it as a daily driver).

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

We haven't seen real MPG stats (ie EPA city/highway) yet, but I get mid 30s in the ITR on the highway so I'd guess it's fairly similar.

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.

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

We don't know the gearing to figure that out yet

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

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

the ITR is very livable

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.

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

We know the ground clearance of the FT?

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

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

The Chief Engineer stated 17.8" specifically. That random "lowest of any production car" type quotes I don't pay attention to but when I get a specific number I want to hold them to it..

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.

[trueno86power]

I've just notice that Gran Turismo have pretty good info on how the engine bay would look on the FT-86.

The intake manifold look exactly the same! Even the writing on it seem to be there.

From the first video they made:


And for real:

[old greg]

Originally Posted by project.sth

I've just notice that Gran Turismo have pretty good info on how the engine bay would look on the FT-86.

If only their weight and power info had turned out to be correct.

[Gardus@Supersprint]

I don't think its center point of gravity will be lower than that of a 997 GT3...

Talking about the power, there are very few NA 4 cylinder engines that have a higher output than claimed, especially Euro5 engines.
From the pictures I've seen the engine has two cats, the 1st one of them very big, so the car will be much choked by the exhaust.
We'll also need to see if they didi a good job with the headers, as Impreza engines don't have equale length primary pipes, and on a NA that's much more important than on a turbo.
The rear exhaust has a open chamber design, so a bit of improvement can come from here too.
I think a full exhaust, well designed and tested, will greatly improve on this engine, probably almost 20 hp.
I also hope the ECU will be easy to work with...

Also, I'm very curious to see what engine note is possible to extract from high specific power NA boxer.

If I'll buy it next year as I hope as soon as it's broken in it'll go on our dyno and then a full exhaust will be developed, and will see but...

Before that I'll need to test drive it, in the hope it won't be a nail...I fear a torque-less engine with a letargic throttle response...

[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

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Gardus

I don't think its center point of gravity will be lower than that of a 997 GT3...

I also hope the ECU will be easy to work with...

Who said it would be? It's definately NOT (far from it in fact).

If it's a Subaru ECU it should be cake.. if it's a Toyota ECU.. well if history tells us anything.. good luck.

[Gardus@Supersprint]

As the engine is sourced from Subaru I hope it's the second case..we'll see.