"gah FRS/BRZ are so slow, if only they had like 50 more hp"

[Demandred7]

Originally Posted by Atticus808

did the GTR have a good driver?

I am by no means an expert, but, I would say "not inexperienced", but, not professional. Either middle of the road or didn't want to completely commit to each corner". The 370 definitely was throwing it for all he was worth.

[Mikem53]

It's none of my business what other people think of my car...
It works fine for me..

[Mach V Dan]

Originally Posted by brianhj

You said "just about perfect".. Why?

Why what? Why not "completely perfect"? Nothing is ever completely perfect. As to what I would improve about the power delivery, I can't really think of anything. Maybe more torque/power would be better...maybe not.

--Dan
Mach V

[thill]

Originally Posted by akyp

If our cars do have 250hp people will still be like 'they should have 300hp because cars X, Y and Z have 300hp'. You can't win these people.

We do live in a crazy era when hatchbacks have over 300hp and weigh over 1.5 tons.

Yeah, this is a great point. There are people that mod out there GTR's because they want more power...

[nalc]

Originally Posted by Nevermore

I don't have a problem with the car's power, it's the most powerful car I've driven/owned so it's plenty for me. Though I am kind of curious about the torque number, purely from an observation standpoint. I've noticed older cars, with smaller engines/less HP with more torque than our cars. I've seen some where the torque and HP numbers were the same, and some where the torque number was higher. I'm a pretty big noob when it comes to engines, but I've always wonder why our 200HP engine had such "low" torque by comparison.

Power is Torque multiplied by RPM. If you think of it like lifting weights at the gym, torque is like how much you lift in one go, power is how much you lift in one minute. So there's an infinite combination of Torque and RPM to create a given horsepower. You could lift 500 lbs once per minute, you could lift 250 lbs twice per minute, you could lift 50 lbs ten times per minute, you could lift 5 lbs fifty times per minute, it's all 500 lbs per minute.

For the units we use in the US for power and torque, the formula is Power (in horsepower) = Torque (in ft-lbs) * RPM / 5252.

So if we had a motor that made exactly 100 lbs of torque at all RPMs, it would make 50 HP at 2626 rpm, 100 HP at 5252 RPM, and 150 HP at 7878 RPM.

However, engines don't have constant torque. It varies by RPM. And, since power is a function of torque and RPM, it also varies by RPM.

Since the numbers quoted are always the peak numbers, as a rough rule of thumb, if peak HP happens below 5252 RPM, the peak torque (in ft-lbs) will be higher than the peak horsepower, and if peak HP happens above 5252 RPM, the peak torque is lower than the peak HP. If the peak HP is pretty close to 5252 RPM, the numbers will be pretty close.

For a lot of older engines, they had a harder time doing high RPMs, and the torque starts to drop off as RPMs increase. If the torque is dropping off at a faster rate than RPM is increasing, you lose power going higher. (i.e. if a 5% increase in RPM causes a 10% decrease in torque, you'll end up making less power).

The FA20 can work better at high RPMs, so it can keep making torque at high RPMs, so it's got a peak horsepower close to 7,000 RPM, since in that range, the torque is staying constant or diminishing slightly, but the RPMs are increasing.

I don't think it's fair to think of the FA20 as a 200HP engine with low torque. I'd rather think of it as a 150 ft-lbs engine that operates well at high RPMs and thus creates more HP.

[humfrz]

More power and torque .. ??

Personally, I don't need it. What I find limiting (non-track driving), is the other vehicles in front of me .... .

It doesn't seem to matter what day of the week or time of day or the roads ....... the roads are full of drivers.....usually one per vehicle.

Why aren't these people at work! They ALL can't be traveling sales persons, delivery persons or Realtors ..... .

humfrz

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Vracer111

The car does lack something stock, but it's not horsepower level, it's a good power delivery (one that's more linear in nature) and engine responsiveness under load from 2.5k-to-nearly 5k. It's not to say you can't boogie when needed with the stock engine delivery (keeping it above 5k rpm), but it's the one major thing that needs to be changed on it (well I would also say change out the stock rubber steering rack bushings for solid aluminum ones and a lighter weight flywheel for the much too slow stock downshifts...) Keeping it above 5k rpm really increases the oil temp above nominal awfully fast though...

Cliff notes:

To be perfect the stock FR-S needs the following:
- Revised engine characteristic from 2.5k rpm to almost 5k rpm for more linear power delivery
- Solid aluminum steering rack bushings
- lightweight flywheel to speed up the too slow downshifts (you have to add waiting time after pressing the clutch in when downshifting)...I'ts odd that my Tacoma can downshift faster than my FRS...

Note, no additional horsepower or torque or suspension changes are needed... those were nailed perfectly. It has no issues at all reaching and cornering at triple digit speeds on highway on-ramps...on the stock Primacy HPs.

I'm more than content with it's stock power level - but not thrilled with the delivery through the middle of its rpm range. My brothers '05 RS has better engine responsiveness with its 2.5L SOHC motor in a heavier car with less power output.

At 2000rpm, this engine is making 130 ft-lb, and at 3000rpm, it's making nearly 150ft-lb. That's about 75 ft-lb per liter at 3krpm. I challenge you to find any naturally aspirated engine that makes more specific torque than that, especially at such a low RPM. The new 911 GT3 only makes about 235 ft-lb at that RPM, from a 3.8L (62 ft-lb/L)Yes, at its peak, the GT3 makes 325 ft-lb (85 ft-lb/L), but it doesn't do that until over 6000 RPM. The same story applies to pretty much every other high performance, naturally aspirated engine ever made. If anything, the FA20 is already far more responsive and torquey at low RPM than would usually be expected for a 2L, high performance, N/A engine. That doesn't change the fact that it's a 2L though, so it will never make a ton of torque down low without a turbo/supercharger.

[FRyeS]

No offense to the OP, but another one of these threads is almost as annoying as the ****s that buy the car and then do nothing but whine about it and talk about it's shortcomings (perceived or otherwise)

Nothing's perfect, nothing. never ever.

With all of the "information" out there now about these cars, you should pretty much know what you're getting when you decide to buy. If you buy and hate it, I don't feel bad for you a single bit.

And if it's about what other people say about you, your car, its power, your penis size (perceived or otherwise); well I guess you've got other problems you need to work out.

[Pbrown]

I personally do about 15 km/h over the posted speed limit on a regular basis. No need for tickets. I still think I have only been passed maybe a handful of times in the 16 months I have owned the car. I think it's fast enough for street use. I have an internal battle everyday on wether to go FI and the only valid reason I can come up with is "just because I can" . It definately won't stop the critics and I don't think it will change my driving style, I'll just get up to cruising speed faster. For the record, I will be going FI after the warranty expires just because I will have a new car experience spending $8000 going FI on a car I love instead of spending $30+K for the same HP gains on something new.

[Whitigir]

Originally Posted by Tromatic

Those that bitch about HP can't f-ing drive in the first place.

LOL ! Do they need to know how to drive when 99% of time they see you on the Highway and smoke you to a Jerky in seconds ?

I don't think so.

Unless, it was on a Curvy Race Track. Again, different people are with different Taste. As long as You comment about FRS/BRZ being slow, it is not for you. The same as a Billionaire Grand-ma saying "A Ferrari is too fast for me, it is not for her either"

Go with what you love, and is meant for you. I love FRS/BRZ, but it is not for me. That is why I am here on the forum, but I don't own one. I appreciate seeing one, and enjoy looking at it, even talk to the owner too

[Vracer111]

@ chrisl

That's all fine and dandy...but then you have the 3-5k rpm region where power output very noticeably DECREASES then goes back up to finally match the ~3krpm level again at ~5k rpm, that is not a torque curve you want. The torque amount @ a constant 2-3k rpm is fine, I like the torque level...its when you get on it like you mean it at say 2k rpm and you feel the power fluctuate as you go through the rpm range until at ~5k rpm it finally hits its stride and comes on strong the rest of the way up. Tell me how enjoyable the FRS is cornering hard at just under 4k rpm in 3rd gear.... It is much more enjoyable cornering at either just under 3k rpm in third or going down to 2nd and blazing in at near 5k rpm.

I'm comparing the FRS to my previous track setup car which had a really responsive 1.8L I4 motor (untouched stock motor with just custom intake and exhaust and lightweight racing flywheel) that doesn't even make near the power the FA20 does...what it did have was a nice linear power delivery, about 500lbs less weight, and instantaneous responsiveness to minute pressure on the throttle pedal. My '90 Integra RS with the B18A motor - I wish the FA20 had its power delivery curve....

The FA20 is a very nice smooth motor with nice torque down low, but it builds revs a little too slowly stock (especially between 3-5k rpm) - not synchronizing with the awesomeness of the 86 chassis.

[Dezoris]

The problem is the chassis can handle 250HP+ no problem and that's where the big disappointment lies. The lack of power is always nagging in street and track use.

Did not mind back in 1997 when I could get a 200HP Prelude SH. But 15 years later...

[Poodles]

Originally Posted by dem00n

Geo Metro wasn't fast, it was fucking scary. 55 on highway with an approaching hard corner? Fuck that...
First car i ever felt the chassis moving, guess thats how it feels to drive a Morgan huh?

Man, I had to laugh a bit. Went on a hill country cruise years ago with a bunch of Supras and misc. fast cars.... Since my Supra had a blown headgasket at the time and I had already booked the hotel, I went in the Metro (1.0 liter 5 speed hatchback). Through the corners, these guys couldn't loose me, I think I made them mad

Got the thing to a GPS confirmed 100MPH downhill too

Back to the main thread topic: As I don't have my BRZ (yet), I can't comment that much, but coming from driving NA and NB Miatas, the car felt in the test drive about in between a Miata and my MKIII Supra (Miata handling, bit more power, Supra like creature comforts). All the reviews complaining about the lack of power are the same people that don't dog on the Miata for the same exact thing. I really don't get it.

[sc0urge]

Originally Posted by Dezoris

The problem is the chassis can handle 250HP+ no problem and that's where the big disappointment lies. The lack of power is always nagging in street and track use.

Did not mind back in 1997 when I could get a 200HP Prelude SH. But 15 years later...

I was just about to respond with something along these lines. I think editors and testers tend to nag about the horsepower because the rest of the car performs so well as it is. I'm not going to pretend like all these testers 'don't know how to drive' or only want muscle cars or that I'm even a half-decent driver myself. But, I think a lot of the times when magazines take the twins to the tracks, they are driving the car to the point where they can tell the chassis is outperforming the engine. I think, and I think we can all agree, that the chassis could easily handle a lot more performance from the engine and that's why it's always mentioned in the publications.