This car is nuts!!! 200 hp?!? No way.

[mid_life_crisis]

I just put all the little pieces together and no longer believe that @Jen is real.
Seriously, what are the odds of this forum attracting something as rare as a lawyer with a conscience?

[regal]

Originally Posted by Jen

What is with you people and trolling? I'm looking to buy an FRS/BRZ so I signed up for the FRS Forum.

This forum suffers from trollaphobia, real defensive group that thinks their cars are a gift from Jesus Christ himself. I joined almost 2 years ago and still get called a troll for mentioning plus's and minus's about the car.


I've yet to see a perfect car, they don't exist off the lot. Not everyone here suffers from the phobia and there are some real open minded good posters here so don't be discouraged.

Originally Posted by Jen

An FRS obviously doesn't go faster than a Challenger R/T. I don't know if you have driven a Challenger, but it's an ocean liner.
.

As a young kid I ( 80's) I really liked the AAR Cuda (sister to the original Challenger.) I swore if Chrysler ever came out with a revised 'cuda or challenger I would buy it on the spot. I'm still waiting. What they did is create an illusion. The new Challenger is just a boat, a Charger shaped to remind one of the old E-body Challenger. Pure marketing, nothing raw like a real challenger.


I bought an FRS in part because the new "Challenger" was such a fraud and the FRS was built ground up for performance. Its the only car besides the Mustang that is a dedicated performance chassis not shared with a sedan. Plus as I grew older I lost interest in pony cars and found sports cars more rewarding.

Originally Posted by kinda5150

i'm coming from a 944 with m/t. this car is what i always hoped the 944 could be (w/o throwing tons of money at it) .

When I first drove away in my FRS I was surprised at how fast it was, like the original poster I thought it was fast and posted that here. I was expecting it to be much more MRS (2)-ish, go cart type. Instead its a fairly fast comfortable bigger car that can still handle very well.


It wasn't till I went up a steep hill, the type of hill that doesn't meet regulations its so steep and I found the torque dip. Once you hit the torque dip you always notice it. Its there and unfortunate.


Any way in reply to your post, the FRS is a lot like a 944S on paper and in driving. If you look at the stats the twins and the 944 have so much in common its almost scary. If you ask me that's something to honor as the 944S was/is one of the greatest non super car but sports car ever produced.


I don't know if its really true but a header and a tune is supposed to eliminate the torque dip. Something to consider when warranty is up.


Glad the OP posted, new members should be welcomed and not accused of trolling.

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by glamcem

these newer muscle cars made by GM are no joke

I've never been a fan of GM cars but performance-wise, it does appear that they are finally getting it right. I'd say all the Le Mans series racing feedback they've been getting has surely helped.

[glamcem]

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

I just put all the little pieces together and no longer believe that @Jen is real.
Seriously, what are the odds of this forum attracting something as rare as a lawyer with a conscience?

there is no spoon

[Tgionet]

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

I just put all the little pieces together and no longer believe that @Jen is real.
Seriously, what are the odds of this forum attracting something as rare as a lawyer with a conscience?

She said she USED to be a lawyer

[glamcem]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

I've never been a fan of GM cars but performance-wise, it does appear that they are finally getting it right. I'd say all the Le Mans series racing feedback they've been getting has surely helped.

Corvette was always a great performance bargain and recently with the advanced suspension such as magna ride and PTM (Performance Traction Management) it became a Supercar killer.. look at the newer Corvettes' track times and you will see what I am talking about ..PTM technology was so advanced, even Ferrari purchased the system from GM to use in their cars..

In addition, I've recently learned from a close friend that the Z28 shares the same suspension that is currently being used by F1 Redbull team which is called
"Multimatic Dynamic Suspension Spool Valve" for the money GM is light years ahead of the competition IMHO and Ford is even imitating the Camaro with their 15 Mustang haha

[billwot]

I've yet to see a perfect car, they don't exist off the lot.

Then you've never driven an MR2 turbo!

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by billwot

Then you've never driven an MR2 turbo!

Too heavy, mk3 + V6!!

[robwbright]

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

I just put all the little pieces together and no longer believe that @Jen is real.
Seriously, what are the odds of this forum attracting something as rare as a lawyer with a conscience?

What about me??

[regal]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

Too heavy, mk3 + V6!!

I don't think the MR2 turbo weighed as much as our twins, something to chew on.


And how about an MK3 with a supercharged 2zz? Always wondered if the chassis on the MRS could really handle a big power boost the way the twins do so well.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by regal

I don't think the MR2 turbo weighed as much as our twins, something to chew on.

I don't need to chew on anything. Actually it did approaching anywhere from 2700lbs to 2860lbs in your turbo variant). So you can chew on that.

http://www.mr2.com/ARTICLE/1991_Specifications.html

The 86 has better CoG, mileage and hauls more cargo than the mk2. If you are going to be heavy, might as well be functional. The mk2 is gorgeous looking though and I can't stop staring at the curved rear window glass. I just want to touch it.

Chassis on the mk3 is fine and there's plenty of quality aluminum available from Carbing if you don't think so. The V6 is god mode compared to the compressed 2zz. Even Lotus went that way eventually.

[Dark]

What about buying a ford 150 truck with V8 in it? I'm sure it will be more fun for you in a 500+hp truck.

[billwot]

Originally Posted by regal

I don't think the MR2 turbo weighed as much as our twins, something to chew on.
[/B]

And how about an MK3 with a supercharged 2zz? Always wondered if the chassis on the MRS could really handle a big power boost the was the twins do so well.

About the same...2785 for the MR2, and 2750 for the FRS/BRZ.
But the MR2T made full torque (200 ft/lbs) at 2800 RPM, and had a fairly flat curve all the way to 6000...still over 150 ft/lbs at 6K.

[regal]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

I don't need to chew on anything. Actually it did approaching anywhere from 2700lbs to 2860lbs in your turbo variant). So you can chew on that.

http://www.mr2.com/ARTICLE/1991_Specifications.html

The 86 has better CoG, mileage and hauls more cargo than the mk2. If you are going to be heavy, might as well be functional. The mk2 is gorgeous looking though and I can't stop staring at the curved rear window glass. I just want to touch it.

Chassis on the mk3 is fine and there's plenty of quality aluminum available from Carbing if you don't think so. The V6 is god mode compared to the compressed 2zz. Even Lotus went that way eventually.

Yes where the weight lies on the chassis is important. Do you prefer your FRS to the mk2?


As far as a well swapped MRS, well that is about the only car I would consider selling my FRS for (I'd be happy with a 2zz). Those were such underrated cars with so much potential. When Toyota had plans for a new sports car (FT-86) I couldn't wait. Part of the reason I am always pointing out the flaws of my FRS is I had too high expectations from Toyota after what was being done with the MRS.

Originally Posted by billwot

About the same...2785 for the MR2, and 2750 for the FRS/BRZ.
But the MR2T made full torque (200 ft/lbs) at 2800 RPM, and had a fairly flat curve all the way to 6000...still over 150 ft/lbs at 6K.

Yea imagine our twins with a turbo ...