Scion FR-S dyno by Insideline = 173 whp @ 7000 RPM, 143 lb-ft @ 2800 RPM

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Toyota fr-s

Looks like 200whp will be easily achievable. (intake, header, exhaust and tune)

Similar to the S2000, gaining 10% isn't going to be cake. Don't see it making more than ~190rwhp without more significant mods than intake/header/exhaust/tune, and that might be optimistic. There's just not that much to be gained from a 7400rpm 2.0.

[old greg]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Similar to the S2000, gaining 10% isn't going to be cake. Don't see it making more than ~190rwhp without more significant mods than intake/header/exhaust/tune, and that might be optimistic. There's just not that much to be gained from a 7400rpm 2.0.

There looks to be plenty of RPM left on the table (promotional images show forged connecting rods). I/H/E + cams (and perhaps valve springs) could very possibly produce 215+ rwhp (~140 rwtq @ 8000 rpm).

[ZDan]

cams + valve springs = "more significant" than I/H/E/T...

[Chenslee]

After 5.5 years of severely beating on a 2006 Civic Si, with it's whopping 122 ft-lb of torque, that graph looks great. You will be shifting around 3k during normal driving anyway, with all that torque on tap. Wring it out and shift to keep the revs above 4500, and all that torque is on tap. Who hangs out at 3800rpm anyway?

As for all the only-two-hundred-hp haters, unless you are drag racing or trying to impress snotty Cayman drivers on a road course, 200hp in a 2800lb car is more than enough to scare the piss out of anyone but the most suicidal daredevil.

[chuy21]

So based on that dyno graph there's no point in revving past 7000rpm?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chuy21

So based on that dyno graph there's no point in revving past 7000rpm?

There definitely *is* a point to revving past 7000rpm.

If you want to maximize acceleration, you will be shifting at the rev-limiter for every shift.

Think about it...

[Kiwi]

Originally Posted by chuy21

So based on that dyno graph there's no point in revving past 7000rpm?

iie

There is. Even though peak power is at 7k, from 7k to 7.4k there still is over 90% of the peak number. No point wasting it by shifting earlier to a rpm that produces lower power.

[chuy21]

Originally Posted by Kiwi

iie

There is. Even though peak power is at 7k, from 7k to 7.4k there still is over 90% of the peak number. No point wasting it by shifting earlier to a rpm that produces lower power.

Like a nab I didn't even think about that -.-

[mspeed6]

sux that they didn't give this engine a valve lift like the celica. 170whp in a 2.0L engine in 2012 is pretty damn shitty anyway you put it, especially with high compression and direct injection. thought this would least put down 200whp.

[Levi]

I wonder what some where expecting from an affordable sportscar? A NA 2.0l making 240 PS @ 7.500 RPM and 220 Nm @ 1.500-7.500 RPM?


PS: I sure somebody will answer "turbocharge". But that is easy and nothing special to get 300 PS and 400 Nm from turbocharged 2.0l.

[SUB-FT86]

I would like to see a stock K20(Type S/07-SI) dyno in comparison to this dyno sheet. I've been looking all over for one to see if there is strong differences in the torque band.

[mspeed6]

i was expecting it least making 200whp underrated like most cars now days. Turbocharging a engine with a compression high as this is end up costing min 10k with a full engine rebuild. If you're gonna dump that kinda money might as well buy a m3.

[MmmHamSandwich]

Originally Posted by Chenslee

After 5.5 years of severely beating on a 2006 Civic Si, with it's whopping 122 ft-lb of torque, that graph looks great.

The FA20 is only rated at 12 lb/ft more than the K20Z3. Aside from the sudden stock vtec changover, their powerbands will likely feel pretty similar.

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I would like to see a stock K20(Type S/07-SI) dyno in comparison to this dyno sheet. I've been looking all over for one to see if there is strong differences in the torque band.

There really aren't from what I've seen. You coming from an RSX and me coming from an Si will likely find the 86's power familiar. The 86 might be slighter lighter than an FG2, but the Si has a more efficient drivetrain. They make similar power in largely the same places. Indeed, their stock quarter mile times are very close. Kind of disappointing, but I feel much better about dumping money into power for the 86's chassis than my FF civic.

[dsgerbc]

Originally Posted by mspeed6

i was expecting it least making 200whp underrated like most cars now days. Turbocharging a engine with a compression high as this is end up costing min 10k with a full engine rebuild. If you're gonna dump that kinda money might as well buy a m3.

ktnxbye