S2000 or BRZ, I want your personal opinions

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

I like to think of this engine as coming from the factory de-tuned. Only 100hp/liter seems low by Japanese performance standards. They expected this car to modified. Remember the S2k had 9k rpms which is wonderful but it was GUTLESS under vtec (former AP1 owner). In fact it was that specific reason they switched to the 2.2 in 2004.



It is, sort of. Do the math.

The s2000 MSRP'd for $32-33k and there were big markups at first. The real reason the S2000 is faster than the FRS is because 2 things and 2 things only. Tires and HP. If you put the OEM S2000 tires (Potenza S-03) on the FRS with identical staggered sizes as the s2k and added 40hp, do you think the FRS would be as fast as the S2k? I do, and those things can be done for a hell of a lot less than $33,000! Plus you get more storage room, more torque, more speakers, more passengers and better fuel economy; all with $$ left over.

So you see, it would have been easy for the FRS to be faster from the factory than the S2k, but then it wouldn't have MSRP'd at $24,900. So to make this car as fast as the s2k from the factory would have made it cost more (and there's lots of people who are happy with the 200hp) and thus they would have sold fewer cars to fewer people at the same margin.

Say it with me folks... Cost Benefit Analysis.

In this case, the consumer won.

100hp/liter low? can you name me another current japanese car that has more?

and if you can say the frs is better than the s2k because if it had better power and wheels, i can just as easily say that my 94 miata is better than the both of them and it only cost me 3500

[s2_slow]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

I like to think of this engine as coming from the factory de-tuned. Only 100hp/liter seems low by Japanese performance standards. They expected this car to modified. Remember the S2k had 9k rpms which is wonderful but it was GUTLESS under vtec (former AP1 owner). In fact it was that specific reason they switched to the 2.2 in 2004.



It is, sort of. Do the math.

The s2000 MSRP'd for $32-33k and there were big markups at first. The real reason the S2000 is faster than the FRS is because 2 things and 2 things only. Tires and HP. If you put the OEM S2000 tires (Potenza S-03) on the FRS with identical staggered sizes as the s2k and added 40hp, do you think the FRS would be as fast as the S2k? I do, and those things can be done for a hell of a lot less than $33,000! Plus you get more storage room, more torque, more speakers, more passengers and better fuel economy; all with $$ left over.

So you see, it would have been easy for the FRS to be faster from the factory than the S2k, but then it wouldn't have MSRP'd at $24,900. So to make this car as fast as the s2k from the factory would have made it cost more (and there's lots of people who are happy with the 200hp) and thus they would have sold fewer cars to fewer people at the same margin.

Say it with me folks... Cost Benefit Analysis.

In this case, the consumer won.

If you drive any car well, you should never fall out of the power band. Ive tracked my s2000 at 4 norcal tracks, and ive never run into a situation that im under 6k rpm. The ap2 was slightly more tractable, but the big advantage it had over the ap2 was its shorter gears. The ap1 trans is geared far too long for its power output, much like the usdm nsxs. With a shorter final drive 4.44 or 4.77 the car becomes MUCH faster and at least equal to the 2.2 due to the extra 700 revs.

I agree with what you said. I actually love the frs. I just dont believe in boxer engines that aren't porsche made. The big issue here is that the OP is talking about a USED s2000. You can get a great low milage one for under 17k. At that price the FRS doesnt stand a chance. A stock s2000 with brakes, tires and a gtc-300 wing is a SERIOUS track car. You can compete with cars that cost 5x the price if you know how to drive the car.
New s2000 @ 34k vs new frs @ 25k is a tough choice as 9k is a big deal, but a used s2000 is one of the best out of the box track cars on the planet for a very low price.

[s2_slow]

Originally Posted by fatoni

100hp/liter low? can you name me another current japanese car that has more?

and if you can say the frs is better than the s2k because if it had better power and wheels, i can just as easily say that my 94 miata is better than the both of them and it only cost me 3500

100hp/liter is kind of low by todays standards. Honda has been making 100hp/ a liter or greater for years. In the early 90s they made the b16 1.6 @ 165 hp, in 1994 b18c5 1.8 @ 200 hp. Both of these were in cars that cost under $22000. And in 1999 f20c 2.0 @240 hp.

Toyota made the 4A-GE 20v in 1991 1.6l making 165 hp. This engine was a gem with individual throttle bodies...

21 YEARS after these engines were made the best subaru could come up with was a 2.0 making 200 hp?

[jrcoreymv]

Well, got a bit of an update for the thread. My dad and I went to go look at BRZ's, but of course there weren't any. We walked over to the scion dealership, found two that were sold, but we still got to check them out and sit in them. Very nice car, definitely wanted one. Seats felt awesome, seating position was very natural.

Anywayyyyy, here's my new s2000. Just picked it up an hour ago:





Sorry for the crap pics, it was low light and with my iphone. Thanks for all the responses guys. If my dad didn't pass down his s2k, he wouldn't have had a reason to order a mini cooper.

[s2_slow]

Congrats man! I guarantee you will love the car! Enjoy it stock before the mod bug hits you!

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by s2_slow

100hp/liter is kind of low by todays standards. Honda has been making 100hp/ a liter or greater for years. In the early 90s they made the b16 1.6 @ 165 hp, in 1994 b18c5 1.8 @ 200 hp. Both of these were in cars that cost under $22000. And in 1999 f20c 2.0 @240 hp.

Toyota made the 4A-GE 20v in 1991 1.6l making 165 hp. This engine was a gem with individual throttle bodies...

21 YEARS after these engines were made the best subaru could come up with was a 2.0 making 200 hp?

naming three cars sounds like the exception. three cars of yesteryear hardly make a case for a new standard. none of those motors had to deal with the regulations of today and all of those motors had more than one cam profile to allow them to be so open up top without having nothing down low. technology can only change so much. air can only travel so fast at only so many angles. can you name a single car in production from japan or anywhere that is south of supercar and makes more than 100hp/liter? let alone at 7k rpm

[jrcoreymv]

Originally Posted by s2_slow

Congrats man! I guarantee you will love the car! Enjoy it stock before the mod bug hits you!

Thanks man. I dunno, the tire tread is a little low...might have to throw on some Enkei RPF1's wrapped in Dunlop Star Specs...dropped on buddy club coils. If only I had the money.

[s2_slow]

Originally Posted by jrcoreymv

Thanks man. I dunno, the tire tread is a little low...might have to throw on some Enkei RPF1's wrapped in Dunlop Star Specs...dropped on buddy club coils. If only I had the money.

Make sure you get 17x9s and run a 255. Star specs are great for every thing... track dd and they are simply amazing on track. As for suspension id avoid anything short of a kwv3 as most other suspension would be a downgrade from the factory. The real hard core guys run the tein SRC, and motons.

[s2_slow]

Originally Posted by fatoni

naming three cars sounds like the exception. three cars of yesteryear hardly make a case for a new standard. none of those motors had to deal with the regulations of today and all of those motors had more than one cam profile to allow them to be so open up top without having nothing down low. technology can only change so much. air can only travel so fast at only so many angles. can you name a single car in production from japan or anywhere that is south of supercar and makes more than 100hp/liter? let alone at 7k rpm

The s2000 makes 120 hp/l. The m3 4.0 makes over 100/l. Look I know very few companies actually know how to make a decent NA motor, all im saying is that if honda could do it 11 years ago, then toyota should have at least been able to get to 220 ish with an 8500 redline. This would have made a HUGE difference. Btw, whats wrong with 2 cam profiles? A sports car should be driven as such and low end shouldnt matter if you are driving briskly. This way you can enjoy better fuel economy at lower rpms as well.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by fatoni

can you name a single car in production from japan or anywhere that is south of supercar and makes more than 100hp/liter? let alone at 7k rpm

Well, the Porsche 2.7L 6 is 265hp @ 6700rpm which on one hand is lower than 100hp/L, but at 6700 that is impressive. BMW S65 is 105hp/L but it needs 8300 rpm, and the engine's specific torque is shitty overall. However I think emissions is probably more annoying on bigger motors because emissions are measured by pollutants per mile, so I imagine their cats are more restrictive or something.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by s2_slow

The s2000 makes 120 hp/l. The m3 4.0 makes over 100/l. Look I know very few companies actually know how to make a decent NA motor, all im saying is that if honda could do it 11 years ago, then toyota should have at least been able to get to 220 ish with an 8500 redline. This would have made a HUGE difference. Btw, whats wrong with 2 cam profiles? A sports car should be driven as such and low end shouldnt matter if you are driving briskly. This way you can enjoy better fuel economy at lower rpms as well.

its just weird to think that just because a company did something under different circumstances, and despite that under current conditions it is rarely met, that it should be easily achievable. toyota probably could do what you are asking of them but that requires ideas, time and development. all of that costs money. to say you want that is fine. when you want all of that and then fail to think about how the s2k had that and was more expensive years ago and your only other example cost triple what the frs costs...just kinda weird.
nothing is wrong with 2 cam profiles except what i mentioned earlier. it costs money

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Well, the Porsche 2.7L 6 is 265hp @ 6700rpm which on one hand is lower than 100hp/L, but at 6700 that is impressive. BMW S65 is 105hp/L but it needs 8300 rpm, and the engine's specific torque is shitty overall. However I think emissions is probably more annoying on bigger motors because emissions are measured by pollutants per mile, so I imagine their cats are more restrictive or something.

youre probably right. it still stands to reason that all of those cars are pretty expensive and have a certain sort of pedigree behind the motor. this car soaks up the hit of initial development and still delivers imo. im sure there will be years to follow where certain criteria are achieved

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by fatoni

youre probably right. it still stands to reason that all of those cars are pretty expensive and have a certain sort of pedigree behind the motor. this car soaks up the hit of initial development and still delivers imo. im sure there will be years to follow where certain criteria are achieved

Definitely. I think the FA20 is pretty good considering the cost restraints. 7500rpm is very good considering there's only 1 cam profile to play with, and the high end torque is decent (not great, but much better than most engines). The low end torque is fantastic considering the single profile cam and the high end power. Since the motor is already very wide, they can't fit multiple cam profiles, and they can't lengthen the rods much either, so they did the best they could with 7500 rpm to play with, considering the layout and all the compromises made, the power is really quite good.

Porsche motors have fancier injection systems and 2 profile cams, and probably a lot of other gizmos, so it's no surprise they do a little better.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by fatoni

it costs money

In 3 words, you made my point.

If the FRS debuted at $33k, I'm sure it could have been as fast as the S2000, but it didn't, so it isn't.

I'm also saying that for a difference in MSRP between the vehicles of $8k, you can add 40hp and stickier/wider set of tires to the FRS for much less than $8k and have a car that could equal the S2K on the track yet be better/more functional as a daily driver (except for the drop top part).

Originally Posted by s2_slow

The big issue here is that the OP is talking about a USED s2000. You can get a great low milage one for under 17k. At that price the FRS doesnt stand a chance. A stock s2000 with brakes, tires and a gtc-300 wing is a SERIOUS track car.

It didn't appears as if the OP was talking about a track toy. Also most clubs require you to have a roll-bar installed if your vehicle is a convertible. Installing a roll bar kind of ruins the car as a DD. You are right about the value of the used S2k.

The FRS, on a personal note, is exciting for me because the only reason I'm not driving around in an S2k is for the reasons I posted earlier (practicality and track-ability compliance) and like I said, the FRS solves all those problems.

[Tbomb 25]

Originally Posted by phenoyz

.... I'll take it for sure !!!!!
THATS ONE VERY - VERY - VERY NICE ap2!!!!

Wow thats beautiful and prestine i would hug that car every night....you rarely see them in this kind of shape....very nice!