Finally took the FR-S for a test drive- first impression

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I have the base which has a better torque curve.

In that case I estimate RSX Base at 3000 = 127.7 (9.6% FR-S advantage), at 4800 = 127.7 as well (11.2% FR-S advantage), and at 6200 = 123.2 (13.6% FR-S advantage).

However, the base RSX does show its strength at 3800 where I estimate it's putting down 132.2 while the FR-S is in its 3300 to 4600 RPM 20 lb-ft trough at 122.0.

[Source: http://www.hondata.com/reflash_rsx_base.html -- eyeballed the blue curve in the first graph, multiplied by 1.13 because the stock Type S in the second graph (green curve) is down 13% from Automobile's peak numbers for the Si on their dyno chart -- 180 vs. 160 for peak HP, 134 vs 118 for peak torque]

Outside of the 1300 RPM trough, FR-S seems to hold an 11ish % advantage over the RSX Base. Not sure about RSX Base weight and gearing.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by synacks

Not to troll your nontroll post but there are so many cars that can get 30+ and 0-60 in less than 6. Cobalt SS turbo does 33 and 0-60 in 5 I want to say for example.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Cobalt SS turbo was rated for 30mpg highway (EPA) and 0-60 is 5.5 with launch control (Motor Trend).

[Mr. Mcoupe]

I claim this thread. I am Spartacus.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

In that case I estimate RSX Base at 3000 = 127.7 (9.6% FR-S advantage), at 4800 = 127.7 as well (11.2% FR-S advantage), and at 6200 = 123.2 (13.6% FR-S advantage).

However, the base RSX does show its strength at 3800 where I estimate it's putting down 132.2 while the FR-S is in its 3300 to 4600 RPM 20 lb-ft trough at 122.0.

[Source: http://www.hondata.com/reflash_rsx_base.html -- eyeballed the blue curve in the first graph, multiplied by 1.13 because the stock Type S in the second graph (green curve) is down 13% from Automobile's peak numbers for the Si on their dyno chart -- 180 vs. 160 for peak HP, 134 vs 118 for peak torque]

Outside of the 1300 RPM trough, FR-S seems to hold an 11ish % advantage over the RSX Base. Not sure about RSX Base weight and gearing.

Thanks for that. If the FRS is making less torque in the 3800 rpm area than my RSX then that is even terrible for me. That is the main part of the powerband I depend on as I don't like high revving on a daily driver unless it was on a backroad that is mostly empty. In that same area of the torqueband my RSX feels weak even though that's where it makes it peak torque.

[titusdrake]

Originally Posted by jarviz

What other car gets you 30+ mpg combined and gets you to 60 in 6.5? Not trying to be a troll, I seriously wanna know.

Silly, your trying to play the numbers game with the FR-S.

2011-2013 Mustang v6 does 0-60 in 5.1 seconds and gets 26-29 combined mpg with the manual. Camaro is a little slower but same gas mileage

Genesis 2.0T gets similar.
Mazdaspeed 3 gets 26 mpg and does 0-60 in like 5.9 ish i believe
Civic Si
GTI even.. Though not RWD, but u were just looking for numbers.

Id also imagine the Miata and S2K get around 25-30 mpg for the same ish acceleration

Regardless the twins are not about the numbers. OP save your money or get something else, dont get a loan for something your not that excited about

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Thanks for that. If the FRS is making less torque in the 3800 rpm area than my RSX then that is even terrible for me. That is the main part of the powerband I depend on as I don't like high revving on a daily driver unless it was on a backroad that is mostly empty. In that same area of the torqueband my RSX feels weak even though that's where it makes it peak torque.

Fair enough.

Currently I have my shift buzzer set at 2300. On my 8 mile backroad work commute (about 8 or 9 stop signs, 30 mph roads) I can make the whole journey with adequate speed and acceleration without revving to or past 2300 RPMs one time.

[ft86Fan]

Originally Posted by vtmike

Unfortunately so. Your exige must be a blast to drive. I've gotten to ride in my buddy's elise several times and love that car. He has since sold it and picked up a boxster spyder which is equally as awesome. Both examples of well balanced cars.

Exige is fun on the track while FR-S is fun everywhere. Boxster spyder is great. I recently drove the new Boxster on a track and it is unbelievably good. Too much money to use it as a track car though.

[bartonian]

Originally Posted by Shagaliscious

Just like everyone else making these threads, they are just looking for attention.

And for the record, a 4 door, FWD sedan is NOT a similar design to the BRZ/FR-S.

It's actually almost EXACTLY the same but it costs less to insure, doesn't do donuts, and I have the title.

SKIDPAD
MSP: .88
Scion FRS: .88

0-60
MSP: 6.9
FRS: 6.6


sources
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...-looker-page-2

http://www.edmunds.com/scion/fr-s/2013/road-test.html


Took it for another test drive and went on the highway and took an onramp/offramp and it certainly felt great but it just wasn't enough to make me pull the trigger. The resale value concerns me, and driving a light rwd car in new england can be an issue. Probably going to go look at preowned SI's. I can get a nice preowned SI for 20k with 10,000 miles on it and it will probably hold its value better.

If you're offended by my opinion...I really don't care.

[Nevermore]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mcoupe

I claim this thread. I am Spartacus.

I'm challenging this with my own "Finally test drove the FR-S" opinion. I'm probably one of the least experienced guys on the site. I've owned a '92 nissan sentra that smelled like a lake and had peeling paint, a 2000 alero with an extremely underpowered double overhead engine, and now a 2000 626 that is the most powerful of the 3 and it's still somewhat under powered, but has nice get up and go, I think, for what it is.

When I was looking for a new car I definitely didn't want a corolla or something like that. I literally said I wanted a car with "vroom" because I love my mazda. I see a lot of "not enough power" comments on the car, but to someone like me, it's more than powerful enough, I think. It weighs about the same as my mazda, with 70 more horsepower. I felt good behind the wheel.

Amateur opinion, but opinion no less.

[winter]

Originally Posted by Nevermore

I'm challenging this with my own "Finally test drove the FR-S" opinion. I'm probably one of the least experienced guys on the site. I've owned a '92 nissan sentra that smelled like a lake and had peeling paint, a 2000 alero with an extremely underpowered double overhead engine, and now a 2000 626 that is the most powerful of the 3 and it's still somewhat under powered, but has nice get up and go, I think, for what it is.

When I was looking for a new car I definitely didn't want a corolla or something like that. I literally said I wanted a car with "vroom" because I love my mazda. I see a lot of "not enough power" comments on the car, but to someone like me, it's more than powerful enough, I think. It weighs about the same as my mazda, with 70 more horsepower. I felt good behind the wheel.

Amateur opinion, but opinion no less.

Aye. I am probably THE least experienced person on this forum, but I've always wanted a sports/sporty car just to enjoy driving day to day. This car isnt for everybody, no car is or can be. But the fun you can get out of this car for the price is a godsend for someone like me who can afford 25k but CANT afford a 50k beemer or whatever. Upgrading to the FR-S (when mine comes in) from a CRV is going to be a blast. I'm excited. If you don't like the car you dont have to but the people who do like it aren't lesser than you for not wanting 400hp.

[Shagaliscious]

Originally Posted by bartonian

It's actually almost EXACTLY the same but it costs less to insure, doesn't do donuts, and I have the title.

SKIDPAD
MSP: .88
Scion FRS: .88

0-60
MSP: 6.9
FRS: 6.6


sources
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...-looker-page-2

http://www.edmunds.com/scion/fr-s/2013/road-test.html

So the numbers are similar. First you said the design is similar, now you are quoting specs...so what you really meant to say is that the numbers are similar, not the design. Gotcha.