Scion FR-S Cover Article in new Road and Track Magazine

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by madfast

yes, but they will care about the styling, mpg, and price. and the enthusiasts? they definitely care about RWD. so this car WILL attract buyers from all walks of life. the RX-8 was just a bad car made up of a bunch of compromises... the FT will obviously have compromises, but unlike the RX-8 it has a clear direction.

again. that's obviously your opinion and you have the right to have it. whats interesting is that it shows your perspective. in my experience, the S2000 is not known to be a "rip off" but rather, like the miata, its a prime example of how power isnt everything. people crap all over it because of its engine (4 cyl). but most people who've driven it, like it was meant to be driven, give it two thumbs up and understand what its all about.

Yeah I gave it a thumbs up too, it was a superb drive. But not a 38k drive.

This is getting pointless. The car isn't going to meet any super light weight goals...it's not gonna be 2500lbs. It's going to be in direct competition with many of the hot hatches, and it may be slower and definitely significantly less useful. It's not a recipe for success, unless it really performs. I guess we'll have to see what the final figures are, and then wait to drive it (which I'm still going to do).

[madfast]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

...light cars can't be safe?

no, my point was that just because a car is small doesnt necessarily mean its light. safety standards and such put demands on small cars so much so that they are no longer "light". as enthusiasts, many of us overlook plenty of things, but as a general consumer, they WANT that 1000 lbs of sound deadening material, etc...

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Maxim

That's not how crash tests work. Small cars tend to have it easier, since the tests do not include crashes with larger cars. A car need only deal with dissipating it's OWN energy during crash testing.

yes, it's a known issue with small cars. my point is that small cars are getting more safe year after year and that makes them heavier, year after year. so one cant say its a small car, so it must be lightweight. things arent that simple. so for an actual lightweight car to come out, be safe and be cheap. well that'd be a pretty big deal. 200 measly hp or not...

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by madfast

yes, it's a known issue with small cars. my point is that small cars are getting more safe year after year and that makes them heavier, year after year. so one cant say its a small car, so it must be lightweight. things arent that simple. so for an actual lightweight car to come out, be safe and be cheap. well that'd be a pretty big deal. 200 measly hp or not...

Yes, that's why I think this car will miss the weight target....2750-2800 is what my guess is. And with that, it will need more than 200hp (or at least an equal amount of torque, which would require a low pressure turbo) to really be decently quick.

I think some of the confusion about my standpoint is that I am not interested in the car unless it does really well, because the aftermarket is of huge importance to me. The car needs to be really damn competitive out of the box otherwise it wont gain aftermarket support and I won't be able to mod the shit out of it.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Maxim

Yeah I gave it a thumbs up too, it was a superb drive. But not a 38k drive.

This is getting pointless. The car isn't going to meet any super light weight goals...it's not gonna be 2500lbs. It's going to be in direct competition with many of the hot hatches, and it may be slower and definitely significantly less useful. It's not a recipe for success, unless it really performs. I guess we'll have to see what the final figures are, and then wait to drive it (which I'm still going to do).

it's very misleading to throw out the 38k number being that the S2000 was waaaaay old by then. the original msrp was in the low 30's, like 32-33k...

again, why do you harp on numbers and look only at whats on the paper? i think this car WILL be a success, not a volume sales leader, but a success because of the emotional aspect. for old school guys maybe its that AE86 connection. for newer school guys maybe its the 25k rwd sports coupe aspect that gets them. for the green crowd, maybe this car will have the best balance of fun and mpg? for the blonde bimbo maybe its the styling and "code red" paint? NONE of these things appear on paper, yet ALL of them contribute little by little into making this car a success imo...

[blur]

Originally Posted by madfast

no, my point was that just because a car is small doesnt necessarily mean its light. safety standards and such put demands on small cars so much so that they are no longer "light". as enthusiasts, many of us overlook plenty of things, but as a general consumer, they WANT that 1000 lbs of sound deadening material, etc...

. . . until they realize it decreases their mileage by about 5 mpg. Light weight is an amazing attribute, and many recent manufacturers have realized that. Notice the absence of spare tire kits, ambitious next gen miata goals, and experimentation with aluminum chassis in a number of companies. Less is more.

Originally Posted by maxim

Prepare to be disappointed then.

I'd be willing to bet a downpayment on the FRS. No way we're getting a 3000lb coupe, or this car will be a failure, and toyota wont let that happen.

it's very misleading to throw out the 38k number being that the S2000 was waaaaay old by then. the original msrp was in the low 30's, like 32-33k...

So whats the reason for the price jump?

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by madfast

it's very misleading to throw out the 38k number being that the S2000 was waaaaay old by then. the original msrp was in the low 30's, like 32-33k...

again, why do you harp on numbers and look only at whats on the paper? i think this car WILL be a success, not a volume sales leader, but a success because of the emotional aspect. for old school guys maybe its that AE86 connection. for newer school guys maybe its the 25k rwd sports coupe aspect that gets them. for the green crowd, maybe this car will have the best balance of fun and mpg? for the blonde bimbo maybe its the styling and "code red" paint? NONE of these things appear on paper, yet ALL of them contribute little by little into making this car a success imo...

I see it as using the same recipe as the RX-8, plain and simple. It needs to be better than that.

And the S2000 prices kept pace with inflation....meaning that back when it first came out, it was also overpriced. It'd be more like 40k today.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Maxim

Yes, that's why I think this car will miss the weight target....2750-2800 is what my guess is. And with that, it will need more than 200hp (or at least an equal amount of torque, which would require a low pressure turbo) to really be decently quick.

I think some of the confusion about my standpoint is that I am not interested in the car unless it does really well, because the aftermarket is of huge importance to me. The car needs to be really damn competitive out of the box otherwise it wont gain aftermarket support and I won't be able to mod the shit out of it.

but lets be honest here. who in their right mind actually believed their target weight anyways. i personally hope the car is as close to 2700 lbs as possible. a realistic hope. and for todays cars that is pretty lightweight.

that's the main difference between someone like you and someone like me. 200 hp is plenty enough for a car that wasnt made to be fast. you have to remember that the price of the car has to be divided amongst all systems, not just the engine and how fast it can make the car go. one of the screen captures of the nurburgring tests shows what looks like a bilstein shock. that imo is a good sign. it shows perhaps why the engine may only have 200 hp. perhaps they also spent money in other key areas...

i totally agree with you on aftermarket support. but with the subaru connection, i think its a no brainer at this point...

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by blur

. . . until they realize it decreases their mileage by about 5 mpg. Light weight is an amazing attribute, and many recent manufacturers have realized that. Notice the absence of spare tire kits, ambitious next gen miata goals, and experimentation with aluminum chassis in a number of companies. Less is more.


I'd be willing to bet a downpayment on the FRS. No way we're getting a 3000lb coupe, or this car will be a failure, and toyota wont let that happen.


So whats the reason for the price jump?

It wasn't a price jump, it was just normal inflation. Most other cars actually DECREASE in price over the years when you factor inflation in. The S2000 didn't, it stayed pretty much exactly where it started.

And I also don't believe the 3000lb figure. 2750-2800 is my bet.

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by madfast

but lets be honest here. who in their right mind actually believed their target weight anyways. i personally hope the car is as close to 2700 lbs as possible. a realistic hope. and for todays cars that is pretty lightweight.

that's the main difference between someone like you and someone like me. 200 hp is plenty enough for a car that wasnt made to be fast. you have to remember that the price of the car has to be divided amongst all systems, not just the engine and how fast it can make the car go. one of the screen captures of the nurburgring tests shows what looks like a bilstein shock. that imo is a good sign. it shows perhaps why the engine may only have 200 hp. perhaps they also spent money in other key areas...

i totally agree with you on aftermarket support. but with the subaru connection, i think its a no brainer at this point...

*sigh*

No, I care about the other parts of the car just as much as everybody else. I just want the car to be really competitive. Other cars in this price range are going to be a lot faster...and that's a lot easier to appreciate during a test drive. I don't think too many scion dealers will be taking 20 somethings out of town to a twisty road for the test drive.

I want the car to sell well because the aftermarket depends on it. And honestly, I want a turbo because that makes it SO much easier to mod. Even if it was a low pressure unit like the GTI and horsepower stayed the same, I'd be supremely happy. I spent 1500 and took my GTI from 178hp at the wheels to 260. (and, for whatever reason, the mileage went up by almost 3mpg...probably the intake and exhaust)

[madfast]

Originally Posted by blur

. . . until they realize it decreases their mileage by about 5 mpg. Light weight is an amazing attribute, and many recent manufacturers have realized that. Notice the absence of spare tire kits, ambitious next gen miata goals, and experimentation with aluminum chassis in a number of companies. Less is more.



So whats the reason for the price jump?

lightweight costs money to do correctly. thats what i mean. its way easier to have a piggishly heavy little car than to make it lightweight, and sell it for twice the price than if it wasnt lightweight... aluminum chassis? we wont see that on everyday cars for a while, if ever, imo. the NSX had an aluminum chassis, how come the civic and accord dont after 2 decades?

why does any car get a price hike? materials cost? added features? whatever. the point is, the car didnt come out at 38k, it ended up there. its impact was mainly felt when it came out, not when it withered away after almost a decade...

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Maxim

I see it as using the same recipe as the RX-8, plain and simple. It needs to be better than that.

And the S2000 prices kept pace with inflation....meaning that back when it first came out, it was also overpriced. It'd be more like 40k today.

i disagree. the RX-8 had nothing that made it stand out vs its competition. the FT has RWD. imo that is a HUGE plus. i dont think any of us on this forum would be interested in this car if it was FWD. THAT'S how big a plus RWD is for this car. its VERY unique in that sense. and this is the MAJOR reason why it exists and why people will buy it.

for the non enthusiasts its the styling. its dramatically better looking when you compare it to the Si, MS6, GTi, WRX, etc. it has that sleek coupe look. is it as awesome as the concept FR-S? no. but that doesnt mean its a total turd in the looks dept... the spy shots of the wild body kit is testament to how stylish the car is, for better or for worse.

the integra type r was 25k in 2001. about the best bang for the buck car of its time. at 32-33k, the S2000 was priced right. a little expensive, yes, but you can tell where the money went. it handled great and had an AMAZING engine. hardly a rip off...

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Maxim

*sigh*

No, I care about the other parts of the car just as much as everybody else. I just want the car to be really competitive. Other cars in this price range are going to be a lot faster...and that's a lot easier to appreciate during a test drive. I don't think too many scion dealers will be taking 20 somethings out of town to a twisty road for the test drive.

I want the car to sell well because the aftermarket depends on it. And honestly, I want a turbo because that makes it SO much easier to mod. Even if it was a low pressure unit like the GTI and horsepower stayed the same, I'd be supremely happy. I spent 1500 and took my GTI from 178hp at the wheels to 260. (and, for whatever reason, the mileage went up by almost 3mpg...probably the intake and exhaust)

*SIGH*

you cant have your cake and eat it too... the money they saved on the engine, perhaps went into the suspension, steering, and handling of the car? what if it comes standard with awesomely tuned bilsteins? can you maybe see that they had to cut budget in some areas to really nail it in others and stay within budget?

you're too hung up on power. you cant see the bigger picture. you say you can, but your posts and the perspective that it paints, says otherwise. i get that you WANT it to be a certain way. but if its not, you say its a failure. and thats where i disagree. your standards are WAAAAAAY too high. if it were that easy to have such a car, have you ever considered why other manufacturers havent developed a 20-25k turbo rwd lightweight sports coupe?

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by madfast

i disagree. the RX-8 had nothing that made it stand out vs its competition. the FT has RWD. imo that is a big plus. for the non enthusiasts its the styling. its dramatically better when you compare it to the Si, MS6, GTi, WRX, etc. it has that sleek coupe look. is it as awesome as the concept FR-S? no. but that doesnt mean its a total turd in the looks dept...

the integra type r was 25k in 2001. about the best bang for the buck car of its time. at 32-33k, the S2000 was priced right. a little expensive, yes, but you can tell where the money went. it handled great and had an AMAZING engine. hardly a rip off...

Are you saying the RX-8 didn't have RWD? The ITR was a sweet ride for 25k and I thnk the S2000 was an impressive little coupe when it debuted its 240hp 2.0l NA. I wouldn't call it a rip off, but it was definitely overpriced IMO.