Scion FR-S / FT-86 / Subaru BRZ Specs and Options. 200hp / 151 lb-ft tq

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by old greg

I hate to break this to you but whether or not you can put a baby seat in the back, this would be a terrible car to do it in. Two doors and a low roofline are going to kick your ass every time you need to get your kid or the baby seat in or out of the car.

I got rid of my GSR hatchback for this reason. 2 doors + infant seat = suck

Originally Posted by ashtray

My kid is almost in a booster seat and climbs in to his regular car seat by himself, so all I need to do is buckle him up

That should be doable with a car like this if you're somewhat flexible. You still have to bend over, but it's not nearly as much back strain.

Originally Posted by ashtray

It wouldn't be ideal, but it's better than my Miata with a passenger airbag that has no switch to turn off (97).

That's partly why I didn't get a 1.8L NA or S2k. With either of them, I could install a switch, but I decided to just forgo the issue and get a '99 (lightest NB available). A 1.6L NA was also an option (since it lacks a passenger airbag), but they're a little underpowered for my taste.

[chulooz]

Dragonitti: The exterior dimensions you posted have almost nothing to do with the interior dimensions, you are not comparing the proper parts of the car.

[Dragonitti]

Originally Posted by chulooz

The exterior dimensions you posted have almost nothing to do with the interior dimensions, you are not comparing the proper parts of the car.

I know, but I still wanted to get a feel for how big the car is, so the comparison still helps me. And thought it would be cool to compare the dimensions to the RX7 as well since we compared the dimensions to the RX8.

[Kids Heart]

Originally Posted by ashtray

I think the click in baby seats will be easy enough, but it's when they outgrow those after the first year and you're left butt-rubbing the front seat struggling to get the right angle to not smack their head on the car... those would be the tough years.

My kid is almost in a booster seat and climbs in to his regular car seat by himself, so all I need to do is buckle him up, which he doesn't protest. It wouldn't be ideal, but it's better than my Miata with a passenger airbag that has no switch to turn off (97). He can't ride in "daddy's sportscar" now at all, so having the back seat as an option for him makes for a happier family. Will it replace my WRX wagon? No. Can I take my son out for spirited canyon drives? Oh yeah!

I just hope the back seat can fit an infant car seat and base with the front seat up. In my s13 I have to tie down the front passenger seat to fit my 4 month old in the back.

[tripjammer]

To put speed into perspective...

2012 scion tC stock 6 speed manual..0-60mph in 6.5 secs. Weight is 3060 pounds. Hp is 180 and torque is 173 ft/lbs......power to weight ratio is 17 to 1

2013 FRS 6 speed manual high spec is 200 hp and 151 ft/lbs torque. Weight is 2711 pounds. Power to weight ratio is 13.55 to 1

Unless they screw up the gearing...the FRS could be a mid to upper 5 secs 0-60 mph car.

[suprachica79]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

To put speed into perspective...

2012 scion tC stock 6 speed manual..0-60mph in 6.5 secs. Weight is 3060 pounds. Hp is 180 and torque is 173 ft/lbs......power to weight ratio is 17 to 1

2013 FRS 6 speed manual high spec is 200 hp and 151 ft/lbs torque. Weight is 2711 pounds. Power to weight ratio is 13.55 to 1

Unless they screw up the gearing...the FRS could be a mid to upper 5 secs 0-60 mph car.

That would be phenomenal but with the s2000 having a power to weight of 11.8 and the 0-60s ranging from 5.4-5.8, I'm not sure if they will meet the sub-6.0 time we all hope for. We can pray for good gearing tho!

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by suprachica79

That would be phenomenal but with the s2000 having a power to weight of 11.8 and the 0-60s ranging from 5.4-5.8, I'm not sure if they will meet the sub-6.0 time we all hope for. We can pray for good gearing tho!

Yeah the tC must have optimal gearing or the engine is underrated in HP?

[suprachica79]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

Yeah the tC must have optimal gearing or the engine is underrated in HP?

Maybe the torque really helps get it off the line better than most with that HP rating. That's a fairly torquey engine with such a low compression ratio but now I know why it's easily turbo'ed, 10.4:1 CR is beautiful for that

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by suprachica79

Maybe the torque really helps get it off the line better than most with that HP rating. That's a fairly torquey engine with such a low compression ratio but now I know why it's easily turbo'ed, 10.4:1 CR is beautiful for that

Yeah gearing is going to be the key for the FT86\FRS\BRZ. This car has to be faster than the tC.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by suprachica79

Maybe the torque really helps get it off the line better than most with that HP rating. That's a fairly torquey engine with such a low compression ratio but now I know why it's easily turbo'ed, 10.4:1 CR is beautiful for that

Sorry, unless there's a massive torque peak early like when you have a small turbo higher torque != acceleration.

But yes, the gearing is likely quite good on the tC, 6.5 is pretty low for a crappy power/weight ratio like that.

[old greg]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

2012 scion tC stock 6 speed manual..0-60mph in 6.5 secs.

Uhh... Source please?

Because Motor Trend says that Scion were claiming the 2011 tC did 7.6s to 60, with the same weight, power and torque.
link

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by old greg

Uhh... Source please?

Because Motor Trend says that Scion were claiming the 2011 tC did 7.6s to 60, with the same weight, power and torque.
link

http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/.../scion_tc.html

But I suspect that 6.5 sec was a mistake. Though I've not driven the current tC, my experience behind the wheel of the 1st gen (161 hp, 162 lbf*ft, 2970 lbs) tells me that the 2nd gen (180 hp, 173 lbf*ft, 3060 lbs) probably isn't going to do better than high 6s/low 7s. Also, most mags report mid 7s.

I expect the FT to do 0-60 in 5.9-6.4 sec, depending on its gearing and how abusively it's launched. Rolling start is more telling of how it'll feel in real world driving, and that'll probably be high 6s.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Deslock

http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/.../scion_tc.html

But I suspect that 6.5 sec was a mistake. Though I've not driven the current tC, my experience behind the wheel of the 1st gen (161 hp, 162 lbf*ft, 2970 lbs) tells me that the 2nd gen (180 hp, 173 lbf*ft, 3060 lbs) probably isn't going to do better than high 6s/low 7s. Also, most mags report mid 7s.

I expect the FT to do 0-60 in 5.9-6.4 sec, depending on its gearing and how abusively it's launched. Rolling start is more telling of how it'll feel in real world driving, and that'll probably be high 6s.

Isn't rolling start typically faster than launch?

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by old greg

Uhh... Source please?

Because Motor Trend says that Scion were claiming the 2011 tC did 7.6s to 60, with the same weight, power and torque.
link

There was a new motor trend test...here is the link...

Motor trend 0-60 6 speed manual 2011 model scion tC
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/.../scion_tc.html

Car and Driver 0-60 6 speed automatic..2011 model scion tC
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...cion-tc-review