"gah FRS/BRZ are so slow, if only they had like 50 more hp"

[Biscuitpie]

My previous car was a 476 whp (560 crank) Camaro and after all of the stuff I read on the internet, I expected this car to be a turd. But it really isn't that bad at all! It may not have the the punch-in-the-chest feeling of my last car, but I certainly never want for any more power when driving around town.

[Noble713]

Originally Posted by chrisl

At 2000rpm, this engine is making 130 ft-lb, and at 3000rpm, it's making nearly 150ft-lb. That's about 75 ft-lb per liter at 3krpm. I challenge you to find any naturally aspirated engine that makes more specific torque than that, especially at such a low RPM. The new 911 GT3 only makes about 235 ft-lb at that RPM, from a 3.8L (62 ft-lb/L)Yes, at its peak, the GT3 makes 325 ft-lb (85 ft-lb/L), but it doesn't do that until over 6000 RPM. The same story applies to pretty much every other high performance, naturally aspirated engine ever made. If anything, the FA20 is already far more responsive and torquey at low RPM than would usually be expected for a 2L, high performance, N/A engine. That doesn't change the fact that it's a 2L though, so it will never make a ton of torque down low without a turbo/supercharger.

The first engine that came to mind was the 2014 Corvette's LT1, generally lauded for the numbers it puts down. With a 6.2L V8 putting down 465tq @4000rpm it comes out to.....75tq/L. Same as the FA20! I was quite surprised.

Next up is the 458 Speciale's 4.5L engine, which I believe has the highest specific output for an NA V8. 398tq @6000rpm or 88.4tq/L.

Or we could look at the SLS AMG, also a 6.2L V8 and the most powerful NA V8 (max hp). Torque is 479@4750rpm for 77.26tq/L.

So other than the marvel of GM's small block you really need to hit supercar territory (or a higher-spec Mustang) to get some decent numbers.

What I'd really like to see are hp and tq numbers for
a) total engine volume (use a bounding box of external dimensions)
b) total weight
c) $ (both for cheapest vehicle featuring the engine, and as a crate engine).

^I'm almost certain the GM Small block wins most of those hands down, but I digress....

[nonicname returns]

The damn thing needs torque not hp!

[Whitigir]

Originally Posted by nonicname returns

The damn thing needs torque not hp!

Yepe, I totally agree. For now, the car has a very low torque and hp together with torque dip problem. I am surprised as of how much hype it get. I like the look though. That is why I prefer to look at it, or test drive it at a dealer.

[trekkie]

In 2001 i bought an Audi TT Roadster. It put out 225HP with a 1.8T Turbo engine.

Every article I read while I waited for my built to order model would come was nothing but 'IT HAS NO POWER'.

At the time, I was driving a 1996 Olds Cutlass Supreme Coupe. I loved it, but it was in the shop for a new alternator every two years. It had a 3.4L V6 and was a beast, but I was wondering what I did wrong.

The TT was rare at the time as this was the first year of the convertible/roadster. So I hadn't driven it. Then the dealer got one that was for driving/test driving/loaning out for a few days.



I don't know what car people were driving, but it wasn't that one.

Also, after test driving the FR-S in deciding if I wanted it to replace the Camry Hybrid for my 'fun car' this time around I can say the same damn thing.

I can count on my hand where straight line acceleration is super important enough that 200HP wouldn't be enough, and it's usually being an idiot at a stop light or somewhere you shouldn't, or, in autocross group dominated by Corvette owners who make NASCAR ovals instead of curves.

I haven't had this much fun in a car in a long time, the rest of them get heavier as they get more power and you lose the feel of the road. The last time I grinned that stupidly as I walked out of the car was when I drove the TT for the first time, or before that when someone who owned a early 90s Celica loaned it to me and I floored it like I normally did in my weak ass pontiac sunbird and about did a donut getting out onto the highway..

The hardest thing in the world is to learn to ignore the haters, it's even worse now with internet than it was when it was just whomever lived in your town that you ran into. Everyone goes nuts on the forums and youtube and blogs.

Personally, just because it looks fun I may add a supercharger because I've never owned a car with one and it looks relatively straight forward add. in reality, I probably won't touch the engine and just have fun and take the back roads to work that have lots of turns.

[Mikem53]

Originally Posted by Whitigir

Yepe, I totally agree. For now, the car has a very low torque and hp together with torque dip problem. I am surprised as of how much hype it get. I like the look though. That is why I prefer to look at it, or test drive it at a dealer.

Whatever.. I've driven cars with more hp and tq that weren't as quick or near as nimble as the twins. Those who complain about it are usually the ones like you who just see the numbers and "think" the car is too slow. Those who actually own and drive them daily know that the power is more than adequate and the tq dip is not a "problem". All the wannabe/pseudo owners seem to be the ones complaining about the power..

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Noble713

The first engine that came to mind was the 2014 Corvette's LT1, generally lauded for the numbers it puts down. With a 6.2L V8 putting down 465tq @4000rpm it comes out to.....75tq/L. Same as the FA20! I was quite surprised.

Next up is the 458 Speciale's 4.5L engine, which I believe has the highest specific output for an NA V8. 398tq @6000rpm or 88.4tq/L.

Or we could look at the SLS AMG, also a 6.2L V8 and the most powerful NA V8 (max hp). Torque is 479@4750rpm for 77.26tq/L.

Yep, and all of those numbers are taken at higher RPM too - this engine really does have impressive torque at low RPM for a 2L NA. That Ferrari engine almost definitely is below 75 ft-lb/L at 3krpm, for example, and really needs to rev high to put out the big numbers (similar to the 911 GT3 I mentioned above). That Corvette number is surprising though - I didn't realize they put out that much specific torque.

Originally Posted by Noble713

So other than the marvel of GM's small block you really need to hit supercar territory (or a higher-spec Mustang) to get some decent numbers.

Wow - I wouldn't have expected the Mustang to put down those kind of numbers either (I just ran the numbers for a Mustang GT: 78 ft-lb/L). I really didn't expect the American V8s to put down such excellent numbers. They don't have very good specific power output (mostly because they don't rev as high, or breathe as well at high revs), but their specific torque is really quite good, especially at their price point. Similarly, the V6 Mustang looks like it puts down 76 ft-lb/L, which is also excellent.

Originally Posted by Noble713

What I'd really like to see are hp and tq numbers for
a) total engine volume (use a bounding box of external dimensions)
b) total weight
c) $ (both for cheapest vehicle featuring the engine, and as a crate engine).

^I'm almost certain the GM Small block wins most of those hands down, but I digress....

I suspect the LS7 does win most of those hands down, except possibly the per dollar metric, which might actually go to the Mustang V6. 305hp for 22,200 base MSRP is pretty hard to beat in that regard...

[rskdsk]

IMO, Yes are cars are slow ... and being the best driver in the world is not going to give it enough to beat anyone in a regular old fashion street grudge match. These cars need to have 250 torque and 300hp from the factory. I bought mine as a daily driver and knew that ... a decision that will cost me about $5k to fix. Just waiting for the best SC to finally be crowned.

[Hanni_0176]

Are people really that spoiled with the last few years of cars that everyone has forgotten what cars were like before that? Just as a benchmark, the 2005-2009 V6 Mustang has similar 0-60 and 1/4 times as the FT86 (MT) does, and thats with a 4.0L... and the 1999-2004 V6 Mustang? It's way slower.

Since when has 14.9 in the 1/4 and a 0-60 of 6.6, for a stock car, been slow? Is our cars fast? No. But that doesn't mean our cars are slow. 200 hp and 151 ft/lbs on a 2758 lb car is impressive for what it is, if you ask me. And what it is, is a $24,500 sports car.

Our cars are outclassed in the hp/tq, 1/4, 0-60 numbers of other brand new sports cars at a similar price range. I get that. And we're not even going to hang with a brand new V6 Camry at a stop light, true. But seriously... do you all live in rich neighborhoods where everyone you know and everyone driving on the road are all driving brand new cars? I know the economy in Northeastern Ohio is probably worse than most areas of the country, but the majority of the cars I see in the road around here are more than 3 years old, and most of them are older than that... and I'm the only one who has a new car, within the circle of friends and family that I know personally.

All I've done to my car so far is drop in a K&N Air Filter and flash my ECU with the OFT (v1.33). For daily driving, my car is more than fast enough. I get wheel spin anytime I go WOT in 1st gear. 1st gear and 2nd gear are very short with WOT to redline, and after I shift into 3rd, I'm already over 60 mph. The fastest legal speed limit here is 70 mph on the interstate, and I'm pretty sure that going faster than 85 mph is considered reckless driving by the police.

I can totally dig the complaints coming from non-FT86 owners. They see the stat sheet, and our numbers are not as impressive as other cars on the market (aside from weight). What I don't understand, is the complaints coming from FT86 drivers. Did you all come from high power cars like Corvette's or something?

I feel like Takumi everytime someone says our car is slow. "What?! That's the fastest car down Mt. Akina? But it's just an eight six!"

(the Takumi reference was a metaphor for our cars being considered the underdog, fwiw)

[rskdsk]

In todays world .... IMO anything over 5 secs for 0-60 or over 14 sec in the 1/4 is slow. I am not knocking the ft86 ... I bought one ... but IMO yes it is slow.

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by Biscuitpie

My previous car was a 476 whp (560 crank) Camaro and after all of the stuff I read on the internet, I expected this car to be a turd. But it really isn't that bad at all! It may not have the the punch-in-the-chest feeling of my last car, but I certainly never want for any more power when driving around town.

My thoughts exactly after coming from a STI. Sure this won't make your face melt, but it's got more than enough. Personally I think it would be perfect if it could be gotten to 220 WHP, but that could just be my impressions due to the stock tune's torque dip. Either way, it's still plenty quick and doesn't lack for "get up and go".

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Hanni_0176

Are people really that spoiled with the last few years of cars that everyone has forgotten what cars were like before that? Just as a benchmark, the 2005-2009 V6 Mustang has similar 0-60 and 1/4 times as the FT86 (MT) does, and thats with a 4.0L... and the 1999-2004 V6 Mustang? It's way slower.

Since when has 14.9 in the 1/4 and a 0-60 of 6.6, for a stock car, been slow? Is our cars fast? No. But that doesn't mean our cars are slow. 200 hp and 151 ft/lbs on a 2758 lb car is impressive for what it is, if you ask me. And what it is, is a $24,500 sports car.

Our cars are outclassed in the hp/tq, 1/4, 0-60 numbers of other brand new sports cars at a similar price range. I get that. And we're not even going to hang with a brand new V6 Camry at a stop light, true. But seriously... do you all live in rich neighborhoods where everyone you know and everyone driving on the road are all driving brand new cars? I know the economy in Northeastern Ohio is probably worse than most areas of the country, but the majority of the cars I see in the road around here are more than 3 years old, and most of them are older than that... and I'm the only one who has a new car, within the circle of friends and family that I know personally.

All I've done to my car so far is drop in a K&N Air Filter and flash my ECU with the OFT (v1.33). For daily driving, my car is more than fast enough. I get wheel spin anytime I go WOT in 1st gear. 1st gear and 2nd gear are very short with WOT to redline, and after I shift into 3rd, I'm already over 60 mph. The fastest legal speed limit here is 70 mph on the interstate, and I'm pretty sure that going faster than 85 mph is considered reckless driving by the police.

I can totally dig the complaints coming from non-FT86 owners. They see the stat sheet, and our numbers are not as impressive as other cars on the market (aside from weight). What I don't understand, is the complaints coming from FT86 drivers. Did you all come from high power cars like Corvette's or something?

I feel like Takumi everytime someone says our car is slow. "What?! That's the fastest car down Mt. Akina? But it's just an eight six!"

(the Takumi reference was a metaphor for our cars being considered the underdog, fwiw)

i think the torque dip has a lot to do with it. by todays standards, its slow. its not fast for the money either as pretty much every other 24500 sports car is faster. i own one and it feels slower than my msp (heavier and less hp) which has a much nicer looking torque curve. i think that anybody who tries to say the car is too slow for pedestrian driving is a crazy but its a far cry from being fast by the standards we use today.

[shishand]

I have had my car over a year now, 19 currently, and inb4 spoiled kid shit, paid everything myself, every penny from the downpayment to the payments..

and all i can say is, i love my car, but i wouldn't mind a little more torque either..most of you guys saying its fine the way it is currently own another car besides the fr-s, and the fr-s is your weekend car.. but as many, mines a daily driver, and i can vouch to that more speed thing. I acknowledge its not a drag race car, but the torque dip and the "barely 160 torque" thing can suck.. especially for people like me. most of you say you have previous experience, well my experience starts on this car, and i love its handling and everything about it, but it lacks a little power. I truly love the simplicity of the car, another reason i chose it over the genesis, and all i can wish for is for the 2015 version the car has an power upgrade!!! maybe it will come in different bases, say a 4cylc, and a tuned version of the same one with no turbo (N/A engines ftw), like an STI version or something so all you old farts can get your 200hp beloved engines and those like me can get our faster cars! i mean come on, the engine of this car isn't even tune-friendly that much...

my wishes for toyota is to come out with more sporty cars so we can all be satisfied! like when im around 23 i want a car from toyota that can match with the M3.. not too fond of the bmw brand!

as to anything.. this is my opinion and everyones entitled to there own!

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by shishand

I have had my car over a year now, 19 currently, ............. so all you old farts can get your 200hp beloved engines and those like me can get our faster cars!.......

Hi ya, shishand ......

Well, let's see, you are 19 years old and I'm 70 years old.

When I was 19, my car (1948 chevrolet) had 85 HP and weighed 3,700 lbs. Now, my car (FR-S) has 200 HP and weighs about 2,700 lbs. So, this "old fart" is making progress ....

However, when I was 19, like you, I didn't feel my car was powerful enough ....... so, I "fixed" it.....

What did my engine dyno out at? Hell, I have no idea ..... back then, "power" was measured in how many Fords & Mercurys I could beat in a 1/4 mile ....

humfrz