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

[Texas BRZ]

OP seemed to not like it as much... So no worries... Hope you find the right car which pleases your needs and wants.

[Spaceywilly]

Originally Posted by bartonian

Never really did the math out. I guess it's not that bad. Maybe $150 a year with the mileage I am doing.

Not sure why this forum is full of such whiny children. Merely voicing my opinion after taking it for a test drive. Like I said, I will go for round 2 and push it a little more. Maybe find an onramp to test out.

Sorry if I hurt anyones feelings

Probably has to do with the fact that someone makes this exact thread about once a week.

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by bartonian

Never really did the math out. I guess it's not that bad. Maybe $150 a year with the mileage I am doing.

Not sure why this forum is full of such whiny children. Merely voicing my opinion after taking it for a test drive. Like I said, I will go for round 2 and push it a little more. Maybe find an onramp to test out.

Sorry if I hurt anyones feelings

Not sure why you feel that your opinion warrants its own thread?

[bartonian]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

Not sure why you feel that your opinion warrants its own thread?

not sure why you're still in it

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by bartonian

not sure why you're still in it

To keep tabs on you troll

[Shagaliscious]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

Not sure why you feel that your opinion warrants its own thread?

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.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Shagaliscious

The FR-S has a 53f/47r split.

Do some more research on the car you own.

[Shagaliscious]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Do some more research on the car you own.

Every article I have read states it is 53/47. Wikipedia says the same thing...I know that's not the best source...but I can't find anything that says anything different. Do you have a link?

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by sho220

Have you driven one? This car is not about numbers...

It's a 2.0 liter car. I was only saying the car isn't fast to begin with. It isn't the balance that makes it feel slow. If this car had a 2.5l or 2.0T/2.0S and weighed around the same more people would be saying it feels fast and not slow. I own a 2.0l car with similar torque and a much flatter torque curve with no dips and it feels like a slow piece of crap.

[alluringreality]

Originally Posted by bartonian

My 10 year old car gets better mileage

I have doubts about the usefulness of the EPA test, but the FR-S with a manual has a higher EPA rating than the 2008 revision for your car.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....n=sbs&id=32309
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....n=sbs&id=18552

[Synack]

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.

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

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I own a 2.0l car with similar torque and a much flatter torque curve with no dips and it feels like a slow piece of crap.

Is your RSX modified? Is it similar to the 2.0 Si?

http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/attac...dyno_chart.jpg

You'll have to figure out this URL or Google it:
http://********.com/wp-content/uploa...04/frsdyno.jpg

Weight, gearing, throttle response, etc. play roles. But to compare the 2.0 liter from the Si and the 2.0 liter from the FR-S, as far as torque, here are a few sample RPMs:

3000: Si = 127, FR-S = 141 (11.0% advantage)
3800: Si = 121, FR-S = 122 (just about the same here -- FR-S's torque trough, Si still doesn't exceed FR-S)
4800: Si = 116, FR-S = 142 (22.4% advantage)
6200: Si = 134, FR-S = 140 (4.5% advantage -- Si's torque peak, Si still doesn't exceed FR-S)

Si does maintain torque for further up the rev range. It catches up around 7100 and hangs on longer, thus it has a higher top end rear-wheel horsepower number (180 for Si, 174 for FR-S, source for both is Automobile magazine).

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

Is your RSX modified? Is it similar to the 2.0 Si?

http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/attac...dyno_chart.jpg

You'll have to figure out this URL or Google it:
http://********.com/wp-content/uploa...04/frsdyno.jpg

Weight, gearing, throttle response, etc. play roles. But to compare the 2.0 liter from the Si and the 2.0 liter from the FR-S, as far as torque, here are a few sample RPMs:

3000: Si = 127, FR-S = 141 (11.0% advantage)
3800: Si = 121, FR-S = 122 (just about the same here -- FR-S's torque trough, Si still doesn't exceed FR-S)
4800: Si = 116, FR-S = 142 (22.4% advantage)
6200: Si = 134, FR-S = 140 (4.5% advantage -- Si's torque peak, Si still doesn't exceed FR-S)

Si does maintain torque for further up the rev range. It catches up around 7100 and hangs on longer, thus it has a higher top end rear-wheel horsepower number (180 for Si, 174 for FR-S, source for both is Automobile magazine).

I have the base which has a better torque curve.

[alluringreality]

Originally Posted by jarviz

What other car gets you 30+ mpg combined and gets you to 60 in 6.5?

There are very few cars that actually fit this criteria. There's the 2013 GS hybrid, the M35h is rated at 29 MPG combined, and there's the electric Tesla. I'll take it that you actually mean a 30 MPG highway rating, and like synacks said there are a number of sporty cars that are competitive. I think all the v6 domestic coupes would fit, the Genesis Coupe, the latest sports sedans, and I'd figure some of the GTI competitors are also under 7 seconds with 30+ MPG highway ratings.