Scion.com FR-S page updated

[brewksy]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Because there's no such thing as a 2012 FR-S. There is a 2013 FR-S though.

That's the big announcement on the 9th, I bet. Scion has been selling the 2012 FR-S for a year already! I bought my FR-S last April. Where have you been Dave???

[Snoopyalien24]

Hey guys they updated the Scion website!



Lol but all in all, I think it looks better than before. But, it feels like it's missing some info. Even the interior pics of the FR-S are missing.

[cRazy604]

the Canadian website is better

[ayau]

Originally Posted by cRazy604

the Canadian website is better

It at least has the correct tire specs.

Length 4240 mm (166.9 in.)

Width 1775 mm (69.9 in.)

Height 1285 mm (50.6 in.) (not including antenna base)

Wheelbase 2570 mm (101.2 in.)

Tread Front1520 mm (59.8 in.)Rear1540 mm (60.6 in.)

Seating capacity 4

Engine 1,998 ccTypeHorizontally opposed four-cylinder, D-4S injection, DOHCBore × stroke86 × 86 mm.Maximum output200hp @ 7,000 rpmMaximum torque151 lb.-ft. @ 6,600 rpm

Transmission 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic with paddle shifters

Driveline Rear-wheel drive

Suspension Front MacPherson struts - Rear Double wishbone

Brakes Front Ventilated Disc - Rear Ventilated Disc

Tires Front215/45R17Rear215/45R17

Fuel tank 50 L (13.2 gallons)

Fuel Premium Unleaded

http://www.scion.ca/scion/about/news...75255473567329

[ayau]

Originally Posted by bestwheelbase

I don't think so Tim.

It's correct on the site. The format was messed up during the copy/paste.

[Snoopyalien24]

Yeah height is 51.2 in. and not 49 in. like I would of liked, but whatever. The suspension height looks like its set up for off-road, so I guess there is the (almost) 49 in.?

[bestwheelbase]

Originally Posted by ayau

It's correct on the site. The format was messed up during the copy/paste.

I just figured it was appropriate to reply given my username. :happy0180:

[MrVito]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

you say its a matter of fact..what testing? what looseness? what sources? im trying to find where you got this via search..

the cars suspension geometry from previous articles says the car provides good performance without needing additional traction from sport tires.

If they wanted more traction, they should have opted for better rubber, IE not Prius tires. Increasing the contact patch in the back will probably slow the car down, rather than help any. And based on test drive reports, it sounds like it doesn't have enough power to really need a 225 rears.

If by going to an aspect ratio of 40mm vs the original 45mm, are they looking for MORE turning response..eg looseness?

Staggard setup from the factory looks like a typo or misinformation...like the rest of the information on that site.

Unless the standards of tire sizes has recently changed, the 40/45 ina 215/45R17 does not stand for 45mm, the aspect ratio is a percentage of the tire width. Meaning, a 45 series 215 has 96.75mm of sidewall, 45% of 215mm. A 225/40R17 would have 90mm of sidewall. Approximately 7mm of difference is not that much.


from
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=46

Sidewall Aspect Ratio

Typically following the three digits identifying the tire's Section Width in millimeters is a two-digit number that identifies the tire's profile or aspect ratio.

P225/50R16 91S

The 50 indicates that this tire size's sidewall height (from rim to tread) is 50% of its section width. The measurement is the tire's section height, and also referred to as the tire's series, profile or aspect ratio. The higher the number, the taller the sidewall; the lower the number, the lower the sidewall. We know that this tire size's section width is 225mm and that its section height is 50% of 225mm. By converting the 225mm to inches (225 / 25.4 = 8.86") and multiplying it by 50% (.50) we confirm that this tire size results in a tire section height of 4.43". If this tire were a P225/70R16 size, our calculation would confirm that the size would result in a section height of 6.20", approximately a 1.8-inch taller sidewall.

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by MrVito

Unless the standards of tire sizes has recently changed, the 40/45 ina 215/45R17 does not stand for 45mm, the aspect ratio is a percentage of the tire width. Meaning, a 45 series 215 has 96.75mm of sidewall, 45% of 215mm. A 225/40R17 would have 90mm of sidewall. Approximately 7mm of difference is not that much.


from
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=46

Sidewall Aspect Ratio

Typically following the three digits identifying the tire's Section Width in millimeters is a two-digit number that identifies the tire's profile or aspect ratio.

P225/50R16 91S

The 50 indicates that this tire size's sidewall height (from rim to tread) is 50% of its section width. The measurement is the tire's section height, and also referred to as the tire's series, profile or aspect ratio. The higher the number, the taller the sidewall; the lower the number, the lower the sidewall. We know that this tire size's section width is 225mm and that its section height is 50% of 225mm. By converting the 225mm to inches (225 / 25.4 = 8.86") and multiplying it by 50% (.50) we confirm that this tire size results in a tire section height of 4.43". If this tire were a P225/70R16 size, our calculation would confirm that the size would result in a section height of 6.20", approximately a 1.8-inch taller sidewall.

Your right, thanks! aspect ratio and mm were incorrect. But what i was trying to ask...what are they trying to achieve by going to a smaller sidewall? From 215/45/17 to a staggered 215/40/17 - 225/40/17. The Difference in height may not seem like much, but it does have an effect in performance.

[00NissanNinja]

Scion needs to get to work on their main site, Missing so much info. Detroit can't come soon enough...

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by Ribface

Just noticed the Scion webpage has been updated.

http://www.scion.com/cars/FR-S/

Look like the FR-S is getting wider tires in the rear than the 86

From the spec page:


Not sure if it's an error, I find it odd they changed from 215/45R17 to 215/40R17

215/40 tires = 86mm sidewall

[ichitaka05]

^215/45/17 w semi-track setup is hard on the bumps & dips, I wonder how nightmare it is to run 215/40/17...

[MRZ415]

215/40-17 only good with a drop for hellaflush looks ... I am done with the style
heck .. even sortaflush is too much for me now ... with the BRZ its gonna be STOCK

I am currently on 225/45-17 with 1/4 inch wheel gap...

[2fast4you]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

Staggard setup from the factory looks like a typo or misinformation...like the rest of the information on that site.

I was thinking the same thing... until I saw this (last paragraph):



Possible 215/40-17 + 225/40-17 setup for Australia? Monday can't get here fast enough...