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

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by R.S-HawK

I noticed on your profile you have a '13 Focus ST.

How do you compare it against the FR-S in terms of power, torque and handling? I was (ironically) considering the car before going with the FR-S.

The ST is my wife's. It's a good car. It's loaded so it has all the bells and whistles. Feels like it has more low end grunt than my WRX did when it was stock. It moves fairly well. Definitely faster than the FRS. Doesn't handle nearly as well though.

Also keep in mind that I'm lowered almost 3" so sitting in the ST now makes me feel like I'm in a truck haha.

In short:
ST is a better GT car
FRS is better for everything else

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by regal

If Toyota can build a Yaris @ $13k under 2300 lbs they could have built this under 2500 lbs, I think they chose not too because they wanted to position it as the lightest GT. As you say they designed the backseat which is useless in itself but it gives the car a small GT wheelbase and feel.

Except that the BRZ/FR-S has a much stiffer chassis than a Yaris. Believe me, you wouldn't want to drive a BRZ with a Yaris chassis. That makes your comparison somewhat irrelevant. Also, some of the weight difference comes from the engine and transmission - the Yaris is FWD, which allows for a single transaxle unit (which is lighter than a separate diff and transmission), the transmission itself is a much lighter-duty 5 speed rather than the more capable 6-speed in the BRZ, and the engine is a 1.5L inline 4, which is pretty much definitely lighter than the 2L boxer in the BRZ. Building a lightweight car is easy, but building a lightweight, high-performance car is hard, since many of the heaviest bits in a car are also necessary for performance.

[Braces]

Didn't Toyota build this car as an entry level RWD car that could be modified easily. They designed the car with this in mind. They knew that alot of enthusiasts would be adding additional power to their car.

There is no right or wrong answer to this issue with HP. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mod the car or leave it alone. The car is perfect either way.

[R.S-HawK]

Originally Posted by TylerLieberman

The ST is my wife's. It's a good car. It's loaded so it has all the bells and whistles. Feels like it has more low end grunt than my WRX did when it was stock. It moves fairly well. Definitely faster than the FRS. Doesn't handle nearly as well though.

Also keep in mind that I'm lowered almost 3" so sitting in the ST now makes me feel like I'm in a truck haha.

In short:
ST is a better GT car
FRS is better for everything else

Thanks for the response.

Looks like I made the right choice!

[thill]

Originally Posted by chrisl

Except that the BRZ/FR-S has a much stiffer chassis than a Yaris. Believe me, you wouldn't want to drive a BRZ with a Yaris chassis. That makes your comparison somewhat irrelevant. Also, some of the weight difference comes from the engine and transmission - the Yaris is FWD, which allows for a single transaxle unit (which is lighter than a separate diff and transmission), the transmission itself is a much lighter-duty 5 speed rather than the more capable 6-speed in the BRZ, and the engine is a 1.5L inline 4, which is pretty much definitely lighter than the 2L boxer in the BRZ. Building a lightweight car is easy, but building a lightweight, high-performance car is hard, since many of the heaviest bits in a car are also necessary for performance.

Agreed, and when you consider a modern day roadster like the Miata approaches 2500lbs, you can see where the FR-S and BRZ came close especially when factoring in a hard top, larger wheelbase, and a useable trunk + functional backseat.

My guess is that to lose more weight when the cars debuted you were looking at using carbon fiber and other more costly materials and it would just push the price of the car up too high. Many people were already complaining about the price since the original rumors was that the car would start around $22K.

Look at the Alpha Romeo 4C. The car will most likely cost somewhere in the $60-80K range when it hits the states and the rumors are that it will be approaching 2400-2500lbs in the US, and the whole design of the car was to be as light as possible but still meet US regulations to be sold in the US (in Europe the car without all the additional safety features weight right around 2100lbs).

[thill]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Well I took care of this "problem" and recently had a supercharger, as well as a few exhaust pieces, installed. Sitting at around 290-300 hp now and the car feels great.



Even with 300 hp this car's brakes are fine. Upgrade the pads for the track and no worries. I'm doing my first track event with the car, at VIR, the 2nd week of November. All my cooling is stock for now but I think it'll be fine in the 50-60° air. An oil cooler is the next mod on the list, which I will have done before tracking the car in warmer weather.

But people that say this car needs all these brake and suspension upgrades to handle an extra 50-100 hp are wrong. The chassis isn't overpowered; it's fine.

Congrats on going FI. Sounds like you met your goals. Yeah, I should have been more clear when I said better brakes I was referring to pads. I think oil cooler is a 100% must in this car for the track in the summer and a better radiator seems like a small investment as well.

I think the only other concern would be the clutch depending on how much torque you are making.

[WolfpackS2k]

@thill, I know you wanted my driving review after supercharging my car. I haven't forgotten. Still taking it all in for the moment

[thill]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

@thill, I know you wanted my driving review after supercharging my car. I haven't forgotten. Still taking it all in for the moment

For sure! I just hope it does not push to over the edge to go FI myself..

[jack43]

Those posts in the comments sections must be auto-generated by a toy dipping bird somewhere. They are always the same:
"needs a turbo" "needs 50 more horsepowers"

My analogy for the car is it's like the short 5'10" player in the NBA. It always has to prove it deserves to be there. And no matter how well it dunks over 7' centers, not everyone is impressed.

I think aftermarket FI is enough to satisfy the enthusiast market. Especially if gas were $5 again. Me I went FI with a vortech, but would trade it for stock power and 500lb lighter.

[Poodles]

Originally Posted by regal

Heavier than any MR2 ever made. The last Toyota sports car the MR2/S was~2200 lbs. Toyota powered Lotus Elise less than that.


This is a small Gran Tourer, not a lightweight sprint sports car by any stretch of the imagination.

Not heavier by much, the second gen MR2 was pretty fat. You're also comparing apples to oranges here since it's a different type of car (2 seater, far smaller, transaxle makes it lighter, older crash safety standards, etc)

Comparing it to the Elise is a bit absurd as the Elise uses fiberglass and an aluminum chassis. It also has zero creature comforts and is just about the definition of a track toy since you'd be mental to DD it.

Originally Posted by regal

If Toyota can build a Yaris @ $13k under 2300 lbs they could have built this under 2500 lbs, I think they chose not too because they wanted to position it as the lightest GT. As you say they designed the backseat which is useless in itself but it gives the car a small GT wheelbase and feel.

FWD, non-performance chassis, etc. Strength = weight, unless you start using exotic materials which drives the price up.

[jack43]

One more thing -- I see many commenters say "I test drove one and it's underpowered"?

So are dealerships letting people redline new cars off the lot? Or they are being good and following the 1000mi break-in schedule.. in which case it IS a slow gutless car.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by jack43

One more thing -- I see many commenters say "I test drove one and it's underpowered"?

So are dealerships letting people redline new cars off the lot? Or they are being good and following the 1000mi break-in schedule.. in which case it IS a slow gutless car.

My local Subaru dealer let me take out a WRX and a BRZ without even coming along, and the same was true of the BMW dealer with a 128, 328, and 335. The Porsche salesman came along when I drove the Cayman, but he not only let me rev it to near redline, he egged me on (as did the Ford salesman with the Mustang GT). Honestly, if I can't drive a sporty car in a way to actually experience the "sportiness" of the car, then what's the point of the test drive in the first place? I'm not test driving it to see if I like the air conditioning, I'm test driving it to see if I like the way the car drives, and to determine that, I have to be able to push it at least a little bit.

[regal]

Originally Posted by thill

Agreed, and when you consider a modern day roadster like the Miata approaches 2500lbs, you can see where the FR-S and BRZ came close especially when factoring in a hard top, larger wheelbase, and a useable trunk + functional backseat.

My guess is that to lose more weight when the cars debuted you were looking at using carbon fiber and other more costly materials and it would just push the price of the car up too high. Many people were already complaining about the price since the original rumors was that the car would start around $22K.

Look at the Alpha Romeo 4C. The car will most likely cost somewhere in the $60-80K range when it hits the states and the rumors are that it will be approaching 2400-2500lbs in the US, and the whole design of the car was to be as light as possible but still meet US regulations to be sold in the US (in Europe the car without all the additional safety features weight right around 2100lbs).

The Alpha clearly wasn't engineered for the states, they are only selling a handful per year so its not a valid comparison. The safety add on's are just after the fact slap-on, not core integrated from conception.

All I'm saying is if Toyota wanted our cars to be lightweight sports cars they could have done it.

This car is big to me. Its width is more than the 2015 Mustang. Its a lot bigger than classic sports cars. They could have made it smaller and lighter and maybe targeted just the minimum safety requirements. Toyotas last sports car (MRS) was the real deal minus the engine.

So this time they decided to build a GT instead. And as a GT I think its a great chassis but long term the silly decision to not use a turbo engine will slow down sales.

Its really similar to the Silvia which was absolute incredible car if you had the turbo engine(SR20DET), but so-so in the states where it didn't. The sales suffered. People want power in a GT no matter how well it handles.

Toyotas last reals sports car the MRS was great except they used the 1zz instead of the 2zz. And they are repeating the same mistake again with the FA20T on the shelf.

For me I'm OK with the acceleration and many of us are, but ultimately once the newness wears off if they don't turbo the engine sales will decline IMHO.

[thill]

Sales will decline no matter what over time. This happens to all nearly all sports cars once the newness fades and competitors respond.

The good news is that Tada does not appear to want to let the car die without some revisions along the way. Like I said if Subaru or Toyota offered a more powerful version of the car tomorrow I would be at the dealer putting my name on the list.