2013 Scion FR-S Priced at $24,200 ($24,930 after destination)

[dookie11]

Lol, another attack-sesh on ft86club. Always worth the read

[Dark]

Originally Posted by Born2Drive

So, you cannot find a real job, and you have to type sh1t to get pay checks from TOYOTA?

The interior design is dull, the material is crappy, and horse power only good for chicks.

Oh?

[S2kphile]

Originally Posted by dookie11

Lol, another attack-sesh on ft86club. Always worth the read

Honestly, I believe he or she is entitled to their own opinion but when a person makes an account just to bash something and start belitting other posters tells me all I need to know about a person.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I think it's pretty hilarious what things have come to...Toyota said this is a car that's not about the numbers and are taking this to the extreme, and is trying to sell it in America where people care ONLY about the numbers.

First of all they drove off a portion of buyers considering manual transmission in the US by not specifying an alternative shift schedule, which might not matter since selling more autos makes them more money, but it looks bad on paper when a Mustang appears to get the same fuel economy. Secondly, they made a joke of 0-60 by having 2nd gear top out before 60, and it's going to cost them sales.

Let's see what they bring to the table with an upgraded version...

Originally Posted by Zgrinch

Serial. I'm confused on this point. So the FRS does not go beyond 60mph in 2nd?

If you look at the review video of the BRZ, it shows 101kph in 2nd, which is 62mph, so is the FRS geared differently than the BRZ?

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...870#post164870

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

Stock speedos read high. Actual speed my not meet GPS readout of speed.

Until other tests come out, I'll peg it to the fact that the fuckwits at Edmunds can't drive. Their numbers ALWAYS suck. Go back through every Toyota/Lexus... in fact most cars (including the GC) and see how piss poor their acceleration numbers are. Soccer. Mom.

and c0ckpit!

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

I think this is a great thing. Look at all the Internet forum commenters, and even people on this forum, and all you see is people saying how it's too slow and it will get beat by minivans etc. This to me means all the brotatos and flat brimmers out there will stay far away from this car, and only people who really get what the car is about will buy it. This will help the car avoid ricers and dumb kids and give it a cleaner image to the rest of the world that doesn't care about 0-60 and 1/4 mile times and epenis size.

Oh god, if only this were true.

Originally Posted by Born2Drive

I will say 2-3K overpriced for this underpowered, cheap material inside and low on features car.
They should fire those people who design the interior(both Toyota & Subaru).

And, I am very disappointed that they launch as shitty Scion brand in US.

a) Why should you care?

b) Why the fuck are you still here?

#goawaytroll.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I think it's pretty hilarious what things have come to...Toyota said this is a car that's not about the numbers and are taking this to the extreme, and is trying to sell it in America where people care ONLY about the numbers.

First of all they drove off a portion of buyers considering manual transmission in the US by not specifying an alternative shift schedule, which might not matter since selling more autos makes them more money, but it looks bad on paper when a Mustang appears to get the same fuel economy. Secondly, they made a joke of 0-60 by having 2nd gear top out before 60, and it's going to cost them sales.

Let's see what they bring to the table with an upgraded version...

Not everyone in America cares only about numbers, and had Toyota/Subaru made the gearing a little taller just to improve 0-60 mag times (a standard, but arbitrary metric anyway), they would've been accused of placating bench racers.

A tangible concern is that its short gearing will be disadvantageous for competitive autox... though having to shift also means autox might be more fun/interesting, which (not to beat a dead horse) is the point.

BTW, the Mustang V6 and FT86 don't get the same fuel economy according to fueleconomy.gov (city/combined/highway):

MT 19/22/29 vs 22/25/30
AT 19/23/31 vs 25/28/34

That makes the FT86 better by:

MT 16%/14%/3%
AT 32%/22%/10%

Also, while small displacement NA engines tuned for throttle response and output generally don't get great EPA MPG ratings (especially highway), they usually beat them in real-world use.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Not everyone in America cares only about numbers, and had Toyota/Subaru made the gearing a little taller just to improve 0-60 mag times (a standard, but arbitrary metric anyway), they would've been accused of placating bench racers.

A tangible concern is that its short gearing will be disadvantageous for competitive autox... though having to shift also means autox might be more fun/interesting, which (not to beat a dead horse) is the point.

BTW, the Mustang V6 and FT86 don't get the same fuel economy according to fueleconomy.gov (city/combined/highway):

MT 19/22/29 vs 22/25/30
AT 19/23/31 vs 25/28/34

That makes the FT86 better by:

MT 16%/14%/3%
AT 32%/22%/10%

Also, while small displacement NA engines tuned for throttle response and output generally don't get great EPA MPG ratings (especially highway), they usually beat them in real-world use.

Good find, and second gear does not top off before 60 MPH, its at 62 MPH. And this was a BRZ test, the FR-S is going to be different since the car will be lighter. We got anywhere from 6.0 secs to 7.3 secs. 7.3 secs is awful slow and if true will truly kill sales of this car. Closer to 6.0 secs is where it should be.

And whoever says 0 to 60 doesn't matter, it does to a certain point.

Maybe inside line did not fully turn off the traction control?

[chulooz]

The drivers weight will make a bigger difference than the pounds between a brz and frs. Its way closer than any accel test can demonstrate. 0-60 gives me a general idea of some of the cars capabilities and qualities, but no where near enough to understand the experience of driving it.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

Good find, and second gear does not top off before 60 MPH, its at 62 MPH. And this was a BRZ test, the FR-S is going to be different since the car will be lighter. We got anywhere from 6.0 secs to 7.3 secs. 7.3 secs is awful slow and if true will truly kill sales of this car. Closer to 6.0 secs is where it should be.

And whoever says 0 to 60 doesn't matter, it does to a certain point.

Maybe inside line did not fully turn off the traction control?

Inside Line is notoriously slow, and also they don't use rollout (read post about that here), which is why they published two 0-60 times: 7.0 with rollout (since other mags use it) and 7.3 without.

Motortrend got 6.4, which is about what I'd expect most reviewers to get.

0-60 matters, but with two caveats: [1] It's not any more important than 0-59 MPH and [2] rolling start is more indicative of real-world acceleration.

As far as when 2nd gear hits the rev limiter, I'm not sure what the story is. I don't remember if the videos showing it going faster were for the 3.727 or 4.1 DR. By my math the 4.1 DR should be able to hit 60-61 MPH.

Tire deformation should result in a smaller static rolling radius, while at highway speeds the dynamic rolling radius increases. With these tires, I wouldn't expect the difference to be too much (but I don't know much about it).

[Tbxgz]

Originally Posted by Deslock

As far as when 2nd gear hits the rev limiter, I'm not sure what the story is. I don't remember if the videos showing it going faster were for the 3.727 or 4.1 DR. By my math the 4.1 DR should be able to hit 60-61 MPH.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Tbxgz

Thanks... that's a really clear screencap too.

However, we still don't know how accurate that speedometer is (they commonly indicate you're going faster than you really are). I assume the mags use radar guns.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Thanks... that's a really clear screencap too.

However, we still don't know how accurate that speedometer is (they commonly indicate you're going faster than you really are). I assume the mags use radar guns.

2+ mph is a lot to be off with stock wheels no?

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by Matador

2+ mph is a lot to be off with stock wheels no?

I could see the speedometer being off by ~2mph. There was this article in C&D looking at this issue with stock cars speedometers.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ometer-scandal

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Matador

2+ mph is a lot to be off with stock wheels no?

No, perfectly normal for speedometers to be off by ~5%. Laws in Europe require that the speedo speed not read slower than actual speed even with slightly oversized tires. IIRC, speedometer must never read low, but is allowed to read as much as 10% high. Best to aim for the middle.

[tachi1247]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

Good find, and second gear does not top off before 60 MPH, its at 62 MPH. And this was a BRZ test, the FR-S is going to be different since the car will be lighter. We got anywhere from 6.0 secs to 7.3 secs. 7.3 secs is awful slow and if true will truly kill sales of this car. Closer to 6.0 secs is where it should be.

And whoever says 0 to 60 doesn't matter, it does to a certain point.

Maybe inside line did not fully turn off the traction control?

One of the reviews said the rev limiter kicked on at 59.2 mph in 2nd. Also, weight will have nothing to do with top speed in a particular gear, only how fast you can get there so the weight difference between the BRZ and FRS won't affect it.

Edit: if you're talking about a lot of weight then it could play into the tire deformation part of the calculation, but the weight difference between these 2 cars is negligible for what we are discussing.