FR-S Trim levels...

[Matador]

Originally Posted by bigbcraig

... why does everyone want a turbo and/or a lot if power in this car? I just want something flyweight and precise! gah!

Even if I am adding power, even forced induction, later, I want to be able to get performance suspension/brakes without a turbo (or worse, V6!) engine, or a loaded interior.

--------------

Really. I want this to be a small, simple, performance oriented car. for all of you guys pining for more power and beefier transmission and sone luxury and this and that... these cars exist. go get a Mustang / Z / Genesis.

None of these are agile, sub 3000lb cars.

[70NYD]

why are u so against turbos craig??? and how on earth will that comprimise any weight?? turbos weigh about 10kg (including the extra weight from the manifold weight difference) and the there is the IC with piping lets say another 10-20 kg MAX... oh no... all that to potentionaly double the power... how the fuck is that bad and how will that make the car anything but flyweight???

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by 70NYD

why are u so against turbos craig??? and how on earth will that comprimise any weight?? turbos weigh about 10kg (including the extra weight from the manifold weight difference) and the there is the IC with piping lets say another 10-20 kg MAX... oh no... all that to potentionaly double the power... how the fuck is that bad and how will that make the car anything but flyweight???

Hm... I agree with both point of views. Craig's view as simple lightweight fr car, enough hp to have fun and other view as have turbo option for tuned track ready high hp car can beat other heavyweight FR cars.

It doesn't have to be one option engine only. It could have (my estimation)

• NA engine: 185~200hp/165~187tq, 6sp, 2600~2750lbs
• Turbo (small turbo) engine w 220~245hp/180~192tq, 6sp, 2660~2810lbs.

That give both of em bout .07~.08hp per lbs to work with.

If they want lightweight, high rev, NA car that don't need to worry too much bout boost control & oil pressure and other etc and just have fun can go for NA, while if they want a lightweight, high rev, turbo car that can put bigger turbo and other after market stuff for track to make other car eat your dust while having fun can go for turbo.

I don't see any reason to have NA ONLY or TURBO ONLY. More option = more people buying this car = success

[Matador]

I have no problem having a turbo and NA version. The Silvia managed to pull it of excellently for generations (Silvia Q's and Silvia K's) only that the NA version really was not that much to shout about. Is that your preoccupation Craig?

I expect the NA version of the FT-86 to be awesome and the Turbo version to be as good, maybe even better (but slightly more expensive). I do not want nor expect the turbo version to be a supra "replacement" nor a Z06/gt-r/porsche killer, just a competent, more powerful version of a lightweight, agile sports car. An MR-2 turbo, or Silvia K's, or a cheap RX-7 Turbo if you will.

What's the issue, really? It's not as if they wont make the NA version in lieu of the Turbo.

**Sniper edit**

^^ Basically what ichitaka said.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by bigbcraig

... why does everyone want a turbo and/or a lot if power in this car? I just want something flyweight and precise! gah!

Even if I am adding power, even forced induction, later, I want to be able to get performance suspension/brakes without a turbo (or worse, V6!) engine, or a loaded interior.

--------------

Really. I want this to be a small, simple, performance oriented car. for all of you guys pining for more power and beefier transmission and sone luxury and this and that... these cars exist. go get a Mustang / Z / Genesis.

Is part of your concern maybe that Toyota has a crappy history of NA performance when there are NA and Turbo trims levels?

With the Supra and MR2 in North America, the NA versions seemed like after-thoughts to sell a few more cars. Especially the North American MR2, with its 5SFE (Seriously, Toyota?). Plus there is almost no power-oriented aftermarket for the NA cars.

But I think a lot of the Turbo assumptions come from the fact that it's supposed to have a Subaru engine. Subaru + Performance = Turbo in most people's minds. (And personally for me Turbo = Performance, but I'm a Supra guy so that can't be helped.)

However the good news for you is that the GT5 car is NA. Polyphony Digital takes their relationship with the manufacturers pretty seriously, and if they made the car NA in the game, it's because they had a very good reason from Toyota to do so.

The closest current engine that could do the job is Subaru's EJ204 AVCS NA engine. I don't know anything about this engine beyond what is on Wikipedia, but 190 HP NA sounds about up your alley. 190 HP out of 2.0L means it's got to rev. Plus 190 Hp in 2700 lbs would be quite respectable and suitable to their price target, I think.

If there is no turbo engine, 190 HP would be my minimum acceptable number, if there's no way to cram in an EJ257, or hybrid EJ22G (turbo Legacy bottom/EJ20G heads).

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Is part of your concern maybe that Toyota has a crappy history of NA performance when there are NA and Turbo trims levels?

With the Supra and MR2 in North America, the NA versions seemed like after-thoughts to sell a few more cars. Especially the North American MR2, with its 5SFE (Seriously, Toyota?). Plus there is almost no power-oriented aftermarket for the NA cars.

But I think a lot of the Turbo assumptions come from the fact that it's supposed to have a Subaru engine. Subaru + Performance = Turbo in most people's minds. (And personally for me Turbo = Performance, but I'm a Supra guy so that can't be helped.)

However the good news for you is that the GT5 car is NA. Polyphony Digital takes their relationship with the manufacturers pretty seriously, and if they made the car NA in the game, it's because they had a very good reason from Toyota to do so.

The closest current engine that could do the job is Subaru's EJ204 AVCS NA engine. I don't know anything about this engine beyond what is on Wikipedia, but 190 HP NA sounds about up your alley. 190 HP out of 2.0L means it's got to rev. Plus 190 Hp in 2700 lbs would be quite respectable and suitable to their price target, I think.

If there is no turbo engine, 190 HP would be my minimum acceptable number, if there's no way to cram in an EJ257, or hybrid EJ22G (turbo Legacy bottom/EJ20G heads).

STI S204 had 2L engine. You can cram that in there. lol

[DanZilla]

Turbo engine would be fine.

But binda starting to love the thought of a high revving light weight car for the track.

[serchmarc]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

• NA engine: 185~200hp/165~187tq, 6sp, 2600~2750lbs
• Turbo (small turbo) engine w 220~245hp/180~192tq, 6sp, 2660~2810lbs.

.

if they want a lightweight, high rev, turbo car that can put bigger turbo and other after market stuff for track to make other car eat your dust while having fun can go for turbo.

[serchmarc]

Originally Posted by DanZilla

Turbo engine would be fine.

But binda starting to love the thought of a high revving light weight car for the track.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by serchmarc

why?

[bigbcraig]

Ohhhhkay...

it the FT were to have an option of a engine similar to the NA version, but with a small turbo to just add some area under the curve, especially at low RPMs, I'm game for it to be on. I'd see here people wanting to spend the more money for a little more refined, torquey powertrain, and maybe a nicer interior. The people who are buying it to drive around on the street everyday.

But if the NA version is just a cheapo version and the turbo is the only choice for uprated suspension etc etc, I'll be pissed.
Furthermore, if the turbo version is built so stout like people are wanting, so it has 'giant-killer' capability...

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

None of these are agile, sub 3000lb cars.

the FT won't be either.

I really want the less power, more simple appaorach on this car. Don't get me wrong, I love turbos. I've been raised on turbodiesels and hugely enjoy my WRX.
But with the FT... I want to buy a couple-year-old one in 2013-2014, when i graduate college, do a small build (tires, brakes, light stripping, light safety) and spend my time on the track. I don't want to have to buy a 1980s-1990s car to get a light, simple RWD hardtop - they'll be getting quite old, which means the engine'll want a rebuild for track use and the chassis will be about as stiff as asparagus.

Save the 'giant-killing' for other people and other cars, I don't want to read about highly tuned FT's in magazines or the internet... i want to be driving it. On the track. All the time.

[70NYD]

Originally Posted by bigbcraig

Ohhhhkay...

it the FT were to have an option of a engine similar to the NA version, but with a small turbo to just add some area under the curve, especially at low RPMs, I'm game for it to be on. I'd see here people wanting to spend the more money for a little more refined, torquey powertrain, and maybe a nicer interior. The people who are buying it to drive around on the street everyday.

But if the NA version is just a cheapo version and the turbo is the only choice for uprated suspension etc etc, I'll be pissed.
Furthermore, if the turbo version is built so stout like people are wanting, so it has 'giant-killer' capability...

the FT won't be either.

I really want the less power, more simple appaorach on this car. Don't get me wrong, I love turbos. I've been raised on turbodiesels and hugely enjoy my WRX.
But with the FT... I want to buy a couple-year-old one in 2013-2014, when i graduate college, do a small build (tires, brakes, light stripping, light safety) and spend my time on the track. I don't want to have to buy a 1980s-1990s car to get a light, simple RWD hardtop - they'll be getting quite old, which means the engine'll want a rebuild for track use and the chassis will be about as stiff as asparagus.

Save the 'giant-killing' for other people and other cars, I don't want to read about highly tuned FT's in magazines or the internet... i want to be driving it. On the track. All the time.

now i see your point of view and ichitaka summarized it nicely
in that case the best option would be to have few trim lvls (entry, mid, high) all with or without a turbo.
i simply want a factory turbo car cus i dont want to put a turbo on a NA then have it blow on me few thou kms later..

[Midship Runabout]

Originally Posted by bigbcraig

the FT won't be either.

Sure as hell better be under 3000lbs. Especially if its a low powered NA car

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Dixie Normous

Sure as hell better be under 3000lbs. Especially if its a low powered NA car

Heaviest Miata with the power retractable top and an auto is about 2627lbs. I hope they can hit that target.