Bobzilla wrote: ^ sO where did the final weight numbers come from?
Typical bolt ons to lose weigh. Most ST cars in that range can legally lose around 200lbs (WRX, S2K, etc)
Bobzilla wrote: ^ sO where did the final weight numbers come from?
Typical bolt ons to lose weigh. Most ST cars in that range can legally lose around 200lbs (WRX, S2K, etc)
Bobzilla wrote: Don't forget we still don't know what kind of inflated Toyota price this will have. 3000lbs, 170hp and $16k, maybe. 3000lbs, 170hp and $25k, oh hell no.
Why do people keep posting 170hp? The DI Toyota version of this motor is at 200hp and I wouldnt be surprised if it had a bit more when it's finalized and 3000lbs is on the high end, and only an internet estimate.
Dang, so many haters for what could be a really cool car, its like you guys don't really want a low price RWD car.
SupraWes wrote:Bobzilla wrote: Don't forget we still don't know what kind of inflated Toyota price this will have. 3000lbs, 170hp and $16k, maybe. 3000lbs, 170hp and $25k, oh hell no.Why do people keep posting 170hp? The DI Toyota version of this motor is at 200hp and I wouldnt be surprised if it had a bit more when it's finalized and 3000lbs is on the high end, and only an internet estimate. Dang, so many haters for what could be a really cool car, its like you guys don't really want a low price RWD car.
Because all of the non-fanboy news articles say 170HP and $25K and north of 3K pounds. Toyota is killing this car, not us.
In reply to SupraWes:
I think we're all hard on the FR-S because we're afraid Toyota will over-promise and under-deliver on a spiritual successor to an 80's car we love, just like Honda did with the CR-Z. After close to a decade of pumping out nothing but beige econoboxes, Toyota finally decides to put a mass-market sports car into production. While we all know Toyota's illustrious racing history prior to the Appliance Era, we're all worried that the passage of time plus ever-toughening safety regulations will mean the FR-S will be DOA.
Marketing the FR-S as a Scion is a bad sign to me. I'm worried Toyota will overload it with ricer crap and make it an understeering dog to keep the dorifto kids from flying into the weeds while other countries get a more stripped-down car with better handling. I also don't want to be lumped in with the xB- and tC-driving douchebags, which is possible since I'm right in Scion's target demographic (18-29 year old men). If Toyota keeps the power up and the weight and options down, I would seriously consider buying one. The first mod would be to tear off the Scion badges and replace them with JDM Toyota badges!
I don't mind the Scion badges, my first mods would be ETC/SC switch, ABS switch, megasquirt (therefore speed limiter delete), black box delete, and maybe coilovers.
Javelin wrote:SupraWes wrote:Because all of the non-fanboy news articles say 170HP and $25K and north of 3K pounds. Toyota is killing this car, not us.Bobzilla wrote: Don't forget we still don't know what kind of inflated Toyota price this will have. 3000lbs, 170hp and $16k, maybe. 3000lbs, 170hp and $25k, oh hell no.Why do people keep posting 170hp? The DI Toyota version of this motor is at 200hp and I wouldnt be surprised if it had a bit more when it's finalized and 3000lbs is on the high end, and only an internet estimate. Dang, so many haters for what could be a really cool car, its like you guys don't really want a low price RWD car.
Has Toyota officially said anything yet?
GameboyRMH wrote: I don't mind the Scion badges, my first mods would be ETC/SC switch, ABS switch, megasquirt (therefore speed limiter delete), black box delete, and maybe coilovers.
Mine would be a motor swap and a large turbo.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: I don't mind the Scion badges, my first mods would be ETC/SC switch, ABS switch, megasquirt (therefore speed limiter delete), black box delete, and maybe coilovers.Mine would be a motor swap and a large turbo.
Id swap the FR-86 out out of my garage for a LS1 FD, and call it a day
4cylndrfury wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:Id swap the FR-86 out for a LS1 FC, and call it a dayGameboyRMH wrote: I don't mind the Scion badges, my first mods would be ETC/SC switch, ABS switch, megasquirt (therefore speed limiter delete), black box delete, and maybe coilovers.Mine would be a motor swap and a large turbo.
If it's truly the "spiritual successor" to the AE86, i want a Toyota motor in there, even if the Subie motor is pretty awesome.
Although what i have in mind isn't very "AE86-like."
I'm thinking 3sgte + big turbo = 400rwhp.
ProDarwin wrote:HiTempguy wrote: I'm thinking S2000, with more torque and less hp (say 170hp and 170ftpnds, just like, GASP, a Subaru 2.5 motor ;) ), and about the same to a little bit less weight. And moar parts bin engineering!The S2000 has 162lb-ft... so you just want one that makes less power?
I'm confused .. isn't 170 more than 162? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
dculberson wrote:ProDarwin wrote:I'm confused .. isn't 170 more than 162? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!HiTempguy wrote: I'm thinking S2000, with more torque and less hp (say 170hp and 170ftpnds, just like, GASP, a Subaru 2.5 motor ;) ), and about the same to a little bit less weight. And moar parts bin engineering!The S2000 has 162lb-ft... so you just want one that makes less power?
Yes, but 240hp is more than 170.
sobe_death wrote:dculberson wrote:Yes, but 240hp is more than 170.ProDarwin wrote:I'm confused .. isn't 170 more than 162? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!HiTempguy wrote: I'm thinking S2000, with more torque and less hp (say 170hp and 170ftpnds, just like, GASP, a Subaru 2.5 motor ;) ), and about the same to a little bit less weight. And moar parts bin engineering!The S2000 has 162lb-ft... so you just want one that makes less power?
Hence the original statement of more torque, less HP.
I'm getting confused, who's on first?
My point was that 8lb-ft isn't a significant difference. 8lb-ft more torque, but 70 less HP is just basically a neutered S2K.
ProDarwin wrote: My point was that 8lb-ft isn't a significant difference. 8lb-ft more torque, but 70 less HP is just basically a neutered S2K.
If it comes with a fatter powerband, i'm perfectly ok with that. 
ProDarwin wrote: My point was that 8lb-ft isn't a significant difference. 8lb-ft more torque, but 70 less HP is just basically a neutered S2K.
Isnt that pretty much what a Miata is?
runs for cover
ProDarwin wrote: My point was that 8lb-ft isn't a significant difference. 8lb-ft more torque, but 70 less HP is just basically a neutered S2K.
8lbft higher peak at about 3000 less rpm is significant and would probably work to someones advantage in an auto-x situation. From what I understand, S2000's have to be WORKED to get good auto-x times. 
HiTempguy wrote:ProDarwin wrote: My point was that 8lb-ft isn't a significant difference. 8lb-ft more torque, but 70 less HP is just basically a neutered S2K.8lbft higher peak at about 3000 less rpm is significant and would probably work to someones advantage in an auto-x situation. From what I understand, S2000's have to be WORKED to get good auto-x times.
They have to be WORKED to really do anything. 
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:ProDarwin wrote: My point was that 8lb-ft isn't a significant difference. 8lb-ft more torque, but 70 less HP is just basically a neutered S2K.If it comes with a fatter powerband, i'm perfectly ok with that.
He said like a Subaru 2.5. So... not a fatter powerband.
I understand now!
ProDarwin wrote: He said like a Subaru 2.5. So... not a fatter powerband.
Overlay a S2000 dyno plot with a 2.5 subie motor... I think the 2.5's powerband would be, in every meaning of the word, "fatter" ;)
ProDarwin wrote:HiTempguy wrote: I'm thinking S2000, with more torque and less hp (say 170hp and 170ftpnds, just like, GASP, a Subaru 2.5 motor ;) ), and about the same to a little bit less weight. And moar parts bin engineering!The S2000 has 162lb-ft... so you just want one that makes less power? 2.5RS is slow. It takes a crap-ton of work to get to 135whpI've had both. Actually, currently I own a stock 06 S2000, my roommate has a well modded 2.5RS. I'm surprised at all of the complaining. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Chances are in 10 years you guys will be snapping these up left and right as with a swap you have a 300whp RWD 2850lb car.
Yeah, thats what I'll be doing. Swapping in some heavier drivetrain(to replace the crapass Toyota engine), hoping to stay around 3200 lbs in a sporting RWD platform.
Or, I could just pick up a last gen Z06 Corvette, enjoy the same low weight, ultra reliable drivetrain, track proven performance, tons of mods-oh yeah, spend less in the process. I just don't get the hype. Nothing wrong with the original A86, but when its not viewed through rose colored, Toyota glasses, it really wasn't anything too special-sorry. This new heap will be lucky to outrun a new 6-banger Mustang.
forzav12 wrote:ProDarwin wrote:Yeah, thats what I'll be doing. Swapping in some heavier drivetrain(to replace the crapass Toyota engine), hoping to stay around 3200 lbs in a sporting RWD platform. Or, I could just pick up a last gen Z06 Corvette, enjoy the same low weight, ultra reliable drivetrain, track proven performance, tons of mods-oh yeah, spend less in the process. I just don't get the hype. Nothing wrong with the original A86, but when its not viewed through rose colored, Toyota glasses, it really wasn't anything too special-sorry. This new heap will be lucky to outrun a new 6-banger Mustang.HiTempguy wrote: I'm thinking S2000, with more torque and less hp (say 170hp and 170ftpnds, just like, GASP, a Subaru 2.5 motor ;) ), and about the same to a little bit less weight. And moar parts bin engineering!The S2000 has 162lb-ft... so you just want one that makes less power? 2.5RS is slow. It takes a crap-ton of work to get to 135whp
Why is it that the sarcastic haters of all things Toyota rarely have a firm grasp of knowledge about the specific car they're currently hating on?
Protip: NOT a Toyota engine.
HiTempguy wrote:ProDarwin wrote: He said like a Subaru 2.5. So... not a fatter powerband.Overlay a S2000 dyno plot with a 2.5 subie motor... I think the 2.5's powerband would be, in every meaning of the word, "fatter" ;)
Ok... I just did a quick search and put numbers for the two into excel. Trust me, I've been on the other side of this argument before (I used to drive a 2.5RS). Its not a great engine.
Guess it depends how you find fat.
ProDarwin wrote: Guess it depends how you find fat.
Say "horsepower" again. Say "horespower" again. I dare you. I double-dare you, motherberkeleyer. Say "horsepower" one more goddamn time.
Do you understand torque m*&ther berkeleyer?!
Edit- Ya, so you've completely missed the point. Clearly, the manufacturer propaganda of advertising only hp numbers has worked well on you. insert face palm here
And among other things, comparing the driving experience of a awd 170hp vehicle that understeers like crazy to a 170hp rwd vehicle that handles like god's gift to man... there would be a 10% in whp simply due to less mechanical losses all other things considered. And we're talking about a motor that is over a decade old essentially, if they are cooking up a new boxer motor...
And you are STILL missing the other point. Cheap, inexpensive rwd cars don't get to have lots of power. The power to weight ratio of a AE86 was 20 pounds/hp. A 2800 pound FRS with 170hp is ~16 pounds (assuming it isn't lighter than that or have more power). A new Civic Si weighs about 2800 pounds and has 200hp (that you have to wring out of it). So, I think the FRS with only 170hp would be fine with a nice 6 speed. The Genesis coupe (a pig) of almost 3300 pounds has a still better power to weight of ~15.5 with the 2.0L turbo.
So, make it light and cheap, let us do the rest. Sell tons of them 
I understand the pulp fiction reference. No idea what it has to do with this conversation though.
??
You'll need to log in to post.
