GRM Review: Scion FR-S

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

DaveEstey wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: What a wonderful world we live in these days when a 94-95mph quarter mile trap translates to "so underpowered." Good times, my friends, good times.

Nothing like 15 years of innovation and technology to provide the same acceleration as an Integra Type R. The BR-S is underpowered. Is that a horrible thing? No, but that doesn't mean we ignore the fact.

I don't recall ever hearing anyone say an Integra Type R was underpowered. That was the point. I just don't understand the planet we're on that a car that gets in the 14s is considered "underpowered." Bear in mind that this post was typed by someone whose daily driver would dip in the 11s if it could catch traction. Just as a reference.

yeah my slower street bike traps 94 in the 1/8 mile, so I would be one to consider 94 in the 1/4 slow. That being said I don't consider 14s in a little car like that terrible. It's a lot better than my 87 MR2 and I still have fun in it.

Tyler H wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: In reply to imirk: Except there's a premium price for White. That's what I wanted until I saw they charged more for it.

Dude....It's $220. They probably charge that much for floor mats.

I don't want to live in a world where white paint costs a premium. Next thing you know Toyota will be charging extra for beige as their flagship color.

Cotton wrote:

Tyler H wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: In reply to imirk: Except there's a premium price for White. That's what I wanted until I saw they charged more for it.

Dude....It's $220. They probably charge that much for floor mats.

I don't want to live in a worle where white paint costs a premium. Next thing you know Toyota will be charging extra for beige as their flagship color.

How do we know that they don't already?

ProDarwin wrote: It is one of the highest average economy RWD cars on Fuelly. http://www.fuelly.com/car/subaru/brz http://www.fuelly.com/car/scion/fr-s Mileage is on par with FWD 4-bangers. I really don't see how you can be shocked by how *low* it is. Its great.

A base Cadillac ATS has the same power, weighs 700 pounds more, and is quite a bit larger...yet gets the exact same fuel economy. The Genesis coupe is pretty similar in size and power, significantly heavier, 3 years older at this point, and get the same fuel economy. The MX5 is similar in most regards and much older, yet it gets basically the same fuel economy. Mercedes C250 basically the same story as the Cadillac ATS. Heck, a base Porsche Boxter gets darn near the same fuel economy! These are all currently available RWD cars that for one reason or another should get worse fuel economy than the BRZ/FRS.

Like I said, I know most people won't be buying this car with MPG as a factor...and so did the Toyota/Subaru guys. I could totally see the MPG of the "base" version going up a couple MPG in the future with a little attention to detail, while the rest of the project team focuses on getting the turbo version out.

Bryce

Fuel economy discussion on the GRM boards in a BRZ thread. What'll they think of next?

speedblind wrote: Fuel economy discussion on the GRM boards in a BRZ thread. What'll they think of next?

Well, the GRM review even includes MPG in it. I think you'd agree most people are getting new cars as daily drivers, not track-only cars, and total cost of ownership IS a factor in a daily driver. Remember, this is GRM, we don't all have unlimited supplies of funds...

Bryce

The subie boxer gets comparatively lousy mileage. At least that is what i have read a zillion times. my 96 FWD 1.6l 5 speed imprezza turned in 28mpg which is not great. Is that a architectural thing particular to boxers? lots of huge bearings? you need more pressure from the rings to keep oil out of the CC? The gearing accounts for allot of it compared to drive-trains that are set up to shift early and often and turn 1500 rpm at 60 mph, but still.

So what is a more acceptable fail, not enough perceived hp for the chassis or not enough chassis for the existing HP?

Or put another way...not enough body or too much boob?

Nashco wrote: A base Cadillac ATS has the same power, weighs 700 pounds more, and is quite a bit larger...yet gets the exact same fuel economy. The Genesis coupe is pretty similar in size and power, significantly heavier, 3 years older at this point, and get the same fuel economy. The MX5 is similar in most regards and much older, yet it gets basically the same fuel economy. Mercedes C250 basically the same story as the Cadillac ATS. Heck, a base Porsche Boxter gets darn near the same fuel economy! These are all currently available RWD cars that for one reason or another should get worse fuel economy than the BRZ/FRS.

Are you talking EPA rating or real world rating?

@Nohome: UGH! Gross no matter what, and I would not want to see that person's picture with "enough" body. Ugh.

EPA, yes they are all similar. And yes, they all get pretty good mileage. Real world - its hard to gather data on the others, but averaging upper 20s in a RWD sports coupe is pretty damn good.

I don't see everyone on GRM complaining that a Miata gets worse mileage than a FRS yet has <2/3 the power and weighs 300lbs less.

ProDarwin wrote: EPA, yes they are all similar. And yes, they all get pretty good mileage. Real world - its hard to gather data on the others, but averaging upper 20s in a RWD sports coupe is pretty damn good. I don't see everyone on GRM complaining that a Miata gets worse mileage than a FRS yet has <2/3 the power and weighs 300lbs less.

I wonder how a hardtop would affect a Miata's mileage?

In reply to ProDarwin:

Totally different, man. Because that's a MIATA.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Tyler H wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: In reply to imirk: Except there's a premium price for White. That's what I wanted until I saw they charged more for it.

Dude....It's $220. They probably charge that much for floor mats.

Holy E36 M3 SOOOOOOOOOOO NOT worth it!

I'm fluent in sarcasm, you know.

ProDarwin wrote: but averaging upper 20s in a RWD sports coupe is pretty damn good.

Putting it that way sounds great.

Adding in it's a 200hp 4 cylinder.............does not.

I love the car......in fact, I loved it so much I was planning on buying one. But like the Genesis a few years ago, it didn't end up quite how I expected (mainly price/HP whereas the Genesis was more expensive and DRAMATICALLY heavier than they originally tried to sell us).

GRM Naysayer informal poll: Since Toyota obviously liked to you, yes YOU, would you prefer the cars to be $5,000 cheaper or have 50 more horsepower? Fight!

z31maniac wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: but averaging upper 20s in a RWD sports coupe is pretty damn good.

Adding in it's a 200hp 4 cylinder.............does not.

Ok how about 150hp? That would be on par with the best sports coupes offered before 2008 when the Genesis came out.

Name a past (not current model) RWD sports coupe that would compete with the mileage numbers the FRS/BRZ is returning. I'll concede it isn't the BEST available, but its certainly GOOD. I can't fathom how anyone can claim it returns poor mileage.

In reply to NOHOME:

you can never have too much boob just too small of hands and face.

ProDarwin wrote: Ok how about 150hp? That would be on par with the best sports coupes offered before 2008 when the Genesis came out. Name a past (not current model) RWD sports coupe that would compete with the mileage numbers the FRS/BRZ is returning. I'll concede it isn't the BEST available, but its certainly GOOD. I can't fathom how anyone can claim it returns poor mileage.

Why would you measure the performance of a new car against old ones? Personally, when I shop for a brand new thing, I compare it to other brand new things (rather than older things I could buy used for a lot less money). If we're comparing to old cars, should we also use old EPA MPG numbers?

There are plenty of RWD cars that can beat the FRS/BRZ in MPG, but "sports coupe" is going to vary pretty wildly depending on who you ask. With Toyota's past you don't have to think too hard. MR2! Then the competitor, the Fiero.

Bryce

ProDarwin wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: but averaging upper 20s in a RWD sports coupe is pretty damn good.

Adding in it's a 200hp 4 cylinder.............does not.

Ok how about 150hp? That would be on par with the best sports coupes offered before 2008 when the Genesis came out. Name a past (not current model) RWD sports coupe that would compete with the mileage numbers the FRS/BRZ is returning. I'll concede it isn't the BEST available, but its certainly GOOD. I can't fathom how anyone can claim it returns poor mileage.

Like mentioned, compare new to new.

It's not impressive.

For the way I drive, my FR-S is better than my brother's 2005 Impreza 2.5RS: ~21mpg verses ~18mpg if I don't care one bit about fuel economy or ~30mpg verses ~26mpg if I do care. Impreza also feels anemically slow in comparison...

Nashco wrote: There are plenty of RWD cars that can beat the FRS/BRZ in MPG, but "sports coupe" is going to vary pretty wildly depending on who you ask. With Toyota's past you don't have to think too hard. MR2! Then the competitor, the Fiero. Bryce

I've never owned an MR2 that got better then low-mid 20's combined, and I've owned all of them.

DaveEstey wrote: The chassis has excess capacity. It needs to be filled with another 80 horsepower.

The same could be said for my Miata...

I continually hear that the Frisbee is "underpowered".

Underpowered for what purpose?

Can someone please tell me what task the twins are not sufficiently powered to perform outside of a racetrack environment?

NOHOME wrote: I continually hear that the Frisbee is "underpowered". Underpowered for what purpose? Can someone please tell me what task the twins are not sufficiently powered to perform outside of a racetrack environment?

You know that move where you're stuck in a line of traffic behind someone slow on the on-ramp, and the butthole behind you cuts the solid line and cock-blocks you behind them? They can't do that.

PHeller wrote: In 5 years, which will be cheaper: Gensis Mustang BR-S? Thing is, they will all be larger/heavier than anything from the 90's.

Mustang, for sure. They've made tons more of them than the Frisbee and Genesis combined.

I think it will be interesting to see in 5 years which one will have the best examples, condition wise, available. I'm not sure what than answer to that might be.