[PhatRoyale]

 

[SuperchargedMR2]

So does this mean you will be one of the first to buy one? :naughty:

 

[oopssorryy]

curb weight.......2800-2900lb

Because the Scubie has 4WD the Scion should be lighter, which will help 0-60 times and MPG.

 

[Jegan_V]

Because the Scubie has 4WD the Scion should be lighter, which will help 0-60 times and MPG.

Actually no, this Subie will not have AWD if you've seen the concept Subaru displayed it doesn't have a front or center diff and due to the engine placement there's no room to have a front diff.

 

[arabianobsession]

Base price of 28k? Hmmm....

 

[cipher93]

Yes, it is a high performance engine from relatively small displacement that will rev high so it will perform best when it is revved out and downshifted to the right gear for maximum torque multiplication.

For people who prefer "lazy shifting" in city driving where they want to lug around at 40 mph in 4th or 5h gear at 3000 - 3500 rpm, definitely it will be no bottom end torque monster.

My main concern would be an even power band. One of the gripes I've seen with performance minded Honda's is that the engines have a very narrow power band without a lot at the low or even mid range. In other words, on highway passing without downshifting or more normal driving it could lack that good "umph" that torque gets you while a lack of mid range power could make it feel lethargic until it really gets turning. that said who is going to drive one of these normally :lol:

That said, even if the engines are tuned a bit differently, 175 @ 4000 is pretty good for the midrange with horsepower maxing out at 6500 if those are indeed the specs, while the short gears should get it going quick enough that the lack of really low end torque that band is suggesting won't be missed.

The dual clutch won't happen the chief engineer already looked into that, the intention of this car was to support the manual and having DCT won't add any real benefits to a car that's not about 0-60.

As for the engine, there are a few good reasons to go with a flat instead of inline and they're all performance oriented. A big one is lowering the center of gravity, I notice this on my Subaru especially in the corners, far less roll and lean than many cars and I don't even have a WRX let alone the Sti. Due to this car being RWD, the engine is going to be mounted even lower and further in than in my car since there isn't a front diff to get in the way.

For mechanics I don't think many automakers put as much concern here otherwise we'd have less FWD cars, less V6s and more traditional cars. My Cressida is probably the easiest of the 4 cars in my household to work on having a long I6 and RWD giving the engine bay lots of open space, my sister's Civic being the worst...yes worse than the Subie because its so cramped and Honda just stuffed things in their location as an afterthought(alternator for instance often needs removal).

Oh I agree. If the S2000 is the gold standard for handing in a RWD four cylinder then it should best it despite probably weighing more (relatively speaking; the weights will be about the same if it is 2800-2900 pounds, but keep in mind the Honda was a convertible, requiring more strengthening for the chassis and thus a car that was heavier relative to it's size) due to the engine mounting.

And I will conede that automakers probably view joe blow not being able to work on a car as a benefit. My old 4AFE is so easy, whereas our Outlander's engine has more hoses and covers running around than the engine on the Space shuttle.

Now, about that price... that said, hasn't a lot of speculation been that the Subbie will be a bit more "premium" than the Toyota? If so I'm not too concerned. Just a shame I just bought a truck, otherwise by about the time I'm done college I would be looking at one of these in the driveway instead...

 

[silver04rollas]

That is a thing of the past. Most of the new high-revving engines have a very even powerband making close to 90% of their peak power starting from 3000 rpm to redline. I can bet the Toyota FT-86 torque band will be flat from 3000 - 7800 ~ 8000 rpm.

My XRS has also VVTL-i that kicks in at 6400 rpm and sudden surge in torque and then the torque stays near peak till 8400 rpm. The torque band suddenly surges at 6000 rpm and most of it exists over 6000 rpm.

That is what defines a driver's car that requires the driver to properly being immersed in the driving journey. In return, it rewards the driver with the experiences he could not even think of in a "lazy shifting" low end torque car.

Personally speaking, even in 6th gear, there is plenty of torque down low to pass another car gradually at 70 mph. However, being an avid manual transmission driver who knows all the tricks such as, heel toe downshifts and rev-matching etc., it has become second nature to me to without even thinking selecting the proper gear.

My main concern would be an even power band. One of the gripes I've seen with performance minded Honda's is that the engines have a very narrow power band without a lot at the low or even mid range. In other words, on highway passing without downshifting or more normal driving it could lack that good "umph" that torque gets you while a lack of mid range power could make it feel lethargic until it really gets turning. that said who is going to drive one of these normally :lol:

 

[imhuje]

OFFICIAL SPECS! FR-S | FT-86 | BRZ gets 200hp, 151 torque, 2660 pounds

It's official, the Scion FR-S, Toyota FT-86, Subaru BRZ will have 200hp, 151 lb-ft torque, and weigh only 2660 pounds (wet)

The rest of the full specs leaked @ http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2096

 

[100$ GUY]

That looks ugly and messy. Common theme with Scion`s interiors anyway.

 

[100$ GUY]

"Front LED's are standard issue on the FT-86 High-spec edition. This version of the FT-86 weighs 2,712 pounds and gets, standard HIDs, leather seats, 6-speaker stereo, white RPM dial with shift light, sport pedals, 17s and keyless entry/ start. The low-spec version gets a two-speaker stereo, 16-inch wheels and weighs in at 2,667 pounds. Tires on the high-spec model are 215/45R17 compared with 205/55R16 on the base car.

Both cars get front struts with double-wishbone rear suspension (which we've seen before on the racecar), limited slip (when equipped with a 6MT instead of the 6AT), stability control, and a 2.0-liter boxer engine. The engine makes 200 horsepower at 7,000 rpm and 151 pound-feet of torque at 6,600.

The FR-S is 166 inches long, 69.88 inches wide, 50.59 inches tall and has a wheelbase of 101.18 inches."

Little torque at very very high rpms, mmmmmmmm.

 

[CTB727]

"Front LED's are standard issue on the FT-86 High-spec edition. This version of the FT-86 weighs 2,712 pounds and gets, standard HIDs, leather seats, 6-speaker stereo, white RPM dial with shift light, sport pedals, 17s and keyless entry/ start. The low-spec version gets a two-speaker stereo, 16-inch wheels and weighs in at 2,667 pounds. Tires on the high-spec model are 215/45R17 compared with 205/55R16 on the base car.

Both cars get front struts with double-wishbone rear suspension (which we've seen before on the racecar), limited slip (when equipped with a 6MT instead of the 6AT), stability control, and a 2.0-liter boxer engine. The engine makes 200 horsepower at 7,000 rpm and 151 pound-feet of torque at 6,600.

The FR-S is 166 inches long, 69.88 inches wide, 50.59 inches tall and has a wheelbase of 101.18 inches."

Little torque at very very high rpms, mmmmmmmm.

Wow, that's going to be a pretty small car. Sounds like it is going to be a blast to drive. :naughty: Though I'd expect a little more torque out of it.

 

[PhatRoyale]

Spec list

Images courtesy of FT86Club

 

[ECHOKnight2000]

Compared to your college length essays, yes. :lol: :chug:

I'm really hoping Scion doesn't neuter this car and kill it with its monospec crap. This is the one car that Toyota/Scion North America can't afford to screw up on.

I knew you would write with a smart ass response:lol::lol::lol::lol::thumbsup:


Anyway, looks like by the specs this will be in principle a two door coupe Miata (as far as handling and size, weight). Except this will have more hp stock and rev higher. hmmm sounds yummy.

 

[arabianobsession]

That's not a lot of torque....151 ft. lbs.? I was hoping for a little bit more than that...

 

[silver04rollas]

Wow, that's going to be a pretty small car. Sounds like it is going to be a blast to drive. :naughty: Though I'd expect a little more torque out of it.

It is a high revving engine where the stroke is short (which means the engine spins up very quickly) and produces lots of torque at very high rpms (hence the high horsepower at high revs). This thing is most likely is going to be a screamer engine with lots of response, sound and strong pull at the top end rpm.

Also, that is because the emphasis is on torque curve over the whole rev range and not peak torque (which is only 1 point on the entire graph).

Toyota tunes all of its high-revving engines these days to produce a flat torque curve across a very wide rev range.

Even though, the peak is at very high rpm (6600 rpm), it will definitely achieve over 90% of its peak torque 152 ft-lbs at a very low 3000 rpm, if this engine follows the new tuning philosophy of Toyota.

Regarding making it quick, the short gearing will take care of quick acceleration lots of grunt in the midrange. A 0 - 60 mph in 5.7 -5.8 seconds is highly likely and 1/4 mile should be in the 14.2 - 14.4 second range. The power to weight ratio says, trap speed will be in the 98 - 99 mph region.

Moving the peak torque at very high rpm only ensures the engine continues to pull strong at very high rpms close to 8000 rpm rather than falling on its face (which most of the engines simply die after 6000 rpm).

Plus, it is 600 lbs lighter than the Mazdaspeed 3 and GTI, despite being RWD instead of FWD (RWD typically is a heavier layout because of the prop shaft, diff etc. driving the rear wheels). That is a huge plus.

 

[CTB727]

It is a high revving engine where the stroke is short (which means the engine spins up very quickly) and produces lots of torque at very high rpms. This thing is most likely is going to be a screamer engine with lots of response, sound and pull at the top end rpm.

Also, that is because the emphasis is on torque curve over the whole rev range and not peak torque (which is only 1 point on the entire graph).

Toyota tunes all of its high-revving engines these days to produce a flat torque curve across a very wide rev range.

Even though, the peak is at very high rpm (6600 rpm), it will definitely achieve over 90% of its peak torque 151 ft-lbs at a very low 3000 rpm, if this engine follows the new tuning philosophy of Toyota.

Regarding making it quick, the short gearing will take care of quick acceleration lots of grunt in the midrange. A 0 - 60 mph in 5.7 -5.8 seconds is highly likely and 1/4 mile should be in the 14.2 - 14.4 second range. The power to weight ratio says, trap speed will be in the 98 - 99 mph region.

Moving the peak torque at very high rpm only ensures the engine continues to pull strong at very high rpms close to 8000 rpm rather than falling on its face (which most of the engines simply die after 6000 rpm).

Plus, it is 600 lbs lighter than the Mazdaspeed 3 and GTI, despite being RWD instead of FWD (RWD typically is a heavier layout because of the prop shaft, diff etc. driving the rear wheels). That is a huge plus.

I hope this proves to be true when the car finally hits showroom floors. If it is anything like 2ZZ-GE powered cars, then this is going to be one hell of a quick-revving engine. I hope the 0-60 will be in the sub 6 second range. Even though this car isn't meant for straight line speed, I still want something that is relatively quick. I wonder how easy it will be to tune for power without going forced induction?

 

[silver04rollas]

I hope this proves to be true when the car finally hits showroom floors. If it is anything like 2ZZ-GE powered cars, then this is going to be one hell of a quick-revving engine. I hope the 0-60 will be in the sub 6 second range. Even though this car isn't meant for straight line speed, I still want something that is relatively quick. I wonder how easy it will be to tune for power without going forced induction?

Let me tell you, if Yamaha had role in the development of this engine (which I suspect they do), you will be able to get a lot more power naturally aspirated out of this little screamer engine with intake/header/exhaust + PFC tune. :chug::chug:

 

[CTB727]

Let me tell you, if Yamaha had role in the development of this engine (which I suspect they do), you will be able to get a lot more power naturally aspirated out of this little screamer engine with intake/header/exhaust + PFC tune. :chug::chug:

Yeah, I figured if Yamaha was involved then the power output would be much more than just 200 hp. If Honda can squeeze nearly 240 hp out of their little 4-cylinder in the S2000, Toyota and Yamaha could do it too. Hopefully there will be a large aftermarket right when the car comes out. I'd rather not wait months and months for mods to come out.

Anyways, look what I found

 

[silver04rollas]

Yeah, Toyota/Yamaha can easily extract 230 - 240 HP especially on a direct injected engine.

However, I suspect they deliberately did a conservative tune to achieve high emissions rating (only 160 gm/km).

What engine is that??

Yeah, I figured if Yamaha was involved then the power output would be much more than just 200 hp. If Honda can squeeze nearly 240 hp out of their little 4-cylinder in the S2000, Toyota and Yamaha could do it too. Hopefully there will be a large aftermarket right when the car comes out. I'd rather not wait months and months for mods to come out.

Anyways, look what I found

 

[CTB727]

Yeah, Toyota/Yamaha can easily extract 230 - 240 HP especially on a direct injected engine.

However, I suspect they deliberately did a conservative tune to achieve high emissions rating (only 160 gm/km).

What engine is that??

Supposedly it's the FT-86 engine according to FT86-Club. Engine bay looks a bit cramped though. However, I definitely like the chassis brace right there.