i HIGHLY agree.PLEASSSSSSSSSSSSSEE PLEASE PLEASEEEE. I emplore you
Celica, PLEASE. RWD trueness.
I'm 5.7L swapping the FR-S haahh
i HIGHLY agree.PLEASSSSSSSSSSSSSEE PLEASE PLEASEEEE. I emplore you
Hmm, it's estimated to be lighter than the Scion version?The BZR is December's cover story in Motor Trend! Specs:
Base Price: $25,000
Engine: 2.0L/200hp (est)/170lb-ft (est) DOHC 16 Valve Flat-4
Transmission: 6-Speed Manual, 6-Speed Auto
Curbweight: 2,500lb (Mfr. Est)
Wheelbase: 93.5" (est)
Length x Width x Height: 148.8 x 70.0 x 46.8 (est)
0-60MPH: 6.0 Seconds (MT Est)
EPA City/Highway: 25-27/30-32MPG (est)
They also said that "Subaru engineers concede there's more power to come from the boxer four", but will not confirm if a turbo version. Engineers also said it was designed to allow for a convertible, and that the platform can be stretched. Those are the highlights of the article anyway, with most of it focusing on analyzing the design and genesis of the car.
I agree. Weight makes the biggest difference. I think the low weight, high revving engine, and close ratio 6 speed transmission along with the low center of gravity will make this car a blast to drive. It'll definitely be quick. Not a hp monster, but it doesn't need to be. Plus the aftermarket for this car will be huge once it goes on sale.Lol, I think you guys are spoiled by todays higher displacement, high output engines. This is a 2.0L engine, so expecting more power in normally aspirated form gets very expensive without variable valve lift.
My V6 MR2 has a 3.0L engine with 215hp/220lb-ft, so the power output is pretty good considering. If my engine put out 300hp from 3.0L in N/A form, I'd be pretty damn happy, alas it doesn't. My chassis weighs about 2680lbs, so this new FR car is pretty similar. Also, Toyota has been underrating their engines a bit as of late. The 179hp 2AR is actually closer to 190hp, based on dyno numbers, but it's also a 2.5L.
If you had a ride in my car, you'd agree that weight is the biggest fun killer in todays cars. Don't get caught up in the numbers game. Remember, the Elise with ONLY 190hp? Sure would blow past a lot of cars, and on a track, it's a weapon.
I think if you test drove it and enjoyed it, you wouldn't be complaining about any sort of numbers anymore :lol:^Yeah, but you have 220 ft. lbs. of torque. That's a LOT compared to this concept, and it makes a huge difference. If this car had more torque then I would be happy, I'm not as concerned about hp numbers.
What you are talking about has mostly to do with easy drivability and accessibility. Little or nothing to do with the car being quick. It is a driver's oriented car with a high performance engine (although, I am very disappointed Yamaha/Toyota has no role in the development, but it must be due to low development costs).^Yeah, but you have 220 ft. lbs. of torque. That's a LOT compared to this concept, and it makes a huge difference. If this car had more torque then I would be happy, I'm not as concerned about hp numbers.
This package doesn't even have air....it's designed for someone to race. The Bumpers etc are of no use to someone who is going to put their own aftermarket bodykit on it anyway....Somehow I doubt we'll get the unpainted bumpers, door handles, mirrors, in the US. Even the Yaris has standard color-keyed goodies and it's just easier to make them standard. That, and it looks effing terrible.
No matter how good the car is at it's limits, if you can't drive it day to day with reasonable ease, people won't buy it.What you are talking about has mostly to do with easy drivability and accessibility. Little or nothing to do with the car being quick. It is a driver's oriented car with a high performance engine (although, I am very disappointed Yamaha/Toyota has no role in the development, but it must be due to low development costs).
Definitely, someone looking for easy drivability is going to be disappointed since it is about putting in the effort and skills and it would reward the driver with the responses, control and experience. That is what a driver's car is all about.
The enthusiasts can drive it just fine since it will have more than enough ease in daily drivability (152 ft-lbs is a lot of midrange for a 2600 lbs car). I am quite sure of that. History can vouch for that as well since they have always sold very well because people wanting driver's cars would love it.No matter how good the car is at it's limits, if you can't drive it day to day with reasonable ease, people won't buy it.
I think we're at the point, technologically, where you can have the best of both worlds. Higher torque output does make a car quicker with the same gearing. For example, the BEAMS 3SGE (200ps @7000rpm/155lb-ft @6000rpm, very close to the new FA, eh?) MR2 and the V6 MR2 are nearly equally matched in horsepower, yet the V6 MR2 will always trounce the 4 cylinder BEAMS. 0-60mph is 1s faster (6.6s vs 5.6s) and the quarter mile is slightly quicker (14.6 vs 13.9). Older Toyota V6s have double torque peaks, so there's an advantage there (3500rpm + 4400rpm). For low-torque motors with good top-end, you have options: 1) low gearing/close-ratio, 2) reduce weight. Honda usually goes with option 1, as do most manufacturers. Toyota has opted to do 1 AND 2. A miracle, IMO.What you are talking about has mostly to Don't with easy drivability and accessibility. Little or nothing to do with the car being quick. It is a driver's oriented car with a high performance engine (although, I am very disappointed Yamaha/Toyota has no role in the development, but it must be due to low development costs).
Definitely, someone looking for easy drivability is going to be disappointed since it is about putting in the effort and skills and it would reward the driver with the responses, control and experience. That is what a driver's car is all about.
I think we're at the point, technologically, where you can have the best of both worlds. Higher torque output does make a car quicker with the same gearing. For example, the BEAMS 3SGE (200ps @7000rpm/155lb-ft @6000rpm, very close to the new FA, eh?) MR2 and the V6 MR2 are nearly equally matched in horsepower, yet the V6 MR2 will always trounce the 4 cylinder BEAMS. 0-60mph is 1s faster (6.6s vs 5.6s) and the quarter mile is slightly quicker (14.6 vs 13.9). Older Toyota V6s have double torque peaks, so there's an advantage there (3500rpm + 4400rpm). For low-torque motors with good top-end, you have options: 1) low gearing/close-ratio, 2) reduce weight. Honda usually goes with option 1, as do most manufacturers. Toyota has opted to do 1 AND 2. A miracle, IMO.
Anyway, this new FA boxer has its merits. It has a race engine compression ratio of 12.5:1 and is coupled with a new, performance oriented D-4S system. D-4S was co-developed by Toyota, Denso, and Yamaha, so you could say that Yamaha was involved indirectly. It's most likely underrated. Remember that 200hp today is different from when my 1MZ was tested. Look at it as a MINIMUM output rating rather than maximum. We'll see how it fares on the dyno. If it puts down 180-190whp, it'll be about 210-220hp at the crank.
I don't want to have to treat every single road as a racetrack. Granted, I do that often, but some days I want to get a respectable mpg. Or if I'm feeling laid back, I don't want to have to push the crap out of the thing just to get it moving.What you are talking about has mostly to do with easy drivability and accessibility. Little or nothing to do with the car being quick. It is a driver's oriented car with a high performance engine (although, I am very disappointed Yamaha/Toyota has no role in the development, but it must be due to low development costs).
Definitely, someone looking for easy drivability is going to be disappointed since it is about putting in the effort and skills and it would reward the driver with the responses, control and experience. That is what a driver's car is all about.
Mmm, fair enough, and that is what I am in agreement with.The enthusiasts can drive it just fine since it will have more than enough ease in daily drivability (152 ft-lbs is a lot of midrange for a 2600 lbs car). I am quite sure of that. History can vouch for that as well since they have always sold very well because people wanting driver's cars would love it.
Motor Trend is not clear if it's their estimate or Subaru's aside from the weight.BTW, why are the specs on the Toyota sheet so different from the one's that Subaru is giving out as "estimates"??
As a subscriber to MT, I can tell you, nevermind.Mmm, fair enough, and that is what I am in agreement with.
Motor Trend is not clear if it's their estimate or Subaru's aside from the weight.