2013 Scion FR-S

[William Maley]

By William Maley

Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

February 1, 2013

October 2009 was a monumental month for Toyota. It was at the Tokyo Motor Show where the company revealed a very interesting concept called the FT-86; a small, lightweight two-door coupe that was jointly worked on by Toyota and Subaru. This sent shockwaves across the automotive landscape. Had Toyota rediscovered its sporty side it once had during the eighties and nineties? Or was it fluke? When the company announced that a production model would be coming along with a Subaru version, it seemed the answer was yes, they have discovered their sporty side once more.

Speculation, rumors, and a number of concepts from Toyota, Scion, and Subaru would come out over the next couple years before the official introductions in late 2011 and early 2012. There would be the Toyota GT86 which was a callback to the mid-eighties RWD Corolla AE86. Next was the Subaru BRZ which differed from the rest of the Subaru lineup by being a RWD model, not AWD. Finally for North America was the Scion FR-S, providing a unique product for Toyota’s youth brand.

Its been a long wait for these coupes, but was it worth it? To answer this question, I got a 2013 Scion FR-S for the holidays.

The Look

The FR-S’ exterior design is what you expect out of a sporting car; a small, low slung body mounted on top of a short wheelbase. Key design cues to take note are the embellished front and rear fenders, a distinct character line running along the door, rear diffuser with reverse lights, and on the front fenders, a little 86 badge paying homage to the mid-eighties Corolla AE86.

Inside the FR-S, its a simple and clean layout. Materials are hard plastics of varying quality which will annoy some people. I had no problems with it since the money was wisely spent elsewhere in the vehicle. The controls are logically laid out and easy to reach. Scion fitted a set of sport seats for the driver and front passenger. The seats provide good bolstering and support when you’re driving aggressively. However I couldn’t fit into the seats comfortably due to my shoulders being a bit too wide for the seats. I know I happen to be an odd case on this, but its worth noting if you’re looking into this. The back seat area is only really usable for storing stuff or putting small kids.

All Part of a Balanced Diet

Underneath the Scion FR-S’ skin is a recipe for balance. Power comes from 2.0L Subaru Boxer-four that’s fitted with Toyota's D-4S direct injection system. Horsepower is rated at 200 (@ 7,000 RPM) and torque is at 151 lb-ft (@ 5,100 RPM). The reason for going with the boxer engine is due to how low the engine can be set in a vehicle. The lower the engine, the lower center of gravity a vehicle has. For transmissions, you have the choice of either a six-speed manual or my test FR-S’ six-speed automatic with paddle shifters. With the automatic, you choice of three different drive modes (Normal, Sport and Snow) that changes the behavior of the transmission. The FR-S also features a limited-slip differential as standard equipment. Suspension duties are taken care by a set up MacPherson struts up front and a double-wishbone in the rear. A set of 17-inch alloy wheels are wrapped in Michelin Primacy HP summer tires.

Driving the FR-S down a nice twisty backroad is a very rewarding experience. The engine does have to be worked to reach its sweet spot, but the reward is a nice growl from the exhaust and the knowledge that the engine doesn't mind being pushed. The six-speed automatic is surprisingly quick and smooth, especially when you put the vehicle into sport mode as the transmission holds onto the gears through the corners and blips the throttle. You can also do the shifting yourself via the paddle shifters whether the transmission is in Drive or in the manual mode. While its fun to play with paddles, I found leaving the vehicle in Drive with the Sport mode on did a better job than me. I also found myself wishing the paddles were on the steering column than the wheel, so I wouldn't be playing the game of ‘where are the paddles now?’

The suspension does an excellent job of keeping FR-S level and balanced when going from corner to corner. Steering is very quick and precise, and provides a very good amount of a road feel. A bit surprising when you find out the FR-S steering is a electric power system, not hydraulic. Also surprising was a VSC Sport button which dials back the stability control up to a point to allow you to explore the limits of the FR-S.

It’s A Double Edge Sword

Now all those things I have listed above really do make the FR-S a great back road car, but it doesn’t make it a great daily driver for a good amount of people. For starters, I wished the engine had a bit more power, especially in the mid-range. Trying to make a pass or merge with traffic meant I had essentially step on it to perform. Also the suspension which is great in the corners is horrid on Metro Detroit roads. The suspension doesn’t have enough give whenever you drive over potholes or road imperfections and you will feel it very clearly.

One thing I wasn't complaining about the FR-S was fuel economy. The EPA rates the FR-S at 25 City/34 Highway/28 Combined. During the week, I averaged 30.4 MPG. On the freeway I saw 34.2 MPG.

The Time Has Come

The Scion FR-S is a very special and impressive coupe. From the very unique looks to the way it drives, Scion has a alternative to the sport compacts and sports cars in the price bracket. The base price of $24,500 for a six-speed manual and $25,300 for a six-speed automatic makes it a steal.

Its not for everyone though. The rough ride brought on by firm suspension, spartan interior, and engine not having enough power will scare some people away. But for those who can put up with these faults will bask in knowledge of having one of best driving vehicles on sale today.

Disclaimer: Scion provided the vehicle, insurance, and one tank of gasoline.

Album: 2013 Scion FR-S

16 images

0 comments

Year - 2013

Make – Scion

Model – FR-S

Trim – N/A

Engine – 2.0L Direct and Port-Injected Boxer-Four

Driveline – Rear-Wheel Drive, Six-Speed Automatic

Horsepower @ RPM – 200 HP (@ 7,000 RPM)

Torque @ RPM – 151 lb-ft (@ 5,400 RPM)

Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 25/34/28

Curb Weight – 2,806 lbs

Location of Manufacture - Ōta, Gunma, Japan

Base Price - $25,300.00

As Tested Price - $26,099.00* (Includes $730.00 Destination Charge)

Options:

Rear Bumper Applique - $69.00

William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

View full article

[dwightlooi]

I am not particularly enthused by the formula of the FR-S / BRZ (aka Toyota 86). Yes, the AE86 had it's day. But the 80s was a long time ago. The formula is partly right -- a 2,800 lbs car that is rear drive. But the insistence on 100 bhp/liter high revving low displacement engine is a mistake. This car really should have a forced induced engine in the 250~300 hp class. But even for a base model shunning the cost of forced induction, a 2.5 liter NA four delivering 200hp will be better than a 2.0 liter doing so. The torque curve will be much more accessible than in a high revving 2.0. Even if the partnership with Subaru is retained, it is not like Subaru does not have a 2.5 liter block.

For humor sake, I;ll much rather have the 202 hp 2.5 liter GM I4 than the 200 hp 2.0 liter boxer. When are they ever going to get it that specific output is completely irrelevant to the performance or desirability of a vehicle?

[G. David Felt]

Nice for a cheap toyota. Very sad that you see the plastic wheel wells in the engine bay. Also, Marketing has got to wake up that Horsepower alone will not win the war. Without Torque you cannot move the mass and that engine is starved for Torque in comparison to HP.

I agree with dwightlooi that the GM I4 is superior over this engine any day.

Over all Mud your getting really good at writing these reviews. Nice Job. Being home sick all week with the crud, I might be missing something, but over all it looks really good.

[Robert Hall]

It would be interesting to see if GM could produce something of similar size, weight and performance.

[dwightlooi]

Look at it this way... 200 hp @ 7,000 rpm / 151 lb-ft @ 5400 rpm is not that bad. It would have been a terrific engine for the original AE86. The problem is that the AE86 was a 2,100 lbs car. This is 2,800 lbs. Realistically speaking the Toyota 2AR-FE 2.5 liter Camry motor (180 bhp / 173 lb-ft @ 4100) would move this car along better than the high reving 2.0 boxer. Timed performance will be about the same, but 173 lb-ft peaking at 4100 rpm will be more pleasurable in city traffic.

[hyperv6]

On factor you must consider now is the global market. Not only are the platforms going to be shared but the engines will be in most makets.

With that being said many MFG will be using 1 liter, 1.6 Liter and guess what 2.0 LItet engines because of taxation in many countries. Displacment and weight will effect what engine size is and what it will be fitted in. The Turbocharger adds nothing to the tax or how it is based on.

While we may not have that here yet in many other countries it is in effect and will be effecting what we buy and drive.

It is not just by chance many companies are all making engines the same size.

[regfootball]

i know lots like this car, but it does very little for me. cheap interior, why bother back seats.....dull styling

[ocnblu]

I used my red pen on THAT one, reginald.

[hyperv6]

Not a big fan here either but they will sell a ton of them.

[Drew Dowdell]

I am not particularly enthused by the formula of the FR-S / BRZ (aka Toyota 86). Yes, the AE86 had it's day. But the 80s was a long time ago. The formula is partly right -- a 2,800 lbs car that is rear drive. But the insistence on 100 bhp/liter high revving low displacement engine is a mistake. This car really should have a forced induced engine in the 250~300 hp class. But even for a base model shunning the cost of forced induction, a 2.5 liter NA four delivering 200hp will be better than a 2.0 liter doing so. The torque curve will be much more accessible than in a high revving 2.0. Even if the partnership with Subaru is retained, it is not like Subaru does not have a 2.5 liter block.

For humor sake, I;ll much rather have the 202 hp 2.5 liter GM I4 than the 200 hp 2.0 liter boxer. When are they ever going to get it that specific output is completely irrelevant to the performance or desirability of a vehicle?

I wonder if fitting a 2.4 in the car would have been a problem... but I during my time with it, I never felt that torque was insufficient for the base model at all.

[Drew Dowdell]

i know lots like this car, but it does very little for me. cheap interior, why bother back seats.....dull styling

You know the kinds of cars I like... and I was pricing them out after driving one.

[regfootball]

i certainly am not saying it's not good at what it's main focus is. Even if this is the best small cheap RWD coupe out there, I still see the Toyota badge and all the rest that usually comes with the aura of a Toyota that I am not jiggy with.

I'd probably pop for a base camaro or a 3 year old 1 series if this was what i was looking at.

[Drew Dowdell]

i certainly am not saying it's not good at what it's main focus is. Even if this is the best small cheap RWD coupe out there, I still see the Toyota badge and all the rest that usually comes with the aura of a Toyota that I am not jiggy with.

I'd probably pop for a base camaro or a 3 year old 1 series if this was what i was looking at.

Completely different feel. This is more Miata with a back seat for the 3 year old. The Camaro V6 feels huge by comparison... driving the FR-S/BR-Z after the Camaro is refreshing and carefree. The ZL-1 is waaaay faster than the Toyopet and Fuji Heavy Industry, but it still feels like it is the worlds best handling 747.

[dwightlooi]

Not a big fan here either but they will sell a ton of them.

Not really, at least not yet...

They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years.

The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe.

The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota.

I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting.

[A Horse With No Name]

It's an interesting car, and I wouldn't mind owning one, but in the real word its day to day faults outweigh some of the benefits.

Very happy with the Cooper S and Miata in the driveway, this car doesn't move me enough to trade one in and take on a payment.

[hyperv6]

Not a big fan here either but they will sell a ton of them.

Not really, at least not yet...

They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years.

The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe.

The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota.

I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting.

Again you need to think global! Cars like this and even the Miata live on a global scale and thrive.

If you just take Miata, Prelude and Mini sale base just on NA they make little sense but on a global scale they have some very impressive numbers and profits.

Even if GM does a small RWD coupe they will have to base it on a global package as the sales just in NA will be ok but they need larger numbers.

Second you can not compare the Camaro or Mustang on this yet as they are in a class of their own and many who would buy them would never consider this car. This is why GM is looking into the sub Alpha car. Two different markets and two different customers. .

As for Turbo engines there again you must look to the customers and what they want. Also lag is not what it once was like in the GN and Turbo T bird.

[Drew Dowdell]

Not a big fan here either but they will sell a ton of them.

Not really, at least not yet...

They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years.

The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe.

The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota.

I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting.

I think the only way to make the car work as-is is with a flat-four engine. They're worried about deck height restrictions now with adding a turbo, so I don't think any inline four will work standing up.

[dwightlooi]

Not a big fan here either but they will sell a ton of them.

Not really, at least not yet...

They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years.

The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe.

The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota.

I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting.

Again you need to think global! Cars like this and even the Miata live on a global scale and thrive.

If you just take Miata, Prelude and Mini sale base just on NA they make little sense but on a global scale they have some very impressive numbers and profits.

Even if GM does a small RWD coupe they will have to base it on a global package as the sales just in NA will be ok but they need larger numbers.

Second you can not compare the Camaro or Mustang on this yet as they are in a class of their own and many who would buy them would never consider this car. This is why GM is looking into the sub Alpha car. Two different markets and two different customers. .

As for Turbo engines there again you must look to the customers and what they want. Also lag is not what it once was like in the GN and Turbo T bird.

Well, your assumptions are that the world wants turbos and not superchargers. That has has never been shown to be true. Your assumption that the world generally prefers high specific output, low displacement engines also not shown to be the case. Nobody is buying Cruzes because it has a 1.4T whereas the Civic has a 1.8 and the Focus has a 2.0. When they buy a Cruze, the size of the engine and presence of a turbocharger does not factor into the decision the overwhelming majority of the time and when it does it is not always a positive factor.

Also, lag is ALWAYS present in turbocharged engines. It is a matter of degree. For North America, which is the car's largest market, they should have an engine that best meets the regulatory and consumption habits of North American buyers. American's don't care about displacement (one way or the other) -- you might, but Americans in general do not. America does not have a displacement tax either so small displacements have very little intrinsic value (neither does China -- the other uber sized market). The FR-S's MPG numbers -- 25/34 mpg will be easily met with a 2.5 ~2.7 liter four (the Malibu which is a much larger car that is 750 lbs heavier is already @ 22/34 mpg.

[dwightlooi]

I think the only way to make the car work as-is is with a flat-four engine. They're worried about deck height restrictions now with adding a turbo, so I don't think any inline four will work standing up.

They'll just have the contour the hood a little differently I guess. Perhaps with a central hump very much like the 5M-GE powered 1st Gen Supras.

What I am saying is that Toyota can do a 2800 lbs, RWD, sports coupe at $25,000 using a derivative of the RAV4's 2.7 liter I4 engine.

[pow]

The whole point of the FR-S is how it feels on the road: the steering feel, the chassis setup, the gearbox, and yes, revving the hell out of that engine. A RAV4 engine would completely change the character of this pocket-sized sports car.

[A Horse With No Name]

The whole point of the FR-S is how it feels on the road: the steering feel, the chassis setup, the gearbox, and yes, revving the hell out of that engine. A RAV4 engine would completely change the character of this pocket-sized sports car.

Agreed...some people get sport compacts, some people don't. Some people get the idea of full size luxury, some don't. Some people think all 1950's American cars are ugly pigs....to each his own.

Personally, I like the FRS/BRZ, but feel it has its limitations.

[regfootball]

To me, 150 lb ft of torque even in what is meant to be a high revver......is sort of not at all sporty....no matter how it drives.

[dwightlooi]

The whole point of the FR-S is how it feels on the road: the steering feel, the chassis setup, the gearbox, and yes, revving the hell out of that engine. A RAV4 engine would completely change the character of this pocket-sized sports car.

The steering and chassis feel can be basically the same. The engine character... good torque from 3000 rpm and power accessible by revving to just 6000 rpm changes the character for the better!

[Drew Dowdell]

To me, 150 lb ft of torque even in what is meant to be a high revver......is sort of not at all sporty....no matter how it drives.

Have you driven it yet?

[hyperv6]

Not a big fan here either but they will sell a ton of them.

Not really, at least not yet...

They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years.

The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe.

The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota.

I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting.

Again you need to think global! Cars like this and even the Miata live on a global scale and thrive.

If you just take Miata, Prelude and Mini sale base just on NA they make little sense but on a global scale they have some very impressive numbers and profits.

Even if GM does a small RWD coupe they will have to base it on a global package as the sales just in NA will be ok but they need larger numbers.

Second you can not compare the Camaro or Mustang on this yet as they are in a class of their own and many who would buy them would never consider this car. This is why GM is looking into the sub Alpha car. Two different markets and two different customers. .

As for Turbo engines there again you must look to the customers and what they want. Also lag is not what it once was like in the GN and Turbo T bird.

Well, your assumptions are that the world wants turbos and not superchargers. That has has never been shown to be true. Your assumption that the world generally prefers high specific output, low displacement engines also not shown to be the case. Nobody is buying Cruzes because it has a 1.4T whereas the Civic has a 1.8 and the Focus has a 2.0. When they buy a Cruze, the size of the engine and presence of a turbocharger does not factor into the decision the overwhelming majority of the time and when it does it is not always a positive factor.

Also, lag is ALWAYS present in turbocharged engines. It is a matter of degree. For North America, which is the car's largest market, they should have an engine that best meets the regulatory and consumption habits of North American buyers. American's don't care about displacement (one way or the other) -- you might, but Americans in general do not. America does not have a displacement tax either so small displacements have very little intrinsic value (neither does China -- the other uber sized market). The FR-S's MPG numbers -- 25/34 mpg will be easily met with a 2.5 ~2.7 liter four (the Malibu which is a much larger car that is 750 lbs heavier is already @ 22/34 mpg.

You comments on engines are normally based on a bunch of number that in themselves do not take into consideration all the parameters that an automaker faces or what the real world drivability really is.

Again you fail to take in the other factors such as government taxation in many markets. Yes America does not have the tax here but in a global market the number of engines globally will decrease and become more the same in all markets tax or not. It is a major stipulation of becoming more profitable. You also fail to take in to account that superchargers are decreasing in most markets. In the worlds largest auto market you will not in the other thread I posted the added cost of tax on engine size and in engines over 2.0 it can max out to over almost $900 per car. This may not sound like much but in a county that make much less per person than the United States it is a lot for many that struggle to buy the smallest car.

As for turbo lag you tend to conveniently the fact that most of todays small turbo engines true strength is the availability very low end torque that is available at very low RPM. This eliminates the issues of much of the lag and masks much of the issues with it. In my own personal daily driver I have no issue with it as if anything If the boost hit any faster it would be difficult to drive the vehicle in many non dry weather conditions. The car as it is will spin the tires at a moments notice. If anything our Silverado 5.3 has more issue with lag from a slow kick down in the tranny that I feel is due to the cylinder drop system. I have never felt the same thing in the Vette but the lag has been in all Chevy and GMC trucks.

I will never declare the Turbo as the savior of ever car or model but in your own example the Malibu the only one so far that has gotten good reviews is the Turbo Bu. The other models were ok but never really set the world on fire or stood out from the crowd. The Turbo engine by no means is a sports car but is just a better set up for drivability and feel.

The key to all this is to make the car to drive and feel like it has power. If you can do that the people are happy. If you can do it with the engine sizes that most markets require you save money vs offering other engines in sizes you can only sell in a couple markets. By going global not only on platforms but engines too this will increase profits and decrease spending.

I know you like to think you are fully correct and all the automakers not in line with you as misguided but they have to use all parameters unlike what you do here. Time to step up and include all factors into your presentation and just see where this all falls out. I could see one company being wrong but as Drew pointed out in the Cruze thread can they all be misguided? I think not.

As for the people they no longer count cylinders or engine size but they do count dollars in tax, they count MPG and they expect performance to the point that the car feels good and comfortable to drive. They want an engine that will return great MPG but will not make them wonder if they will get up to speed on the freeway on ramp.

[regfootball]

To me, 150 lb ft of torque even in what is meant to be a high revver......is sort of not at all sporty....no matter how it drives.

Have you driven it yet?

No desire to. I don't much care for impractical (for me) cars.

I'd even dig a Genesis coupe over this.

Edited February 8, 2013 by regfootball

[Demandred7]

Not a big fan here either but they will sell a ton of them.

Not really, at least not yet...

They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years.

The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe.

The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota.

I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting.

I think your sales figures are a little off. They sold 11417 of the FR-S in the US alone, not including BRZ sales nor any of the other variants around the world. And they only went on sale in May (so technically not even a full year of sales).

As for the rest of what you have said, while interesting possibilities, they are not the reality of what they have done. I totally agree that minimal lag is important for this car. Everything about this car is about instant response. I own one, and I look forward to driving it at every opportunity that I get. Sure, the FR-S is not a stoplight warrior, but, realistically speaking, no one should be street racing anyway. People can get so hung up on horsepower and statistics about cars, but, this car cannot be appreciated until you drive it. This is why so many car reviewers have given it accolades. You have to drive it to understand why it is so good. You cannot read the spec sheet and say that you like it or not like it. I understand that this car is not for everyone. Its small size is certainly not for everyone and still more people only crave a sub 6 second 0-60 time. All that I can say is that I love driving again because of this car.

[Robert Hall]

It's probably been said before, but the car this most reminds me of as far as the concept is the original Datsun 240Z 40+ years ago...a focused pure sports car...not trying to be a muscle car or anything else. Nice to see a company building such a car in today's market which is focused on bland, soulless FWD appliances...

Edited February 13, 2013 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

To me, 150 lb ft of torque even in what is meant to be a high revver......is sort of not at all sporty....no matter how it drives.

Have you driven it yet?

No desire to. I don't much care for impractical (for me) cars.

I'd even dig a Genesis coupe over this.

Well don't judge the performance of 150 ft-lb until you drive it then.

[Drew Dowdell]

Not a big fan here either but they will sell a ton of them.

Not really, at least not yet...

They are moving about 500~800 a month and a tad under 7000 per year (2012). That is about on par with how many Camaros GM moves in the worst month in 2012. This is a sports coupe so demand tends to fall off after the first two years.

The bright side is that they set a pretty modest target of 6000 cars so they are not saddling themselves with over capacity. Already Subaru is giving $400~600 in incentives to move their (more expensive) BRZ against the FRS -- not an auspicious thing for a 1st year coupe.

The thing I don't get is that the market for sports coupes is modest enough as it is. Why they want to split the pie -- and the marketing -- between Fuji and Toyota is baffling. This should have been just a Subaru or just a Toyota.

I would have preferred that it be a Toyota using a hypothetical "1AR-GE" engine. Basically the same 2.7 liter 1AR-FE Inline-4 in the RAV4, but with hotter cams and drinking premium to deliver about 220hp / 200 lb-ft. For a higher performance version, forget laggy turbos and simply the use a roots compressor on the 1AR engine. A "1AR-GZE" will be good for about 270 hp / 270 lb-ft with zero lag. The latter would be interesting.

I think your sales figures are a little off. They sold 11417 of the FR-S in the US alone, not including BRZ sales nor any of the other variants around the world. And they only went on sale in May (so technically not even a full year of sales).

As for the rest of what you have said, while interesting possibilities, they are not the reality of what they have done. I totally agree that minimal lag is important for this car. Everything about this car is about instant response. I own one, and I look forward to driving it at every opportunity that I get. Sure, the FR-S is not a stoplight warrior, but, realistically speaking, no one should be street racing anyway. People can get so hung up on horsepower and statistics about cars, but, this car cannot be appreciated until you drive it. This is why so many car reviewers have given it accolades. You have to drive it to understand why it is so good. You cannot read the spec sheet and say that you like it or not like it. I understand that this car is not for everyone. Its small size is certainly not for everyone and still more people only crave a sub 6 second 0-60 time. All that I can say is that I love driving again because of this car.

This.

During my short time with one, I got to take it out on some rural New York roads on a beautiful fall day. This was mere minutes after driving a ZL-1 over the same roads. I put the windows down and cruised out. The handling is excellent, throttle response excellent, very good scoot when you want it... it is light, carefree, relaxing, fun and just a joy to drive. In spite of the substantial power difference between it and the ZL-1, I enjoyed the FR-S more. It's not out to prove anything... it's just there to have a good time.

[Camino LS6]

Ignoring everything else, there is no way that this drivetrain would make me happy. I'm a huge fan of having the power down low, and hate high-winding engines.

I'm glad to see any new RWD coupes hit the market, no matter the brand, but this isn't one for me.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ignoring everything else, there is no way that this drivetrain would make me happy. I'm a huge fan of having the power down low, and hate high-winding engines.

I'm glad to see any new RWD coupes hit the market, no matter the brand, but this isn't one for me.

There are turbos coming.

[Camino LS6]

Ignoring everything else, there is no way that this drivetrain would make me happy. I'm a huge fan of having the power down low, and hate high-winding engines.

I'm glad to see any new RWD coupes hit the market, no matter the brand, but this isn't one for me.

There are turbos coming.

Not sure that would change things much in the character of the engine down low.

[Camino LS6]

For me, it's all about low-end grunt - mountains of torque at 1,500 RPM.

I care nothing for screaming at 5000 RPM to make power - it just annoys me.

I like an engine making good power while loafing at low RPM.

[G. David Felt]

For me, it's all about low-end grunt - mountains of torque at 1,500 RPM.

I care nothing for screaming at 5000 RPM to make power - it just annoys me.

I like an engine making good power while loafing at low RPM.

i agree, I have no interest in a 8000rpm redline 4 banger producing 300hp at 7500 with 197lbs of torque with a tinny exhaust note. We have proven we can build efficient engines with plenty of torque and hp with low rpm and a deep bass growl for an exhaust note.

[Camino LS6]

For me, it's all about low-end grunt - mountains of torque at 1,500 RPM.

I care nothing for screaming at 5000 RPM to make power - it just annoys me.

I like an engine making good power while loafing at low RPM.

i agree, I have no interest in a 8000rpm redline 4 banger producing 300hp at 7500 with 197lbs of torque with a tinny exhaust note. We have proven we can build efficient engines with plenty of torque and hp with low rpm and a deep bass growl for an exhaust note.

That's what makes me smile, so the FR-S formula just isn't one for me. I was spoiled early on as a big block V8 owner, and that feel is the one I prefer.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ignoring everything else, there is no way that this drivetrain would make me happy. I'm a huge fan of having the power down low, and hate high-winding engines.

I'm glad to see any new RWD coupes hit the market, no matter the brand, but this isn't one for me.

There are turbos coming.

Not sure that would change things much in the character of the engine down low.

uhm... that is entirely what it changes. looking at the torque curve for the WRX (which isn't direct injected) it hits max torque at 2,100 rpm. Adding DI (which the FR-S already has) will likely lower that even further.

[Camino LS6]

Ignoring everything else, there is no way that this drivetrain would make me happy. I'm a huge fan of having the power down low, and hate high-winding engines.

I'm glad to see any new RWD coupes hit the market, no matter the brand, but this isn't one for me.

There are turbos coming.

Not sure that would change things much in the character of the engine down low.

uhm... that is entirely what it changes. looking at the torque curve for the WRX (which isn't direct injected) it hits max torque at 2,100 rpm. Adding DI (which the FR-S already has) will likely lower that even further.

OK, if that is the case the appeal for me would increase somewhat.

[Camino LS6]

Realistically, 0-60 is all that matters since I rarely get a chance to exercise a car beyond that point.

I want all the power, and I want it immediately.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well for example, the new GM 1.6T that is coming with DI and turbo, 200 lb-ft (which is the max) at 1,500 rpm.

[Camino LS6]

Well for example, the new GM 1.6T that is coming with DI and turbo, 200 lb-ft (which is the max) at 1,500 rpm.

Now that is a recipe I could enjoy - especially wrapped in a Code 130R Nomad.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well for example, the new GM 1.6T that is coming with DI and turbo, 200 lb-ft (which is the max) at 1,500 rpm.

Now that is a recipe I could enjoy - especially wrapped in a Code 130R Nomad.

I'm just pointing out what DI + Turbo can do for torque curve.

[Camino LS6]

And that is what it will have to do to interest me in such a small powerplant.

Or a small car for that matter.

[pow]

For me, it's all about low-end grunt - mountains of torque at 1,500 RPM.

I care nothing for screaming at 5000 RPM to make power - it just annoys me.

I like an engine making good power while loafing at low RPM.

Sounds like you'd enjoy electric. Nothing like 443 lb-ft at 0 rpm.

Edited February 13, 2013 by pow

[Camino LS6]

I'd like to take one for a spin.

Beyond that, who knows?

EDIT: Electric is a bit lacking in visceral appeal.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Camino LS6

[Drew Dowdell]

I'd like to take one for a spin.

Beyond that, who knows?

EDIT: Electric is a bit lacking in visceral appeal.

disagree, it isn't lacking, it just isn't what you're expecting.

[Camino LS6]

I'd like to take one for a spin.

Beyond that, who knows?

EDIT: Electric is a bit lacking in visceral appeal.

disagree, it isn't lacking, it just isn't what you're expecting.

Well, the auditory doesn't measure up, and I like shifting gears, so...

[G. David Felt]

If the Torque and performance is there, I could go for a Electric auto, but oh wait the range. That is a deal breaker, the charging times and limited range on a charge takes me back to CNG/Petrol auto's. Course if I could get a volt platform that could handle pulling trailer, boat launch duties, etc I could find that appealing.

Water Proof electric motors, with enough torque to pull trailers and a generator that runs on CNG or BioDiesel and can cover 500-600 miles at a run. That would do it for me.

[hyperv6]

If GM can out 340 FT LBS in a 2.0 Solstice at 1800 RPM I am sure they can do something similar. And yes lag is minimal.

Many need to stop promoting the myth that you have to hit 8000 RPM to get anywhere and that there are seconds of lag.

This cars appeal and sales will continue to increase with time. There are very few here in the midwest and when dealers get them they sell fast. The second and third years will reflect growth,

One thing that I read that made me thing was Wayne Cherry was looking at one of these for Motor Trends car of the year, He liked the car but commented that they wasted a good opritunity with the flat boxer engine. He stated they had a chance to make some real styling statments with the low engine few others could do. He said it was something they could have taken advantage of and just missed the chance.

The key to this car is price and the fact it is fun to drive. Cars do not have to have 600 hp V8 engines to be fun to drive. I never liked HHRs but when I drove the SS I fell in love with the fun to drive of it, I hated Turbo engines I hated FWD and I am not a wagon guy but the fun to drive and handling of this vehicle is what sold me on this. The fact is the world has changed and technology has given us small engine cars that are very satisfying to most car buyers today. We are seeing torque we did not even see in V8 engines 15 years ago in Turbo 4 engines.

Today we all need to keep open minds on many of the new engines as if you fail to you will miss some sweet hardware.

Edited February 14, 2013 by hyperv6

[Drew Dowdell]

One thing that I read that made me thing was Wayne Cherry was looking at one of these for Motor Trends car of the year, He liked the car but commented that they wasted a good opritunity with the flat boxer engine. He stated they had a chance to make some real styling statments with the low engine few others could do. He said it was something they could have taken advantage of and just missed the chance.

that may be true if they planned on never offering the turbo. I think they left extra room there on purpose.