ShrinerMonkey Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 This car will be an obvious candidate for LSx swaps. I think I would go with a Coyote 5.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The B4 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 specs leaked. http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/31/toyota-ft-86-scion-fr-s-specs-leaked-via-training-manual/ [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddseth Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I really like the front of the new Scion version of the coupe but when I look at the rear end, I can't help but feel like it looks out of place. If anything, the rear of the car looks much more like a Subaru design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoplightAssassin Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 specs leaked. http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/31/toyota-ft-86-scion-fr-s-specs-leaked-via-training-manual/ bout time. power to weight ratio close to that of a stock LGT Ltd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadvw Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Actually, right manufacturer, wrong car, IMHO. This will be much more like an RX-8. Unconventional engine, lower center of gravity, 2-door that seats 4 (I believe the new Coupe will seat 4?), etc.. Performance probably won't be that different from the current RX-8 either. That has 232 hp in 6MT, 212 hp in 6EAT, 159 tq. I could easily imagine the 2.0l engine to do 200 hp/140-150 tq. Ok, so the RX-8 is maybe 3-400 lbs heavier (if 2600-2700 lbs is accurate - no one has confirmed that yet). Sure, that'll make some difference. But, IMHO, the new coupe's 0-60 will be 6.x or 7.x, not 5.x. Nailed it! As per the manual: 200 hp, 150 lb-ft. Gotta toot my own horn once in a while Now let's see about 0-60 times.. If I read the numbers right, it's claiming about 1.5 mpg better than a Miata on the highway.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmanaenk Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Subaru's version better come with more torque. 666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05LGTLtd Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Car&Driver page 100-1 Dec 2011. "Est torque 170lbs @ 4000rpm" All I need now is a hill holder and a center passing light... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddseth Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 http://www.topgear.com/uk/assets/cms/8480a90a-bdf8-4c8e-b2e0-14f9e33b6e4e/Large%20Image.jpg?p=111101_12:33 Enjoy guys! I will reserve judgement until I see some more photos, but I say from the rear it is the best looking Subaru ever! http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/new-subaru-brz-sti-revealed-2011-11-01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAC5.2 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Just a concept. If it follows that form, I'd be interested. [URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/proper-flip-key-interesti-159894.html"]Flip Key Development Thread[/URL] "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." - E. Hubbard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoplightAssassin Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 ^what he said. no wing for me though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniaxzero Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 whats up with the super gay taillights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadvw Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Car&Driver page 100-1 Dec 2011. "Est torque 170lbs @ 4000rpm" Larger engine? I don't see how you can get 20 lb-ft more from ECU re-tuning, unless Toyota really dropped the ball on this one.. 20 lb-ft more from a 2.0l would require a LOT of bolt-ons.. exhaust, air intake, new intake runners (maybe like the old VW VSR manifold - that was supposed to be good for around 15-25 lb-ft on a VR6, but was $2500 new), etc.. I suppose if Toyota's runs on 87 and Subaru requires 91, that might get you a few more, but still, I'm very skeptical of 20 lb-ft more just from bolt-ons.. Figure $3-4K more than the Toyota version AT LEAST - bolt-ons aren't free from a manufacturing point of view. Limited runs make parts more expensive.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WraithAkaMrak Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Concept pics and press release: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/01/subaru-brz-sti-concept-coming-to-la-auto-show/ Subaru has, however, fitted upgraded suspension bits, new Brembo brakes and larger 18-inch wheels. The neat thing about the STI Concept is that this is actually the first time we've seen the Subaru's exterior design – we've only seen full models of the Toyota/Scion version of this car. ... Of course, this being the STI version, a large wing has been fitted to the rear deck, and the car is painted in a new evolution of Subaru's classic blue, called WR Blue Pearl II. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/11/subaru-brz-sti-concept-1-1320156555.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/11/subaru-brz-sti-concept-2-1320156556.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoplightAssassin Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Larger engine? I don't see how you can get 20 lb-ft more from ECU re-tuning, unless Toyota really dropped the ball on this one.. 20 lb-ft more from a 2.0l would require a LOT of bolt-ons.. exhaust, air intake, new intake runners (maybe like the old VW VSR manifold - that was supposed to be good for around 15-25 lb-ft on a VR6, but was $2500 new), etc.. I suppose if Toyota's runs on 87 and Subaru requires 91, that might get you a few more, but still, I'm very skeptical of 20 lb-ft more just from bolt-ons.. Figure $3-4K more than the Toyota version AT LEAST - bolt-ons aren't free from a manufacturing point of view. Limited runs make parts more expensive.. BRZ = Direct Injection FT-86 = Manifold injection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAC5.2 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Ugh. Direct injection. Pass. [URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/proper-flip-key-interesti-159894.html"]Flip Key Development Thread[/URL] "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." - E. Hubbard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubieDriver Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I bet they'll have a solution for the valve deposit issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shutterbc Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Ugh. Direct injection. Pass. Why is DI here viewed as a negative? Does it make it that much harder to increase power output in turbocharged applications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitetiger Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 ^yes. IIRC, DI uses special high pressure fuel injectors. And they dont make alot of aftermarket higher flow versions. so if you run out of injector capacity you are f'ed. for regular MI, you can easily get cheap high capacity injectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAC5.2 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Exactly. A 2.0L, N/A, DI engine will be great for economy, but terrible for aftermarket performance. Turbo kits will require MI adapters and extra injectors, engine management gets much more difficult, and power/efficiency decrease substantially. I'd much rather start with a turbocharged platform, even if it makes the same 200hp and 170ft-lbs. [URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/proper-flip-key-interesti-159894.html"]Flip Key Development Thread[/URL] "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." - E. Hubbard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vr4Legacy Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I believe most manufacturers design their cars for longevity and EPA standards not upgradability. If they can more efficiently meet those guidelines there will go that route. And I really do think a turbo version is in the works, I'd say they just want to guage initial interest first. Hyundai is already working on a turbo'd Veloster, their base model only pushes 130 hp. I'd say once they pad some sales with a fuel efficient version, they'll pump out some less efficient higher performance models to keep CAFE happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddseth Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I wonder if they may actually combine direct injection with turbocharging since the latest rumors have stated that the Subaru version will have under 300 hp instead of the 200hp figure quoted for the Scion/Toyota version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAC5.2 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Hopefully they don't go DI. That'd ruin things. [URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/proper-flip-key-interesti-159894.html"]Flip Key Development Thread[/URL] "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." - E. Hubbard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahr_side Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Hopefully they don't go DI. That'd ruin things. Luddite. Obligatory '[URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2008-gh8-238668.html?t=238668"]build thread[/URL]' Increased capacity to 2.7 liters, still turbo, but no longer need spark plugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Hopefully they don't go DI. That'd ruin things. DI Diesel with that power would be great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadvw Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 BRZ = Direct Injection FT-86 = Manifold injection Is that published data, or speculation? Hyundai's 2.4l DI engine (state of the art, just released) gets 186 lb-ft. Divide by 2.4, multiply by 2.0, and, surprise, surprise, you get: 148.8. Aka, the 150 already published. Anyone with DI getting MORE than 75 lb-ft/L? I haven't seen it.. Torque is harder to improve than hp. Nissan gets 72-73 lb-ft/L from their DI engines. Also, Subaru just launched their own non-DI 2.0l boxer. Are they ALSO launching a new 2.0l DI boxer with a very limited run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.