1stOne

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the fascination with turbochargers. You know that about 6 years ago almost no one was boosted? Go back even further and Superchargers and NOS were all the rage.

Turbo charging is a fad in my eyes. Its proven itself to make more power than stock for a lower cost than other methods. But what good is power when you can't use it?

Companies like Ford have made the 100+ year old technology known as turbocharging a new thing by marketing the hell out of it. As consumers, we eat it up and then begin to wonder why everything isn't turbocharged. Remember that cars 20 years ago weren't all turbocharged. The Nissan 240sx was a 2.4L 4cyl and you don't see people ragging on those cars do you?

There are probably a million and one reasons why the FR-S isn't turbo. Could it be so that it was a cost thing? Maybe. Could it be that the Chief Engineer just doesn't like turbocharging? Maybe that too. Or it could be that some people have just realized that just because your car is turbo, doesn't mean it will win the race. And this I can attest to as I proved this year that cars with 2x the power of the tC have a hard time getting away from it on the racetrack.

There are fast cars and fast drivers. The FR-S seems to want to elaborate on the later and I applaud it for taking that daring step. Does it mean it's a car for everyone? No, but it does at least try to be a car everyone can afford and enjoy.

Roller_Toaster

iTrader: (1)

I'm pretty sure the turbo "fad" would definitely qualify as the late 80's-early 90's.

EVERY car company wanted to make a turbo car and get on board.

Pontiac, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Chrystler and Toyota all had stock turbo cars, as well as countless others I'm sure I'm forgetting. (supra, starion, 300zx, shadow, sunbird, 1st gen eclipse, etc)

It seemed to die out quickly when mpg's started to come into play.

The Nissan 240, or 180 originally had a variety of turbocharged engines, but when it was imported, they used the ka.

I REALLY hope to see this car compared the the rx8 and genesis on a track when its released. :D

Ab501u71yR3d

They don't really have that great of a potential unless you do engine work. Unless your talking about the FRS...but even still, you would have to change to low compression pistons

pwee08

iTrader: (7)

Lol at 1stone "turbo being a fad" just one more lol...

Ok, turbo'ing a car is not a fad, if turboing a car was a fad I guess all redline time attack drivers and drag racers are on that fad. building a motor up that will cost you about around 6k+ to get what 25hp or you can go turbo and achieve 200hp extra yeah sure its a fad.

Toyota is probably not going to turbo the frs because it will sky rocket sale price which will kill sales, Toyota doesn't want that they are trying not to have scion die as a brand..

The design is dope but the frs concept is a lot sexier. I just wish this Aww a Toyota sports car meaning Toyota powered not subaru power'd

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

1stOne

You guys are completely missing my point. Turbo is a fad in North America. As much as you all choose to disagree with me on this, competitive manufacturers that offered turbo cars in the 80's and 90's did so by marketing them as performance cars, not as "turbo" cars. It's always been a way for manufacturers to extract more power from cars but in a tuner perspective it was more costly than it is today to do.

So again, from a mere tuner perspective, turbo hasn't been mainstream until more recently.

I'm happy the FR-S wont be turbo. It leaves some fun in the car for those of us that believe torque should come from start-up, not from 3,000rpm and up.

Roller_Toaster

iTrader: (1)

In the idea of turbo being mainstream for manufacturers, I don't know if I can really agree with the idea that it is just now becoming the new thing.

I'm not sure where you are drawing the line between "turbo" and "performnace"?

Would you consider the supra, sti and evo only "turbo" cars, and not "performance" cars?

Not all turbos make power from 3k and up, thanks to new ball bearing designs, properly sized (not top end, slow spooling, high boost applications) can supply near immediate torque boosts.

I have to agree though, I'm a bit of a fan that it isn't turbo'd also.

EDIT: sorry, I think I misread your post, you were saying that turbo is a newer fad from an aftermarket perspective.

downy_ball

ef## the turbos!
normally aspirated machines rule!

and back to the original thread/post...
yes, my wife wants one bad now!

TC-Maverick

I interpreted the thread as Scion wanting our thoughts..
I gave 'em my thoughts on color. But honestly the color is the LAST thing I think about when considering a car for purchase. So where else better is there than here to fill in the Gaps.

Since I've spoke much in a negative light, being this car is on course to not have what many are demanding; lemme just say..
Yeah I love this car and I don't have to drive it to know it. And I want one like yesterday.

IMO whether turbo has been, will be, or is a fad shouldn't be that important.

You can get more power with one for less money. Why more power? Because 200 simply puts it next to the civic si and in my mind my TC should be next to the civic si. Plus its my understanding when you go from FF to FR you have more parasitic HP loss due to drive train parts.

While the FR-s is likely triple the fun factor of my TC stock.
My thoughts are I Want a More Potent Version Stock.. So I don't have to F with the warranty.
If not cost effective.. another marketing tactic would be the Revolution into actually making more than one model for at least one of its cars.

CXTKRS1

Just FYI Honda was getting 240HP out of a 2.0 in 1999 with less compression and without direct injection.

CXTKRS1

Have you actually read the power output of the engine...I'm guessing the answer is no since you failed to understand the engine peaks torque at 6500+ rpm.... this thing will have little if any low end torque.

WellesleyScion

You struck a nerve with this one.

First major mod I did to my 240 was to swap out the KA motor for an SR20DET. Go onto 240sxone.com, 90% of the owners either swap motors to something that comes forced induction, or turbocharge the KA. I turboed mine about 7 years ago, and have owned the car for 8 years.
Now dont get me wrong, back in 1989-1994 when the S13 was being produced, the KA motor was way ahead of its time, Honda's were lucky to get 100hp let alone the 160hp the KA produced. Back then, it was fast.

But by todays standards, a stock KA 240 is slow... I rag on them and I am an owner...

Think for a moment about the cars that come turbo charged and the following that was attached to them. The SRT-4 and Eclipse GST (to name just a couple) came under $26K brand new, turbo and full of power, and created some of the biggest compact car followings ever...

Just for conversation sake as well:
SRTForums:
Threads: 537,724, Posts: 8,345,800, Members: 86,096
Scionlife forums:
Threads: 205,726, Posts: 3,895,312, Members: 76,476

Lex-M

1stOne….................wow, I don’t know where to begin.
I bet if you asked Chris Rado if his cars would be as good on the track without the turbo he would say “NO”.
As for turbo’s being mainstream. Look back at the 80’s and there were a ton of cars turboed. I had one, a 82 Datsun “Nissan” 200sx turbo, I loved that car.
For putting power down, 100 to 200hp more then stock is always better.

Scratch

iTrader: (3)

I really, really don't like to disagree with you. BUT I had to on this statement.

2012 V6 Mustang, 305hp... $22k (more with the factory toys folks put on but still...)

not to say a pony would beat the FR-S in a AX race, but hp numbers... well, they ARE out there for well under $40k

Roller_Toaster

iTrader: (1)

I'm more concerned with what type of suspension it has (Ohlins, bilstein, koni) from the factory, and if it comes with an lsd honestly.

And yes, honda is the unofficial king of top end hp (while sacraficing tq) on N/A motors.

flintMicaTC

I'm just debating on which one to set a deposit down on... I had a scion and now I have a Subaru lol... Guess in a way it was meant to be. Pretty sure it'll come down to what is offered and the differences between the BRZ and FR-S


Tapatalkin on my iPhone

user 7208230

iTrader: (1)

FR-S is the way to go, looks much better than the Subaru, IMO

TC-Maverick

agreed

flintMicaTC

Can't really say till the actual cars are revealed....


Tapatalkin on my iPhone

TC-Maverick

You're saying they may still change the look?

flintMicaTC

Just like any other concept, it's still just the concept not the final product. The Subaru BRZ that you see plastered everywhere now is the last concept to the actual final reveal. They've yet to announce real hp/tq numbers or if they'll be a difference in the BRZ sti or FR-S so until its in writing and see which looks best to my taste I'll make the decision. Plus I gotta haggle the dealerships to see who wants my money more lol


Tapatalkin on my iPhone