Toyota FT-86/FR-S

kielbasa16 · 05-19-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffblue

according to the site, an ECU tune.

Damn... I wish my UpRev tune net me +35 hp hahaha

Isamu · 05-19-2011, 11:03 AM

turbo vs na is dumb...
you both have valid points... but at the same time are both biased toward one or the other...
jeff is right in that a turbo car from the factory will be more or less better in that, it's engineered to be that way... you are right in that, you put a turbo on an NA car producing more power from the get go it will have more power, however, you are neglecting to mention that, a) reliabilty will not be the same, and b) your NA motor isn't built for boost so it may not hold the same potential without doing work on the motor itself. and by doing so, you are altering the original design, making your petty argument, moot..

now, just realize, this car probably won't live to its hype, and will need to be modified to play...

Zaggeron · 05-19-2011, 11:34 AM

Jeff, obviously we are not communicating very well. The question is not whether two identical motors with the same displacement would be equal before and after turbo. Nobody claims that.

The point in contention is that given two motors both with the same HP and torque figures one being NA the other turbo, somehow -- magically -- the turbo'd engine is a better engine. My only claim is that is clearly not enough information.

Now there are some specific issues regarding the 2.0T which I would be willing to concede given evidence -- Can you spend under $1000 and get 30 to 50 more HP out of it? If not and if -- and these are big "ifs" I admit -- the FT weights in at 3k lbs or less (actually I probably wouldn't get it if it was much heavier than 2900lbs) and has more or less the concept HP -- around 200-210hp, then the 2.0T would be hard pressed to keep up given the 1K upgrade limit -- the FT would be faster out of the factory and the 2.0T would have to get a higher performance gain from the 1k than the FT would have to from its upgrades

Jeffblue · 05-19-2011, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaggeron

Jeff, obviously we are not communicating very well. The question is not whether two identical motors with the same displacement would be equal before and after turbo. Nobody claims that.

The point in contention is that given two motors both with the same HP and torque figures one being NA the other turbo, somehow -- magically -- the turbo'd engine is a better engine. My only claim is that is clearly not enough information.

Now there are some specific issues regarding the 2.0T which I would be willing to concede given evidence -- Can you spend under $1000 and get 30 to 50 more HP out of it? If not and if -- and these are big "ifs" I admit -- the FT weights in at 3k lbs or less (actually I probably wouldn't get it if it was much heavier than 2900lbs) and has more or less the concept HP -- around 200-210hp, then the 2.0T would be hard pressed to keep up given the 1K upgrade limit -- the FT would be faster out of the factory and the 2.0T would have to get a higher performance gain from the 1k than the FT would have to from its upgrades

Yea i think we are getting a little sidetracked. I guess my real point is that is if this car is supposed to be fast, its got to be really goddamn light. And we all know that isn't going to happen, so more than likely, it will just be slow. A lot of this super light weight hype is just because of the year we are in. case in point:

the z32 was often criticized as being a bloated fat pig of a car and strayed too far from the Z heritage by being SO big and heavy. This was in the 1990s. the Twin turbo 2 seater weight 3,373lb (per wikipedia)

come 2011, the 370z is praised for how light it is, weighing in at 3,232 lbs (Base). is 140lbs off what was criticized as a heavy fat pig of a car really that earth shattering? no, its because in 2011 we have so much extra safety equipment and regulations that what would have previously be considered a heavy car, is now considered a light car. So when it comes down to power to weight figures, these cars that are considered 'light', don't turn out to be that fast because they are actually quite heavy by 'light sports car' standards.

Zaggeron · 05-19-2011, 12:15 PM

@ Jeff

I think we can agree to agree here. That's what was so appealing about the FT concept. It is supposed to be a return to a light modestly powered sports coupe. If it can realize some decent portion of that vision in production, I think it will be a good car.

As I said, I probably wouldn't seriously consider it if it were much over 2900lbs and didn't have at least 200HP. Given that I am looking for a replacement for my DD and not my Z, those figures would be substantially better than my current DD. My Mazda 3 is a peppy little car at 157hp with 2960 lbs -- not fast, but not Versa slow. Still, it is fun to drive and I can image a car about the same weight with 50 or so more HP being even more fun -- especially if it is in a sporty coupe body ...

nuTinmuch · 05-19-2011, 03:38 PM

...Oh?

flashburn · 05-19-2011, 03:41 PM

Stupid ricer wings (yes I'm talking about the Celica too!).

nuTinmuch · 05-19-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashburn

celica

ಠ_ಠ

Lug · 05-19-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashburn

Stupid ricer wings (yes I'm talking about the Celica too!).

That's a Supra.

flashburn · 05-19-2011, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lug

That's a Supra.

Yeah, that's what I meant, whatever.

Isamu · 05-19-2011, 04:49 PM

supra =/= celica... atleast not that gen LOL

Gunzero · 05-19-2011, 11:09 PM

How can you mistaken a Supra for a Celica?

Isamu · 05-20-2011, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunzero

How can you mistaken a Supra for a Celica?

to much reefer?

Lemers · 05-20-2011, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunzero

How can you mistaken a Supra for a Celica?

The supra wasn't a separate model until the third gen.

Gunzero · 05-19-2011, 11:21 PM

This is pretty awesome. I want one

05-19-2011, 11:34 AM	#3 (permalink)
Zaggeron A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,951 Drives: '10 370ZR '13 BRZ Rep Power: 19	Jeff, obviously we are not communicating very well. The question is not whether two identical motors with the same displacement would be equal before and after turbo. Nobody claims that. The point in contention is that given two motors both with the same HP and torque figures one being NA the other turbo, somehow -- magically -- the turbo'd engine is a better engine. My only claim is that is clearly not enough information. Now there are some specific issues regarding the 2.0T which I would be willing to concede given evidence -- Can you spend under $1000 and get 30 to 50 more HP out of it? If not and if -- and these are big "ifs" I admit -- the FT weights in at 3k lbs or less (actually I probably wouldn't get it if it was much heavier than 2900lbs) and has more or less the concept HP -- around 200-210hp, then the 2.0T would be hard pressed to keep up given the 1K upgrade limit -- the FT would be faster out of the factory and the 2.0T would have to get a higher performance gain from the 1k than the FT would have to from its upgrades __________________ 2010 Platinum Graphite 370z Roadster:Touring/Sport 2013 Subaru BRZ Limited

05-19-2011, 12:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
Zaggeron A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,951 Drives: '10 370ZR '13 BRZ Rep Power: 19	@ Jeff I think we can agree to agree here. That's what was so appealing about the FT concept. It is supposed to be a return to a light modestly powered sports coupe. If it can realize some decent portion of that vision in production, I think it will be a good car. As I said, I probably wouldn't seriously consider it if it were much over 2900lbs and didn't have at least 200HP. Given that I am looking for a replacement for my DD and not my Z, those figures would be substantially better than my current DD. My Mazda 3 is a peppy little car at 157hp with 2960 lbs -- not fast, but not Versa slow. Still, it is fun to drive and I can image a car about the same weight with 50 or so more HP being even more fun -- especially if it is in a sporty coupe body ... __________________ 2010 Platinum Graphite 370z Roadster:Touring/Sport 2013 Subaru BRZ Limited

05-19-2011, 03:38 PM	#6 (permalink)
nuTinmuch A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,092 Drives: PG 7AT 370Z Rep Power: 18	...Oh? __________________ nuTinmuch! -- Platinum Graphite 370Z -- Check out my Gallery thread here!

05-19-2011, 03:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
flashburn A True Z Fanatic Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,884 Drives: '12 Corvette GS 6M Rep Power: 19	Stupid ricer wings (yes I'm talking about the Celica too!). __________________ Current Ride: 2012 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport Centennial Edition Carbon Flash 6M Previous Ride: 2009 Nissan 370Z Sport Platinum Graphite 7AT

05-19-2011, 11:09 PM	#12 (permalink)
Gunzero Track Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 889 Drives: Nissan 370z Rep Power: 259	How can you mistaken a Supra for a Celica? __________________

05-19-2011, 11:21 PM	#15 (permalink)
Gunzero Track Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 889 Drives: Nissan 370z Rep Power: 259	This is pretty awesome. I want one __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Toyota confirms Toyota FT-86 sports coupe coming to North America	1bad350z	Other Vehicles	81	05-12-2010 09:09 AM
Toyota FT-86 Pictures	bigu	Other Vehicles	16	02-28-2010 03:21 PM
Toyota gets serious	370Zsteve	The Lounge (Off Topic)	13	10-22-2009 06:35 PM
Huge new set of Toyota FT-86. Probably never seen before.	1bad350z	Other Vehicles	11	10-17-2009 08:23 AM