Are you in the market for a new or used vehicle and having difficulty finding something in your budget? Or are you finding yourself making trade-offs to find something you can afford (i.e. less cargo space, lower trim level). A reporter from a national news publication would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by this Friday, 11/21 for details.

2013 Scion FR-S Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,316
edited September 2014 in Scion

image2013 Scion FR-S Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds conducts a Long-Term Test of the 2013 Scion FR-S and dyno-tests its Innovate Motorsports supercharger kit.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • hybrishybris Member Posts: 365
    Looks good now drag race this thing vs the Miata.
  • yellowbalyellowbal Member Posts: 234
    The Miata would win right? It's lighter and has more grip.

    The FRS, however, could carry 4 people if necessary.
  • greenponygreenpony Member Posts: 531
    Unrelated question. Why does CA not provide >91 octane?
  • ansibeansibe Member Posts: 7
    Looks good. I was hoping for 260 hp, 10lb/Hp.
  • subytrojan_2subytrojan_2 Member Posts: 79
    @greenpony I'm not sure. I'm guessing CARB. Whatever the reason, it SUCKS not being able to (easily) get 92-93 octane gasoline here!!!!!!!!!
  • hooninaroundhooninaround Member Posts: 40
    Really nice kit, really gives some punch where its needed on this car. I've driven my buddies stock FR-S and its a really nice vehicle as is but it definitely leaves you wanting more in the mid-range, nice to see the crater is gone. Excellent work with the research guys, specially finding a kit that was calibrated with 91 octane.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    I went to the multi-dyno compare you did with the Miata, and calculated the correction factors between the Dynapack and Dynojet. Using those factors, I came up with 207.2 whp and 171.5 wtq on a Dynojet for this car. Just to check, I also applied those correction factors to your stock run, and got 170.2 and 139.2. Back in June of last year, you DID run this car on a Dynojet, and got 173 and 143, so I think the correction factors I used are accurate enough for some comparisons. And yes, I realize that different dynos, different days, temps, operators, etc., etc. That torque curve is very nice and USEFUL although not as high as I would have hoped. There is not a great amount of power increase and the peak of 224 on the Dynapack is pretty much a peak. Probably this S/C will provide a real difference in normal driving, I would say. Of course, the real question mark is how consistent it will be, with such a high C/R and no intercooler - if it's pulling timing at the end of ONE dyno pull, I wonder about its viability in track use. For suprising a guy in a V6 Camaro at a stoplight, this kit is probably fine. We will have to wait for the intercooler to make it into a track-day tool, I'm betting. Would appreciate some info on time between pulls, ambient temps, intake air temp, etc.
  • duck87duck87 Member Posts: 649
    This looks like a great improvement especially for street driving. The fact that the torque hole is GONE like it never existed (rather than merely filled in or compensated for) makes me wonder though... was it really just an induction issue with the naturally aspirated car? I heard some claims that a ECU flash and revised intake/exhaust does not fill in this torque hole... Or did the S/C kit manufacturer put together a kit that works most efficiently in that zone and just happens to fill it out well? Why does the ECU pull timing only on longer runs? I think I'll look into this in my spare time.
  • mechengftwmechengftw Member Posts: 3
    Wow this kit sounds killer! Easy to install, even power boost. Any driving impressions? Any downsides?
  • noburgersnoburgers Member Posts: 500
    can't wait for the next set of blog posts that describe your driveability on the street. 20% - 25% improvement in power over stock is significant. That should be just enough to be fun. And the method of delivering the boost sounds like it will be easy on the mechanicals, and be durable in the long run.
  • akula1akula1 Member Posts: 0
    So I take it that the TRD catback proved quite the restriction on the dyno if you had to resort to the Apex? Care to share the numbers? Thx.
  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    They put the Apexi on a long time ago, and it produced no power gains then. They have not run the car with the supercharger + the stock catback. Just surmising I would doubt that running 8.5 psi the stock catback would be a bottleneck.
  • duck87duck87 Member Posts: 649
    @akula1: The catback is probably not going to be a bottleneck... if it didn't produce any power gains then it probably wouldn't do anything now. A header would probably do significantly more than a catback ever would...
  • gtfrank1gtfrank1 Member Posts: 16
    I thought the 6500 rpm drop off was strange. Thanks for the explanation. We get 93.5 oct in MD.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.