IceFire's hit the nail on the head with the muscle cars. It's not a horsepower contest, which was why I explicitly made the distinction in my first post of sports car, as opposed to muscle car. There's a balance to be struck by a sports car. Yes, speed is a big deal, and power is a big component of that, but if you have to bleed off all of that speed on approach to a curve/corner, then it's not actually a fast car on open roads or closed circuits. Fast on a drag strip? Sure, but drag strips don't get me or a lot of other driving enthusiasts excited the way a track or mountain road does.
The road-going rally cars (i.e. the WRX and Evo X) I dismiss as being an entirely different driving experience. They're technical marvels, and I'm not going to deny that in the least, but a turbo-charged, four-wheel drive beast, tamed by a host of slightly mad computer management systems is not anywhere near the same as a naturally-aspirated, rear-wheel drive vehicle that minimizes anything that might insulate the driver from the feedback of the car and road. The latter lets you get to the edge of the car's capabilities and have some fun there. The former tries to prevent itself from reaching those limits, meaning that you need to derive your entertainment from working to reach those limits or working well within them.
It's not that the muscle cars or road-going rally cars are necessarily worse, but they don't do the same thing that sports cars do, and so comparing them is about as useful as throwing pick-up trucks and minivans into the mix. I notice you didn't bring up the Honda Odyssey and its inexplicible 248 horsepower. That's just fine, though, because it's equally irrelevant. I'm personally excited for the GT-86/FR-S because it's a car that wouldn't make me compromise. It's quick; it handles well; the driver drives the car, rather than the other way around, and I can save for three to four years to buy one, not thirty to forty. If you want the kind of experience that a muscle car or road-going rally car offers, I'm not criticising. I can see the appeal and even get absorbed in it to a certain degree, but I prefer the experience of a sports car, and in recent years, there just hasn't been many options in the entry-level pricing tier. That's why the GT-86 is so exciting! It's a purist's sports car that doesn't require you to shell out Porsche money.
Now, the Mazda MX-5 is a great car and definately sets the bar that the GT-86 has to surpass, but you're right about about the Mazda's weaknesses. It's engine is criminally underpowered for the chassis. Almost anyone with the money to do so fits a forced-induction system to the engine, because the car can handle much higher speeds through the bends than the engine will allow for. The current generation MX-5 is also seven years old and getting overdue for another revision. It's falling way behind newer cars that are starting to feature direct-injected engines, as you indirectly noted by showing that its less powerful and less efficient than anything else in the price range. Really, aside from being front-wheel drive (and we'll get to this in a minute), the third-gen Focus provides performance only slightly inferior to the current MX-5. Specifically, the Focus is about 400lbs heavier and
seven horsepower short of the MX-5. When the non-sport versions of econoboxes are catching up to your sports car, it's time to change something.
So, yes, you named one competitor to the GT-86, which is kind of the point. This sector of the market lacks choices for consumers. Seeing a new option pop in, from Toyota of all places, is a good sign for driving enthusiasts. (It doesn't hurt that it's a damn nice option, even with so little competition.) After all, if a manufacturer as notoriously boring as Toyota can make a proper sports car for a reasonable price, how will other manufacturers respond? Hell, even if nobody else responds, this should at least spur Mazda to stop resting on its laurels and make the MX-5 and/or RX-8 respectable again, and then there will be a more appealing number of options than "Buy a Mazda or buy nothing, until you can afford a Porsche Boxster."
All in all, the new Scion FR-S does not in any way look special in its price range. It's just a new Celica.
I.... Wat? Let's break this down....
A) The Celica, particularly in its final generation, was pretty ****ing awesome*, and someone should be stabbed for stopping its production. Saying, "[Anything] is
just a new Celica," shows that you
grossly underestimate the Celica. Find one and take it on a test drive in the mountains. You will have to make a conscious effort not to enjoy yourself, unless you just hate driving.
B) Note the asterisk in point 'A'. Statements of the Celica's quality as a sports car are legally obligated to come with the caveat, "...but it's front-wheel drive." In a sports car, front-wheel drive is a critical weakness, on par with being saddled with a torque converter. When you open the taps, typically when coming out of a curve, it's just too easy to overwhelm the front wheels in a front-wheel drive car, so that you will be neither steering, nor accelerating, when you need to be doing both. In a rear-wheel drive car, since the front wheels don't have to handle all of the engine's power, they are much more capable of steering the vehicle under acceleration. With a skilled foot, you can even use the throttle to help point the car in the direction you want to go, and the first time you do it, you will be so immensely proud of yourself. Point being, though, the GT-86/FR-S is a stronger design at a foundational level than the Celica. The Celica was great*, and unless the GT-86 critically botches every other aspect of its design, it's going to turn out even better.
Who's next to try to bring me down from this car-dork high I've been on?
* - ...but it's front-wheel drive.
