New rumor: 1.6-liter turbocharged engine one year after initial introduction

[Giccin]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

Should be very good.

Mini JCW (155kw 260nm) gets a low 34mpg.

Oooo ...Highway?

I know fuel shouldn't play a huge role in fun performance cars.... but for those who use this as a DD..

Sounds prettttty damn good!

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

Madfast, have you heard of WRC group N?

You trying to tell me no rally turbo tech is in a Mitsubishi Evo? You trolling?

You really want to go there? Seriously? After all that's been posted up? Seriously? Are you sure? Seriously?

the evo x WON group N. but we're not talking about group n, or at least i wasnt.

again. the hardware was there, but it didnt work from the factory. if you had to flash the ecu for it to work, guess what? that's not stock. aftermarket can do anything with enough money so i never talk about what you CAN do, i talk about what ALREADY IS. and the FACT remains that anti-lag was NEVER operational from the factory.

you can spin it however you like but mitsu NEVER had antilag that WORKED from the factory...

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

I will let you in on a little secret, but you have to be very quiet. It's called a Variable geometry turbocharger. Shhhhhhh. The Europeans might hear you......

unless you're porsche/borg-warner, you dont have access to this technology. and/or its too expensive at this time to use in a lowly wrx class car. yes VTG turbodiesels are everywhere, but not gas VTG turbos. only porsche has them.

and the k23 in the RDX doesnt exactly count. its a similar idea, but not the same execution.

AND the tech isnt even super reliable. its not uncommon for the vanes to fail...

[madfast]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

So Madfast, how do you feel about the Mini Cooper JCW? 208hp@5500/197tq@2000-5000rpms tq in a 2600 lb car sounds much better than my 2.0liter 155hp@6300/140tq@5000 rpms in a 2770 lb car. Even if my car was a type S(141tq@6000RPMS) the JCW's engine sounds more of a daily drivers engine IMHO. 141tq@5-6000 rpms < 197 tq@2-5000 rpms.

yes, the mini "gets away" with such small displacement because its a small car. very logical. but if you put that engine into a sti, evo, gc, etc. its going to suck. making a lighter car is the only way to solve this "problem". look at the alfa 4C for example...

in terms of the aftermarket, without changing displacement, you will hit the limit very soon for a street car. and by this i mean with minimal lag. and gains are not across the board. it will be more here, less there, etc. and that only exaggerates a non-linear tq curve.

if the same engine were to end up on the FT? stock it'd be good. i would still prefer larger displacement NA but its not bad at that tune. but once you start tuning and make more power it WILL screw up the relatively flat tq curve of the stock tune. that's not something i personally want. i want a SC that WILL give you gains across the board. lower overall limit, but more effective overall if you ask me...

[madfast]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

All this. While IMO I'd prefer at least a turbo 2.0, a 1.6 is perfectly capable of making 500hp on boost.

but in a ridiculously non-linear fashion. and THAT is more important than peak numbers for MOST people.

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by madfast

the evo x WON group N. but we're not talking about group n, or at least i wasnt.

again. the hardware was there, but it didnt work from the factory. if you had to flash the ecu for it to work, guess what? that's not stock. aftermarket can do anything with enough money so i never talk about what you CAN do, i talk about what ALREADY IS. and the FACT remains that anti-lag was NEVER operational from the factory.

you can spin it however you like but mitsu NEVER had antilag that WORKED from the factory...

are you sure? seriously? is that your final answer?

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

are you sure? seriously? is that your final answer?

was that not the truth?

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by madfast

yes, the mini "gets away" with such small displacement because its a small car. very logical. but if you put that engine into a sti, evo, gc, etc. its going to suck. making a lighter car is the only way to solve this "problem". look at the alfa 4C for example...

in terms of the aftermarket, without changing displacement, you will hit the limit very soon for a street car. and by this i mean with minimal lag. and gains are not across the board. it will be more here, less there, etc. and that only exaggerates a non-linear tq curve.

if the same engine were to end up on the FT? stock it'd be good. i would still prefer larger displacement NA but its not bad at that tune. but once you start tuning and make more power it WILL screw up the relatively flat tq curve of the stock tune. that's not something i personally want. i want a SC that WILL give you gains across the board. lower overall limit, but more effective overall if you ask me...

The new WRX is getting a new sub-compact platform and the BRoZer is a tiny compact car already . How much smaller do they need to be?

I think you're forgetting which car you are talking about here. And this is Subaru we're talking about too, you can't ask for big power and then complain when it means "turbo lag" .

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by madfast

was that not the truth?

No. Thought that was made very clear?

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

The new WRX is getting a new sub-compact platform and the BRoZer is a tiny compact car already . How much smaller do they need to be?

is that confirmed? i mean i makes sense but it also encroaches on the FT in size so i guess we'll have to wait and see... as for the FT, we still need a curb weight. and again, there is no such thing as no lag, so it will never match the feel of a NA engine.

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

I think you're forgetting which car you are talking about here. And this is Subaru we're talking about too, you can't ask for big power and then complain when it means "turbo lag" .

i never asked for big power from the FT. so if you turbo the FT then you may make good power and a flat enough tq curve with a conservative tune from the factory but it will never have big power without messing the tq curve up.

and for the wrx i think people expect big power. so if that thing has a 1.6L turbo its power DELIVERY is still going to be less linear than a larger displacement engine making less boost. in order for them to make their number targets, they WILL have to compromise in the spool/lag dept, and the AUC, and the tq curve, etc.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

No. Thought that was made very clear?

so you are saying that the SAS system works straight from the dealership floor? no modifications necessary to make it run?

[blur]

Madfast, I know you're obsessed with trying to prove everyone wrong, but it gets annoying when you quadruple post. Learn how to multi quote.

Originally Posted by Giccin

Oooo ...Highway?

I know fuel shouldn't play a huge role in fun performance cars.... but for those who use this as a DD..

Sounds prettttty damn good!

That's one of the reasons why I like the idea. Fuel efficiency AND power. Without the bs hybrid crap.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by madfast

is that confirmed? i mean i makes sense but it also encroaches on the FT in size so i guess we'll have to wait and see... as for the FT, we still need a curb weight. and again, there is no such thing as no lag, so it will never match the feel of a NA engine.

The WRX getting a newer smaller platform is more confirmed than the 1.6L turbo we've been discussing.

http://www.motortrend.com/future/fut...o_its_own_way/

Ignore the artistic rendering BTW.

[Ice_Man]

i would like the 1.6l if its like the ford ecoboost one but with a bit more power
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fo...orisierungen_3