Doug Demuro’s review of my personal 2018 BRZtS

[Stang70Fastback]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

Although my old forester didn't have torque dip and did almost the same thing...

Your 2009 Forester could get almost 34 MPG at 80 MPH? I find this claim to be highly suspect!

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Stang70Fastback

Your 2009 Forester could get almost 34 MPG at 80 MPH? I find this claim to be highly suspect!

Let's not forget that it also has the same emissions.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Chikna

Wow, now I know what dip is after reading the entire thread, I asked a similar question on another thread and I got a response "Don't get there!" now I know what to ask and what not LOL.

Now you're never going to un-feel it.
its going to bother you forever, you are going to hate it, you are going to curse it.
The dip now owns you and in order to eliminate it you must now turbocharged your car or get UEL headers or tune it out.

Because the dip is pure evil.

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The regs are not the same as even 09. Not even close. In fact they get far far more strident in 2020 so don't expect engines to get better.
Please list all the other Subarus using the FA20 engine so that I can compare.

Its possible to have a Subaru, meet the fuel regs, and not have torque dip was the point. Pretty sure almost all subarus are derived from the fb/fa at this point.

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Stang70Fastback

Your 2009 Forester could get almost 34 MPG at 80 MPH? I find this claim to be highly suspect!

I said almost. It was about 27-28 reliably and i set cruise around 78.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

Its possible to have a Subaru, meet the fuel regs, and not have torque dip was the point. Pretty sure almost all subarus are derived from the fb/fa at this point.

They are still different engines so the point is moot. Why don't we just extend it across all internal combustion engines and call it a day?
They could just build them all with CVTs and then the dip would not even be noticed.

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

They are still different engines so the point is moot. Why don't we just extend it across all internal combustion engines and call it a day?
They could just build them all with CVTs and then the dip would not even be noticed.

It's not a moot point. You can have a 2.0 liter subaru that meets EPA standards and doesn't have a torque dip.... this motor is unique, even when compared to other boxers by the same manufacturer. That's the whole point.

[Stang70Fastback]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

I said almost. It was about 27-28 reliably and i set cruise around 78.

If a salesman sold you a car that got "almost 34 MPG highway," and it wound up only getting 27 MPG highway, I'll bet you'd be pretty fucking pissed if fuel economy had been a major part of your decision process, lol. Class Action Lawsuits have happened for significantly more accurate instances of "almost" than that!

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Stang70Fastback

If a salesman sold you a car that got "almost 34 MPG highway," and it wound up only getting 27 MPG highway, I'll bet you'd be pretty fucking pissed if fuel economy had been a major part of your decision process, lol.

I was pretty happy because I'm sure those foresters are rated at like 25. Brz isnt even rated to 34.

Point being is good gas mileage can be obtained with no torque dip.

[Stang70Fastback]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

I was pretty happy because I'm sure those foresters are rated at like 25. Brz isnt even rated to 34.

Point being is good gas mileage can be obtained with no torque dip.

My point was that 27 MPH is not "almost" 34 MPG, lol.

Also keep in mind that this is a very different engine technology from your 2009 Forester, what with dual fuel injection and whatnot. It's not exactly an apples-to-oranges comparison. I don't disagree, though. At the very least they probably could have just met the stated 30 MPG Highway figures of the BRZ, rather than exceeding them, and dialed back that torque dip, and I would have still been happy.

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Stang70Fastback

My point was that 27 MPH is not "almost" 34 MPG, lol.

Also, I don't disagree with you, but keep in mind that this is a very different engine technology from your 2009 Forester, what with dual fuel injection and whatnot. It's not exactly an apples-to-oranges comparison.

You're right!! Current subarus can achieve great mileage without torque dip though too.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

It's not a moot point. You can have a 2.0 liter subaru that meets EPA standards and doesn't have a torque dip.... this motor is unique, even when compared to other boxers by the same manufacturer. That's the whole point.

You are correct they are unique and that is the point. So how many are NA with direct and port injection? Just because it is the same base does not mean they all are the same. You figure the engineers were just lazy, stupid or didn't care for these engines?

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

You are correct they are unique and that is the point. So how many are NA with direct and port injection? Just because it is the same base does not mean they all are the same. You figure the engineers were just lazy, stupid or didn't care for these engines?

I could be wrong but I think all the current na 4s have direct injection now. And no, derived from does not mean same....

Just saying, this motor is unique in a way that is noticeable, and noticeably panned.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

I could be wrong but I think all the current na 4s have direct injection now. And no, derived from does not mean same....

Just saying, this motor is unique in a way that is noticeable, and noticeably panned.

most have DI, but I don't think they have a dual Direct/port injection system ala Toyota's D4S system.