SCOOP: Subaru didn't want D4S (and neither do I)

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by Kostamojen

I was just about to post this :p

I've been trying to find the dyno chart (subaru supplied chart from the .jp webpage) for that engine, but I don't think I saved it

At one point I was about to try and import one of those motors...

i heard that motor was pretty bad, not performance bad..but consumer bad. Like it had the shittiest economy and emissions for a 2.0 4cyl.

This is the only information i can come up with..

EJ204D AVCS (most specifically the BP/BL - Legacy/Liberty 2.0R)
Displacement: 1994 cc
Bore: 92.0 mm
Stroke: 75.0 mm
Power: 190 PS@7100 rpm
Torque: 144 ftlbs@4400rpm
Equip: AVCS (Active Valve Control System) Intake Only
Co2 Emissions: 210g/km
City MPG: 20
Combined MPG: 27.64

id like to see a dyno chart too.

[armythug]

Originally Posted by NESW20

"chasing horsepower" is not what this car is about, FYI...........

Hmmm I beg to differ. Toyota has given me the impression that this car is meant to be modified how the enthusiast wants. So in that case, chasing horsepower would be acceptable if one chose to do so.

[m_life]

Originally Posted by coyote

Thanks Toyota. Next time stick to the clay modeling and leave the engineering to the experts.

I love this quote, I really do.

At the risk of sounding like a 'fanboy' its not exactly like Subaru are engineering marvels are they

[serialk11r]

Dimman's comparison to twin injector bikes is basically the idea I think. When you only have direct injection, typically they will only put one direct injector into the cylinder for space reasons. Now there's a lot of ways you can arrange it but you can never quite get as good fuel distribution as when you have 2 injectors to play with. That's the idea Toyota is going at with D-4S, it is trying to get as even of a fuel mix as possible to reduce overall emissions, and in particular unburnt fuel. The port injector can almost be thought of as a compromise, except it has beneficial side effects like cleaning up the intake valve, and reducing low load emissions more effectively.

If you're chasing power, assuming the ECU is tunable then this is a great thing, as you basically don't need to swap injectors until you are pushing >>300hp (let's say conservatively, 2.5 times stock max fuel requirement). Either fueling system is capable of running the engine alone. Every bit of gas that goes into the cylinder via a high pressure direct injector rather than a port injector is GOOD.

[youngxlos]

Great thread, keep the good info coming, have you guys heard of FORDs ECOBOOST engines? They are also DI and boosted, compression is at 10.0:1 though, but the logic they use is that they spray a mist of fuel to each cylinder to cool it down to avoid detonation at those compression levels, pretty cool technology if you ask me.
ECOBOOST article

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by coyote

I'd be happy with proper DI.

What do you define as "proper DI"?

You're making the article out to be more confrontational and emotional than it really is. If Subaru honestly had a problem getting free technology out of the deal, the FT-86 project might have been cancelled. Now they've got access to Toyota's 2nd gen DI for their Fx16 and Fx20 turbo engines so they can maintain competitiveness with the rest of the worlds engine manufacturers. How is this a problem?

It seems the only real concerns here are either the ECU might be encrypted because it's Toyota's, or that some tuners lack the engine calibration strategy knowledge to competently tune DI setups.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

i heard that motor was pretty bad, not performance bad..but consumer bad. Like it had the shittiest economy and emissions for a 2.0 4cyl.

This is the only information i can come up with..

EJ204D AVCS (most specifically the BP/BL - Legacy/Liberty 2.0R)
Displacement: 1994 cc
Bore: 92.0 mm
Stroke: 75.0 mm
Power: 190 PS@7100 rpm
Torque: 144 ftlbs@4400rpm
Equip: AVCS (Active Valve Control System) Intake Only
Co2 Emissions: 210g/km
City MPG: 20
Combined MPG: 27.64

id like to see a dyno chart too.

Exactly. Which is why my second post cited that 197hp for a 2l itself is child's play. People have done better than that for over a decade. However Subaru has never done that with the presumed fuel economy ratings.

[ft86Fan]

“saddle-shaped” 50-litre lightweight resin fuel tank

This is interesting. Will the “saddle-shaped” tank also have the effect of "baffles" to prevent fuel starvation under high g-load?

[PAImportTuner]

Correct, but subtract AWD and 800lbs, add lighter rotational mass and redesigned manifolds and you'll get that 200hp @ 35mpg without DI.

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

i heard that motor was pretty bad, not performance bad..but consumer bad. Like it had the shittiest economy and emissions for a 2.0 4cyl.

This is the only information i can come up with..

EJ204D AVCS (most specifically the BP/BL - Legacy/Liberty 2.0R)
Displacement: 1994 cc
Bore: 92.0 mm
Stroke: 75.0 mm
Power: 190 PS@7100 rpm
Torque: 144 ftlbs@4400rpm
Equip: AVCS (Active Valve Control System) Intake Only
Co2 Emissions: 210g/km
City MPG: 20
Combined MPG: 27.64

id like to see a dyno chart too.

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by PAImportTuner

Correct, but subtract AWD and 800lbs, add lighter rotational mass and redesigned manifolds and you'll get that 200hp @ 35mpg without DI.

wouldn't that still make the engine shitty?..Just because its 200hp on a lighter chassis and drivetrain...does that mean its viable?

I dunno...sounds kinda moot. Granted the EJ204 & EJ204D are miles ahead of the original EJ20.

Sounds like FA20 is still win vs EJ204D engine vs engine especially in emissions with the FA20 coming in at an estimate 130-140g/km.... I Just had wished that the FA20 came with AVLS or some sort of variable valve tech.

Id feel bad for people who would have to pay the big extra C02 tax premium if the car had came with the EJ204D.

[coyote]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

I Just had wished that the FA20 came with AVLS or some sort of variable valve tech.

Does it not use Subaru's AVCS?

[EJ20]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

wouldn't that still make the engine shitty?..Just because its 200hp on a lighter chassis and drivetrain...does that mean its viable?

I dunno...sounds kinda moot. Granted the EJ204 & EJ204D are miles ahead of the original EJ20.

Sounds like FA20 is still win vs EJ204D engine vs engine especially in emissions with the FA20 coming in at an estimate 130-140g/km.... I Just had wished that the FA20 came with AVLS or some sort of variable valve tech.

Id feel bad for people who would have to pay the big extra C02 tax premium if the car had came with the EJ204D.

Since the heads done by yamaha (which is owned by Toyota) would it be possible to see an na fa20 with dual vvti and some bump in horsepower? Just like what they did in the early 1gfe that had only exhaust vvti, then in 2010 it had dual vvti with a bump of 25hp ?

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by coyote

Does it not use Subaru's AVCS?

Not that I know of...The FB20 might....but the FA20 sounds like it doesn't have AVCS.

Originally Posted by EJ20

Since the heads done by yamaha (which is owned by Toyota) would it be possible to see an na fa20 with dual vvti and some bump in horsepower? Just like what they did in the early 1gfe that had only exhaust vvti, then in 2010 it had dual vvti with a bump of 25hp ?

I dunno if they are going to go with VVTI or Valvematic or AVCS...I kinda have the feeling that if at all..it will have Subaru Variable Valve Tech in the future. Rather VVTi even if the heads have been work on by Yamaha.

Personally id like to see a strong Valvematic system or Dual AVLS

[mrtodd]

I completely agree, in fact, i'm really bummed that it didn't come with some sort of variable valve timing to begin with. I'd prefer the vvt-i as that also has control over valve lift and duration, in addition to valve timing... Honestly though, i think it's safe to say that the addition of ANY valve control system is just wishful thinking. I really don't think toyota or subaru are going to dump any more r&d into this engine - at least as far as the brz/fr-s chassis is concerned. Maybe i'm just a pessimist..