Car and Driver is F-ing Stupid

[Cal3000]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Well you said it couldn't be 2500 lbs because of crash safety, and yet there's the miata under 2400 lbs. The Fiat Abarth is a 2+2 with a hatch under 2600 lbs and the Fiesta ST is a fucking four door hatchback that weighs less than an 86 with 200hp and a lower price tag to boot, none are criticised for a 'punishing' ride and all are in the price range of an 86 or cheaper.

Not to mention Lotus and Alfa Romeo building lightweight two doors at a higher price with no problems meeting safety regs.

Where did I make a comparison to an 86? All I'm saying is lightweight performance cars that are nice to drive on the street are not impossible to build. Apologies that wasn't evident.

Ford and American cars are pretty cheap here. That's a cheating comparison. :P
I mean $33K for a 435hp Mustang GT. Only $5K more than a twin. lol

[Poodles]

Originally Posted by venturaII

Well that's a real interesting talent you have then, because your comments are almost verbatim with the article. I can't wait to read about the FT86 in another 25 years - I'm sure Wikipedia will say Tada REALLY wanted the 300 horsepower STi motor, but it was Toyota/Subaru brass who held him back... <rolleyes>

Where do you think Wikipedia gets their info? It has references and sources listed for that reason.

Originally Posted by Toroll

Fun Fact.

7000 rpm is very low for a car that has 86mm stroke. The stroke is usually what determines the rev limit. Shorter strokes can rev higher than longer stroke. The reason being is, PISTON SPEED limit.

Examples:
The 2zz in other cars are set to rev at 8,600rpm. It has 85mm stroke.
The K20 can easily rev att 8,300 rpm. Yes it is also 86mm bore x86mm stroke like the FA20.

The FA20 stroke will allow it to rev past 8,000 rpm but wasn't tuned to do that.

So no, Toyota/Subaru did not give any effort to make the FA20 to rev high even though the stroke already allows it.

2ZZ and K20 have two cam profiles to keep the air flowing at that RPM. Variable valve timing can't duplicate that effect, sadly.

Originally Posted by strat61caster

The Miata has always been regarded as unsafe. I'ts never safety rated in the US, and it's deemed "adequate" by European tests.

Now compare that to the twins being top safety picks...

[prj3ctm4yh3m]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

As a side question, is there something about the H4/flat-four configuration that explains why it isn't as eager to rev like an inline 4?

there seems to be. all the porsche non-GT flat sixes run a similar redline with a much shorter stroke (~78.5mm ish). 7400rpm on 86mm seems to be atypically high for a flat motor.

the GT3 has titanium rods and who knows what else going on to get that extra 1000 rpm..super long decks and high rod/stroke ratio?

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Poodles

The Miata has always been regarded as unsafe. I'ts never safety rated in the US, and it's deemed "adequate" by European tests.

Now compare that to the twins being top safety picks...

NHTSA gave the NB a 4/5 stars back in the day, if the new ND was unsafe it wouldn't be on the road, cars get denied certification every once in awhile, like the Fiat Abarth I mentioned that needed chassis re-design to meet US crash testing requirements.

Less safe? I won't argue.
Unsafe? Well the people paid to honestly assess that don't think so.

[EAGLE5]

God damn. The biggest troll thread I've ever started, and I didn't even mean to troll.

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by Poodles

Where do you think Wikipedia gets their info? It has references and sources listed for that reason.
...

In order for GM executives to have watered down something, it had to first exist. Every single test mule and prototype used the same front wheel drive X body platform for chassis and transmission. The original test motors were 1.8 liter iron 4 cyls, similar to those being developed for the upcoming J body fwd cars, and even crappier performing than the Iron Duke they finally used. There was never a V6 anywhere in the design or development stage for the car, at any point in time. Maybe Aldikacti wished he could get a budget to develop a non-existent engine from scratch, in addition to a platform to carry it, and I'm sure that sentiment meets all kinds of approval at Fiero club meetings, but that's not what 'designed' means. It's fantasy and hindsight.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by Poodles

2ZZ and K20 have two cam profiles to keep the air flowing at that RPM. Variable valve timing can't duplicate that effect, sadly.

Seems like none of the D-4S equipped Toyota engines have variable valve lift.

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

Some people are still upset that this car wasn't 2500lbs with 250hp for $21,000.

Well, to be fair, that was what was teased by Subaru and Toyota during development, whether directly or indirectly. A non-turbo subaru motor in a sports car is unprecedented and I believe the base WRX was making 225 horses at the time so at least that much was expected. If I recall correctly, sub-2500 lbs was specifically mentioned and it was to be under 25 grand, which they hit but only on the base model and they didn't deliver the rest of what they promised. Basically, they wrote a check they couldn't cash when they should have just shut up and brought the still very good car that they made to market absent of any unrealistic teasers or promises.

Originally Posted by Cal3000

At 9psi boost on 91, the engine could last as long as stock. That's good for 250whp. Slap a CARB kit on it and you are good.

And that's exactly what should happen.


And I can't find it now but whoever was talking about beefing up the car being too difficult, look at the 6L50 transmission that GM just put in the diesel colorado. Albeit its an auto, but they took the 6L45 and bumped its torque rating by 100 ft-lbs with nothing but internal work. Then they threw it in a truck and rated it to to almost 8000 pounds, and nobody is complaining of failures or saying it makes them nervous. If this isn't possible on our transmissions, they should have left more room in the tunnel during design for a stronger one. That shows that they chose to optimize this car as it is instead of take a small weight penalty to make a more powerful car with a still acceptable weight possible in the future. Some people are probably happy about this. I'm not. Its shows lack of foresight and the killing off of a lot of potential in exchange for a rather small benefit.

Also, I agree on the vast GM parts bin but Nissan's is nothing special anymore and the 370Z isn't exactly on the leading edge of technology. in the 90's, their stock NA Z transmission was shared with the skyline and the turbo Z and they're all holding up in 700 horse drag cars even today. However, this technology is somewhat dated and the fact is Nissan doesn't make a new vehicle that utilizes a stout manual transmission other than the 370Z, which is honestly a relic that they've been too lazy to redesign or meaningfully update in far too long. If Nissan put their minds to redesign/improvement and couldn't get the Z under 3,000 lbs, if not very close, it would surprise me quite a bit. The problem is they won't, which is also why their new Titan will go the way of the old one and will only be competitive for a year or two until everyone else improves and they just stay the same.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

And that's exactly what should happen.

Nobody is stopping anyone from doing this, with used 86's sub $20k all day long and a new FI kit being ~$5k, you're a set of quality tires away from having a badass ~$25k BRZ STI with ~240 whp at 2750 lbs.

[Toroll]

Originally Posted by Poodles

2ZZ and K20 have two cam profiles to keep the air flowing at that RPM. Variable valve timing can't duplicate that effect, sadly.

The 2zz and K20 also have variable valve timing on the intake side only. VVT doesn't have to do anything with ability to rev high. Like I said, the stroke dictates how high you will rev (some other supporting components like valve spring stiffness play role too). However, revving high doesn't always mean you will make power up top. The 2nd cam profile in 2zz and k20 main role is to maintain the power climb at high RPM. Yes, the 2zz/k20 can still rev high even without VTEC or LIFT activated. The only problem is, it will not make power in high RPM using the low cam profile.

Again, the FA20 should be able to rev high because of the short stroke but it doesn't mean it will continue to make power up at high RPM. Unfortunately, stock FA20 drops power at around 7000 rpm (actually pretty impressive considering that many other engine with 1 cam profile can't do that) and it would still be nice to continue revving up to 8000rpm even if the power drops a little bit so that when you shift, you are not too close to the torque deep.

The closest comparison I can think of for FA20 is the old 2.0L 3S-GE beams (same 86mm x 86mm, both have dual VVT-i and only 1 cam profile). Toyota actually made the beams rev at 8000 rpm making stock 212hp@7500rpm and 162ft-lbs@4800rpm which is pretty impressive for an old engine.

Conclusion: There are still many ways Toyota/Subaru can do to make the FA20 make more N/A power. This is just the FA20 Gen1.. the 3S-GE and 4A-GE underwent evolution up to Gen 5. I really do hope that the FA20 will not follow the faith of the 2zz-ge which only have 1 version. Next thing we know, FA20 gets Toyota valvematic.. baaaam! 260hp N/A.

[EAGLE5]

Will somebody ban Mr. "ToROLL"?

[darthpnoy1984]

Originally Posted by Toroll

The 2zz and K20 also have variable valve timing on the intake side only. VVT doesn't have to do anything with ability to rev high. Like I said, the stroke dictates how high you will rev (some other supporting components like valve spring stiffness play role too). However, revving high doesn't always mean you will make power up top. The 2nd cam profile in 2zz and k20 main role is to maintain the power climb at high RPM. Yes, the 2zz/k20 can still rev high even without VTEC or LIFT activated. The only problem is, it will not make power in high RPM using the low cam profile.

Again, the FA20 should be able to rev high because of the short stroke but it doesn't mean it will continue to make power up at high RPM. Unfortunately, stock FA20 drops power at around 7000 rpm (actually pretty impressive considering that many other engine with 1 cam profile can't do that) and it would still be nice to continue revving up to 8000rpm even if the power drops a little bit so that when you shift, you are not too close to the torque deep.

The closest comparison I can think of for FA20 is the old 2.0L 3S-GE beams (same 86mm x 86mm, both have dual VVT-i and only 1 cam profile). Toyota actually made the beams rev at 8000 rpm making stock 212hp@7500rpm and 162ft-lbs@4800rpm which is pretty impressive for an old engine.

Conclusion: There are still many ways Toyota/Subaru can do to make the FA20 make more N/A power. This is just the FA20 Gen1.. the 3S-GE and 4A-GE underwent evolution up to Gen 5. I really do hope that the FA20 will not follow the faith of the 2zz-ge which only have 1 version. Next thing we know, FA20 gets Toyota valvematic.. baaaam! 260hp N/A.

Maybe give Yamaha that engine work on those heads and compression ratio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Da Brz]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

And that's exactly what should happen.


And I can't find it now but whoever was talking about beefing up the car being too difficult, look at the 6L50 transmission that GM just put in the diesel colorado. Albeit its an auto, but they took the 6L45 and bumped its torque rating by 100 ft-lbs with nothing but internal work. Then they threw it in a truck and rated it to to almost 8000 pounds, and nobody is complaining of failures or saying it makes them nervous.

I feel the same. I've seen companies do it so many times that I just can't imagine it stumping a company like Toyota.


And, like you say, if the transmission really is so special/fragile that it couldn't handle it or would need an entire re-engineering effort, than boo on Toyota.

[Toroll]

Originally Posted by darthpnoy1984

Maybe give Yamaha that engine work on those heads and compression ratio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FA20 already have high static CR at 12.5:1 (thanks to direct injection); compare this to 2zz's 11.5:1 and most k20 at 11.5:1 (11.7:1 for some type R application).

That alone is an advantage and a good recipe for a high revving N/A. You need a high static CR so that at high RPM the dynamic CR will still be high.