BRZ STi tS Confirmed. Teased on Official Website

[Allch Chcar]

It only takes 20 years to be considered a classic.

The FA20 was built with a mind towards clean emissions. Toyota has their "environmentalist" credentials to consider. Hence the Toyota D4S system under the squidcap instead of the Subaru Direct injection system. If they had wanted to build a higher output engine or a turbocharged engine they very well could have.

The peak HP isn't as important as the torque curve anyway. And the FA20 has good torque for an engine of this displacement. Better than any Honda.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by jcX4ever

Your whole point is good but your example is wrong. The Rotary engine 3 phase/stage/cycle which are the Intake, compression/ignition and Exhaust.

Um, without a power stroke, the engine can't make any, um, POWER. Rotary is indeed a 4-cycle engine with intake, compression, POWER, and exhaust cycles.

If they say 1.3L displacement, it is not. It is actually 1.3L x 3 = 3.9L (at least arguably)..

No no no. Some people suggest that, not because of three "phase/stage/cycles", but because of the three-lobed rotors, thinking that they all go through the 4-cycles each crank rev. But the rotors spin at 1/3 crank speed, so only one chamber goes through all 4-cycles each crank rev.

The 3 phase/stage/cycle happens all at the same time. Unlike in a regular engine, it will only be doing 1 phase/stage/cycle at a time.

No, the rotors do NOT go through all cycles at the same time. As the rotor spins, it goes through intake, compression, POWER, and exhaust cycles in order. How on earth could that all happen at the SAME TIME? There is some overlap of cycles, but then there also is in a 4-stroke piston engine (intake blends into compression, with intake valves still slightly open even as the piston starts to come up, exhaust stroke blends with intake as both valves are open at the same time around TDC).

So a 3.9L making 255hp is OK but not the greatest.

It's not a "3.9 liter". It is a 1.3 liter engine that aspirates its full displacement every crank rev (as opposed to 4-stroke piston engines that require two crank revs to aspirate their displacement).

TL;DR.. a displacement in Rotary/wankel engine does not equate or reperesent the regular 4 stroke engine displacement.. (at least arguably)

Like 2-stroke piston engines, the rotary does have an inherent power production advantage per displacement because they both aspirate their full displacement every crank rev, where 4-stroke piston engines require two rull crank revs. This doesn't quite amount to a 2x advantage, though, more like 1.5x. RX-8 engine vs. F20C is a good example. both make about the same power (F20C a bit more), the RX-8's rotary making it with 1.3 liters vs. the F20C's 2.0.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

It only takes 20 years to be considered a classic.

The FA20 was built with a mind towards clean emissions. Toyota has their "environmentalist" credentials to consider. Hence the Toyota D4S system under the squidcap instead of the Subaru Direct injection system. If they had wanted to build a higher output engine or a turbocharged engine they very well could have.

The peak HP isn't as important as the torque curve anyway. And the FA20 has good torque for an engine of this displacement. Better than any Honda.

I can give you 1000 lb/ft torque if you give me a few 2x4's. Think I can push a car faster than 140mph?

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by ZDan

It's not a "3.9 liter". It is a 1.3 liter engine that aspirates its full displacement every crank rev (as opposed to 4-stroke piston engines that require two crank revs to aspirate their displacement).

It's usually classed as a 2.6L compared to the standard piston engine. You can argue that the true displacement is 1.3L all day but it's a piston world. For all intensive purposes, it's a 2.6L engine.

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

I can give you 1000 lb/ft torque if you give me a few 2x4's. Think I can push a car faster than 140mph?

You're still thinking peak, just peak torque instead of peak power. It's all about the duration, hombre.

What is this thread even about anyway?

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

The peak HP isn't as important as the torque curve anyway. And the FA20 has good torque for an engine of this displacement. Better than any Honda.

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

You're still thinking peak, just peak torque instead of peak power. It's all about the duration, hombre.

Work over time.... is horsepower.

[jcX4ever]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

The peak HP isn't as important as the torque curve anyway. And the FA20 has good torque for an engine of this displacement. Better than any Honda.

Not entirely correct. It all depends on what application and goal you want. For example, F1 cars.. they have a serious horsepower relative to their mediocre torque (but that 250-290ft/lb peaks at around 14k rpm). Now compare this to a truck that peaks 250-290ft/lbs at 2000 rpm.. different applications changes what is important.

If you want to win rolling races in the freeway, an engine with peak torque at higher RPM (6500 rpm) should win you more than an engine with peak torque at lower rpm (2000 rpm) -- this assuming that both engine are rated the same power and have around 12lbs/hp power to weight ratio. The engine that has a peak torque at higher rpm also gives you higher trap speed and top speed and longer power band (at high rpm).

However, an engine that has a peak torque at low rpm is better at towing, hauling or rock climbing application. Probably will get a better 0-60ft head start but are usually slow in accelerating at high speed.

Remember that HP is a function of Torque.. so where ever the torque peaks, the HP curve is always affected.. HP and TQ will always meet at 5252 rpm.. (using lbs, ft, hp .. as units of course).

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

It's usually classed as a 2.6L compared to the standard piston engine. You can argue that the true displacement is 1.3L all day but it's a piston world. For all intensive purposes, it's a 2.6L engine.

It's a 1.3 for most intents and purposes. Only 4stroke pistonheads with inferiority complexes insist on calling it a 2.6, or even more incorrectly a 3.9. Nobody ever called a 250cc 2-stroke a "500cc", neither should the 1.3 rotary be called a "2.6".

The 2-stroke and the rotary both have the advantage of aspirating their full displacement every crank rev. It would make more sense to refer to a 2.0 4-stroke piston engine as a 1.0 liter than to call a 1.3 rotary a 2.6, or a 250 2-stroke a 500.

In both the 2-stroke and the rotary cases, thermal and other issues don't quite give them the 2x advantage, though. It's more like 1.5x, a bit less, really. A 1.5x equivalency factor (1.5x1.3 => 2.0) for competition purposes would make more sense than a 2x factor (2.6), to be as fair as possible. But it's still physically a 1.3.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by ZDan

It's a 1.3 for most intents and purposes. Only 4stroke pistonheads with inferiority complexes insist on calling it a 2.6, or even more incorrectly a 3.9. Nobody ever called a 250cc 2-stroke a "500cc", neither should the 1.3 rotary be called a "2.6".

The 2-stroke and the rotary both have the advantage of aspirating their full displacement every crank rev. It would make more sense to refer to a 2.0 4-stroke piston engine as a 1.0 liter than to call a 1.3 rotary a 2.6, or a 250 2-stroke a 500.

In both the 2-stroke and the rotary cases, thermal and other issues don't quite give them the 2x advantage, though. It's more like 1.5x, a bit less, really. A 1.5x equivalency factor (1.5x1.3 => 2.0) for competition purposes would make more sense than a 2x factor (2.6), to be as fair as possible. But it's still physically a 1.3.

I'm not saying anything that disagrees with the fact that it does in fact displace 1.3L or that it is a 2-stroke. I know that 2-stroke tend to make 1.5x the power of a 4 stroke with the same displacement. I'm just saying that for racing they tend to classify it as a 2.6L engine.

Call it an offhand comment.

[Stigmaru]

So where is the REAL Brz STi?

you know the version where they lower the weight through using more carbon fiber and tuning the engine to get an extra 20-40 hp? I don't care about turbo and i'm fine with NA... just give me a legitimate STi instead of one that is just full of cosmetic "upgrades"

[chanomatik]

Originally Posted by AeroWRX

So where is the REAL Brz STi?

you know the version where they lower the weight through using more carbon fiber and tuning the engine to get an extra 20-40 hp? I don't care about turbo and i'm fine with NA... just give me a legitimate STi instead of one that is just full of cosmetic "upgrades"

"Cosmetic" implies you see it, whereas these actually have performance upgrades with parts that aren't seen. You know, like suspension. Also, bigger brakes help with brake fade over the course of tracking. Wider tires that are sticky will actually get your car to stop. Therefore the Brembos are functional as well, even in an "underpowered" BRZ.

You're talking about a "fantasy" BRZ STI until further notice.

[Pete156]

Originally Posted by AeroWRX

So where is the REAL Brz STi?

It's in my garage (just don't tell anyone)

[AznBRZer]

Originally Posted by AeroWRX

So where is the REAL Brz STi?

In my pants.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

"Cosmetic" implies you see it, whereas these actually have performance upgrades with parts that aren't seen. You know, like suspension. Also, bigger brakes help with brake fade over the course of tracking. Wider tires that are sticky will actually get your car to stop. Therefore the Brembos are functional as well, even in an "underpowered" BRZ.

You're talking about a "fantasy" BRZ STI until further notice.

Lol, gimme a break man. The stock brakes are more than enough for track duty. All you need are track pads. And guess what, even with these fancy Brembo's you'll still need track pads...that won't come standard from the factory.

[Jive Turkey]

^ THIS.

people think because you have more piston/surface area etc etc fancy 4 pots you can now brake harder. well guess what, you can cook the OEM brakes just as fast as you can cook stock brembo'sc i've seen it happen to cocky people all the time, people think brembo's make you invincible.

there is no replacement for good pads, SS lines, and fluids.