4 cylinder cars

[Eurasianman]

Originally Posted by Saber_TRD

Came here to say that. Stock it's 260HP, 260ft-lbs. With the factory Stage 1 it's 280HP, 320 ft-lbs. LNF engine FTW.

Love my 'Balt, wish it was RWD, but I still love the thing.

Heh. I loved the performance, just not the issues that came with the car. Oh, and torque steer in the car was a bitch!

Originally Posted by jflogerzi

Just raise max rpm in second gear to hit 60. Ecu tuners can do this

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Should have came like this from the factory IMO.

[dori.]

Originally Posted by hmong337

3sge beams was what I was pleaing for even when this car was still in its concept stages. I was never kinned to the fact that they wanted and ultimately stuffed a stupid boxer in to the car. In some ways, I still ain't. In fact, I never liked boxers at all due to their over complexity in making just a puny little 4 banger. But I guess Toyota liked it that much that they went ahead with it.

In my perfect world, it would've been better to have stuck an all aluminum 2.0L 2zz-GE style motor into the car at the expense of some handling. Even an all aluminum 3gse beams would've done the job.

I still find it sad that even after 10+ years of development, the fa20 with it's high compression and direct/port injection, it still only puts out 200hp. Dammit, if talking strictly Toyota, the beams engine did that back in 1998!

people always make this lopsided argument about other, previous 2.0 Liter engines having high specific output (BEAMS, F20C,etc). Understand that there's no way those engines could meet the updated emissions and fuel economy requirements of today's engines. It's almost a miracle that the FA20 makes 100 hp/liter and still gets decent fuel economy and is as driveable as it is. The only other cars that hit the 100 HP/ liter mark (or surpass it) are high end cars like Porsche, Ferrari, Mercedes

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

I said COG being thought of as the biggest performance triumph is marketing BS.

Also, I'm not even sure how this inline vs flat debate came up. I was stating I just think Toyota could have done better than the fa20.

I don't understand these people that keep chiming in with their 2 cents on my comment. Do any of you really think the fa20 is some great accomplishment and no other engine would have been better on the twins?

How do you manage to forget what you've written over the course of a single post? You stated that the lower c.g. of flat engines is not worth the effort compared to inline or v engines. This is pretty much the ONLY reason to choose a boxer engine, of course people are going to chime in when you deny physics.

People keep posting because there really aren't too many engines comparable, current and recent I4's either sacrifice fuel economy for performance, are lackluster, or wouldn't meet current emissions (Miata, S2000, those Toyota engines you bring up) not to mention the higher c.g. Other flat engines are either lackluster NA or are too expensive and V6's are heavy and expensive. Sure a better engine could have been made to suit your needs but this engine suits the needs of many.

Name a naturally aspirated 2.0L engine produced today and sold in America that makes similar power and fuel economy and you might get someone on your side. Deny it all you want, the FA20 is an accomplishment, maybe not a very big one compared to history but there isn't much to compare it to on the market today.

[f0rge]

Ford has got a bunch of inline 4's that trump the FA20's output

the 1.6L in the Fiesta ST makes 197hp but 214tqs
the 2.0L in the Focus ST makes 252hp and 270tqs
the 2.3L in the 2015 mustang will apparently make 300+hp

I would take any of these engines in my car in a heartbeat. Despite the Focus' 500lbs weight disadvantage it's still faster than the FR-S.

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

How do you manage to forget what you've written over the course of a single post? You stated that the lower c.g. of flat engines is not worth the effort compared to inline or v engines. This is pretty much the ONLY reason to choose a boxer engine, of course people are going to chime in when you deny physics.

People keep posting because there really aren't too many engines comparable, current and recent I4's either sacrifice fuel economy for performance, are lackluster, or wouldn't meet current emissions (Miata, S2000, those Toyota engines you bring up) not to mention the higher c.g. Other flat engines are either lackluster NA or are too expensive and V6's are heavy and expensive. Sure a better engine could have been made to suit your needs but this engine suits the needs of many.

Name a naturally aspirated 2.0L engine produced today and sold in America that makes similar power and fuel economy and you might get someone on your side. Deny it all you want, the FA20 is an accomplishment, maybe not a very big one compared to history but there isn't much to compare it to on the market today.

I think you are missing the point I was making. Only reason the flat 4 came up was because that is what Toyota claimed was the motivation for the Subaru partnership.

I don't think center of gravity has no value, but I believe there is a point of diminishing returns. Did this car really need to beat the cayman's cog number? Would a small sacrifice to that for the benefit of a more reliable or more potent engine been better? (I for one think so)

So, you honestly believe the FA20 is the best engine for this car and people who FI or find other ways to increase power are doing it wrong? Please lets get off this protect the twins bs. There is no reason this car needed to be a 2.0L and I never said throw some other currently in development engine in there.

All I said was I think twins would have benefited from Toyota developing a better engine that is either more reliable or has better output. If people disagree with that statement than so be it, but don't put words into my mouth like I'm stating something ridiculous.

[jarviz]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

You think that a flat 4 is lighter than an equivalent inline 4?

what? i meant how would you get an additional 40-50hp without forced induction? not comparing inline vs flat 4

[jarviz]

Originally Posted by Eurasianman

2008-2010 Cobalt SS turbocharged with GM Stage 1 (manufacturer option/does not affect warranty) 2.0L @ 280HP. Does that count? :P

Side note, I am pretty happy with the power from the FA20. Just wish 2nd gear (manual) would be a bit taller to hit 60 MPH (Seriously stops at 59 MPH! WTF?! )

it's turbocharged... so no.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

So, you honestly believe the FA20 is the best engine for this car and people who FI or find other ways to increase power are doing it wrong?

There is no reason this car needed to be a 2.0L and I never said throw some other currently in development engine in there.

All I said was I think twins would have benefited from Toyota developing a better engine that is either more reliable or has better output.

1. Yes, no. The goal was a NA motor that was responsive, they delivered on that goal and I think they did a good job. I also think that the aftermarket is providing splendidly, the engine isn't perfect but is rather stout.

2. Yes there is, many countries have a higher tax on engines sized over 2.0 Liters. America isn't the only market and it's cheaper to develop one power plant than several.

3. That is not all you said. You said this:

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

I guess you missed my post about how I think COG is just marketing BS. Do you really believe a small change in COG is that important or that an inline 4 would change the COG that drastically?

And then referenced engines that could never be sold today due to emissions standards or would have poor fuel consumption. I don't mind that you think they can do better than the FA20, they probably can. I mind that you're making claims against physics and reality. The more we talk about this the more I realize just how damn special the FA20 is as I search for a viable alternative.



P.S. Porsche put out a 2.0L flat six in 1969 in a production car that was rated at 190 hp while meeting emissions at the time and getting near 20 mpg. That's my go to comparison.

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

1. Yes, no. The goal was a NA motor that was responsive, they delivered on that goal and I think they did a good job. I also think that the aftermarket is providing splendidly, the engine isn't perfect but is rather stout.

2. Yes there is, many countries have a higher tax on engines sized over 2.0 Liters. America isn't the only market and it's cheaper to develop one power plant than several.

3. That is not all you said. You said this:


And then referenced engines that could never be sold today due to emissions standards or would have poor fuel consumption. I don't mind that you think they can do better than the FA20, they probably can. I mind that you're making claims against physics and reality. The more we talk about this the more I realize just how damn special the FA20 is as I search for a viable alternative.



P.S. Porsche put out a 2.0L flat six in 1969 in a production car that was rated at 190 hp while meeting emissions at the time and getting near 20 mpg. That's my go to comparison.

The quote you quoted me on was me generalizing. I wasn't saying COG doesn't matter, I was saying the change in COG between using a flat vs inline is marketing BS. If COG matters so much what about weight distribution? The twins are 53/47 less than ideal.

Anyways, I'm not sure where you keep getting this whole talk about putting in old engines in the twins. I never made any such claims. I also love the fact you say come up with an engine that meets US emissions, but then talk about the 2.0L restriction for tax purposes in Europe.

You can believe the fa20 is special all you want to, but that is your opinion and my opinion differs. Also, why not ask the people with blown engines how stout this motor really is?

Here let me break down my OPINION in bullet points (Notice that I never once said FACTS in any of my posts, so I'm not sure where I'm going against physics or reality, when I state my preferences):

-Would have gladly paid more for better engine
-Would have gladly traded some COG for better engine
-Better engine to me would be:
-More power
-More reliable
-or Both

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

I also love the fact you say come up with an engine that meets US emissions, but then talk about the 2.0L restriction for tax purposes in Europe.

You can believe the fa20 is special all you want to, but that is your opinion and my opinion differs.

I think we're coming to an understanding quite well, just my remaining thoughts.

Yes I pointed out that the FA20 meets emissions and tax targets in different parts of the world with minor tweaks. Are you proposing they should have designed different engines for different regions?

In your opinion the FA20 is not special but there currently exists no comparable NA engine on the market. Is this a correct statement?

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I think we're coming to an understanding quite well, just my remaining thoughts.

Yes I pointed out that the FA20 meets emissions and tax targets in different parts of the world with minor tweaks. Are you proposing they should have designed different engines for different regions?

In your opinion the FA20 is not special but there currently exists no comparable NA engine on the market. Is this a correct statement?

No, I don't think they should have made different engines for different regions. I was just saying your are filtering the number of engines to pick from quite a bit by placing all these restrictions, that I never put on the car. I never said it had to be 2.0L or an inline. It could have been anything Toyota wanted to dream up. You know direct injection helps with emissions and these older engines didn't use it.

Anyways, you made another assumption. I never said there was another engine on the market I'd rather have nor did I point to another engine from the past. I just stated I would have preferred Toyota to develop the engine and the tuning to go with it.

Again nothing is wrong with the FA20. I'm fine with the car and the engine, but if I could have changed something in the development of the car that would be it and I would sacrifice cost and cog to achieve it.

[STJ]

SR16VE N1 in the JDM Pulsar VZR N1 made 200 PS/7800rpm(125.3PS/l)
18.5kgm/7600rpm(11.6kgm/l). Most powerful production NA 1.6 ever!

[Frost]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

No, I don't think they should have made different engines for different regions. I was just saying your are filtering the number of engines to pick from quite a bit by placing all these restrictions, that I never put on the car. I never said it had to be 2.0L or an inline. It could have been anything Toyota wanted to dream up. You know direct injection helps with emissions and these older engines didn't use it.

Anyways, you made another assumption. I never said there was another engine on the market I'd rather have nor did I point to another engine from the past. I just stated I would have preferred Toyota to develop the engine and the tuning to go with it.

Again nothing is wrong with the FA20. I'm fine with the car and the engine, but if I could have changed something in the development of the car that would be it and I would sacrifice cost and cog to achieve it.

Isn't COG what makes this car special? I would sacrifice just cost.

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by Frost

Isn't COG what makes this car special? I would sacrifice just cost.

Haha, well I'm not saying I want this car to turn in to a SUV. I just don't buy into the 1-2" difference in COG would change the dynamics of the car by that much and would be a worthy sacrifice to raise reliability or power output.

I guess there is no reason Toyota couldn't have come up with a flat 4, but realistically they would have probably just developed an inline 4.