BRZ STi tS Confirmed. Teased on Official Website

[Jawnathin]

HP/L is a pretty useless metric, doesn't mean a thing as it relates to performance. Generally it refers to a torqueless small displacement motor.

I think this was just a way for folks with tiny motors to have a bragging right stat. Even if they were down 100hp compared to another bigger motor to begin with, somehow they could claim a 'win'. When in the real world, it doesn't mean a thing.

Output in consideration of physical dimensions (or weight) is much more important.

[chanomatik]

Originally Posted by jcX4ever

Look at the car not just the engine..

The twins are good considering they are light, low COG, affordable, big trunk space for 4 wheels, additional +2 seats, rwd, arguably good looking, handles better than most car... etc.. name them.

Again, it is a package deal here not just the engine that we are looking at because the engine is not a good engine if you put that in a bus, a heavy truck etc..

Those reasons are why I like the car and own it. Now I'm more confused because it seems like people are putting down just the engine. I honestly don't think Toyota and Subaru were kidding when they said they were going back to basics with these cars. It might be why if you take any one piece of these cars away, they're not impressive because there's always something better, but, like you said, as an overall package, it all works REALLY well.

I also argue that something else will ALWAYS be better, which is why I appreciate these cars don't care to be the best at any one thing. They're just really good on the whole.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by Jawnathin

HP/L is a pretty useless metric, doesn't mean a thing as it relates to performance. Generally it refers to a torqueless small displacement motor.

Something something Ferrari 458.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

So if the FA20 is nothing special why are people excited about it? Mostly because Boxer and DI? It's won awards already and gained recognition, so I guess I'm confused as to why you guys aren't celebrating the return of 100HP/L that's been dead for nearly 20 years? Are we saying we just don't care for that anymore or what? These are legit questions. I'm trying to figure out where you guys are coming from. I'm 29 and only been into Subaru vehicles since about 2007. I are slow and learning everything backwards-ish. haha

Dead for 20 years? Honda's been doing it from 1988 to current. Check out the 8th generation Civic SI. Or the last RSX-S. Both are 200hp 2.0L.

The S2000 is a 2.0/2.2L with 240hp.

The only impressive part is that the FA20 does 200hp at less RPM (albeit, not by much) compared to the K20 and 3SGE BEAMS.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Jawnathin

HP/L is a pretty useless metric, doesn't mean a thing as it relates to performance. Generally it refers to a torqueless small displacement motor.

I think this was just a way for folks with tiny motors to have a bragging right stat. Even if they were down 100hp compared to another bigger motor to begin with, somehow they could claim a 'win'. When in the real world, it doesn't mean a thing.

Output in consideration of physical dimensions (or weight) is much more important.

Honda is the only "budget" manufacturer with a lot of "torqueless" engines.

Bmw M engines, Porsche NA engines, and Ferrari NA engines all come to mind... low displacement high revving engines, that all produce minimal torque.

We won't bash a BMW S65 for having no torque, but N54/N55 owners harp about it all day.

I like great transient response. If HP/size/weight mattered, we'd all be driving turbo rotaries.

[chanomatik]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Dead for 20 years? Honda's been doing it from 1988 to current. Check out the 8th generation Civic SI. Or the last RSX-S. Both are 200hp 2.0L.

The S2000 is a 2.0/2.2L with 240hp.

The only impressive part is that the FA20 does 200hp at less RPM (albeit, not by much) compared to the K20 and 3SGE BEAMS.

You guys were talking about cars specifically from the 1980's, is where that comment came from. I was just asking why we're comparing old tech vs new tech.

I thought the whole appeal of the Boxer motor was that it's balanced?

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

You guys were talking about cars specifically from the 1980's, is where that comment came from. I was just asking why we're comparing old tech vs new tech.

I thought the whole appeal of the Boxer motor was that it's balanced?

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The boxer engine is a type of flat engine in which each of a pair of opposing cylinders is on a separate crank throw, offset at 180° to its partner: if the pistons lie on the same axis then the design is inherently balanced for the momentum of the pistons, otherwise the design has reciprocating torque (also known as a 'rocking couple') due to the cylinder axes being offset.

That being said, all engines are harmonically balanced (via various methods). Otherwise they'd destroy themselves.

[jcX4ever]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

Those reasons are why I like the car and own it. Now I'm more confused because it seems like people are putting down just the engine. I honestly don't think Toyota and Subaru were kidding when they said they were going back to basics with these cars. It might be why if you take any one piece of these cars away, they're not impressive because there's always something better, but, like you said, as an overall package, it all works REALLY well.

I also argue that something else will ALWAYS be better, which is why I appreciate these cars don't care to be the best at any one thing. They're just really good on the whole.

Because the engine can still be made better basing from the fact that 100hp/L is old and not special anymore. The S2k F20C is making 120hp/L or more and people have seen this long time ago and they are expecting more from what is offered now.... and as of now, Toyota and Subaru is still milking on the 200hp output. Their market strategy is so obvious.. milk out all the hardcore fans to buy the 200hp version then release the FI or high revving version if sales plummet then hope that those hardcore fans who bought the 200hp version will buy again (trade etc)..

Remember, Toyota has a history of releasing engine at a lower output on the first versions. For example, the 4AGE, check out the history of that engine's evolution. Another is the 3SGE, many versions and tweaks, from mediocre power output to something. The only thing that did not follow the same faith is the 2zz-ge since there are no other version released.

I don't know the faith of the FA20 but as I can see it, at 86mm stroke, you can still rev that shit higher than what you have now. The only thing they are waiting is, if the sales drop then.. there.. a higher HP will come out either by revving more of it or with FI.

[Jawnathin]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

Something something Ferrari 458.

The difference is that the 458 actually makes decent power. Its the fact it makes 562hp is what makes the engine great, not its HP/L.

That is different from a Civic fanboy broadcasting his self proclaimed superiority with his 100hp/L B16 and its 160hp.

I'll take a 200hp 2.5L engine over a 160hp 1.6L engine any time. HP/L be damned.

[Jawnathin]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Honda is the only "budget" manufacturer with a lot of "torqueless" engines.

Bmw M engines, Porsche NA engines, and Ferrari NA engines all come to mind... low displacement high revving engines, that all produce minimal torque.

We won't bash a BMW S65 for having no torque, but N54/N55 owners harp about it all day.

I like great transient response. If HP/size/weight mattered, we'd all be driving turbo rotaries.

There are other reasons why the engines mentioned here, along with other HP/L motors are indeed good. But it isn't because they have high HP/L. And on the other end, a 563hp 6.2L V8 isn't a bad engine because it can't hit a 100hp/L.

My point is that using HP/L itself is not an indication of a good engine. A 100hp/L engine is still gutless and the car is still slow if all it makes is 160hp.

My other point is that packaging is more important than the displacement volume inside of an engine. HP/L is an arbitrary metric while engine volume or weight per HP is an objective and real metric.

But just like HP/L, there are other factors to be mindful of too. The rotary is a good example of a case where both its HP/L and volume or weight/hp were good (and even remarkable) but had issues elsewhere which were compromises.

[jcX4ever]

Originally Posted by Jawnathin

. The rotary is a good example of a case where both its HP/L and volume or weight/hp were good (and even remarkable) but had issues elsewhere which were compromises.

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

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

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

[spdfreak]

Wow... lookie what I missed in a week.

[Pete156]

Originally Posted by jcX4ever

Honda B16A 1.6L at over 160hp

Toyota 4AGE(20v) 1.6L at over 160hp
It think in INITIAL D he was using the Atlantic formula edition.. 240hp out from 1.6L and that's 150hp per liter at 11.5k rpm

Honda B18C? 1.8L at over 180hp

Toyota 3SGE 2.0L at over 200hp

Nissan SR16VE 1.6L at over 170hp

Nissan SR20VE 2.0L at over 200hp

then.. later the Honda F series.. The Toyota 2zz.. etc.. These are just Japanese engines listed.. Try searching European engines.

I'm guessing you're very young.

I was 32 in 1988, kiddo.

So only ONE engine produced these numbers more than 25 years ago, and it was in a 1989 car. Correct? CSG Mike seemed to make it sound like 100hp/Liter car engines were a dime a dozen in 1988. Motorcycles yes, cars no.

Just trying to keep the stats real.

[jcX4ever]

Originally Posted by Pete156

I was 32 in 1988, kiddo.

So only ONE engine produced these numbers more than 25 years ago, and it was in a 1989 car. Correct? CSG Mike seemed to make it sound like 100hp/Liter car engines were a dime a dozen in 1988. Motorcycles yes, cars no.

Just trying to keep the stats real.

But still, 24 years ago is long ago.. lots of FRS/BRZ drivers weren't even born yet that time and the 100hp/L were already there. That should make it ancient on their point of view.

I think the point is, 100hp/L is not mind blowing nowadays because a corolla or civic sometimes even get those.

Anyways, I am still disappointed that the STi isn't more powerful than the rest.