New FR-S BRZ Technology Info! Engine specs, CoG, Drag Coefficient, Dimensions, etc.

[serialk11r]

It's what he's expecting, not what was published. I don't really agree that it can be that high.

[Gardus@Supersprint]

Ah ok...I'm with you, it's very hard to pass 110 nm/liter.
The best I've seen from a "almost stock" engine was a 2010 clio RS fully decatted and mapped, with 221 nm.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by Gardus

Where did you find the 170 lb-ft value? I've read 150 everywhere...

205 NM is on the leaked datasheet; this converts to 151 LbFt. The confusion lies with the magazines making estimates. The problem is, working with Japanese engineers, they will never refute statistics pre-release or confidential that would make them look bad, so when Motor Trend et al ask "will it have 170 LbFt?", the engineers will not say no.

At this point, I'll trust the leaked datasheet far more than the usually-wrong magazine guesses.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

205 NM is on the leaked datasheet; this converts to 151 LbFt. The confusion lies with the magazines making estimates. The problem is, working with Japanese engineers, they will never refute statistics pre-release or confidential that would make them look bad, so when Motor Trend et al ask "will it have 170 LbFt?", the engineers will not say no.

At this point, I'll trust the leaked datasheet far more than the usually-wrong magazine guesses.

You know what, I just thought about this...what if the datasheet was leaked on purpose to throw us off on the HP and Torque. Maybe we will be surprised 14 days from now?

[keiri]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

You know what, I just thought about this...what if the datasheet was leaked on purpose to throw us off on the HP and Torque. Maybe we will be surprised 14 days from now?

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Gardus

Where did you find the 170 lb-ft value? I've read 150 everywhere...

Motor Trend said something that they didn't disagree with their 170 lb-ft guess. And Car and Driver puts it at 170 as well.

I'm predicting 168 lb-ft, and the 151 @ 6600 rpm is showing that it maintains 90% of peak torque at that point. (more details in the engine tech thread...)

The torque numbers for this car will be the make or break, as well as more relevant to keep secret. If Hyundai anticipates 151 lb-ft @ 6600, they'll leave their Veloster or GenCoupe turbos alone believing that it'll take the FT86 in a straight line. If they anticipate 168 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm, they may crank up the boost to ensure it has an edge.

Think of it as trying to be a close second at the last corner, to draft for the win...

As for the training brochure, it's something that Toyota knows that they will have to circulate early, before they feel is appropriate for the final specs. So in a situation between giving real figures to the sales staff and having to deal with compromised information, the staff may be briefed on "it makes 151 lb-ft from 3000-6600 rpm", like VAG started with their turbos. This part is obviously speculation but the history of the BEAMS 3SGE and 2GRFSE lead me to believe that 168 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm is achievable.

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Motor Trend said something that they didn't disagree with their 170 lb-ft guess. And Car and Driver puts it at 170 as well.

I'm predicting 168 lb-ft, and the 151 @ 6600 rpm is showing that it maintains 90% of peak torque at that point. (more details in the engine tech thread...)

The torque numbers for this car will be the make or break, as well as more relevant to keep secret. If Hyundai anticipates 151 lb-ft @ 6600, they'll leave their Veloster or GenCoupe turbos alone believing that it'll take the FT86 in a straight line. If they anticipate 168 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm, they may crank up the boost to ensure it has an edge.

Think of it as trying to be a close second at the last corner, to draft for the win...

As for the training brochure, it's something that Toyota knows that they will have to circulate early, before they feel is appropriate for the final specs. So in a situation between giving real figures to the sales staff and having to deal with compromised information, the staff may be briefed on "it makes 151 lb-ft from 3000-6600 rpm", like VAG started with their turbos. This part is obviously speculation but the history of the BEAMS 3SGE and 2GRFSE lead me to believe that 168 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm is achievable.

2013 genesis 2.0t is now 271hp and 275 ft/lbs torque. If they can keep the weight at 3294 pounds, that's a power to weight ratio of 12.15 to 1. And it has a 8 speed automatic or 6 speed manual.

The reason why I bring it up is because the price is supposedly gonna be the same...$22k base.

Even though there is no real completion to the ft86, the genesis coupe 2.0t is the closest.

There is no way they are going to price the FRS/BRZ at $28k. I have always said $24k for the high-spec trim 6 speed manual, I am going to stick with that.
And a fully loaded BRZ 6 speed manual will be cheaper than a base WRX.

I am hoping the real engine specs are 220hp and 170 ft/lbs torque

[DIG1992]

different angle

[PAImportTuner]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

2013 genesis 2.0t is now 271hp and 275 ft/lbs torque. If they can keep the weight at 3294 pounds, that's a power to weight ratio of 12.15 to 1. And it has a 8 speed automatic or 6 speed manual.

The reason why I bring it up is because the price is supposedly gonna be the same...$22k base.

Even though there is no real completion to the ft86, the genesis coupe 2.0t is the closest.

There is no way they are going to price the FRS/BRZ at $28k. I have always said $24k for the high-spec trim 6 speed manual, I am going to stick with that.
And a fully loaded BRZ 6 speed manual will be cheaper than a base WRX.

I am hoping the real engine specs are 220hp and 170 ft/lbs torque

x2

Also 220/170 would save me and I feel a lot of others having to spend $8k to upgrade to the STI variant for more power. But I know the specs already and this would not be possible without ECU tuning or factory redesigned bolt-ons at this point, which to me is stupid because that means adding other aftermarket parts or reflashing will have little effect if the factory already improved the stock design, for someone who wants 220whp/170wtq instead of bhp like me this is not good but for out of the box it's great.

[Marrk]

^^Is 210/160 possible?

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by PAImportTuner

x2

Also 220/170 would save me and I feel a lot of others having to spend $8k to upgrade to the STI variant for more power. But I know the specs already and this would not be possible without ECU tuning or factory redesigned bolt-ons at this point, which to me is stupid because that means adding other aftermarket parts or reflashing will have little effect if the factory already improved the stock design, for someone who wants 220whp/170wtq instead of bhp like me this is not good but for out of the box it's great.

Source?

You keep posting about how you know all this information but never reply when someone asks you for a source.

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Source?

You keep posting about how you know all this information but never reply when someone asks you for a source.

Indeed.

I assumed that PA had established his bona fides. If he has not, let's have 'em, please. :happy0180:

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Marrk

^^Is 210/160 possible?

200/170 is possible based on D4-S and friction reduction gains on the auto-tuned 3S BEAMS motor.

The GT5 220/170 numbers are possible with those gains applied to the more aggressively tuned manual 3S BEAMS motor. Possibly the STI or 'R' version will have numbers like GT5.

Just wait and watch.

[Gardus@Supersprint]

I have a friend at Alientech here in Italy, they work on decoding the new ECU units and sell the hardware and software for the remap to various tuner.
I think that if I buy the car I'll let him give a look at it...