V6 vs. Flat 4 Boxer

[chulooz]

The torque curve isnt the cause of snap oversteer, dont know why you keep mixing power with handling.

The power thing is an ongoing debate i suppose; its just that the platform has so much potential.

At least you recognize turbo curves can rival NA, or thats what i took the no comment as.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Thunderchicken

BMW designed the motor with help from there F1 designers so lots of money was involved.

I personally think 151 torque is great from a 2.0 no other 2.0 that is N/A has more, Honda had 143 from the KA20A2.

I don't know why I waste my breath with people who don't drive, never driven and probably with never own this car and just don't understand that a car doesn't need to have gobs and gobs of power to be fun to drive, so just go back to playing your GT5 or Forsa.

I own a 2.0L car with 140tq+ and mods and weigh 2700 lbs so I guess I don't have a fucking clue? Why so bent out of shape for? Just because one thing feels great for you it must feel great for someone else? You might think another car doesn't have enough torque and I might like it. Its just preference and I am not hating on the FRS or BRZ.

Also the S2000 2.0L had a smidge more torque fyi.

[Thunderchicken]

Originally Posted by chulooz

The torque curve isnt the cause of snap oversteer, dont know why you keep mixing power with handling.

The power thing is an ongoing debate i suppose; its just that the platform has so much potential.

At least you recognize turbo curves can rival NA, or thats what i took the no comment as.

Turbo curves of what you call flat are from small turbos and aren't that flat, in fact as the turbo reaches its peak the torque begins to drop off.

Snap oversteer is induced from how well the chassis handles sudden inputs from the brakes and throttle. If the chassis is setup neutral and you give the car a big braking input followed by a big throttle input the car will oversteer, but if the sudden on set of torque is too much the car can go in to snap oversteer. However in order to prevent this from happening they dial in more understeer.

Yes this chassis has tons of potential but was setup in such a way that it rewards the driver when things are done right. It teaches the new/older driver how to feel what the car is doing and understand what it is doing and how to re-act before you get in to trouble.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Thunderchicken

Turbo curves of what you call flat are from small turbos and aren't that flat, in fact as the turbo reaches its peak the torque begins to drop off.

Snap oversteer is induced from how well the chassis handles sudden inputs from the brakes and throttle. If the chassis is setup neutral and you give the car a big braking input followed by a big throttle input the car will oversteer, but if the sudden on set of torque is too much the car can go in to snap oversteer. However in order to prevent this from happening they dial in more understeer.

Yes this chassis has tons of potential but was setup in such a way that it rewards the driver when things are done right. It teaches the new/older driver how to feel what the car is doing and understand what it is doing and how to re-act before you get in to trouble.

that can be a cause of snap oversteer but it isnt snap oversteer. it is the result of a nonlinear suspension response to linear suspension loads. rapid undesired changes in one or more of any particular suspension radically changes the amount of grip at each corner of the car. it can also be cause by steering inputs or road conditions. its not the brakes or engines fault otherwise every car would have what we call snap oversteer

[Thunderchicken]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I own a 2.0L car with 140tq+ and mods and weigh 2700 lbs so I guess I don't have a fucking clue? Why so bent out of shape for? Just because one thing feels great for you it must feel great for someone else? You might think another car doesn't have enough torque and I might like it. Its just preference and I am not hating on the FRS or BRZ.

Also the S2000 2.0L had a smidge more torque fyi.

I'm not bent out of shape. But the S2000 only had 2 more ft/tq more than the FA20 in the AP1 form, but since people begging for more torque, Honda increased the displacement at a loss of horsepower to appease the masses for the need of more torque.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Thunderchicken

I'm not bent out of shape. But the S2000 only had 2 more ft/tq more than the FA20 in the AP1 form, but since people begging for more torque, Honda increased the displacement at a loss of horsepower to appease the masses for the need of more torque.

I thought it was still rated at 240hp with the 2.2? Where did you see lost of power? On a dyno with the two cars on the same day?

[Thunderchicken]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I thought it was still rated at 240hp with the 2.2? Where did you see lost of power? On a dyno with the two cars on the same day?

The AP1 was rated at 240/153 while the AP2 was 237/162

[Opposed]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I thought it was still rated at 240hp with the 2.2? Where did you see lost of power? On a dyno with the two cars on the same day?

It was. In fact, the F22's actually made about 5-15whp more than the F20's.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Thunderchicken

I'm not bent out of shape. But the S2000 only had 2 more ft/tq more than the FA20 in the AP1 form, but since people begging for more torque, Honda increased the displacement at a loss of horsepower to appease the masses for the need of more torque.

yeah lets go ask the s2k community how much better the ap2 is over the ap1

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Thunderchicken

The AP1 was rated at 240/153 while the AP2 was 237/162

I believe the AP1 was under the old hp system and the AP2 was under the new one. I forgot what they called it? STD to SAE?

[ichitaka05]

Going off topic? Oh~ add me to the off topic talk lol

[Sleeperz]

If you need quick acceleration you have to use the transmission, lower gears and higher RPMs.

Road & Track, July 2012 issue, pg. 89.

At 7400 rpm the speeds in each gear are respectively:

1: 35 mph (too much commotion in town)

2: 58 mph

3: 83 mph (you could be in trouble)

4: 105 (you're probably going to jail)

5: 127 (do you have a lawyer?)

6: 135 (estimated at 6000 rpm, so I assume it's drag limited)

RPM at 60 mph in top gear: 2700

Originally Posted by GT-ROKIN

I know many of you have experience the power of a V6.

Today on my way to classes on the highway (Meadowbrook Parkway) i was in the extreme left lane doing about 65mph in my 2000 Nissan Maxima and realized that i was coming up on my exit fast with a few cars in the other 2 lanes parallel to me. Panicked.... i punched the accelerator, the V6 respond with tremendous power, enabling me to cut over both lanes and make my exit.

Then i question my self- will my new car be this fun? its not a V6? what will it be capable of?

only way to find is to ask!

Do you miss the Power of a V6?
Is the Boxer Engine Comparable with a V6?
How Responsive is the engine when trying to pass or cut in and out of traffic?

Whats your take on the Boxer Engine? (Positive or Negative)

[m.wood0213]

Originally Posted by Sleeperz

If you need quick acceleration you have to use the transmission, lower gears and higher RPMs.

Road & Track, July 2012 issue, pg. 89.

At 7400 rpm the speeds in each gear are respectively:

1: 35 mph (too much commotion in town)

2: 58 mph

3: 83 mph (you could be in trouble)

4: 105 (you're probably going to jail)

5: 127 (do you have a lawyer?)

6: 135 (estimated at 6000 rpm, so I assume it's drag limited)

RPM at 60 mph in top gear: 2700

RPM at 60 mph in top gear: 2000 in the A/T version. If you want fuel economy the A/T is the way.

[Captain Snooze]

Nice resurrection.