4 cylinder cars

[Saber_TRD]

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?! )

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.

[jflogerzi]

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?! )

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

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

[Jegan_V]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

I'm not sure why people think I don't like the twins. I wouldn't have bought one if I didn't. There is nothing wrong with the twins, I'm just stating my opinion on what I think would have been better.

I think the car would have been better with a different engine regardless of it being an inline or flat layout. If it had a bit more power and/or better reliability.

Given that I'm not sure how the miata fits the bill and I do have a bias against convertibles, which make the s2k a no go. I think the only car that would be comparable to what I'm looking for would be the cayman, which we all know cost more than double the price of the twins.

The flat engine doesn't have any obvious benefits seen in numbers instead they're felt. Lowering the center of gravity has been the main thing that flat engines do better. By lowering the center of gravity you not only reduce the amount of roll but particularly on a car like this it means Toyota and Subaru don't have to tune the suspension so tightly allowing for better ride comfort without compromising handling. This is generally why when there's a Evo vs. STi battle, the Subaru is often the more daily driver friendly of the cars.

When I heard they were going with a flat engine, for me that was bonus points. I didn't understand the benefits of a flat engine...until I owned one. I'll happily trade some power in favour of less body roll and a nicer ride. Of course that's just me, I can't tolerate an uncomfortable car. I'm not sure why people rag on Subaru NA engines, I currently drive one and my engine is now 10 years old and has done sufficient mileage, but it still runs like a champ. It doesn't even leak to my surprise.

[993Fan]

Originally Posted by chrisl

I thought most big rigs used inline 6s...

I think you're right, based on a google search you made me do!

I was chatting with a trucker a few months ago who had a 4 cyl diesel but that appears to be an exception.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Jegan_V

The flat engine doesn't have any obvious benefits seen in numbers instead they're felt. Lowering the center of gravity has been the main thing that flat engines do better. By lowering the center of gravity you not only reduce the amount of roll but particularly on a car like this it means Toyota and Subaru don't have to tune the suspension so tightly allowing for better ride comfort without compromising handling. This is generally why when there's a Evo vs. STi battle, the Subaru is often the more daily driver friendly of the cars.

When I heard they were going with a flat engine, for me that was bonus points. I didn't understand the benefits of a flat engine...until I owned one. I'll happily trade some power in favour of less body roll and a nicer ride. Of course that's just me, I can't tolerate an uncomfortable car. I'm not sure why people rag on Subaru NA engines, I currently drive one and my engine is now 10 years old and has done sufficient mileage, but it still runs like a champ. It doesn't even leak to my surprise.

i dont think thats the case at all. i wouldnt be surprised if the sti has a higher cog due to its awd drivetrain.

i dont know why people care about specific output. power is power.

[hmong337]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Every car made is about having the engineering/design align up with budget constraints and manufacturing capabilities. Sure, a high output I-4 can be made... but at what cost? Toyota had no such engine in its arsenal and wasn't willing to make one. Subaru felt they can do it and can benefit from a modified FA20T in the Forester (and other cars).

Everyone wins.

In the end... be glad the car was built. A lot of projects like this get canned even before the car leaves the auto show floor as a concept.

-alex

Ummmm... 3sge beams. Stop talking outta your ass

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by hmong337

Ummmm... 3sge beams. Stop talking outta your ass

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_S_engine"]Toyota S engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

My ass has spoken. 3SGE "BEAMS" was last made in 2005, if you count the RWD Altezza 4-cylinder as a "BEAMS" engine.

-alex

[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!

[hmong337]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Toyota S engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My ass has spoken. 3SGE "BEAMS" was last made in 2005, if you count the RWD Altezza 4-cylinder as a "BEAMS" engine.

-alex

And you don't think Toyota could've made something similar if not the same during the ft86 development? I wouldn't be silly and dismiss that they couldn't pull a newly developed beams motor outta their closet... Which they should have!

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by hmong337

And you don't think Toyota could've made something similar if not the same during the ft86 development? I wouldn't be silly and dismiss that they couldn't pull a newly developed beams motor outta their closet... Which they should have!

Toyota can make anything they want, but you're missing the point here.

Given the current state of global emissions requirements, and Toyota's position as a leader in hybrid technology, do you realistically think an investment in a new high output 4-cylinder engine is in Toyota's best interest?

I'm not being silly, I'm following the money trail that Toyota corporate has taken over the last 5 years.

But hey, if you want to keep dreaming about a 3SGE or 3SGE replacement from Toyota, be my guest. There's also all these other BRZ guys begging for a STi version too, you can join their club.

-alex

[Tromatic]

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?

Yeah, physics is just a lie! Think of the money we can save by ignoring it. Don't tell anyone, though. There's still much money to be made before we let on.

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

Given that I'm not sure how the miata fits the bill and I do have a bias against convertibles, which make the s2k a no go. I think the only car that would be comparable to what I'm looking for would be the cayman, which we all know cost more than double the price of the twins.

Odd that the FR-S/BRZ has been favorably compared to the Cayman. Any guesses as to why that might be? Something similar in their design goals? Physical characteristics, maybe? Hint, it's probably not marketing BS. Says a lot about the people who designed the car that it gets mentioned in the same sentence as a Porche. I think you can claim to be the first one to lay the faults of the FR-S (real or not) on "marketing BS", though. That's strong work.

Toyota should have gone to Yamaha and asked them to tweak the Subaru engine.

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by Tromatic

Yeah, physics is just a lie! Think of the money we can save by ignoring it. Don't tell anyone, though. There's still much money to be made before we let on.



Odd that the FR-S/BRZ has been favorably compared to the Cayman. Any guesses as to why that might be? Something similar in their design goals? Physical characteristics, maybe? Hint, it's probably not marketing BS. Says a lot about the people who designed the car that it gets mentioned in the same sentence as a Porche. I think you can claim to be the first one to lay the faults of the FR-S (real or not) on "marketing BS", though. That's strong work.

Toyota should have gone to Yamaha and asked them to tweak the Subaru engine.

I don't think I ever called the twins marketing BS. I said COG being thought of as the biggest performance triumph is marketing BS. As others have stated before on this thread the COG does not result in any tangible or quantitative advantage. Yes the feel might change, but the difference between going inline vs. flat wouldn't be a big change. 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.

You think the twins being favorably compared to the cayman is due to it having a lower COG? Are you serious? The only advantage the twins have against the cayman is price and its ability to have fun at low speeds. You somehow make it seem like if the twins used any other engine somehow the cars dynamics will drastically change.

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? I love the car, but lets be serious. I'm not even bashing the car yet all these people feel like they need to defend it.

[DarkSunrise]

I don't know where this idea that changing CG height won't affect performance came from, but it's wrong. Differences in CG height will affect more than "feel", they'll also affect performance in a measurable and important way.

Every vehicle has a center of gravity (CG), a hypothetical point that sums up its constituent masses—engine, body, chassis, and cup holders—in one handy location. When we report weight distribution, you can infer the CG’s location in the fore-and-aft direction—in other words, the weight share borne by each axle. The problem is that those wheel loadings, interesting as they may be, are variable. As soon as the car moves, the forces of inertia inflict dramatic changes. Enter CG height: The lower it is, the less wheel loading shifts to the front during braking, to the rear during acceleration, and to the outside wheels during cornering. Racing engineers strive for the lowest-possible CG height because a set of tires delivers maximum traction—and therefore optimal perform­ance—when each tire carries its fair share of the total dynamic load.
CG height will help you grasp why one supercar is able to trounce a similarly powerful and lightweight rival. Dynamically speaking, it is one of the most important differences between a svelte sports sedan and a hulking sport-utility. Total weight, CG height, and its fore-and-aft location are the Matthew, Mark, and Luke of  handling-performance secrets.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/new-car-and-driver-center-of-gravity-height-and-variable-slalom-tests-feature

The effects of weight transfer are proportional to the height of the CG off the ground. A flatter car, one with a lower CG, handles better and quicker because weight transfer is not so drastic as it is in a high car.

http://phors.locost7.info/phors01.htm

The CG is important because the amount of weight that shifts is proportional to how high off the ground the center of gravity is. For a car on a flat surface, the amount of weight that is transferred is given by:

http://www.stockcarscience.com/blog/index.php/why_the_car_won_t_turn_1

[BRZ21]

there was an amazing thread on this topic. wish it never died. hopefully you guys will revive it:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39707