What is your prediction on FT86 power and Subaru 086a power?

[OldSkoolToys]

Enough to make the car fun to drive.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by 86Fan

You don't know the cost of the engine nor the cost of it producing an extra 10 lb-ft. It's simple as that. That is why your prediction of being "more realistic" is baseless. Your so-called trends don't hold up like I already showed you with the IS350 example.

Sure the IS350 example illustrates that the same base engine with DI (and possibly better tuning and other tweaks) can get 8-9 ftlbs/L more. That's all well and good, but [1] that DI engine is only used in more expensive vehicles (supporting my point), [2] smaller engines so far have received less of a bump in specific torque than the IS350's, and [3] no cheap engine has ever gotten 85 ftlbs/L (even JDM, which often gets better stuff than the US).

Originally Posted by 86Fan

You wrote 70-75 lb-ft/L is more realistic and anything above that is a expensive motor.

Yes, I wrote that above 75 ftlbs/L is "generally expensive" as I'm not aware of any cheap NA cars that make more than that, with or without DI.

Originally Posted by 86Fan

You clearly said this is also a cheap motor so you clearly don't believe that it can hit 160 lb-ft. Therefore, don't try to say it's "possible" when clearly said otherwise.

On page 2 I wrote: "160 ftlbs is possible, but unlikely since it'd be costly". Can you please show me where I "clearly said" it's not possible for it to hit 160 ftlbs?

Originally Posted by 86Fan

Stop trying to back track.

If anything, I've expressed my opinion even more strongly: In my 2nd post I wrote "I would be surprised if it attains the 85 ftlbs/L (in NA trim) that you predicted" and then I later stated it more definitely, writing "there's no way it'll be 170 ftlbs". Additionally, I'm standing by my initial 150 ftlbs prediction.

Believe it or not, I actually hope you're right as 85 ftlbs/L out of a cheap NA 2.0L would be amazing. And there's no reason for you to be so aggressive in your responses towards me just because I think your 85 ftlbs/L prediction is unrealistic.

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

What if it was 160ftlbs? Who wins? 86fan or Deslock? lol

We would both be equally right... or both wrong, depending on your point of view

Originally Posted by scape

they both donate the 10$ ;d
I'm in for 155 torque, my charity is 'friends of caroline hospice'

i think we should do this price is right style, closest without going over. else everyone will be writing and mailing checks...maybe that's a good thing

LOL, good luck getting FT86 to agree to that.

Originally Posted by scape

just to get an idea of what d4-s might change for the regular 2.0L NA subaru h4 engine; I looked up what it has done to preexisting engines.

http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/tech/env...rtrain/engine/

looking at the GR engine family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_GR_engine, which many of them already use this technology (starting in 2004 it seems) a prediction might be able to be pulled out of the numbers already known by comparing non-d4-s engines to their similar counterpart. (FSE is the engine with D4-s) (hp/ft-lbf)

2gr (3.5L) FE(268/248) FSE(311/278) +43HP/30ft-lbf

3gr (3.0) FE(228/221) FSE(252/231) +24HP/10ft-lbf

5gr (2.5) FE(194/179), 4gr (2.5) FSE(212/192) +18HP/13ft-lbf

as we can see, the benefits of d4-s are lower in smaller engine types, but does appear it may bump a 2.0L engine by around 5-10 HP, 10-15 ft-lbf from stock, these of course are not H4 boxer engines but rather V6's..

so the 2.0L NA stock boxer engine puts out around 150HP as is, and a little less in torque.
however, there is a jdm version of this engine that has AVCS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCS and puts out 190HP; I also can barely find info on this engine (EJ20(r?) with AVCS in naturally aspirating form).

so where does that leave things for speculation sake of what d4-s might improve upon these already designed subaru engines?
a 170HP/165ft-lbf engine
OR the possibility of
a 195-200HP(no idea on torque)

Interesting post, though since 165 ftlbs would require a 10 ftlbs/L increase and the US market often gets detuned versions compared to JDM, I'm not optimistic we'll see anything that high.

[OldSkoolToys]

I'd say any speculation is educated guessing at best, and hopeful if not mislead optimism at worst. Basically, its moot.

They keep saying this engine is "unique" to the FT-86. Ie: it is not currently a boxer that is in production.

There's an article that was quoted on this site (different thread) that stated pretty simply that Toyota has put a lot of their own engineering into the powerplant, which pretty much negates any comparison's with older boxer engines, imho. Originally I believe people were thinking that subaru was doing most the leg work and Toyota was only throwing in their fuel injection system. Looks like Toyota has done a bit more than just that.

All of that aside, it is an engine designed from scratch, made specifically for this chassis, for this car, and for its purpose. To say this HP number isn't possible for this budget, and vice versa, is pretty pointless.

All we can go by is that they stated they want the power range to be ~200, so, yeah....thats my prediction. Probably 200ps. So, what...180hp?

[Richardcranium419]

Off topic...
After I get it, 500-600 hp.

[86Fan]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Sure the IS350 example illustrates that the same base engine with DI (and possibly better tuning and other tweaks) can get 8-9 ftlbs/L more. That's all well and good, but [1] that DI engine is only used in more expensive vehicles (supporting my point), [2] smaller engines so far have received less of a bump in specific torque than the IS350's, and [3] no cheap engine has ever gotten 85 ftlbs/L (even JDM, which often gets better stuff than the US).


Yes, I wrote that above 75 ftlbs/L is "generally expensive" as I'm not aware of any cheap NA cars that make more than that, with or without DI.


On page 2 I wrote: "160 ftlbs is possible, but unlikely since it'd be costly". Can you please show me where I "clearly said" it's not possible for it to hit 160 ftlbs?


If anything, I've expressed my opinion even more strongly: In my 2nd post I wrote "I would be surprised if it attains the 85 ftlbs/L (in NA trim) that you predicted" and then I later stated it more definitely, writing "there's no way it'll be 170 ftlbs". Additionally, I'm standing by my initial 150 ftlbs prediction.

Believe it or not, I actually hope you're right as 85 ftlbs/L out of a cheap NA 2.0L would be amazing. And there's no reason for you to be so aggressive in your responses towards me just because I think your 85 ftlbs/L prediction is unrealistic.


We would both be equally right... or both wrong, depending on your point of view


LOL, good luck getting FT86 to agree to that.


Interesting post, though since 165 ftlbs would require a 10 ftlbs/L increase and the US market often gets detuned versions compared to JDM, I'm not optimistic we'll see anything that high.

When does the word cheap equal generally expensive? You clearly do not believe this engine can attain beyond 150 lb-ft. So please place your wager on the engine not hitting 160.

Additionally, I'm standing by my initial 150 ftlbs prediction.
Good. Then place your bet on anything higher than that. Keep in mind I never said that my prediction couldn't go below 170. However, you clearly said this is a cheap motor which clearly shows your position that the engine will not go above 150 lb-ft.

I already explained that the IS350 motor is shared inside the toyota family ranging from Camry's to Rav's. You have yet to show me how this motor is more expensive other than DI. There are also no examples of DI motors in Boxer's, thus you can't formulate a principal saying that it won't increase to 160 lb-ft unless you can show me how much this engine would cost.

You have yet to prove to me that your prediction is more realistic.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by 86Fan

Don't you then think it is possible for the FT to hit 160 lb-ft with DI and reworked internals?

Originally Posted by Deslock

160 ftlbs is possible, but unlikely since it'd be costly.

Originally Posted by 86Fan

tell me how can this motor able to get to 160 lb-ft and be cheap and generally expensive at the same time?

Originally Posted by Deslock

Subaru may have made cost cutting innovations allowing for higher specific torque output, which is why I wrote that 160 is possible. But again, I think it's unlikely to be that high and I can't see how they could make 85 ftlbs/L available at this price point.

Originally Posted by 86Fan

You clearly said this is also a cheap motor so you clearly don't believe that it can hit 160 lb-ft. Therefore, don't try to say it's "possible" when clearly said otherwise. Stop trying to back track.

Originally Posted by Deslock

On page 2 I wrote: "160 ftlbs is possible, but unlikely since it'd be costly". Can you please show me where I "clearly said" it's not possible for it to hit 160 ftlbs?

Originally Posted by 86Fan

You clearly do not believe this engine can attain beyond 150 lb-ft.

Wow

[86Fan]

lol you still don't make sense when you say it's a cheap motor and still able to attain 160 lb-ft when you said...

Originally Posted by Deslock

NA piston engines that get above 70-75 ftlbs/L are generally expensive.

Originally Posted by Deslock

It's unlikely to be that high in a cheap NA 2.0L.

lol... cheap does not equal expensive. You have yet to show what kind of cost cutting measures are taken on the engine.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

I'd say any speculation is educated guessing at best, and hopeful if not mislead optimism at worst.

I couldn't agree more:

Originally Posted by Deslock

In the end, all of our predictions are just educated guesses.

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

They keep saying this engine is "unique" to the FT-86. Ie: it is not currently a boxer that is in production.

There's an article that was quoted on this site (different thread) that stated pretty simply that Toyota has put a lot of their own engineering into the powerplant, which pretty much negates any comparison's with older boxer engines, imho. Originally I believe people were thinking that subaru was doing most the leg work and Toyota was only throwing in their fuel injection system. Looks like Toyota has done a bit more than just that.

All of that aside, it is an engine designed from scratch, made specifically for this chassis, for this car, and for its purpose. To say this HP number isn't possible for this budget, and vice versa, is pretty pointless.

All we can go by is that they stated they want the power range to be ~200, so, yeah....thats my prediction. Probably 200ps. So, what...180hp?

Thanks for the information on the engine's development. Though doesn't 200ps = 197hp? I'd be more than happy with that.

[86Fan]

Originally Posted by Deslock

I couldn't agree more:




Thanks for the information on the engine's development. Though doesn't 200ps = 197hp? I'd be more than happy with that.

Yet with all this engine development you still say 150 more realistic than 160.

If you agree it's an educated guess then it's not "more realistic". It's a guess unless you can provide the facts.

[FT///R86]

Based on all the rumors and information on the supossed D-4S or C-4S. 200ps can be achieved from the 2.0L boxer. It will have a high redline above 7,500RPM that is for sure. Im not to sure about the torque numbers though. I think 150-160 is acurate considering that the current EJ in the low end non-turbo 2.5 Imprezas are 170hp and 170lb/ft. With the lowered displacement and obvious higher compression the torque numbers will fall. When you factor the direct injection and all the other technology 190-200hp and 150-160 lb/ft is not a bad guess. On the topic of cost, this supposed engine will be shared among Toyota and Subaru so they will naturally produce variants that will fill the engine bays of other cars. This would theoretically lower costs for both. Until we see the engine bay of the FT we wont know for sure. I hope Toyota decide to bring it to the LA Auto Show. Maybe they will leak more info. For those familiar with Boxer engines are the EJ motors twin cam or quad cam? What is the proper term since there are two banks?

[ichitaka05]

Usually called twin cam. Haven't heard quad cam in any Subie forums before.

And yes, I pray that FT86 will come to LA auto show too.

[FT///R86]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Usually called twin cam. Haven't heard quad cam in any Subie forums before.

And yes, I pray that FT86 will come to LA auto show too.

I'm hoping they release more info since it's only the beginning of the Tokyo Motor Show. If not I'm going to have to wait until December to see it in person, that is if Toyota decide to bring it over to LA.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by FT///R86

I'm hoping they release more info since it's only the beginning of the Tokyo Motor Show. If not I'm going to have to wait until December to see it in person, that is if Toyota decide to bring it over to LA.

Hm... If they are bring it to LA, I'm gonna take some days off work and go to LA Motor Show!

[86Fan]

Nearly 2 years ago.

The prediction for the 2l specs is pretty close based on the info out there from car magazine. Hope official specs will be listed soon.

So much for going cheap!