5 Reasons You Shouldn't Care About Horsepower (As Much)

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The car could have 300HP and people would say it isn't enough and mod it for 600.
Are you trying to blame power for cars passing at 75mph? Is that the top speed you can get? Would more power help at all when doing 75? You do have a shift lever or paddles right?
DRIVE THE FUCKING THING!

I think Tcoat's point is pretty valid. With all the talk about how the FRS should have 240 hp like the F20/F22, I'm not convinced that'd be enough to be satisfying in a straight line. I remember driving an AP2 S2000 and thinking it felt pretty gutless even with the larger engine.

Hell even a 300hp 350z doesnt feel particularly fast. Having owned that and a 987.2 Boxster S (310 hp/2900 lbs), I'd say the Boxster S was about the minimum to be genuinely fun in a straight line, but then it's too fast to rip through gears on a regular basis. The long gearing doesn't help either.

From a slow car fast perspective, the FRS fits the bill pretty well for me. You can (almost have to) push it hard on a daily basis and that's what makes it fun on the street. On track, the corners are where the smiles happen anyway, and the FRS is great/balanced there.

The icing on top is the practicality of the 2+2 coupe layout (no need for roll bar on track, can carry plenty of spares/misc items, can fit kids in the rear, etc.)

The FRS isn't for everyone but I can appreciate the compromises Toyota/Subaru made to create the car it did.

[Goingnowherefast]

Originally Posted by TunaNoCrust

To attain their goals of balance, handling, packaging, etc it HAD to be a boxer style engine

No it didn't lol. Literally the BRZ's only real competitor uses an engine with the same displacement (2.0L), it has a better weight distribution (ND Miata is 50/50, GT86 is 53F/47R), is packaged in a dimensionally smaller car, and comes it at nearly 400 lbs lighter.

Car with a longitudinal non-boxer PT has the following:

Balance = Check
Handling = Check
Packaging = Check

So why again did it have to be a boxer?

Originally Posted by ROFL it's Waffle

Words words words.

Turns out words have meaning and it's worth it to read sometimes: "Many people can forgive an engine for not making loads of power if they have other qualities. The problem is the FA20 has none of the qualities that makes a good "sporty" powertrain."

Literally no one is arguing that power is the end all be all of a good engine.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast

No it didn't lol. Literally the BRZ's only real competitor uses an engine with the same displacement (2.0L), it has a better weight distribution (ND Miata is 50/50, GT86 is 53F/47R), is packaged in a dimensionally smaller car, and comes it at nearly 400 lbs lighter.

Car with a longitudinal PT has the following:

Balance = Check
Handling = Check
Packaging = Check

So why again did it have to be a boxer?

Low center of gravity was what they were shooting for with the boxer.

[ZDan]

The FT86 has a boxer engine because that's what Subaru had available to use. There are packaging negatives, including having to mount it rather forward to avoid steering shaft, and having to position it rather high to have room for the header to route the exhaust, and no possibility for wishbones because of the width. IMO a V4 would be the best layout for a small, lightweight FR sports car. It could sit further aft and with crank/flywheel/trans lower, and could have wishbone front suspension. Flat-4 isn't *bad* really, but not really any better *overall* vs. an inline 4 IMO.

[GrantedTaken]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Here's my question on horsepower options. Even though I'm fine with the 200ish HP in the 86, there is nothing magical about that number. I do think it is the minimal amount available, but the car would have been fine (and has proven to be fine) with as much as 50% more.

So the question is....

Why is it that in the one car where from the start they knew folks would care about HP did they decide that it was a one engine fits all solution? I'm not sure about Subaru, but doesn't Toyota offer engine options in just about every other model they build, except their two "sports cars"?

This is a purist car.
It's not for you
Get a mustang

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by GrantedTaken

This is a purist car.
It's not for you
Get a mustang

Lmao says the guy who claims we have the worst brakes ever.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by GrantedTaken

This is a purist car.
It's not for you
Get a mustang

Clearly did not understand the point of the statement he quoted

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Two words: Oil Pressure



That is my major complaint. Going to have to go to a killer B pickup and a baffle next year. Freaks me out to see my oil pressure gauge drop out into the teens on throttle during high G corners. Maybe I should just get rid of the gauge

As you know it’s an unfortunate side effect of a flat 4. There are compromises with everything in life. I would freak out also watching the oil pressure drop.
I will tell you guys my true “issues” with the FA20. I don’t track my car like NoHaveMSG so this has to do with street driving.

It REALLY lacks any low end grunt, so every take off is uneventful. I don’t care about drag racing people, I’m just referring to my own enjoyment of the car.

It revs quickly but doesn’t sound particularly happy doing it.

I miss the boxer rumble, that adds so much character to a flat 4 engine, especially a Subaru.

A turbo option was never on the table, and that is very disappointing. I’m not interested in slapping a turbo on a car myself. Too many headaches and potential issues.

There is a lot I do really like about the FA20. The very low placement it allows, oil changes are easy, it does have a spunky character, and good fuel economy.

I love the twins, the platform, the idea of them, the fact they exist. And I am so happy Toyota and Subaru make them. I hate to sound like I’m complaining because it’s such an incredible car for the money, and it offers things even more expensive sports cars don’t. I just want to experience this car with a better engine. From Toyota, not a LS swapped one or any of that crap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by GrantedTaken

This is a purist car.
It's not for you
Get a mustang

Thanks for the most insightful of advice but I have one in my garage. Oh yea, and its a 6 cylinder not an 8, so there's that.

[KR-S]

Originally Posted by GrantedTaken

This is a purist car.
It's not for you
Get a mustang

God forbid somebody has a legitimate criticism about the car.

Why do I get the feeling you're heavily in denial about purchasing your twin?

[p1l0t]

I might make mine FI just for the sake of science to see if it's actually better or not.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

I think Tcoat's point is pretty valid. With all the talk about how the FRS should have 240 hp like the F20/F22, I'm not convinced that'd be enough to be satisfying in a straight line.

I keep seeing this line of reasoning, and I find it a bit ridiculous. I.e., 240hp "wouldn't be enough", therefore 205 is "fine". There's no defined line of what is "enough" and if there was it would be different for every individual, and even for the same individual on different days.

If 205hp is "enough" for 50% of the people most of the time, then 240hp would be "enough" for a greater percentage of people, more of the time.

205hp is fine with me on the street, but I would like more at the track. 240hp would be objectively faster and for me in that context, "better". Of course there are other considerations, but to argue that any increase "wouldn't be enough" could just as well be applied backwards to make the argument that 150hp should be just fine, because "even" 205hp wouldn't be "enough"...

On track, the corners are where the smiles happen anyway, and the FRS is great/balanced there.

I like to drive fast on the track. Faster is more challenging and more fun. A stock FT86 is OK at the track but as we all know it needs a TON more front camber than you can get with the stock setup, and "balance" is objectively not that good at ~55/45. So even ignoring power, the car could stand to be improved...

The FRS isn't for everyone but I can appreciate the compromises Toyota/Subaru made to create the car it did.

So can I, that's why I bought one, and why I'm considering keeping it instead of the Cayman (assuming I do get rid of one of em). But it's not perfect, and for sure 240hp would make it more compelling for a greater number of people, including myself.

[Goingnowherefast]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Low center of gravity was what they were shooting for with the boxer.

And here's Tada-San (the chief engineer of the GT86 and new Toyota Supra platform) saying that the CG benefit wasn't worth the packaging hassles: https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...xers-are-rare/

"Tada-san said that a boxer engine was chosen for the 86 and its Subaru twin, the BRZ, to help achieve a low center of gravity, but it seems it ultimately wasn't worth the packaging troubles."

Literally the guy that designed the car says it wasn't a good engine choice, yet people here are still trying to justify it lol

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast

And here's Tada-San (the chief engineer of the GT86 and new Toyota Supra platform) saying that the CG benefit wasn't worth the packaging hassles: https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...xers-are-rare/

"Tada-san said that a boxer engine was chosen for the 86 and its Subaru twin, the BRZ, to help achieve a low center of gravity, but it seems it ultimately wasn't worth the packaging troubles."

Literally the guy that designed the car says it wasn't a good engine choice, yet people here are still trying to justify it lol

I agree. If there was an easy canbus solution I would have a K swap. I am just stating their original justification. The real reason was already posted by @ZDan.