New rumor: 1.6-liter turbocharged engine one year after initial introduction

[Clode]

for EU 1.6 turbo is perfect!

[iff2mastamatt]

I think I'll stick with the 2.0L, wouldn't the 1.6 feel like the Nissan juke? It would be more appropriate for a baby ft-86 if that was what the article was getting at.

[WingsofWar]

what if it was a 1.6L Flat-6 Turbocharge..would you people change your mind?

a low displacement, high performance flat-6 would be fucking wild!

[OldSkoolToys]

I don't ever think the question was "will" they come out with a turbo version. The question has always been; what markets will it appear in? Skeptical for U.S.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Considering the new engine is probably going to be DI, I don't think your fears are founded. For less displacement they would just use a smaller turbine.

DI is better, but it doesnt defy the laws of physics. 1.6L is too little for a performance car.

maybe with the impending CAFE laws, etc. our standards for performance are slowly going south...

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by madfast

DI is better, but it doesnt defy the laws of physics. 1.6L is too little for a performance car.

maybe with the impending CAFE laws, etc. our standards for performance are slowly going south...

lawl, link for Physics defying.
http://www.crzforum.com/forum/afterm...dly-crz-5.html

[madfast]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

what if it was a 1.6L Flat-6 Turbocharge..would you people change your mind?

a low displacement, high performance flat-6 would be fucking wild!

wild but useless on the street. i want torque and i want it across the rev range. 1.6L is not going to give me that.

there are so many fuel saving strategies you can potentially use. i think going with less displacement is a cop out. now dont get me wrong. replacing a crappy V6 with a fine turbo 4 is a good thing. but turning a fine 2.0L into a 1.6L???

[Exage]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Considering the new engine is probably going to be DI, I don't think your fears are founded. For less displacement they would just use a smaller turbine. And EJ207 anyone?

Twin scroll direct injected 1.6L Boxer.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

lawl, link for Physics defying.
http://www.crzforum.com/forum/afterm...dly-crz-5.html

that's not physics defying at all. it makes everything up top. i dunno bout you, but having to rev to 10k to feel anything isnt what i'd call "streetable"...

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by madfast

...i want torque...

What's torque?

And you didn't even look at the dyno chart...
Here it is.

Crappy pic of it though.

[ichitaka05]

^Can't see the tq numbers

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

^Can't see the tq numbers

Me neither, the actual number has a crinkle on it. But 464WHP at 7313RPM is 333ft-lbs soo...

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Me neither, the actual number has a crinkle on it. But 464WHP at 7313RPM is 333ft-lbs soo...

again, not streetable. what's the torque at 1500 to 3000 rpm?

we can wax poetic all we want about 1.5L 1000hp F1 motors as well, but it's all useless for a street car.

[serialk11r]

I guess here torque is a "legitimate" concern since turbo motors do not make constant torque. But you can't say that about an N/A, they have nearly constant torque like I said a million times.