...or both, or tires, or driver, or launch method, or the fact that 0-60mph or 0-100kph times are relatively stupid unless you're simply comparing drivetrain strength and tire stickiness.

I think i've mentioned the clio specs in some other thread because it is pretty similair to the ft86.

I know for a fact that the gearing is quite good in the new clio, 1ste second and third are short. Also the torque is band is pretty good 5400 rpm max torque and 80% of that is available from 2000rpm.

So it would all come down to front wheel drive vs rear wheel drive.

But im pretty sceptical.. friend of mine drives a bmw 120i (150bhp) and it is just as fast as my Aud A3 2.0fsi (150)bhp. But on paper it should be much much faster 0-100 is rated at 8.4 for the bmw and 9.1 for the audi, so that's 0.7 seconds. And yes we traded cars to take out the driver variable.

so to make a long story short... i dont see the ft 86 go from 0-100 quicker then 6.9 seconds which is to be honest a bit of a disapointment to me.

Toyota has better drag and can better put the power to the ground thanks to RWD and LSD.

What's that thing that the Mythbusters guy says about refusing reality and substituting his own? I'm doing that right now.

I think Toyota UK is jumping the gun with the training manual. I'm telling you guys, the power/torque separation is not right...

Your reality is not right... :)

My reality is better...

Seriously, look at the most recent Yamaha-touched motors, 2GRFSE, and the LFA's motor. 2GRFSE puts out more torque to displacement (BMEP), with the same tech and less compression, and the spread between peaks is decent.

The LFA's approach is a bit different, but without the combustion benefits of D4-S (which can be significant), and a half-point less compression than the FA20. Their torque to displacement is less than the 2GRFSE, but they spread 90% out over more than 5000 rpm (90% of peak from 3700, and it is still making over 90% of peak torque at power peak). Plus it has to fight with more friction at the revs it uses, AND it still manages ~2000ish rpm (can't remember off the top of my head) between torque and power peak. Torque is FLAT, but also somewhat symmetrical in terms of where the peak is. Goes up slow, then down slow.

400 rpm separation, doesn't make sense.

It does if that's what the designers wanted. I'm perfectly fine with the specs as they are. They tell us what two numbers are at two different RPMs. That's it.

Just move on, test drive the car, if you like it, buy it. If not, buy something else. Numbers don't mean crap.

Sure it does, it's dictated by the VE curve the engine designers settled on.

It's out of fashion design-wise as well.

Ok, so I'm going to (temporarily) let go of my lack of understanding of the torque issue, and ask some more wave tuning stuff.

I've ordered the book, but now I have to wait, and I'm pissy about (maybe) being wrong about the torque thing, so I'm trying to distract myself with the confusing wave shit.

What I'm looking at right now is we have 3 issues that we are trying to tune with/around. Exhaust open, Ex/In overlap and intake closed.

Starting with Exhaust Open:

Valve opens an we get a pos+ wave firing out the port and down the primary tubes at whatever the speed of sound in hot exhaust gas is. (1500 feet/second?)

That wave reaches a collector (2-1 or 4-1), and because of the volume/area change (???), the wave expands in all directions (???) including sending a now neg- wave back up the tube towards the port.

It also continues on its way as pos+ down the secondary tube (or exhaust pipe) until it reaches the next change (exhaust pipe or atmosphere) and again expands/reverses sign and direction.

Now if the time of the valve's open duration (which is rpm dependent) and the travel time of the wave match, a neg- wave will reach the port before the valve closes and suck out a bit more exhaust gas, creating less work for the piston (more power/less loss) and pulling out more exhaust gas that can screw with the next cycle's intake charge.

In/Ex Overlap:

If that wave arrives when both the intake and exhaust valves are open (overlap period) the neg- wave will expand in the combustion chamber (will it reverse again here, and also fire a pos+ back down the exhaust primary???) and since the intake is also open, suck in more intake charge on its way up the intake runner. When the neg- wave hits the plenum, the volume/area change again makes it expand/reverse and fires a pos+ wave back down (hopefully intake is still open) and stuffs in more good intake air/fuel to make more power. (But the wave speed in the cooler intake air would be slower than the hot exhaust right? So what speed range 1000-1200 feet/sec?)

Also what happens with a really short runner? If there is enough open time for the wave to cycle again? From the pos+ reaching the combustion chamber, will it expand and send another neg- up/pos+ down???

And how much energy do these waves lose when they are bouncing/reversing/changing sign?

Intake Closes:
Finally the intake valve shuts, and the fast-moving intake air keeps going and slams into the closed valve. This creates a pos+ (?) pressure wave that goes up the intake runner and expands/reverses at the plenum, but since the valve is still closed it reverses direction, but doesn't change sign in this case? So now we have to match the waves with the intake runner length, and keep them bouncing back and forth until the intake opens for the next cycle, and hopefully a pos+ wave is on its way down.

But with a plenum, and pos+ waves going up an intake runner, and expand, can they end up going down another runner of another cylinder? And is plenum size/volume going to affect this?

That's it for now, a mostly torque-conspiracy-free post.

(Book hasn't shipped yet...)

Yamaha? ... Can you hear the crickets chirping? So much for that rumor.

^^ You are describing things that certainly can happen. But it's hard to say what the deal is with a given engine without expensive proprietary computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. That's how engines are developed now.

Well we know they helped develop the 2GR-FSE engine but I suppose we can't be sure if they had a hand in the development of the FA boxer engine

I don't know if you already noticed this, but this is the torque curve of the GT86.

We can see the 205 Nm at 6.600 RPM.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/attac...5&d=1321381137

Yes, that page has been around for a while now. The problem is, the text on the left doesn't match the graph on the right. There's no way to scale that graph linearly to represent the 6600 RPM torque peak and 7000 RPM power peak while having a 7400 RPM redline.

If you scale the torque and power peaks, redline is at about 7100 RPM, and there's a torque plummet below 6k RPM. If you scale the power peak and redline, then torque peak is at 5500 or something, and the engine falls off a cliff below 3k. It really doesn't make sense. Add to that the graph torque curve very much resembles a 2-stage cam lift setup [i.e. VTEC or VVTL-i]

Based on all that, I'm pretty confident the graph is simply a "here's an abstract example of how D-4S improves the torque curve" and not a literal FA20 engine performance graph.

That power and torque curve looks very close (hard with the pic's detail) to the same one they used in 2006 for the intro to D4-S.

And it doesn't seem to be on a scale that makes it match. (ie, the peak should be more to the right if it really is at 6600)

Wow, those graphs are very similar.

Ryephile, I noticed the same thing. I wonder why torque curve and straight line performance were not yet revealed.

Check the translation for that page. I believe that graph is for a different engine as an example.

Does anyone know what the fuel pressure is for the direct injector? Is it a static system or a return? Does it pressurize internal to the injector or have a pump and a separate fuel rail from the standard system?

Figure these might be relevant for this thread:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/IMG_5929.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/IMG_5931.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/IMG_5941.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/IMG_5937.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/IMG_5750.jpg

I've seen headers like this before on Subaru's, just not very often. They are crossed over like that due to the piston firing order to make a near-perfect exhaust flow for the headers.

The muffler looks damn close to an Impreza hatchback muffler, even has Subaru stamped on the muffler.

yeah, and it rusts like a Subaru muffler

Not something I ever have to worry about, LOL!

But the catback will be the first thing to go of course.

Good call.

Looking at the engine stand pictures versus what's installed in the car, it's possible to discern the three fuel lines coming from the chassis to the engine; one for each port injection rail, and one going to the DI HPFP, which appears to be the right bank intake [behind the oil filler] and camshaft driven [usually via its own lobe]. No return lines from what I can tell, which puts it on par with everything current. Speaking of the DI system, the injectors appear to be inboard of the intake manifold, virtually out of sight.

I see cam phasers for intake and exhaust along with corresponding cam position sensors, all good. I see a pre and post O2 sensor on the main catalytic converter. The exhaust is fascinating; I have to admit I'm bummed there's no asymmetrical exhaust [and thus the warble tone], but this design looks reasonable for stock.

Oh, and i can't wait to rip off that "sound generator".

Those port fuel injectors are going to be easy enough to change I think. Should they ever need changing. >.>

Layout like that exhaust will be probably what turbo kits do, with the turbo around where the catalyst is.

The intake runners are weird, really flaring away from the plenum.

They are? How else would they run them without forcing the hood several inches higher?

In the side view, when they come off the plenum they look narrow, but they flare out to quite wide towards the head where the port injectors are. But in the front view the alternator is blocking the view from that angle, so it's difficult to say if they are expanding, or just changing shape.

Is this thing using TGV's/variable intake runners? Subaru and Toyota both use them currently, except the D4-S 2GRFSE motor doesn't.

No TGV's on this motor. The new DI turbo motor next to it is however, which is rather interesting.

Hmmm, intake runners look enormous compared to the exhaust primaries. Any idea how thick the plastic is on the manifolds?

The runners are fairly tall/narrow up near the plenum, but Subaru heads typically have short/wide intake ports. My guess is that the cross-sectional area is constant, it's just that the geometry is changing to match up with the shape of the intake ports.

Honda Goes With Direct Injection
 

Don't know if this is of interest to anyone:

Honda Previews New Engine Lineup: Direct Injection and CVTs Coming

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...ts-coming.html

Well Dimman, now that all three cars have been revealed, and 197 HP @ 7k RPM and 151 LbFt @ 6600 RPM are the numbers consistent across all three [ok, Scion is saying 200 HP @ 7K RPM], it looks less likely that your hidden torque theory will pan out.

Of course, the real story will come when people start putting the cars on known-quantity dynos. The OEM trend lately is to markedly underrate the engine, that way even the worst and most ignorant break-in regiment [i.e. following BMW's guidelines] will result in advertised power & torque.

I have been noticing that my missing torque seems nowhere to be found in the official documentation. But I am still looking for it! Just more quietly and humble-like maybe...

The key for me is that every single document about power production seems to indicate that there is a distinctive and fairly consistent intake airflow-speed difference between torque peak and power. It has to do with turbulence within the combustion chamber. It is backed up by looking at other production motors. This is where the TINY rpm difference confounds me. This is anomalous.

A possible explanation would be where the intake/exhaust reversion would be causing flat spots in the mid-range which is often one of the trade-offs for chasing high-rpm power/torque. But this leads to the problem of the lowish-peak. And the fact that 7400 rpm redline is hardly astronomical.

With the combustion benefits of the D4-S, and the huge (more than a 2000 Ferrari F1 engine) compression ratio, 151-lb-ft seems terrible. Especially in comparison to previous and current Toyota engines (3SGE BEAMS and 2GRFSE).

I didn't just arbitrarily decide that 151 at 6600 sucks...

I think no one disagrees that the output figures suck, but I don't think your theory explains it.

@ Marrk hmmm so no word of AVTEC whatsoever. I guess they ditched it? Good to see Honda attempting a comeback but I guess we'll need to wait and see how this turns out.

does anyone know if the unlocked ecu made it in to the production car or not?

I know you didn't, but without knowing the rest of the torque curve, it's all speculation. If the torque curve ends up being a shelf of 150.4 LbFt from 3500 to 6500, will that seem rational to you?


Separately:
I just wanted to put this attachment somewhere, I was playing with Chrome's Awesome Screenshot plug-in. The photo is from the Scion FR-S press release from yesterday. This is the best chance we've had to date in seeing a production North American engine bay. Note they photoshopped the red body color in, the silver paint is missing on the letters on the intake manifold cover, and the wiring and brake lines are much cleaner with a left-hand drive car.

are those the fender liners? by the strut housing?

The black plastic things? Yes.

wtf...... why leave it open? seems..... flimsy

Hmmm reading cyde01's comment in another thread about how the D-4S system is the next gen system and how they were apprehensive about sharing it with Subaru...I take back what I said about this engine being disappointing because they didn't have time to make it as good as possible. New theory: the engine sucks because Toyota didn't want to share all of their tech with Subaru, and it is not very likely a revised engine will come out. Well this seems disappointing.