This makes me feel a little better, thank you. AUC does look like a ~20% bump, esp when you see how that TQ bump from 6300-6900rpm on the FA20 is responsible for a good bit of its peak HP number.

Power increase and displacement increase aren't always or even usually, commensurate.

Yep, too many people focus on peak numbers and ignore the "area under the curve."

That's why racing sanctioning bodies like NASA now base your pw/weight ratio on average power vs peak power.

Guys were looking for specific peak power to weight, and then over-building the engines and tuning them to produce that peak number for a few a much wider powerband vs a quick jump to it at the peak.

Which the made the cars significantly faster. You used to be able to see Miata's, particularly the guys out of 949 Racing, who had cars that made power from 5200-7500 RPMS.

But when so much else is held equal…and most engine evolutions increase their specific output than the other way around. It’s not unprecedented, just a little weird is all.

Doesn’t matter: gonna need FI to get away from a tq dip anyway ha

The midrange torque is way higher. These graphs just suck. The Y axis starts at over 100 on both, and the units are Nm which shows variations as being more significant.

The emissions standards have changed since the 1st-gen went on sale in late 2012.

It still baffles me that people don't understand the impact this has on power, when manufacturers are being forced to chase NOx and COx emissions.

Winning post.

I'm an old fart that couldn't afford nice cars in my 20's, but liked good handling cars, so I bought 80's BMWs with their straight 6'es and really liked them for driving around suburbia and in town. They were backwards from most vehicles today... like 120 hp and 160 tq. Great torque for launching across an intersection, or coming out of a tight corner in 2nd gear. Also seems logical you get lesser penalties for mistakes... like getting a little tire spin on corner exit should be more save-able at 3000rpm instead of 6000, or penalties on mistakes like lift-off throttle during turn-in at 3000rpms instead of 6000.

I understand giving up torque for hp is fine on the track, but I don't like it for streets. I test drove a '19 BRZ and right away thought "oh hell no" because of the dip right around my normal driving rpms. I'm excited about this new engine coming out.

I'm not a tuner, and PA has emissions inspection every year, so I wasn't enthused to deal with headers and pipes and tune and the loss of warranty and added expense just to get rid of the dip.

For street-driving, torque and where you can get it is so much more interesting than hp. And torque is still fun on the track also. It's really a shame that all the magazines and online reviewers focus so much on hp.

Anyway, great site. I like the mentality of this car, keeping it light and fun, and can't wait to try one out with the new motor. I think I'll love it.

You must have had a 325e. The 325i/is were 167hp/165tq.

I loved the one I had years ago. Popped the M20, then swapped the S52 from a 99 M3 into. 240/240 at the wheels was a blast in that car.

The most fun cars I've ever owned had considerably lower power to weight ratios than the GR86 so I'm going to be fine. Doesn't mean I won't do an ethanol tune and a S/C kit out of warranty.

'93 Sentra SE-R - 140
'90 Miata - 116
E46 328i ZSP - 190

Agreed that some (but not most) of the best fun-to-drive cars I’ve owned had lower power/weight ratios. But:

1) I’m not sure any of them had lower torque/weight ratios; 2) none of those cars would’ve been less fun with more power; and 3) I owned those when I was younger and poorer and dammit I’m a grownup now and I want to have my cake and eat it too :D

Good, well put together, reliable FI kits can’t come out fast enough for these things IMO.

True
 

Ha ha, true. I'm in the same situation... finally old enough to have some choices, so doing some crazy cross-shopping like BRZ/FRS, 370Z, Corvette, Camaro 1LE, Lotus Elise, old coupe CTSV. I test-drove a new Miata 2x and it just felt too small and like I sat too high in it. But, even a 'maro, Elise, Corvette, etc, I'd put all-season tires on it because it's more fun to out-drive the car in safe turns than it is to be near death pushing the envelope of sticky wide tires. I really like the sound of the reviews for this new Toyobaru as far as flinging it around some crappy Pittsburgh roads. I've been lurking various sites and heard of people going from a Miata, to a vette, and back to the miata again calling the vette "meh" because it was over-powered for streets. Not into the miata but very interested in this new gen-2.

I test drove a Camaro 1LE a few years ago, absolutely ridiculous car if it fits you. I'm short so I thought it felt perfect, even though it's very bunker like.

The salesman did not enjoy me hanging the tail out up the onramp. :)

So 197.6 whp with just a catback?
Looks like 200 whp are within reach with a catback, tune and a performance air filter.

be really nice if this engine was a bit limited in OEM trim and tune - and has a significant amount more to gain NA.

make the waiting period of turbo kit development not as painful.

also heres hoping for a beefed up transmission and bottom end.

It has pretty much been discussed that there won't be anything significant to gain, they put a lot of work to maximize the output in this engine from what's been said. Expect similar gains NA that people are able to get on the 1st gen. Rods and pistons are improved, discussed in other threads. There's not a lot of detail on the tranny, but the biggest improvement noted was the 4th gear synchro.

Just found out I have E85 at a station a couple blocks from my new place. Wonder how those curves will change with some corn in the mix...

Very unlikely. All engines nowadays are basically maximized from the factory, that's why the only real gains these days are removing emissions equipment and tuning for E85. Even with turbo cars, E85 and crank the boost.

This isn't the Fox-body Mustang days anymore, where you could take a 225hp V8 and do an intake/maf/headers and pickup 50+ hp.

I think its fair to say that with the recent dyno show just shy of 210hp, our new NA target MUST BE 250hp at the wheels without touching internals.

NA 250hp at the wheels - what a fucking SWEET number that is to actually realistically be thinking about.

I don't think that is at all realistic. Bolt-on K24A2s on E85 don't even make that kind of power even with cams..230whp on E85 seem much more possible.

We have been able to make 40hp in NA bolt on mods with e85 on the FA20.

Dont take my word for it though, there are examples in these forums.

Oh I'm not. I have been on the forum long enough and done possibly too much research. There is an unacceptable amount of variation among the dynos to draw a stable conclusion. The same setup on one dyno will net a delta of 40whp yet on another 25whp even when tuned by the same tuner.. I promise you, you aren't going to make more power than a cammed bolt-on K24A2 even with E85 and bolt-ons to a FA24.

:bellyroll::bellyroll::bellyroll::bellyroll::belly roll:

190 whp + 40 = 230.
Sounds about right :)

I think if your argument is that we shouldn't believe the dyno charts provided by those on these forums over a lot of time, well that's pure speculation unless you can provide some evidence that all of these 40hp more machines were fakes.

I mean I don't think what one engine cannot do is no reason to suggest another cant.

For the K24A2 to reach 250whp you would need around 80hp increase from bolt ons and e85. I'm not surprised it doesn't.

I'm sticking to my guns. ;)

Remember that the K24s are port injection while the GR86 is port+direct injection.

For example - Porsche was able to step down from a 2.9L port injection (255hp) to a 2.7L DI (265hp).

So apples to apples - we could assume roughly 15-20% more power just by being DI? Maybe someone’s math could be better than mine.

I would also like to add that the Toyota Racing Series are based on the OG 2013 2.0l engine released here in australia, no internals, just bolt ons and a new ECU - these produce 240hp (179kw) at the crank, up from 197hp.

Thats a gain of 43hp. I cant find the performance at the wheels, but I'd assume it was around 200hp or more.

Is it practical for the street with the noise of straight pipes? probably not, but there you go. I'd imagine there would be a little more power there if the teams were allowed tweak it (its a locked ECU).

Look at this lineup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZZZgrKsdxw

SavageGeese's GR86 video review has a few stock dyno run's on a Dynojet. Best run was 209 whp, 175 lbs-ft. Lowest run was 206 whp.

Whatever you do, dont rush in and waste your money on bullshit. We saw a lot of that in 2012 and 2013.

Here’s what I think. As they give you more power you get closer to the plateau region where it takes more money to yield less result. There will be more power to get but maybe not as much increase as the first Gen, since it was so underpowered. NA has a limit. The old no replacement for displacement argument. It will be people going FI again because there is never enough power, just give it time. Then people like me who need it to be reliable as a DD will stay with just bolt ons and just enjoy the car for what it is. But I am no expert so I will be interested to hear everyone on this board spend their money and learn from their mistakes and their wins.