I think 180tq is great with no torque dip and the same gearing. The one thing I like about the M3 was that it was bigger than 2.0L. I also like how you say the 150 is good enough for a car of the FRS size. That's true but the FRS looks like it should weigh 2400 lbs though.

This is just :bs: on top of :bs:.

I can show you turbo graphs way smoother than this engine.

And did you just say the flatter the tq curve the more balance can be 'dialed' in to the chassis? :popcorn:

Oh and ask some people if they would want an extra 100tq, many would graciously accept.

BMW designed the motor with help from there F1 designers so lots of money was involved.

I personally think 151 torque is great from a 2.0 no other 2.0 that is N/A has more, Honda had 143 from the KA20A2.

I don't know why I waste my breath with people who don't drive, never driven and probably with never own this car and just don't understand that a car doesn't need to have gobs and gobs of power to be fun to drive, so just go back to playing your GT5 or Forsa.

Well I didn't say more balance can be dialed in I said less understeer would have to be dialed in on the chassis to keep the car from going in to a snap oversteer situations. Sometimes less is more and cars like this one don't come very often.

Scream to your heart to content about I want more power, give me more power, I won't buy this car till it has 300+ hp, cause to me it sounds like a 2 year old having a temper tantrum.

The torque curve isnt the cause of snap oversteer, dont know why you keep mixing power with handling.

The power thing is an ongoing debate i suppose; its just that the platform has so much potential.

At least you recognize turbo curves can rival NA, or thats what i took the no comment as.

I own a 2.0L car with 140tq+ and mods and weigh 2700 lbs so I guess I don't have a fucking clue? Why so bent out of shape for? Just because one thing feels great for you it must feel great for someone else? You might think another car doesn't have enough torque and I might like it. Its just preference and I am not hating on the FRS or BRZ.

Also the S2000 2.0L had a smidge more torque fyi.

Turbo curves of what you call flat are from small turbos and aren't that flat, in fact as the turbo reaches its peak the torque begins to drop off.

Snap oversteer is induced from how well the chassis handles sudden inputs from the brakes and throttle. If the chassis is setup neutral and you give the car a big braking input followed by a big throttle input the car will oversteer, but if the sudden on set of torque is too much the car can go in to snap oversteer. However in order to prevent this from happening they dial in more understeer.

Yes this chassis has tons of potential but was setup in such a way that it rewards the driver when things are done right. It teaches the new/older driver how to feel what the car is doing and understand what it is doing and how to re-act before you get in to trouble.

that can be a cause of snap oversteer but it isnt snap oversteer. it is the result of a nonlinear suspension response to linear suspension loads. rapid undesired changes in one or more of any particular suspension radically changes the amount of grip at each corner of the car. it can also be cause by steering inputs or road conditions. its not the brakes or engines fault otherwise every car would have what we call snap oversteer

I'm not bent out of shape. But the S2000 only had 2 more ft/tq more than the FA20 in the AP1 form, but since people begging for more torque, Honda increased the displacement at a loss of horsepower to appease the masses for the need of more torque.

I thought it was still rated at 240hp with the 2.2? Where did you see lost of power? On a dyno with the two cars on the same day?

The AP1 was rated at 240/153 while the AP2 was 237/162

It was. In fact, the F22's actually made about 5-15whp more than the F20's.

yeah lets go ask the s2k community how much better the ap2 is over the ap1

I believe the AP1 was under the old hp system and the AP2 was under the new one. I forgot what they called it? STD to SAE?

Going off topic? Oh~ add me to the off topic talk lol :popcorn:

If you need quick acceleration you have to use the transmission, lower gears and higher RPMs.

Road & Track, July 2012 issue, pg. 89.

At 7400 rpm the speeds in each gear are respectively:

1: 35 mph (too much commotion in town)

2: 58 mph

3: 83 mph (you could be in trouble)

4: 105 (you're probably going to jail)

5: 127 (do you have a lawyer?)

6: 135 (estimated at 6000 rpm, so I assume it's drag limited)

RPM at 60 mph in top gear: 2700

RPM at 60 mph in top gear: 2000 in the A/T version. If you want fuel economy the A/T is the way.

Nice resurrection.