Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB
Page 4 of 7 123 4 567
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/index.php)
-   Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   What is your prediction on FT86 power and Subaru 086a power? (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32)

scape 10-20-2009 04:31 PM
@ichitaka05: the impreza 2.0r is what i was referring to (the legacy you mention at that power rating is a turbocharged version, and a bigger displacement i believe). i don't know the engine code/name, but I do know it's in that car-- impreza 2.0r; there is however an rx variant that has 10 less HP but 10 more ft-lbs of torque coming in at 148/148 or so (matching the torque and hp numbers like you mentioned).
2.0r: http://www.carsplusplus.com/specs200...20_r_wagon.php
2.0rx: http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...2.0-RX/228537/

@yourfearlessleader: I should just assume it will be 11:1, as i think are the 2.0NA engines that subaru already makes-- but I really don't want to pay for it at the pump haha

YourFearlessLeader 10-20-2009 04:40 PM
bah its only 20-30 more cents per gallon!
maybe 2 or 3 extra dollars per fill-up
definitely worth the power increase

ichitaka05 10-20-2009 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scape (Post 921)
@ichitaka05: the impreza 2.0r is what i was referring to (the legacy you mention at that power rating is a turbocharged version). i don't know the engine code/name, but I do know it's in that car-- impreza 2.0r; there is however an rx variant that has 10 less HP but 10 more ft-lbs of torque coming in at 148/148 or so (matching the torque and hp numbers like you mentioned).
2.0r: http://www.carsplusplus.com/specs200...20_r_wagon.php
2.0rx: http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...2.0-RX/228537/
Oh sorry, US don't have 2.0R, so I have completely forgotten bout it. IIRC 2.0R is sold in Australia? Isn't it the EJ205 without not have coil on plug?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YourFearlessLeader (Post 925)
bah its only 20-30 more cents per gallon!
maybe 2 or 3 extra dollars per fill-up
definitely worth the power increase
Yes, I'm willing to pay extra $5~10 for extra HP

OldSkoolToys 10-20-2009 04:45 PM
~200 hp

MR2fan 10-20-2009 05:21 PM
Is there a way to add a poll to this thread? I'd like to see poll options for:

1) 140-155hp
2) 156-170hp
3) 171-185hp
4) 186-200hp
5) >200hp

scape 10-20-2009 05:51 PM
a poll is a great idea, tho the figures shouldn't overlap necessarily..

MR2fan 10-20-2009 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scape (Post 943)
a poll is a great idea, tho the figures shouldn't overlap necessarily..
Oops, fixed. Can a mod or admin add poll to the thread please

Deslock 10-20-2009 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Fan (Post 672)
You have not answered all my questions because you have no idea what the extra cost is to increase output by 10 lb-ft.
There's no need to be rude; actually, my responses are limited because of time constraints (and you've been asking so many questions that it would take forever to answer them all).

I don't work for Lexus and don't know the cost of their engines, nor do I have time to research them... if I did, I wouldn't have written:"If you want to research exact engine prices, more power (pun!) to you". Likewise, I don't know what it'd cost Subaru to add 10 ftlbs to their NA 2.0L (seems unlikely that anyone here would). But we can estimate what we think the ftlbs rating will be based on ftlbs/L trends for vehicle class/cost/features/etc. In the end, all of our predictions are just educated guesses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Fan (Post 672)
We both said 160 is possible and it's the average of our predictions.
Why would you even ask me to put in a wager for 160 then? I won't have to when I say it's possible.
People wager all the time on what they think is the most probable outcome (against other possible outcomes).

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Fan (Post 672)
You however should, you clearly said this is a cheap motor and you also said, NA piston engines that get above 70-75 ftlbs/L are generally expensive. So tell me how can this motor able to get to 160 lb-ft and be cheap and generally expensive at the same time?
Subaru may have made cost cutting innovations allowing for higher specific torque output, which is why I wrote that 160 is possible. But again, I think it's unlikely to be that high and I can't see how they could make 85 ftlbs/L available at this price point. Even 80 ftlbs/L NA on-the-cheap would shake up the industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Fan (Post 672)
I made it quite clear that my prediction could be high.
Sure, and my 150 ftlbs could be low (or high).

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Fan (Post 672)
Time to put up money when you said your prediction is more realistic. I'm confident that you won't be right and like I said mine could be high. Please I'm so willing to bet you won't be right. :)
I'm confident that my prediction of 150 ftlbs is going to be closer than your prediction of 170 ftlbs, however, I certainly don't know if it'll end up being exactly 150. Anyone would be foolish to bet on an exact number like you're suggesting (unless the payoff odds were better than the chances of being right).

My offer still stands if you would like to wager your 170 ftlbs against my 150 ftlbs for charity. Another way to do it would be to each donate $1 for every 1 ftlbs off we are (so if the production NA 2.0 is 162 ftlbs, you'd donate $8 and I'd donate $12).

In any case, let's try keep the discussion civil and friendly.

MTD 10-20-2009 08:35 PM
I personally dont want a really high revving engine. My current car, an 07 Civic Si makes all of its power very high, at 7800 rpms. It only has 139lbs of torque, which it also makes at a high rpm. It needs to be constantly shifted and revved very high and can be a pain to drive at times. I would much rather have a lower revving engine with more usable torque like the engine in a GTI with its 207 lbs of torque.

ichitaka05 10-20-2009 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deslock (Post 969)
I'm confident that my prediction of 150 ftlbs is going to be closer than your prediction of 170 ftlbs, however, I certainly don't know if it'll end up being exactly 150. Anyone would be foolish to bet on an exact number like you're suggesting (unless the payoff odds were better than the chances of being right).

My offer still stands if you would like to wager your 170 ftlbs against my 150 ftlbs for charity. Another way to do it would be to each donate $1 for every 1 ftlbs off we are (so if the production NA 2.0 is 162 ftlbs, you'd donate $8 and I'd donate $12).

In any case, let's try keep the discussion civil and friendly.
What if it was 160ftlbs? Who wins? 86fan or Deslock? lol

Anyways, I'm prayin' for 200ish (Yes, I'm dreaming).

scape 10-20-2009 09:24 PM
they both donate the 10$ ;d
I'm in for 155 torque, my charity is 'friends of caroline hospice'

i think we should do this price is right style, closest without going over. else everyone will be writing and mailing checks...maybe that's a good thing

86Fan 10-21-2009 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deslock (Post 969)
There's no need to be rude; actually, my responses are limited because of time constraints (and you've been asking so many questions that it would take forever to answer them all).

I don't work for Lexus and don't know the cost of their engines, nor do I have time to research them... if I did, I wouldn't have written:"If you want to research exact engine prices, more power (pun!) to you". Likewise, I don't know what it'd cost Subaru to add 10 ftlbs to their NA 2.0L (seems unlikely that anyone here would). But we can estimate what we think the ftlbs rating will be based on ftlbs/L trends for vehicle class/cost/features/etc. In the end, all of our predictions are just educated guesses.

People wager all the time on what they think is the most probable outcome (against other possible outcomes).

Subaru may have made cost cutting innovations allowing for higher specific torque output, which is why I wrote that 160 is possible. But again, I think it's unlikely to be that high and I can't see how they could make 85 ftlbs/L available at this price point. Even 80 ftlbs/L NA on-the-cheap would shake up the industry.

Sure, and my 150 ftlbs could be low (or high).


I'm confident that my prediction of 150 ftlbs is going to be closer than your prediction of 170 ftlbs, however, I certainly don't know if it'll end up being exactly 150. Anyone would be foolish to bet on an exact number like you're suggesting (unless the payoff odds were better than the chances of being right).

My offer still stands if you would like to wager your 170 ftlbs against my 150 ftlbs for charity. Another way to do it would be to each donate $1 for every 1 ftlbs off we are (so if the production NA 2.0 is 162 ftlbs, you'd donate $8 and I'd donate $12).

In any case, let's try keep the discussion civil and friendly.
You don't know the cost of the engine nor the cost of it producing an extra 10 lb-ft. It's simple as that. That is why your prediction of being "more realistic" is baseless. Your so-called trends don't hold up like I already showed you with the IS350 example.

You wrote 70-75 lb-ft/L is more realistic and anything above that is a expensive motor. You clearly said this is also a cheap motor so you clearly don't believe that it can hit 160 lb-ft. Therefore, don't try to say it's "possible" when clearly said otherwise. Stop trying to back track.

scape 10-21-2009 11:30 PM
d4-s, what do we know?

just to get an idea of what d4-s might change for the regular 2.0L NA subaru h4 engine; I looked up what it has done to preexisting engines.

http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/tech/env...rtrain/engine/

looking at the GR engine family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_GR_engine, which many of them already use this technology (starting in 2004 it seems) a prediction might be able to be pulled out of the numbers already known by comparing non-d4-s engines to their similar counterpart. (FSE is the engine with D4-s) (hp/ft-lbf)

2gr (3.5L) FE(268/248) FSE(311/278) +43HP/30ft-lbf

3gr (3.0) FE(228/221) FSE(252/231) +24HP/10ft-lbf

5gr (2.5) FE(194/179), 4gr (2.5) FSE(212/192) +18HP/13ft-lbf

as we can see, the benefits of d4-s are lower in smaller engine types, but does appear it may bump a 2.0L engine by around 5-10 HP, 10-15 ft-lbf from stock, these of course are not H4 boxer engines but rather V6's..

so the 2.0L NA stock boxer engine puts out around 150HP as is, and a little less in torque.
however, there is a jdm version of this engine that has AVCS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCS and puts out 190HP; I also can barely find info on this engine (EJ20(r?) with AVCS in naturally aspirating form).

so where does that leave things for speculation sake of what d4-s might improve upon these already designed subaru engines?
a 170HP/165ft-lbf engine
OR the possibility of
a 195-200HP(no idea on torque)

86Fan 10-21-2009 11:34 PM
Scape, I think you are refering to the sti na concept. It was producing 200PS and 145 lb-ft. Add in DI and it's certainly possible that the engine can hit 160lb-ft and around 210 hp.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:48 AM.
Page 4 of 7 123 4 567
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2026 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.


Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.