Why would more power ruin the car??
 

Toyota, Subaru and others say that more power would ruin the twins. With the below caveats I dont understand this??

- additional power/torque stays mostly linear (ignoring torque dip)
- additional power does not add weight (or perhaps very little and that little weight is counterbalanced at the rear of the car)
- additional power is OEM engineered (not wanting to discuss the reliability of aftermarket modifications)

I understand it was not the goal of the car, but I dont understand why it would ruin the car. Yes a turbo with a big rush of torque or a big heavy engine would ruin the handling agreed. But if the additional power/torque remains linear and there is minimal extra weight I dont see how it would ruin the car?

Im not saying necessarily that the twins should have come with more power (separate discussion) I am just questioning the statement that the car would be ruined. Is there something I am missing?

You are not missing anything. If you have a linear power band in the car, it only makes the car better. The car on stock suspension still reacts and responds the same way. My SC added 60 lbs to the front and I took out the spare tire in the rear and can barely feel the difference going around corners.
You have a good platform and adding power to it just makes it a lot better.
So I conclude, no, the car is not perfect as it is stock.

Check here:
https://youtu.be/IFIsyLjFEIY?t=325

The current power level is what the majority of buyers will prefer and pay for as determined by the decision makers at Toyota and Subaru. Big corporations make very educated decisions in most cases and spend significant amounts of money to find out what the market demand will be for. That for example would be the reason for steering wheel controls on the update of their original "pure sports car". They can sell the most units this way and optimize profit/maximize their objectives. Subaru already has more powerful models that many twin owners will transition to if they enjoyed their twins. The volume cannot justify multiple engine choices at this point in time. Dont rule out any upgrade being offered except more power. The manufacturers have made it clear this is as much power they want to sell the model with. Fortunately if you want more, the aftermarket is very developed on this vehicle. Depending on fuel consumption and CO2 objectives, I believe they could use the FA24 na on the 2nd gen. Or a 1.6 turbo except the issue of rapid onset of torque especially FI is something Toyobaru seem to want no part of for these cars. Insurance rates do affect potential sales on a model targeting youth. And of course finally a light hybrid version though Toyota would likely lead the powertrain development for this and at the present weight not sure this model needs that much powertrain development.

In the 90's the displacement increase would have been more likely for USDM models. Not so sure now based on trends.

Oh, and in response to OP, more power definitely doesn't hurt these vehicles although there are other things that will then need to be upgraded to support this. Think STI. Or think ts plus added FI.

Like the video pointed out, no amount of HP will make you a better driver. If your idea of fun is a curvy road, the stock car is more than capable.

Interesting review but not related to the question.

Im not saying the car needs more power, Im not saying Im a perfect driver, Im not saying increasing power is the best bang for buck, Im saying why would more linear power ruin the car?

True, but the vehicle they loosely modeled this car after was the Porshce Cayman. That car handles twisties plus has impressive acceleration. So, if you add more power you tick another box if that is something you really want.

If you are talking about more linear power, then it will not ruin the car anywhere. The only thing is to upgrade to better tires to keep the balance. My own car feels of an equivalent 250-260hp car and I don't think it has been ruined somewhere. Same if you install a good supercharger and go up to 280hp. it will feel like you have a larger displacement engine. The issue is with the turbos, where you'll get an instant torque increase and there the balance is ruined.

It doesn’t. Simple.

And why can't this be an Impreza/WRX/STI deal, where higher trim levels also have higher power output setups? For the regular folks, they have the Impreza, for the affordable sportiness, you get a WRX, for even more sportiness, you have the less affordable STI. I see no reason why the current engine can't be the "base" engine, and that a 2.0L turbo or 2.4L turbo can't be the "STI/TRD" version.

You'd still have that "current power level the majority of buyers will prefer", and then you'd have the car for the people more like us, and that can also afford it, to go a step further than the average twin buyer.

And yes, I understand the reasoning of not adding a turbocharger so as to not negatively affect balance, which a supercharger wouldn't do, so supercharge the damn thing then.

Or get that GR-HV concept out to the public, that thing looked sick.

Perhaps you could read the thread before commenting

Because it would necessarily add weight and cost and change the character of the car from a fun car to a fast car, which isn't necessarily the same thing. See demonstration image below.

There are other reasons, but it's late and I'm sleepy now...

I normally don’t comment on the “needs more power” threads (I’ve seen/heard it for 6 years) but I’m pretty bored.

Long story short is this topic is rarely viewed from the perspective of engineers who need to follow a high standard of quality that both brands are known for meeting.

Toyota and Subaru (for the most part cough cough mid-late 2000 head gaskets) are known for long lasting daily drivers. Toyota & Subaru nailed the target market for this car—car enthusiasts who want a fun daily driver. If you don’t believe me, go make a poll asking “Who daily drives their twin?” I bet at least 80% of people will say that they do.

So if you’re going to make a daily driver and target it to young adults you need to have a reputation for reliability/dependability and longevity. Apart from that you need economical benefits like good gas mileage and low maintenance. You will probably want to be safe everyday too in your daily driver so safety is important also. Finally, you have to squeeze this car into a price range that is reasonable for the target market.

So if you break down the most important aspects here...

Reliability
Fuel Economy
Safety
Price

...and ask yourself, can we increase power in this car, and still keep a sweet spot in all 4 aspects?

And if you’re thinking “YES, YOU CAN” then you have to ask yourself, “OK, but can I do this and still have a car comparable or better than the competition? (Competition= Miata, Genesis, 370z, Mustang, Camaro). And finally “can I still do this and follow transportation certifications and emissions requirement around the world?”

There are so many factors as to why power remains modest in these cars. I bet the engineering and development team knew this car would be better with more power back when they were testing it in 09/10. We may never know all the things that limited the car from getting a more powerful engine, but we do know the car is still fun to drive, and not to mention a pretty cool daily driver!

Take an extreme example. Quirt Crawford said the 500+ HP motor he built took the BRZ from a car he would drive at 110% all the time to a car he never took above 20% as a daily driver. He said it wasn't as fun to drive at that point because you simply couldn't use the power. To me that sounds boring for a daily driver, and I really have no interest in drag racing.

Backing off from that extreme, if you're using it as a daily, adding a little more power might make it a little more fun, but there's a curve on which at some point adding power starts to make it less predictable and more of a chore to hold back. Where that point is for you really depends on how you drive it, whether you track it, whether you race and are trying to wring out more power for wins, what your other mods are, etc. A few years ago when people were still experimenting to see what they could pull out of these cars, there were several members here who built for power and then weren't really happy with the result because it dampened what they felt when they first drove the car.

Could the manufacturer give us more power? Sure. Do they need to? No. The car stands on its own. If you want more power, build it yourself.

For me, it comes down to this: If I had wanted a Corvette or a Porsche, I would have bought a Corvette or a Porsche. I wanted an inexpensive entry level sports car that would put a smile on my face as my daily driver, and that's what I got. It seems to me the people who complain about lack of power really just bought the wrong car.

This car is designed with limited power and ultimate handling but it is also highly suitable for modifications. There are reliability, performance, handling tradeoffs as in all engineering projects. Do your research, understand the consequences, and just do what *you* want. I think better performance is not fitting the marketing strategy of the manufacturers. Otherwise, I know a more powerful *and* more expensive car is technically possible without ruining the characteristic design.

@Veloist: I don't think his argument is "needs more power". It is more about "if more power ruins the balance of the car".

And I would be more careful about statements of high standard of quality that both brands are known for meeting. Cough cough. I ordered some factory exhaust parts lately and I wouldn't really say that the quality was high enough. They even accepted to replace the part with a new one, but even after searching their warehouse in Japan for a better quality product they didn't really met the expectation of high quality! I don't really want to start posting pictures of what I received and what they proposed to me as an alternative, but it is really a shame of where both companies are heading lately and in fact consumers have no idea about it. A customer will never take apart a new car's exhaust to check what is inside and especially on material before the catalyst that could cause loss of power or even significant damage.

Did we reach 260hp now? just few days ago you liked to say it felt like a 240hp?
next week, 280? :thumbsup:
all of that with a stock engine, canned tune and oem header and 2 cats...
nice info here, nikitopo


the feel doesnt mean nothing, i can say my car when i drive it, feels like a F12 Superfast, but that doesnt make it any faster o powerfull
you either start doing real world measurements and comparison, or you should stop saying your car pulls faster than a Porsche like you said. No one can start believing you otherwise

When you are working on weight reduction of rotational and non-rotational parts and not just on power, then it depends also with what you compare it. The acceleration comparison I did last time it was based with a '13 year UK car which is around 1230kg (2712 lbs). The latest cars and especially in US are known to be much heavier pretty close to 1280-1290 kg (2822-2844 lbs). It depends also the trim level. If you do a simple math equation, then you'll find that weight to power ratio gives an equivalent from 240hp to 251hp if you compare it to the heavier car. I said feels like 250-260hp, because we cannot even agree if the first cars had an actual 200hp or a 190hp power figure.


Do your research better next time. ;)

how much weight have you shred on your car then?

More quasi science applied just like usual. And the ever popular "I don't think this so it isn't true" to the facts. Very cute how you take the weights and convert it to HP when it meets your needs. The first cars had 200HP that is not up for debate. No they did not put that to the ground but that does not mean that is what they were rated at.
Congrats on beating Mike BRZs 221NA record claim with a couple of bolt on parts and a tune. Good work as always.

if your car "feel" (a k a behaves?) like a 260hp brz...so you are almost up in par to a slighty underpowered supercharged brz? cool..who knows why people spend 5k to get a kit..

I would never suggest everyone going this way. A supercharger solution is less expensive and a much better alternative for a daily driven car. It is just funny that some people don't believe that lightweight rotational parts work. They are not the complete equation, but a part of the equation. Maybe they should share their "wisdom" with some racing teams that were doing all these things for decades.


Anyway, we are getting off the topic and I don't really like the :barf:

Some of you get it, Veloist, and some of you don't, Borchert97.

I doubt if there will be a new version of the 86 in NA, and I doubt if the current one will make it past the 2021 model year.

it s not so off topic with the title, we can continue
for example you can say to us how much weight have you shred from your car and how?


Also, it seems you really are comparing a weight loss to supercharger.. which it makes no sense since a forced induction will increase torque in all the output band therefore a supercharger WILL always beat your weight shredding. By the time your car reach a 100hp output, a supercharged one has already almost double

speaking of peak output, i still don t believe you could have, at 6800-7000 rpm, a similar performance of a 260hp brz even if you feel like it could, even if it s a bit heavier
but then we should again know how much weight we are talking

Racing teams would laugh at your claims of the results you have from the mishmash of changes you made. In fact there are two racing teams on this forum that have done exactly that but you just dismiss their comments.

These are some pretty heavy accusations without any proof. Not sure what you expected from a massed produced exhaust component or what you received but it was no doubt well within the specs and normal for any level of "quality".

Forums consist of many people that figure they can out engineer the manufacturer. Really easy to second guess tem when there are no restrictions to deal with like they have. There are people that are convinced that the torque dip is only there because the engineers can't figure out how to get rid of it. That thought is just ridiculous.
We see people say "they can just throw a turbo/supercharger/bigger engine in it and sales will go way up. Those same people have no clue what the emissions, mileage, and passenger/pedestrian safety requirements that the manufacturer are. The design engineers have thousands of parameters that they must stay in and just throwing parts at it is not something they can do. Just adding a SC would require all new crash tests and emission control /mileage approvals. This would cost millions and the investment would be foolish just to sell a few hundred high power model versions a year. Wouldn't matter what they did to it anyway half the people complaining about power would still say it was not enough. Hell, how many people buy a WRX or STi and leave it stock?

Tcoat, my day job is product development. Your assessment is spot on. I'm not certain if everyone considers that Subaru and Toyota are in this for profit. They need a return on their investment, very seldom are projects done to simply to scratch an inch or to appease enthusiasts. Even SEMA and autoshow budgets, while often massive, are justified by consumer feedback and brand exposure.

One only needs to look at the death of the successful (and much better selling than the 86) FJ Cruiser to see that Toyota has little patience for low volume models, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY ARE LOVED.

The twins are circling the drain.

I have worked in management for Teir One auto parts manufacturers for almost 30 years and see what happens in the background. It can take 6 to 10 people, hundreds of hours of work each, spread over a year period, just to get all the different countries to approve a slight change in the type of coating on a brake rotor. It isn't as simple as saying "this is what we are going to do" and doing it.
Toyota and Subaru went into this project knowing it would be a very low volume and margin vehicle. We are not privy to their business plan but they are not the fools that people seem to think and knew exactly what they were doing. It was done more as an exposure and buzz creator then to capture sales. They don't care if they sell high volumes since that is what their appliance vehicles are for. If there is a second gen that I highly doubt it will be greatly changed from what it is now. If they decide they want to make it a high volume sales vehicle than we can kiss what we have now goodbye.

Perhaps Subaru would choose to continue production since 98% of the car is really their stuff anyways, and already made at one of their plants. I'm sure the Toyota-related technology could be licensed/purchased. Subaru would seem to benefit more from a niche model than Toyota would, and certainly is no stranger to them.

A unicorn in the back seat would be neat too! How about Mario Kart banana peels from the back bumper and 18 gears like on the Fast and Curious?

-adding a lot of power means that the brakes need to be bigger
-the suspension needs to be beefier
-how do you increase power, keep it legal and not shove a bigger engine in the thing?
-anything other than a boxer engine will have a higher COG
-more chassis bracing is needed
-oh yeah, in order to be the same car, it can't be $100,000 so CF is out.

Pretty sure there was a article about the production of the car, and how it isn't more a Subaru than Toyota, or vise versa.

It isn't even close to 98% Subaru content but yes they could either buy similar parts or swing a deal to use the Toyota stuff. Don't see it ever becoming a one pony show though since that would drive production costs through the roof. Their other niche cars were all built on appliance platforms so the costs could be off set.


http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71898

I'd seriously love to read that, because just about everything I lay my eyes on in my FR-S has 'Subaru' stamped on it, or is clearly from a Subaru parts bin. My understanding is that it's basically just the direct injection technology, transmission, and rear diff that are not Subaru stuff - the rest is Subaru sourced, or shared within the platform.

98% is an exaggeration, but the Toyota list isn't very long, as I understand it. Could be wrong though. And I don't see how production costs would rise much since there's currently only one location and it's a Subaru plant. The car has already been developed and there's basically zero retooling etc. required to maintain that. Naturally total sales would probably drop, but Subaru as a brand actually might see an increase on paper...they might be able to spin that into enough 'profit' to maintain it. Again, I think Subaru would be able to benefit far more from having a niche offering than Toyota, so the worth of that market increases somewhat. Not saying I'd want it, but they could easily milk this current platform for another 8-10 years with just minor updates to keep it selling, even if no longer competitive in it's current market.

Just? Those are some pretty important pieces. I mean, if you're considering all the metal and plastic they use, then creation of the twins in a Subaru plant to skew your opinion on who made more of the car, then yeah it's a Subaru.

You make it seem like the engine is the only important piece and equates to 90% of the car because boxer.

Never said the car would go down the road without them, but if there are more that those sourced from Toyota, I'd like to hear about it. I could give fuck-all about the engine. Contemporary boxers are a pretty stupid layout, frankly, and this motor is anything but inspiring. It's adequate, nothing more.

Correct that’s one way to look at it, but OP started with “Toyota, Subaru, and others mentioned that more power would ruin the twins.”

Well...

Toyota, Subaru, and others will only say that if you bring up the “needs more power” topic up to them.

—-

Besides, the answers to “why would more power ruin the [balance of the] car?” will eventually lead to “then increase the power and make the suitable changes to the chassis and suspension” and then “well they (Toyota and Subaru) should’ve made the car like that from the start.” Nothing new from the arguments back in 2012, 2013.

The people who have done the deed of increasing their car’s power themselves will chime in and point out that the car should’ve came like theirs stock, but when you’re mass producing it, then you’ll need an entirely different perspective.

Have a look at the thread Tcoat listed, it's pretty interesting.

I think the layout of the engine is cool, but that's bias because I'm obsessed with the car. If they could've managed this car with an I4 I still would've been very interested, the dream would've been a MR car like the MR2 though.

Honest question though, where do you get the evidence/opinion that Subaru was much more involved than Toyota with the creation of this car? When I first started looking into it, I basically thought it was a Subaru and Toyota just re-branded the car, but had nothing to go off of other than it was made in a Subaru plant and they contained boxers made by Subaru(I blame marketing).

Suspension, brakes, interior, materials, etc. are mostly either Subaru parts bin, or jointly developed for the car. Like I said, it seems like very few things were sourced specifically from Toyota (importance aside).

And the boxer layout is heavy and large, and despite having a clean sheet of paper, they still shoved the motor far forward of the front wheels. There's been countless discussions regarding better overall packaging and weight savings of an I4. Yeah, CoG is slightly lower for a bare motor, but once you start factoring all the accessory componentry being located up high, that advantage mostly goes away. I do like the accessiblity of said components. Spark plugs could have easily been made far simpler to service. And 2x the complexity of valvetrain really doesn't make a strong argument for a boxer of any type. Back when they were pushrod motors, a boxer had a lot more appeal in terms of packaging. Subaru is hanging on to them because it's how they market themselves as different from the other manufacturers...there's certainly no practical advantage to them.