What is your prediction on FT86 power and Subaru 086a power?
 

Toyota:
2L NA: 210 hp/170 lb-ft
2L Turbo: 260hp/240lb-ft

Subaru:
(assuming awd variant)
2.5L NA: 240hp/200lb-ft
2.5 Turbo: 300hp/290lb-ft

I'm thinking the Toyota will get just about 190-200hp (which is already on the high range of whats being predicted) but I hope I'm wrong. Would love to see about 250hp from the 2L Turbo

It all comes down to the weight which if its low won't need a honkin engine to power the car properly.

And I see you predicted higher power for the subie 086a. Are we pretty sure that the subaru version will get more powerful engine? Why would that be?

Whatever it makes, the hp and tq will be much closer to the same value...

I'm assuming the subaru would get a higher displacement engine since it might have lug around the weight of the awd system.

We don't even know if the subbie version is going to have AWD, so I wouldn't speculate it gets the 2.5 all across the board.

The STI version will more than likely have the 2.5 though.

If suby doesn't have awd and gets a 2 liter for the base version then it's basically the same as the FT-86. This partnership would be wasted imo... cause they would be competing against each other.

I wonder what the odds of a FT-86 Alltrac/GT-4 With the EJ20 and a Subaru WRX/STI Version of the 086A with the EJ25

70-75 ftlbs/L for NA is more realistic. Your power predictions are also optimistic.

This engine with direct injection has been speculated to produce around 200 hp since it will probably have a higher CR. Do you mean 140-150 lb-ft? I don't think I have ever seen torque listed as ftlbs/L in any car literature. The base 2.0L with AVCS makes around 141 of torque. Would be a pretty weak increase of only 9 lb-ft with direct injection and internal improvements...

with the 2.0 i'd expect around 165hp to 180 and around 160lbs of tq

The real enthusiasts will buy the Toyota and do an engine swap :p

After I've had my fill of the boxer...

or whenever I save enough money after paying it off....

BT 20v will be going in.:cool:

I figured I could make my point more effectively in terms of specific torque output.

NA piston engines that get above 70-75 ftlbs/L are generally expensive. The highest specific NA torque output I'm aware of is the Ferrari 458 Italia (it has DI and makes 89 ftlbs/L).

For purposes of comparison, the DI version of the Cadillac CTS 3.6L makes 76 ftlbs/L while the non-DI version makes 70 ftlbs/L. The S2000's handbuilt F20c made 76 ftlbs/L. Honda's cheaper 2L K20Z3 engine (in the Civic Si) gets about 70 ftlbs/L (similar to the AVCS you mentioned).

If Honda had added DI to the F20c, it'd probably get above 80 ftlbs/L, but keep in mind that's an expensive engine. If they add DI to the Civic Si, I'd expect ~75 ftlbs/L.

Anyway, since the FT-86 is intended to be reasonably priced, I would be surprised if it attains the 85 ftlbs/L (in NA trim) that you predicted.

The cost is going to be reduced since it's a joint project. Toyota most likely saved money elsewhere like on the chassis. The boxer engine is expensive to begin with but toyota just adding DI and other improvements it doesn't seem that bad.

True it could be a high prediction, but in the same token your prediction that it could fall in the 140 range seems somewhat low since the base is already making 141 lb-ft.
Maybe it will actually fall somewhere in between 150-170 range. The IS 350 DI can hit 79 lb-ft/L and that's a pretty common motor. If there is reworked internals and DI for added to the engine then it might have a great effect on torque output.

Edit: the example of the cts with DI, hasn't the torque increased by 20 lb-ft compared to the base version with VVT? Hopefully they can extract similar gains on the boxer.

Actually, I didn't offer a prediction but only said that 70-75 ftlbs/L was more realistic for NA (especially given Toyota's commitment to cost cutting). I agree that the 2.0 is unlikely to be as low as 141 ftlbs, but there's no way it'll be 170 ftlbs.

My prediction is 150 ftlbs.

Yes, though that's a 3.6L.

How would 70-75, which equates to 140-150 lb-ft, be "more realistic" with DI when the base engine produces 141 lb-ft and the STI NA concept producing 145 lb-ft? The IS 350 example I gave produces 79 lb-ft per liter. How would you explain that?

I think your prediction is still low when that is only an increase of 5 lb-ft compared to the STI NA concept. I honestly think your prediction is no more realistic than mine.

I realize that both engines are 3.6 but one has VVT while the other has DI included and the latter producing an increase of 20 lb-ft torque. Don't you then think it is possible for the FT to hit 160 lb-ft with DI and reworked internals?

Would be really awesome if this indeed is true with 300 hp sti version with rwd. In two years time, it could be hitting $36000. However, I think they were testing the NA engine in nurb... that car had barely any openings for cooling.

85 ftlbs/L is unrealistic since that kind of specific output would be prohibitively expensive in a NA car meant to be a cheap successor to the AE86.

Keep in mind that there are rumors that Toyota may opt for an unimpressive 157hp to cut costs. I don't think that'll happen, but if it does then it's also conceivable that FT86 could have only 141 ftlbs. I consider that unlikely (as I wrote before), but until we hear otherwise those are both possibilities.

Also, an STI NA concept making 73 ftlbs/L doesn't really support the assertion that a subsequent production vehicle will make 85 ftlbs/L.

The IS 350 is a much more expensive vehicle. Also unless I'm mistaken, the slightly-cheaper-but-still-pricey IS 250 has 74 ftlbs/L (with DI too).

160 ftlbs is possible, but unlikely since it'd be costly.

In any case, obviously we're both excited about the prospects of the NA 2.0L FT86. Your prediction is 170 ftlbs and mine is 150 ftlbs. Rather than have a petty argument, how about we to agree to disagree and move on.

It seems like you don't get what I'm saying though. I'm saying your prediction is not "more realistic" than mine so 150 lb-ft isn't really realistic either. I already stated that mine could be high.

Cut cost by reducing output? Wouldn't it be more effective to cut cost via engine size.

I didn't say the STI NA concept will get to 170. I'm saying it is highly unlikely that there will be only a increase of 5 lb-ft of torque based on what you are saying.

The IS 350 is a much more expensive vehicle. Also unless I'm mistaken, the slightly-cheaper-but-still-pricey IS 250 has 74 ftlbs/L (with DI too).

You do realize that the 2GR-FE/2GR-FSE is shared inside the Toyota family. 2GR-FSE has the DI while the other doesn't. The 2GR-FE is used on Camry's to RAV4's. What other components would make this engine much more expensive?

The boxer engine is expensive to manufacturer so how much more costly would it be to increase torque to 160 lb-ft? Keep in mind Toyota is going to add DI so that extra cost is already factored in. Are you saying that 15-19 lb-ft torque increase can't be the result of DI?

Yes, we won't agree but I'm just trying to point out the fallacy in your statement.

Edit:IS 250 isn't really relevant to what is being discussed here. 3.5L in a camry gets 248 lb-ft of torque and the DI in the is350 gets 277lb-ft. A 29 lb-ft increase and an increase from 71 lb-ft per liter to 79 lb-ft per liter. Just shows that your range of 70-75 lb-ft/L does not hold up unless you can show me that this motor is "costly".

If you think 141 lb-ft is conceivable with this engine recieving at least DI then I think you are going to be surprised and basically your rating is "unrealistic".

It also brings me to another point. Why does toyota have to use boxer engines and not use their own engines? Wouldn't using their own engines be more cost effective?

my thoughts, these are for HP

NA:
2.0- 165-175
2.5- 220-230

turbo:
2.0- 220-230
2.5- 265-275

i also want to know why they can't stuff their own engine in there (toyota that is)

LOL! So that's what the Subie's gonna be powered by... pure soundwaves!

I'm guessing:

180-190hp
155-165tq

Likely will rev over 7K.

So the ugly sister car will get the goods, huh? Fuck that -- I'll either do FI or an engine swap. i'm convinced this car can be a 370 Z beater for several grand less.

^^^ All good points.

I just want the purty one :D

Hopefully both versions will get one of those :D

I can't see them bringing out a 2.0L turbo with the same power as a NA 2.5L.

We still don't know anything about a turbo in either model right now, anyway.

My logic goes something like this:

1. We know that the FT86 will be an inexpensive car.
2. We know that attaining specific torque output as high as 85 ftlbs/L from a NA piston engine is very expensive.
3. Therefore, your prediction of 85 ftlbs/L is not possible for the FT86.
4. However, 75 ftlbs/L is possible.
5. Something that is possible is more realistic than something that is impossible.
6. Therefore, 75 ftlbs/L is a more realistic prediction for the FT86 than 85 ftlbs/L.

It's unlikely to be that high in a cheap NA 2.0L.

Which statement is fallacious?

I'll be surprised if the NA FT86 has anything below 145 ftlbs, but at least it's a remote possibility (while 170 ftlbs is not, unless Toyota repositions it as an upscale vehicle).

Tell you what... I'll wager my 150 ftlbs against your 170 ftlbs. I propose that the rules be:

1. The bet is for NA only.
2. If Toyota uses a different size engine, we'll compare my 75 ftlbs/L to your 85 ftlbs/L.
3. The wager is void if the FT86 base price climbs above $35k (since then Toyota will have repositioned the car as no longer being a cheap RWD successor to the AE86).
4. We'll go by the officially announced torque value for the production car.
5. Whichever one of us is closer gets to pick a charity that the other person must donate $10 USD to.
6. If it's 160 ftlbs, we both donate $10 to charity.

What do you say?

That's a lot of wheelbase just to have big speakers.
 

Interesting use of the RX8's freestyle doors.

Your logic has some fallacies. I already said my prediction could be high but yours is definitely low. I’m not sure why you are not getting this.

The car is targeted to be around the $20000, and yes it could be relatively inexpensive, but that doesn’t tell us the TRUE cost of the car let alone the engine cost. We don’t even have the exact pricing for the car yet. So let me ask you, do you know the TRUE cost of the EJ20 engine if it was capable of producing 160 lb-ft vs. the TRUE cost of producing 150 lb-ft? I am really curious to know your answer.

Could you also help me find the TRUE cost of 2GR-FSE and 2GR-FE? And like I said before, the FE is used on Camry's to RAV4's so other than DI, what would make this engine “much more expensive”?

It's unlikely to be that high in a cheap NA 2.0L.
I see. So only a marginal increase of 5 lb-ft or 2.5 lb-ft/L from the NA concept based on your prediction of 150 lb-ft is “more realistic”. I just find it funny that not even your own example of the SI shows a 2.5 lb-ft/L increase.
I'll be surprised if the NA FT86 has anything below 145 ftlbs, but at least it's a remote possibility
How is 141-145 lb-ft even a remote possibility. That’s a 0-5 lb-ft increase with DI with respect to the base and NA concept engine. If you are going to say it’s a “cheap” engine then please show me how much more it would cost to increase torque by 0-5 lb-ft based on your 150 lb-ft prediction.
It even sounds funny saying torque would not increase at all with DI since you said it’s conceivable that FT86 could have only 141 ftlbs. Not to mention if Toyota does work on the engine makes your statement even more unlikely.

Which statement is fallacious?
Starting from your first post and another affirmation here in your 2nd reply:
Only said that 70-75 ftlbs/L was more realistic for NA (especially given Toyota's commitment to cost cutting).
= 140-150 lb-ft/L. So how is 140 lb-ft even realistic for this engine when it gets 141 lb-ft in the base engine without even having DI?
And your other ranges don’t even sound “more realistic” when you don’t even know if Toyota is cost cutting on the engine to a point where they won't go above 150.

Also, how about you answer all of my questions from my previous reply instead of skipping it?

It also brings me to another point. Why does toyota have to use boxer engines and not use their own engines? Wouldn't using their own engines be more cost effective?

Why would I need to put a wager in for the 160 lb-ft range when I said it's possible for this engine? You however should though put in some money, since you think it’s too “costly” for Toyota to do it and it doesn’t fall into your 140-150 lb-ft/L “more realistic” range. But I’ll put in a wager that it’s not 150 lb-ft if you put in the same amount saying that it will be 150 lb-ft.

I already explained this.


Than 85 ftlbs/L? Yes.


Not sure what you mean by this.


I already answered this.


I haven't answered all of your questions simply because you're asking a lot of them (some of which are tangential and/or redundant) and I don't have enough spare time to answer them all. So, I've tried to keep it focused on the crux of the discussion:

1. Your prediction is 170.
2. mine is 150.
3. You said my prediction is not any more realistic than yours.

Everything else is subsidiary. If you want to research exact engine prices, more power (pun!) to you.


We both said 160 is possible and it's the average of our predictions.


That would be like me proposing "I’ll put in a wager that it’s not 170 lb-ft if you put in the same amount saying that it will be 170 lb-ft". I wouldn't expect you to agree to that.

You wrote that 150 ftlbs and 170 ftlbs are equally realistic, so it's time to put up or shut up. :D It's only $10 and it's for charity anyway, so unless you're no longer confident in your prediction, why not? :p

If you're not willing to do that, then I'm going back to my previous suggestion: let's agree to disagree and move on. We've both made our arguments and predictions, and this discussion has become repetitive and circular.

I say base model 2.0l 160 hp
and GT-S model 2.0l 190hp 165ft/lb tq

I also think since you can get a TRD supercharger on a Fj cruiser and a Scion Tc that the possibilities of factory boost for the FT-86 are probably good. It may not happen the first year though. My guess FI model probably will be around 265hp like the wrx.

i don't think the supercharged vs (if it comes out) will ever produce that much

maybe 200-210; but even that seems unlikely

No, you are making this a circular argument. You have not answered all my questions because you have no idea what the extra cost is to increase output by 10 lb-ft. Same goes for any other torque rating on the same motor. Thus, your prediction is not more realistic because you don't know the answer to whether the cost would increase.

Also let me refresh your memory,

Only said that 70-75 ftlbs/L was more realistic for NA (especially given Toyota's commitment to cost cutting).
= 140-150 lb-ft/L. So how is 140 lb-ft even realistic for this engine when it gets 141 lb-ft in the base engine without even having DI?
And your other ranges don’t even sound “more realistic” when you don’t even know if Toyota is cost cutting on the engine to a point where they won't go above 150.

I already answered this.

No not really, read the first paragraph. Also I'll remind you again,

I'll be surprised if the NA FT86 has anything below 145 ftlbs, but at least it's a remote possibility
How is 141-145 lb-ft even a remote possibility. That’s a 0-5 lb-ft increase with DI with respect to the base and NA concept engine. If you are going to say it’s a “cheap” engine then please show me how much more it would cost to increase torque by 0-5 lb-ft based on your 150 lb-ft prediction.
It even sounds funny saying torque would not increase at all with DI since you said it’s conceivable that FT86 could have only 141 ftlbs. Not to mention if Toyota does work on the engine makes your statement even more unlikely.

Not sure what I mean? Your Civic SI example shows an increase of 5 lb-ft/L not 2.5 lb-ft/L from the result of DI. Thought you would be able to do the simple math.

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.
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?

I made it quite clear that my prediction could be high. You keep regurgitating the same thing over and over again but you have yet to show me that your 150 lb-ft is more realistic based on cost of the engine. Your prediction is based on your 140-150 lb-ft statement since the torque falls right at 150 lb-ft. Pretty simple to see.

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. :)

hp/ft-lbf, these are NA engines at 2.0L

toyota 3ZR-FAE: 158/144 (i4 config)

subaru 2.0r (i can't find engine name): 158/137 (h4 config)


so between the two of them I feel confident they can attain 165-170hp/145-150ft-lb (155 is a possibility though I don't see 160 happening anytime soon)

however, the celica gt-s (codeveloped engine with yamaha) i think produced 180hp/133ft-lbf; so we may see even higher horsepower rating than 170, possibly closer to 185-190

if it did let's say produce 190hp, weighing in at 2600; it'd compete in acceleration against a subie of 225hp and 3200 lbs (something I see making quite a lot of sense); and later a possible turbo version for toyota competing with the higher end wrx model (though I doub't toyota will ever compete with STI model); assuming subaru's won't lose any weight

Scape FYI, the EJ20 dohc with avcs never produced such low torque.

as a naturally aspirating version, that was the number that kept popping up as I searched around. surprised me

I hope you're right about the 185-190hp #. And if by some miracle Toyota gives us 200hp as a nice round #, I'd be :happyanim::happyanim:

Im gonna guess from pictures of the tach (7.5k redline), that the motor will put out probably 140ft/lbs. of torque and 180bhp. (base motor)

reasons:
1. This is not a drag car, it is supposed to be designed for "drifting" and road racing.

2. Obviously, they can not sink too much money into upgrading the motor if they are going to keep the rest of the car up to par with the rest of the market (interior, comfort, exterior, paint quality, etc.) while still marketing to a target audience.

Sure, they could have a wonderful interior and an LSD, and this is and that, but then you are driving the costs up and pushing the car out of its projected price point. I don't think they will too much to the base engine.

As long as they keep the weight of the car down, it will perform.