I hope you're not interpreting my question as anything more than genuine curiosity.

The modifications one chooses to install is based entirely on the owner's risk appetite and their desired ownership experience. FI has a better cost to benefit ratio, I'm not arguing that. Forced induction kits are complex, however, leading to several points of failure. That could be a mechanical point of failure (installed incorrectly, defective parts) or a bad tune. Ultimately that is a major risk, no matter who is doing the work.

NA engines are simpler (for the most part), with less complexity and points of failure. Especially if you're simply swapping a factory engine. If it's possible to gain 35 hp, increase torque, and possibly smooth out the power band--all while while reducing risk, I believe it's worth the effort.

OK so the current rumour is 217KP from the NA 2.4. This is only 12 to 17 HP more than the 2.0 depending on the year. Hardly "sizable" and generally available from the 2.0 with a few inexpensive bolt ons and a decent tune. Easily surpassed if you want to throw a bit more cash at it and go FI or E85. Little point in spending a large chunk of cash on a swap to the 2.4.


There could be a case made that the 2.4 would stand boost better and you would end up well above the limits of the 2.0 but at this point we don't even know what the fuel system will be. Did Toyota jump in again or not? I suspect not but we just have to wait for real info not rumours. The 2.4 engines are new enough that they will not be available for cheap for at least a couple of years so on the financial end it still would not be a reasonable swap even to go FI.


If anybody here can get 240HP out of a NA boxer engine while meeting all price points and mileage/emissions standards please contact Subaru right away. You will be a super star for them!

The Ecoboost is 4000lbs with a power to weight ratio nearly identical to the current gen Twins. No way in hell would it lap a Twin on a track.


If their goal is to match the Ecoboost then no way in hell will we be seeing a turbo.

It isn't just a matter of pulling one factory engine out and dropping another one in. Wiring harnesses, ECU, mounting points, emission control systems, possibly clutch/tranny differences and even space in the engine bay would all come into play. The 2.4 was not designed for the current car and even though it is a "factory" engine it would take almost the same amount of work and money as any other swap. This is why you don't see many (any?) swaps for engines from the WRX or Sti even though they are fundamentally the same.

It was a Mustang vs 86 joke. Was not to be taken seriously.

Same here. I was hoping that they would come up with a new model based on the original sports car concept. And it looks like they did it. I might just buy an excellent sports car cheap and throw out the powertrain warranty again. I would actually welcome no turbo because I would choose supercharger. I am also hoping that they would switch to 8-speed ZF transmission from Supra. Not interested in having a clutch.

First clear look at GR86 / BRZ prototype during testing
 

No, the ecoboost Mustang is 3532lbs. And has significantly better power to weight, almost 20% better than the 86.

310/3532 = 0.0878
205/2780 = 0.0737

This is easily verifiable information, why spew bullshit when you can spend five seconds to Google it?

I did google it:
https://i.imgur.com/2WD4GO4.png


That is right off Ford's website. Why is their site that far off?


https://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/mo...oost-fastback/

First clear look at GR86 / BRZ prototype during testing
 

Whaaaaaaat? Is it the convertible?

Edit. No it’s not, I just checked too. Ford’s own numbers are way off!

Car and driver weighed it at 3556lbs:
https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/fi...1524250686.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/NddjaSq.png


I think it's an error because I found a PDF on the Ford site that had the numbers you gave. Sorry to spread fake news.. thought I could trust their own website.


So this is encouraging.. maybe we will see a larger boost in power.

You would think right!?

Sorry to jump down your throat on this, I never considered ford’s own numbers would be off by 500lbs!

My only guess is these numbers are actually GVWR and they mislabeled it curb weight. I almost fell out of my seat when I read those numbers. If I saw the numbers on any other site I would have called BS and continued my search.

Maybe they weighed it with two people inside.

Yes, they seem to have it slightly mislabeled, but that may be their intention in some weird form. The whole category where you find the vehicles weight is under CAPACITIES which talks about volume capacity, seating capacity, etc. So these weights are certainly referencing to GVWR. Definitely weird that they have it listed this way, and also odd that they would neglect to even mention the curb weight. It is what it is.