![]() |
There’s so much excusing in this thread. Here’s the only polishing I can do on this turd of a development:
Location of the dip and gearing matter A LOT. I don’t much care what this kind of engine is doing below 4k because I would never drive it there when I want power. Bottom half of the tach is for steady-state cruising IMO. The problem with the old car wasn’t just that there WAS a dip on an already underpowered motor, it’s that there was too broad of a band just below redline where an upshift would drop you right into it. The fact that the new one has a dip sucks, and I’m not going to excuse it just because I like the rest of the package (at least in theory). But it does look like the dip is at least earlier in the rev range. As a thought experiment: if the new dip it 3x as deep but it’s from 2.5k-4k I’d be annoyed but ok with it…as long as a shift around the 6.5k range doesn’t drop me right into the valley of it. It looks like maybe that’s addressed, which is a decent balm on this burn. |
Quote:
The powerband still continues to rise in the dip so you're still getting more power regardless of torque dip. To actually feel the rise to 3k then drop to 4k it's kind of like lugging the car a bit IMHO, where it'd just be easier on most of the components to lean in or downshift. I'd argue on the track where if one were on the track demanding full power down as much as possible, you'd notice it more as you demand a bunch from 4k but not get that demanded power (I guarantee most reviewers aren't always keeping the car at the highest RPMs constantly). On the daily road, I've literally never had a problem with the torque dip, considering my last car had less HP and was heavier. But that's just me. I still think it's a very overblown issue that people only find as a problem because of number theory/oggling dynos over real world stuff. Yes, the dip can be annoying depending on how you drive but it's far from making the car "gutless" IMHO. IIRC our dip isn't any worse than what the S2000 makes until VTEC kicks in lol. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
On this car stock, you accelerate fine to start and then you go WTF!!! for a few seconds and then ho, hum you are back to where you should have been to begin with. And for the record, I have never driven it on a track and have no plans to. However, I do like to accelerate quickly when called for (and even when not, but safe) and toss it around (same). I have gradually taught myself to shift later than I used to because even on OFT/headers/e85 it still needs to be running in the +4k range to really feel like you are getting the most out of the motor. Not gonna lie, though, sometimes I am cruising at 65 on the highway in 6th and forget to downshift to pass and I pay for it whereas my last two cars would just go .5 second of spooling and off! Not complaining - I purchased this car with my eyes open and I love lots of things about it - and I still may go FI at some point in time (or just upgrade to a 2022+ instead if header/tune/e85 get me where I need/want to go). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Actually, I have driven GR Yaris (it is available in our country) - it felt very good. As my tuned Scion FRS but more powerful in a midrange :w00t::burnrubber: But the driving position is awfull (for me). You have this f*cking multimedia system in center of panel and mirror. And it felt like you are sitting on top of wheels in some horse cart :D Maybe I will wait 2-3 years for some used gr86/brz and spend money on tuning. |
Quote:
Well this is quickly devolving into internet shitposting, track driving and your statement doesn't exist in a vacuum in practice. I've seen more than a dozen videos of people who'll drop well into the torque dip because it's faster to not downshift on certain technical areas of the track, not to mention that every driver is different. From the nordschleife to regular tracks. That's the last I'll say on this silly notion. |
I still think that graph is compressed and we're getting upset over nothing
|
There’s a guy on NASIOC that made a better graph using HP/Torque from the graph on the YouTube video. It really didn’t look that bad. Here’s the link.
https://forums.nasioc.com/forums/sho...postcount=1043 |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Also would like to point out that yet again, the graph doesn’t start at zero which makes the dip look bigger… |
Quote:
I can't wait for headers and I don't even have the car yet. Again I have to say that it doesn't look like the dash graph at all, but still not a deal breaker. I am currently planning to get a WRB BRZ limited manual. |
All Subie NA engine had tq dip (including EG & EZ), so I wasn't expecting anything different from FA24. When some journalist claiming tq dip was gone, I wanted to call BS... but didn't wanna say til I saw the dyno first.
For track-geeks who's revving only at the top won't feel much difference (other than lil more power). For autox'ers, they'll feel fraction less dip at the tq dip. Either way, it'll be a good area aftermarket companies can tackle. |
Still the same dip from 3200 to 4500.
They advertised that peak is from 3700 .. But actually peak of torque is at 3000 and then it fall down :D Wtf? |
Omg its horrible. I'll never buy one!
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.