What's wrong with the exhaust note? I'm glad it doesn't sound like a WRX, and it doesn't sound like a straight 4 either. Sadly there are only a couple 4 cylinder engines that i have ever heard that made a sound that could be considered good sounding...both of them come from superbikes, the Aprilia RSV4 and Ducati Desmosedici which both use V4's and make 200HP per Liter.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJaTYJoPjWc"]Aprilia RSV4 Factory APRC SE with Bodis SBP-1 Carbon Slipon Exhaust - Flyby - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bnpXGImetE"]Sitting on & revving a Ducati Desmosedici RR - YouTube[/ame]

To be honest, I am one of those coming from the nissan 3L VQ and I think the low end torque/performance on my BRZ beats the VQ. Can't say what higher RPM will compare since i'm stilll in the break in period and haven't gone above 4K RPM yet!

I disagree with the fact that it got on the list because it produces 100HP per liter of displacement using n/a. Someone pointed out the RSX and Civic hit this milestone to, but forgot to mention that Honda achieved this over 21 years ago. Two decades! It is simply no longer considered a special feat in engine tech.

So, it must be something else that qualified it. Perhaps the fact that it is a boxer making 100HP per L n/a...maybe that is the special part. And as others have pointed out, the mpg is certainly better than the examples I'm using. I still think it was something else, maybe the author just loves the car? It's just a list, for all we know he had trouble coming up with 5 to put on there, let alone 10.

Low-end torque. Direct injection. Boxer layout. Fuel economy.

"Low end torque" that takes a break on the way to being high end torque.

"Direct Injection" that sounds like a cricket farm and tosses CEL lights that the dealers can't fix.

"Boxer Layout" Makes for an ugly and clutered layout. Have any of you looked at this thing? Especially the view from below? I suspect the flatulent engine sound is also a by-product of this design. I am still optimistic that removing the kazoo that pipes noise into the cabin will help somewhat.

"Fuel Economy" that is optimistic at best if you drive this like a normal car.

If we get bored with picking on the engine, we can move on to the 6 speed box that is almost a good box.:D


Me, I'm rooting for the guy on the BRZ forum that is putting the LS2 into the car. That should fix what ails this ride.

Better than not having low-end torque at all. Look at the 200hp/2.0L NA engines that have come before it.

No crickets on my FR-S. I only use name-brand gas though. CEL is fixed with a flash/ECU update.

To be honest, I don't really care what my engine look like. I'd rather have the lower CG and inherent smoothness of a boxer layout than go with an inline-4 for its traditional "looks".

I drive mine just like I drive my 2.0t MK6 GTI, another 200 hp mill. I'm getting 28 mpg with the FR-S, compared with 25 mpg in the GTI. Same exact commute, same driver.

If you're that upset about your engine and transmission, why not sell your car? Would save you a lot of heartache. I'd never own a car where I hated the powertrain that much. Life's too short to drive cars you don't like IMO.

You have to be the most bitter BRZ owner I have ever heard of. If you wanted a V8 powered car, the BRZ certainly isn't what you wanted. Slapping an LS powerplant into this car will of course produce amazing acceleration figures, big whoop car won't handle for shit, because you are screwing up the weight bias, raising the car's center of gravity, and adding more weight to the car. It's a cute exercise to stuff an LS into any car on the road, but all it accomplishes is turning a car that is sublime in the twisties, to a car that can clock a decent trap speed in a straight line.

As for a cluttered engine bay...you obviously haven't worked on any significant imports in the last 15-20 years. In comparison to some of my older cars (02 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4, 86 and 98 Toyota Supra's, and a 95 Nissan 300ZX TT) this car is light years easier to work on the engine. Sure it's not pretty but it isn't as terrible as you make it seem. About the only thing I would change is the crappy looking plastic intake runners...I'd like a CF solution.

I will agree that the HP fuel pump is a poor design and Toyobaru needs to engineer a replacement that won't squeak.

The torque is obviously a touchy subject for you, but I am curious why? I find the torque dip annoying only occasionally and that's only when I find myself trying to accelerate through it because of an early shift. It would be nice if there was an easy way to fix it but until Toyobaru decides to do something it's one of the "quirks" you just gotta deal with.

You guys make me laugh. You'd think I was calling your mom ugly!

I am simply pointing out that this car is not the second coming of sliced bread. It has a ton of little flaws that keep it from being a great car. In my opinion, most of the flaws are based around the drivetrain. While it is "close to great" recall that "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades.

Time will tell how Toyobaru refines the drivetrain in this car. Don't count out the aftermarket either as I have a suspicion that they were partnered in from the beginning as the solution to any performance concerns that the enthusiast may have. The basic engine seems to tolerate boost and boost is going to be available to those that want it.

As to the LS2 conversion being an abomination, you sound the the rotary brotherhood who moan about the soul of the car being destroyed when someone yanks another dead triangle out and swaps in an alternate engine into the beloved RX7s. The Miata seems to handle this conversion quite well, so why would the Toyobaru be any different? It wont be a perfect car, but I assure you I could have more fun with it than with the stock FRS:burnrubber:

Those people bashing the torque dip are asking too much of the limitation of an internal combustion engine... Everything is a compromise, and this engine is doing a VERY GOOD JOB at not sacrificing anything. It still has a lot of down low torque, great fuel economy and very very low NVH (noise, vibration and harshness)...and very good power in the high RPM..seriously, you want to whine about that???

Consider this:

The engine has only 1 cam profile to work with VS most of the other 100/HP liter small engine.

It makes almost all of it's torque at 2500 RPM, that's the reason you feel the dip, if it wasn't for that low end torque everybody would say this engine sucks and only comes alive at 4000+ RPM. Anybody here is familiar with Honda's dohc vtec engines? How's that power under 5K rpm?

It still pulls 200 HP and redlines at 7500 RPM

It sounds good doing all of the above.

I know tone is difficult to read through the internet, but I didn't intend to come across harshly in my post. Just wanted to correct what appear to be errors in your statement. Feel free to address the facts I wrote about the FA20 if you want to debate the merits.

our engine is DOHC isn't it???

Here's why I think our motor belongs on the list...

We have multiple aftermarket tuners making up to 500hp or more with no upgrades other than injectors to flow more fuel and a better clutch to handle the power.. and not one has reported any engine failure (at least not that i've read).

They overbuilt the motor... it's fantastic.

The torque dip is a tuning issue as we've seen and it completely dissapears with a good tune and/or forced induction.

DOHC, but only one cam profile per camshaft. What he's referring to are systems like VTEC or VVTL which have a second cam "profile" that alters lift and duration for high-rpm flow. Essentially a second set of cams.

The FA20 can only vary timing, not lift/duration. In other words VVTI, not VVTL-I.

Anyone remember the F20C (Honda S2K)? Made 120/litre while being NA without using direct injection. Admittedly it's not in the relative price range but oooooooooo the razzle/dazzle built into the motor.

Honda glory days come back to us.... :thumbsup: