Originally Posted by alan.chalkley (Post 782438)

Subaru are the turbo experts , so they will probably engineer any F.I.

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited (Post 782497)

I'll tell you how they could get more power without force induction. They could use a new ECU or reflash the existing one, they can put a bigger exhaust and CAI then use a higher end intercooler then possibly change some of the engine internals. Boom you have an extra 50hp or so. I'm using my Nissan's 2.5L as a guesstimation, with a catback and cai I can get an extra 20hp out of it. They are two different engines but the outcome will be about the same.

Originally Posted by Z-PDX (Post 782615)

With all due respect, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

50hp:lol:

These motors are super efficient. 100hp per liter. It is quite difficult to get much beyond that w.o forced induction. Certainly tuning, intake and exhaust is not going to make 20hp.

Engine internals? Like what? More compression? not likely. Cams? Ok, sure. We can get more peak hp with different cams and tuning. The result would be something you would not want to drive on the street.

No. Forced induction is it. Everything else is chipping at the edges.

Originally Posted by cfusionpm (Post 782624)

I'm rather happy with the car I have for 25k. If I wanted to spend an extra 10 grand, I could have just gotten a 370Z sport and called it a day.

The motor is pretty damn good as is and reminds me a lot of the S2000 motor (small displacement, high rev, lightweight). Adding a bunch of heavy stuff in the engine bay will change what the car is about. Would I like a little more power? Maybe... but for daily driving, the thing is about as fun as can be while remaining economical.

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited (Post 782632)

I agree but if I wanted a little more power I would just do something noninvasive like an exhaust and cai.

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited (Post 782623)

Actually I know what I'm talking about. :laughabove:

Originally Posted by FRiSson (Post 782639)

I respect the engineering and science of turbocharging. However, for engine longevity and lower cost of ownership, I favor a naturally-aspirated engine. From an aesthetic standpoint there is a certain purity to an engine that gets its power simply from good design and high compression. Some car companies, not all, use turbos as a way of getting extra power from mediocre engines.

Originally Posted by Z-PDX (Post 782650)

Tell us more. We can't wait to hear...

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited (Post 782497)

I'll tell you how they could get more power without force induction. They could use a new ECU or reflash the existing one, they can put a bigger exhaust and CAI then use a higher end intercooler then possibly change some of the engine internals. Boom you have an extra 50hp or so. I'm using my Nissan's 2.5L as a guesstimation, with a catback and cai I can get an extra 20hp out of it. They are two different engines but the outcome will be about the same.

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited (Post 782623)

Actually I know what I'm talking about. :laughabove:

Originally Posted by cfusionpm (Post 782660)

Another thing about turbo cars, even the best of them seem to still struggle to get their MPGs in the 20s. I owned two relatively stock turbo DSMs, a 98 Eclipse GS-T and 90 Talon TSi AWD. Both had simple intake and exhaust, nothing else. They were a hoot to drive, but I'd be getting about 17mpg in the Talon and struggling to hit 20mpg in the Eclipse. Even a modern WRX base is advertised 19/25 MPG, with the STi getting 23/17.

More air = more fuel, means worse MPG. I loved the sound of a screaming turbo and the progressive acceleration curve, but having driven a simple intake/exhaust tC for the past 8 years, I've really begun to like the power delivery of N/A engines.

Originally Posted by fatoni (Post 782723)

it doesnt really sound like it. for starters what is the specific output of that 2.5 you are comparing the frs motor to? what do you expect a cold air intake to do? longer tubing simply increases airflow speeds at lower engine speeds but at the cost of restricting them at higher speeds. it just shifts the power peak more than it adds power. and using a higher end intercooler? what does that even mean? i wasnt aware that the frs had an intercooler at all. the only way the frs is going to gain 50hp without using forced induction would be by adding thousands of rpm to the engine speeds and the appropriate cams to go with it.



i think you should look into more modern turbo systems. a lot of time they can rob you of power but there are examples of turbos doing good things for mpgs relative to their power output.

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited (Post 782731)

Technobabble aside, we'll see when someone does a naturally aspirated car with everything I included.

Originally Posted by fatoni (Post 782723)

i think you should look into more modern turbo systems. a lot of time they can rob you of power but there are examples of turbos doing good things for mpgs relative to their power output.

Originally Posted by cfusionpm (Post 782786)

Those Subaru numbers are for 2013 Model Years. 19/25 for WRX and 17/23 for STi. Then there's the Mazdaspeed 3 at 18/25 and Lancer Evo at 17/23. The only one remotely reasonable is the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T at 21/30. What other turbo models are there? And what mileage do they get?

Originally Posted by cfusionpm (Post 782786)

Those Subaru numbers are for 2013 Model Years. 19/25 for WRX and 17/23 for STi. Then there's the Mazdaspeed 3 at 18/25 and Lancer Evo at 17/23. The only one remotely reasonable is the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T at 21/30. What other turbo models are there? And what mileage do they get?

Originally Posted by Gen (Post 782800)

328i 23/34
335i 23/33
Veloster Turbo 25/34
GTI 21/31
Optima Turbo 22/34
A4 24/31
Dart 27/37

Originally Posted by cfusionpm (Post 783068)

Ah, so the only ones that get reasonable gas mileage are small displacement, less or equal power to the FR-S, or commuter sedans. And the fun ones worth driving get mediocre-to-bad mileage.

Originally Posted by dem00n (Post 782924)

Forced induction sucks, i'm so tired of Turboed cars. NA all day.

Originally Posted by cfusionpm (Post 782660)

Another thing about turbo cars, even the best of them seem to still struggle to get their MPGs in the 20s. I owned two relatively stock turbo DSMs, a 98 Eclipse GS-T and 90 Talon TSi AWD. Both had simple intake and exhaust, nothing else. They were a hoot to drive, but I'd be getting about 17mpg in the Talon and struggling to hit 20mpg in the Eclipse. Even a modern WRX base is advertised 19/25 MPG, with the STi getting 23/17.

More air = more fuel, means worse MPG. I loved the sound of a screaming turbo and the progressive acceleration curve, but having driven a simple intake/exhaust tC for the past 8 years, I've really begun to like the power delivery of N/A engines.

Originally Posted by cfusionpm (Post 782786)

Those Subaru numbers are for 2013 Model Years. 19/25 for WRX and 17/23 for STi. Then there's the Mazdaspeed 3 at 18/25 and Lancer Evo at 17/23. The only one remotely reasonable is the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T at 21/30. What other turbo models are there? And what mileage do they get?

Originally Posted by Karl07 (Post 782919)

You think you have it bad...in Australia we get the GT and GTS...that's good...but you go across a small stretch of water and get them and the TRD...now that's just teasing us...it's horrible having it so close but knowing they have no plans on bringing it here...most places here won't even deal with the trd stuff for you to buy separately.