4 cylinder cars
 

What other cars with a 4-cylinder engine have a higher torque/hp output? Just curious since many people think these cars are underpowered, but forget how lightweight they really are. And I don't think the power performance is all too bad considering it's a non-turbo/super.

Big rigs have 4-cylinder engines and they have plenty of torque and horsepower!

Any factory boosted 4 cylinder. Naturally aspirated though 200 hp out of a 2.0 is about as good as you get since Honda got lazy and went up in displacement

F20C had 240hp

Chevy cruze diesel, but its also front wheel drive, so not as much fun. Can't beat it's 46 mpg's on the highway though

the twins have a weight:HP ratio of about 13.5:1 lbs to HP
my last car had a weight ratio of 7.3:1
Im enjoying the stock power and find it adequate, you just need
to work it hard..

Honda's B16B that came out in 1996 had 185hp. That's 185hp from a 1.6 liter almost two decades ago. No DI.

My TDI has 238tq. If I deleted the DPF and tuned it i could have 300tq everything else stock.

I love the twins, but I really think toyota messed up sourcing the subaru flat 4. I personally would have preferred toyota developing a higher revving inline 4 that made closer to 240-250hp.

I don't buy into this whole needs lowest cog bs. I agree high cog is bad, but switching to an inline 4 would not make the car suddenly handle like a SUV. This whole cog thing just screams marketing BS and having a bullet point in their ADs.

What kind of car was that, Mikem53 .... ??

:cheers:

200 hp out of a NA 2.0L is pretty good. In fact, I think Subaru/Toyota's the only manufacturer that's been able to do that without variable lift cams.

Toyota didn't just source the motor, they sourced the whole car. If Toyota had developed such a motor for the car, as you say, it would have been a $30K car.

08 vette..

200hp out of the FA20 is pretty good, especially considering it doesn't slouch too bad in the torque department, either. Honda's F20c bests it by 40hp but torque is roughly the same. I'm fairly certain the extra power comes in the last 2,000rpm; if Subaru were to build a 9,000rpm-revving boxer it might do the same, but the cost would put the FR-S/BRZ over $30k, where the S2000 was. The S2000 was more like $40k in today's dollars, something the Honda fanboys are quick to forget. I'm sure if you dumped $10k in the FA20 it would produce more power ;)

The Mazda MX-5 has a 2.0L that only produces 167hp. The older Genesis coupe only made 210hp out of a turbo 2.0L, granted that number has increased to 274hp since the twins were introduced.

Yes my thoughts too. I was referring to just NA engines.

but what would the price difference be if Toyota had added an extra 40-50HP. I believe weight savings was a primary goal for them.

:thumbsup:

I'm not saying that is the only thing Toyota sourced from Subaru. Just saying that is the only thing I would have done differently. Also, at $30k I would still buy this car in a heartbeat. The BRZ limited and the monogram series isn't too far off $30k.

The cars I were cross shopping with the twins were far more expensive than $30k. If the car was priced near or below the s2000 I still would have bought it.

Cla45

You think that a flat 4 is lighter than an equivalent inline 4?

They brought just enough to this car to make it the perfect base for aftermarket mods. Why do you want to spend huge fortunes on R&D when you can make aftermarket companies do it for you, then just incorporate their designs? The problem with the current consumer for this car, is that the comparisons are to other vehicles that are in their 3rd or more generation and those cars include aftermarket R&D. It would only be fair to compare the twins to other first gen vehicles or vehicles that are 100% oem design.

Genesis Coupe (turbo) 2.0L @ 274HP

They were going towards a balanced car, and a flat 4 is more balanced than a regular inline 4.

2008-2010 Cobalt SS turbocharged with GM Stage 1 (manufacturer option/does not affect warranty) 2.0L @ 280HP. Does that count? :P

Side note, I am pretty happy with the power from the FA20. Just wish 2nd gear (manual) would be a bit taller to hit 60 MPH (Seriously stops at 59 MPH! WTF?! :bonk:)

I thought most big rigs used inline 6s...

A lot of honda engines make 200 or more N/A as a 4-cylinder.

F20b
F20c
F22c1
H22 (regular)
H22 (from type S prelude)
K20 (certain ones)
K24 (certain ones)

Balanced in what way?

Yes, flat 4s are more balanced than inline 4s, but how does that make the car it self more balanced?

I don't have a bias against flat engines. I don't even hate the FA20. I'm just stating my opinion that Toyota could have made a more special vehicle with a different engine. Subaru is not known for their N/A engines and I personally would rather have the linear power delivery of N/A over FI.

I guess my real issue is with the reliability of the FA20. This engine is far from bullet proof and having modest power on top of that is pretty meh. As stated above 90-00 Honda inline 4s have been making 200hp without direct injection.

As a package I love the car and can't think of another car I'd rather buy anywhere near its price range.

:thumbsup:

Agreed. I still doubt the FA20 is going to match the F20c if run up to 9krpm while remaining 86x86 and without having variable cam lobes. The strict adherence to the 86x86 thing put them in a "box". pun intended.

I don't agree that the delta in cost of the S2000 vs a car like the FRS is simply due to the 40hp difference in the engine. The S2k had a more expensive suspension design, it was a convertible and it shared almost nothing from any other vehicle... all of which increased cost.

But I agree with the rest. When not compared to Honda, making a 100hp/liter on pump gas is pretty darn good. But when compared to some Honda engines, and considering it has advanced technology like D4S and a CR of 12.5:1, the fact that it only makes 100hp/liter could be frustrating to some...but really it shouldn't be.

For reference: the 2.0L SkyActiv-G DI engine from Mazda has almost the same CR (12.1:1) as the FA20 but can run on regular (87 octane) pump gas, however it does make less HP (155HP).

So the FA20's NA output could be pretty good or pretty bad depending on what shade of lenses you're looking through.

Big lump of metal way down low. CG was a consideration in the design.

It is a brand new designed so I would expect a few bugs. Only thing to hope for is they get resolved.

As for power, the older Honda's with variable lift are probably never going to be beaten. But, and it might be a dumb question, but I don't like Honda and never really follow them, have they stopped making variable lift engines and only do variable timming?

100hp per liter has been a very good target for a NA application with a single height cam lobe. To have it reliable and torquey enough to power a car is a nice accomplishment.

My fiancée has a skyactiv Mazda 3 with manual.. It's a really smooth engine. There is no torque dip from what I can tell, but I don't drive it much and when I do I'm not on it. However it's a dog.

I guess you missed my post about how I think COG is just marketing BS. Do you really believe a small change in COG is that important or that an inline 4 would change the COG that drastically?

The other elephant in the room that nobody has addressed is modern-day emissions and fleet-wide fuel economy standards in the US. Remember Honda's K20 was discontinued because it couldn't meet modern emissions standards, and Honda's F20 was never very fuel efficient for its size.

I would bet it's far more efficient getting 200 hp out of a NA 2.0L by using a higher static CR + direct injection, rather than using variable-lift cam profiles and higher RPM. The stiffer valve springs necessary for high RPM operation can't be terribly efficient. As a bonus, you get better torque with more compression, which helps alleviate some of the criticism with Honda VTEC engines about lacking low-end torque.

It's ultimately a series of trade-offs either way, although it would have been interesting to see how much horsepower an FA20 with variable lift valves and 9000 rpm could make.

They do. Only smaller trucks have 4 cylinders, like a gmc top kick.

Yes. You can feel the difference between a suspension that has a fraction of an inch of tilt or rake, camber or caster by a tenths of a degree, tire pressures adjusted by a psi or two. Moving the center of mass is going to have a similar effect. The car will roll over more, which will require stiffening to ensure the suspension is effective which drives up cost to band aid the problem, or you leave it alone and suffer the induced body roll (see Miata, Mustang).

It was a big deal that this car has a lower c.g. than a Cayman or 911 or any number of high performance cars. It still is. Every car is a compromise, if you want a reliable high performance Japanese fourbanger with a chassis designed to accommodate it's short comings there's still plenty of S2k's around. They put the effort in to dial in the feel they want, the same way that Porsche has dialed out the rear engine disadvantages over the decades. Toyota wanted to cut to the chase and start with a low c.g. configuration instead of fighting the disadvantages of their existing power plant options.

Mustang c.g. 21" (C&D)
Cayman c.g. 20" (C&D)
911 GT3 c.g. 19.4" (C&D)
Miata c.g. 19" (C&D)
S2k c.g. 18.7"
86 c.g. 18.1"
LFA c.g. 17.5"

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...-40000-new.pdf
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...11-gt3-feature

They spent millions in R&D and engineering and this is the car they came up with. How many times do you think they had bean counters pleading them to use literally any other engine in their stable rather than partnering with Subaru?

You make it sound like COG is the most important factor in handling. As you stated all cars are compromises and the small hit in the height of center of gravity for a more powerful and bullet proof engine is one I would take in a heart beat.

Also, I'm pretty sure the partnership had more to do with cost savings in the sense of using Subaru factories over not wanting to develop a new engine.

Apologies, I will never make the argument that c.g. is the most important thing. But you cannot dismiss it as marketing bs. It's physics.

Your opinion is that the tradeoff for c.g. was not worth pursuing a boxer engine over an I4 or V6. It is Toyota's opinion that the c.g. was more important. Nobody made you buy the car.

You're also right in that they could have partnered with Subaru and stuck in a generic Toyota engine and saved a couple bucks. My point was there were (and are) probably thousands of voices within Toyota echoing your sentiments and the expensive boxer still won out.

Edit: I really hope that because of the Toyobaru a competitor comes out that suits your needs, the Nissan IDx and Kia Stinger seem to be more what you're after. Although the Miata is out right now and seems to fall more in line with your desires.

Lower CG probably makes no appreciable difference in raw performance but makes a remarkable difference in handling feel. When I bought my dad his SVX (our first Subaru), we were surprised by its low slung handling feel. This was despite the factory ride height, mechanical hardware for AWD up front, and coming from having had 10 FR or MR sports cars between us. My dad and I now each have a BRZ.

Like how go karts feel extremely engaging even at relatively low speeds for a motor-driven vehicle, the 86 is about the driving experience over performance numbers. The boxer is key in achieving that despite modern crash-worthiness requirements and regardless of marketing hype. I base this on the effect the boxer had in the SVX.

Every car made is about having the engineering/design align up with budget constraints and manufacturing capabilities. Sure, a high output I-4 can be made... but at what cost? Toyota had no such engine in its arsenal and wasn't willing to make one. Subaru felt they can do it and can benefit from a modified FA20T in the Forester (and other cars).

Everyone wins.

In the end... be glad the car was built. A lot of projects like this get canned even before the car leaves the auto show floor as a concept.

-alex

I'm not even a hardcore gearhead (yet) F- the numbers . You can't feel in the seat of your pants how this car handles probably better than any car u drove before. I know you track guys can speak up but this car kicks ass. Every autocross weekend were out there kicking more POWERFUL cars asses!!! Of course tunes and bolt ons enhance but this car is not about power , want power get something else