[KeepGuessing]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Sorry but TL;DR, after a few paragraphs I got the jist of your speech and skimmed the rest. The difference between you and me is when they attacked me with bullheaded blindness and called me a troll. I stuck it out .

I stuck it out the first time, and was banned for not kissing this cars ass.(quite literally) So the second time around when the flaming started (much like the first time) I just logged off for a while before they had the chance.

The whole "admiration" accusation for this car is as overblown as much as the lack of HP. This is one of the few cars that is outright advertised as sports car yet don't have the supercar levels of acceleration people have come to expect from muscle cars and supercars alike.

I understand that as a whole the "performance car" community is expecting too much from basic cars, that I don't argue with one bit. But in THIS generation of engine production, an age where adding direct injection to a simplistic already dated design can net impressive results, an age where you can almost spec for spec determine a cars power output based on displacement, engine technology aspiration, compression ratio, bore stroke and other details. For a company to produce such a lack luster product, with aspects of the engine that SHOULD account for more than what's being delivered is...Well distasteful. I don't think anyone here was expecting a VQ35 equivalent under the hood, but for a 2.0L square flat 4 with direct injection and lift/timing control and all the accompanying accoutrements that go along with researching designing and debuting an engine in 2011 to produce less power and less torque than a 10 year old Honda engine, without direct injection, without variable phasing on both cams, with lower compression.....Even the fuel economy isn't that far between the two...I just don't understand WHY they would choose to go with that, unless they really have that little faith in the engine to handle more power and feel they'll hit their factory performance ceiling that soon...I understand it's "Subaru" and they are notoriously 10 years behind the curve as far as engine technology but this is a bit much for a big budget high expectation vehicle.

But in continuation..

Originally Posted by mrtodd

I never said I would be boosting it, nor did I say anything about a "3,000-4,000 dollar turbo build." I stated I wouldn't need to spend the difference in money increasing HP/TQ numbers that would be adequate for myself.

Actually, what you said was.

to make your car different than all the others on the road, all while costing less than the car you mentioned.

Which was in response to, "Why would I want to void the warranty and install my own turbo when Subaru makes...etc"

No where did I say you were on your way to the dealership to pick up your car, you used a figurative consumer in him, i used a figurative consumer. Simple conversational basics. As for your point of "if he idolizes the STi then he should stop talking about the BRZ and buy it" I don't see how that is even remotely a reasonable conclusion. Clearly the kid has some misappropriated "faith" in subaru's abilities, but he is clearly correct that there is too much of an attempt at niche filling and not enough time focusing on the strong points of the companies. As I mentioned above, Subaru is generally a company YEARS behind in the engine development department. This engine doesn't change that ONE bit. WHY they made the decisions they made as to who does what and what are the focal points of each model is clearly and purely business/financial in origin. But he's righ

"Shove a MLS in the head"...? I didn't know Subaru/Toyota, or any other current engine manufacturer will using anything BUT MLS for the headgasket? I'm assuming you mean an aftermarket, thicker than stock, MLS gasket with the intent to lower static C/R. Sigh... Really? You really do take me to be an idiot. Again, this point is moot considering I never mentioned building a turbo kit. Thanks for compiling a list, though, however lacking it may be!

Excuse me, maybe I should have said "shove and Entirely MLS headgasket"...Or perhaps "shove a newly redesigned Multi Layered Steel Headgasket without subaru's problematic graphite overlay treated with your own applied overlay/sealing agent" then you might have gotten it the first time through without any qualms.
If your responses are just going to be housewife-esque nit picking replies as to the depth in which I go into an attempted turbocharger build let me know ahead of time so that way I know not to leave out every bung grommet and varying -an hose and it's appropriate length so that way your follow up responses won't be such a half-assed attempt at passive aggressive belittling.

I know the enormous task of tuning all to well. Such a thing CAN BE dreadful, yes when attempting to cut corners, but it's nothing new to me. Even so, again, I never specified anything in regards to specific engine tuning in my previous post.

Since when was specificity a prerequisite for implication?

I never said I had "everything buttoned up and in the bag." It really is beginning to sound like you have not read everything in the conversation between Ash and I - need I repeat again the point of our conversation? Your second point, however, I do agree with for the most part. I wouldn't say a "world of a difference" between them, considering that production 4-stroke engines haven't changed substantially in the past 20 years, the basic concepts are very much the same. In fact, discussions I've had on previous engine builds about combustion chamber burn theory still seem to have plenty of merit even today and in fact, seem to have manifested itself in later engine models' combustion chamber, piston, and porting design. So in the end, YES, you are absolutely correct in the fact that tuning and building the FA20 will most certainly be different than any other engine I've built; however, it's not as big as a difference as your choice of words makes it out to be. Either way, again, I never stated a specific plan for what to do with the engine in my first post. So....moot point, again.

Exactly, to each his own. Now to sit here and ride the acceptance train to a vehicle who's goal is to reach a broad market while completely ignoring the fundamental goals of the vehicle is silly. As silly as saying a F430 is a terrible automobile for it's lack of cargo space. Like it or not, approve of it or not, the press packages, sales pitches and overall ad-campaign of this vehicle puts more emphasis on this cars ability to screw on a front lip and mount a functionless spoiler than ANY other aspect of this vehicle. The car is being branded as a Scion, the company who's focus is customer identification, individuality and catering to such wants. You take that gem of information, and set it along side with the bombardment of accessories and glitter being offered for this car months before it's release and it's pretty clear to see what the meaning behind their hammering of "This is a tuner car" really means. Which is pretty clear as to what Ash is saying. He heard "Tuner car" he wanted "Tuner car" with the Sti/WRX what subaru offers is a more complete tuner car at this point than what the BRZ offers, why you ask? Because it covers more directions, clearly. Whether or not he said it directly, i'm willing to bet this Ash fellow would be happy with a BRZ that could SEE 270-280HP without forcing him to tear the car to pieces and spend an additional 10,000 dollars out of pocket to see it. Does this car NEED the 270HP out of the lot? Of course not, no car does. Should it be an option to consumers? If you're going to associate the phrase "Sports car" with it it damn well should.

^^^Exactly what I said in the quote....

But you value reliability, or did you just say that for the sake of adding the word? If there was no point in you giving credit to the cars reliability, then why mention it? Also, i'm glad that you have 25,000 dollars of throw away money. That is wonderful for you and yours to be so successful. Once again, this is a "Introductory Sports car" not a "Sultan of Brunei Sports Car". This car's being praised on it's practicality and cost, and once it's on the road; it's running cost. If you don't have to worry about your super-trust worth brand new subaru engine taking a dump on you on the highway because you own 2 towing companies 5 auto shops and you are your own wholesale supplier of engines faaantastic. To the rest of the unassuming public who are interested in this car...You know the volumes of people that will make up the companies revenue, the people that will determine whether they will pursue further ventures like this or further model advancements, it will matter.Because pissing away 25,000+ doesn't sound like a grand idea.

I'd be content with agreeing with you had it not been for the torrent of cars facing problem after problem WITHOUT being turbocharged, without being high strung and without seeing "performance driving" situations. Once again, it took subaru 4 generations of headgasket to get one that "presumably will hold"...A problem they encountered that is a direct result of their engine configuration..Not a fluke waterpump bearing, not a problem with a batch of cogs that weren't properly heat treated, a problem a 8 year old with a glass of water could see would present itself.

You've covered a large amount of it at this point, I think it's safe to say you've got plenty of time to read and respond, let's not be coy here.

I agree with you for the most part in concept; however, I disagree with you on the notion that "the only change that can happen is in the form of paint jewels and glitter...." That statement seems pretty extreme, to me. There will be plenty of people that will build this platform (ie "change") to put down some really awesome numbers - both on the track and the dyno.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure there will be a fair share of people who put 2jz-gte's F20C's EJ20's etc etc, big budgets hold no bounds. But then the car is merely a shell of it's former self. Propping a Coyote 5.0 under the hood of a Murker XR4 hardly portrays how much potential the Murker has and producing a 2.2L B16A hardly shows the merit of that engine either. Which i'm pretty sure you understand what i'm saying in relation to the FA20.