Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceR
A 125I (the new F20/F21) is about the same as price as the GT86 in UK. The 125I is way more powerful and have a much lower fuel consumption too.
I could compare a 118I with the GT86. But the 86 would not have a chance in terms of power vs. efficiency even if the premium BMW was cheaper. Which is the case in UK, and especially (here) in Norway.
The engines I mentioned above are all different.
-3l straight six turbo
-2l I4 turbo
-1.6l I4 turbo
They are quite representative for the industry in terms for fuel efficiency. BMW does not make magic engines that are above the rest of the industry. They are just there among the top with MANY others. Many of which who does not make premium cars at a higher price...
I was just showing that the fuel specs on the 86 was nothing to be impressed about, even for RWD cars. If rwd cars were normal for most brands, most brands would have more fuel eifficient rwd cars at low prices. But BMWs are RWD, and in the EU, quite comparable in price even if its a premium brand.
You could argue that those new engines are turbocharged... Ok, lets take a 2008 model 125I with a NA 210hp/270nm 3l straight six had. Quite close in fuel consumption with the 2012 GT86 . And that car is a lot heavier. The engine/car is also discontinued (atleast here it is) because newer (turbocharged) engines makes 10-35% more power with about 20% lower fuel consumption.
The thing is, I can use larger displacement engines from the past in heavier cars and still compare to the smaller displacement FA20 engine in a lighter car.
Again, in not saying the FA20 is bad. But fuel efficiency for a RWD car is nothing to brag about in my opinion.
The engine options American sees makes it easy to believe otherwise.
In the US, you could probably brag about the efficiency.
In Norway, people with some knowledge of fuel efficiency on new cars would just laugh if you would try to brag about fuel efficiency of the 86.
In terms of efficiency the FA20 is not impressive at all. Its just OK for what it is, and bad compared to modern smaller turbo engines, which is basically the standard when looking at all competitive engines. And that is the thing. All new competitor in terms of engines (thinking about engines found in new hot hatches, 1-series etc...) have moved away from NA, so its quite hard not to compare it against its modern day (turbo) rivals.
|
Writing it's "nothing to brag about" is a far cry from writing
"It sucks. Simple as that".
The USA EPA ratings for the FT86 6AT are pretty good while the 6MT are unimpressive, but the car routinely beats them (based on
my experiences as well as others'). Even going by its conservative USA EPA ratings, no other gasoline MT RWD car in the USA attains this MPG (the
Mustang V6 is close on the highway though it's
not known for exceeding its EPA ratings).
That written, if we got the 125i over here or other more efficient RWD cars like you guys in the EU, maybe my enthusiasm for the FT86's efficiency would be diminished too.
Addressing a couple points in your previous post, dynoing 143 lbf*ft is only 5% loss (unrealistically low even for the most drivetrain-efficient FWD car, never mind a RWD car) unless the FA20's torque is underrated. I expect it's actually 156-158 lbf*ft (quite good for a cheap N/A 2L).
I agree with you that high-end output is only OK (nothing special compared to Honda's and Toyota's high revvers).
IMO the torque dip isn't a big deal (especially since it's already underrated down low). Coming from other high revvers, I don't have a problem with a narrow power band... to me using the shifter is part of the fun. Obviously this is a personal preference.
Every engine is a compromise between cost, output, throttle response, willingness to rev, smoothness, efficiency, weight, size/packaging, ease of maintenance, durability, reliability, longevity, etc. Though some of those are TBD, so far the FA20 seems to strike a good balance.