Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Fan
It seems like you don't get what I'm saying though. I'm saying your prediction is not "more realistic" than mine so 150 lb-ft isn't really realistic either.
|
My logic goes something like this:
- We know that the FT86 will be an inexpensive car.
- We know that attaining specific torque output as high as 85 ftlbs/L from a NA piston engine is very expensive.
- Therefore, your prediction of 85 ftlbs/L is not possible for the FT86.
- However, 75 ftlbs/L is possible.
- Something that is possible is more realistic than something that is impossible.
- Therefore, 75 ftlbs/L is a more realistic prediction for the FT86 than 85 ftlbs/L.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Fan
Are you saying that 15-19 lb-ft torque increase can't be the result of DI?
|
It's unlikely to be that high in a cheap NA 2.0L.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Fan
Yes, we won't agree but I'm just trying to point out the fallacy in your statement.
|
Which statement is fallacious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 86Fan
If you think 141 lb-ft is conceivable with this engine recieving at least DI then I think you are going to be surprised and basically your rating is "unrealistic".
|
I'll be surprised if the NA FT86 has anything below 145 ftlbs, but at least it's a remote possibility (while 170 ftlbs is not, unless Toyota repositions it as an upscale vehicle).
Tell you what... I'll wager my 150 ftlbs against your 170 ftlbs. I propose that the rules be:
- The bet is for NA only.
- If Toyota uses a different size engine, we'll compare my 75 ftlbs/L to your 85 ftlbs/L.
- The wager is void if the FT86 base price climbs above $35k (since then Toyota will have repositioned the car as no longer being a cheap RWD successor to the AE86).
- We'll go by the officially announced torque value for the production car.
- Whichever one of us is closer gets to pick a charity that the other person must donate $10 USD to.
- If it's 160 ftlbs, we both donate $10 to charity.
What do you say?