Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryephile
That's where you're making an assumption; you don't know the torque curve beyond the specified 400 RPM. For all we know, it could drop only 1 LbFt all the way down to 3k RPM. We just don't know.
Comparing engines that are in a much higher price bracket and/or never met USA emissions regulations is not playing fair. Ok, so it's a couple percent behind the 2GR-FSE in peak BMEP, IMO it's not worth getting in a tissy about.
Let's wait until the official SAE verified specs come out and then we can make rational comparisons.
Re: Weight distribution: As I'm sure Dragonitti can agree with me here; the popularly marketed "50/50" weight distribution isn't the be-all end-all to good handling. Fantastic-handling examples of heavily biased distributions include my Lotus Exige S, Porsche 911's, even MINI's and ITR's. Everyone comes up with a different answer. Formula 1 is mandated to have an approximate 46f/54r distribution. Nissan did a study for their Z back in the day [IIRC] and came up with 52f/48r being the "ideal" distribution for an FR chassis. BMW is famous for touting/bragging 50/50, yet none of their current models have very good chassis feel, though admittedly it's not the fault of the distribution. 53f/47r is totally fine. The fact they got the rear end as light as they did with an all-aluminum engine & hood means they didn't add weight to the rear-end just to go down the BMW path of false-positive advertising.
|
I disagree. The Yamaha BEAMS motor is probably the closest relevant example. Whether or not it met emissions 13 years ago hardly matters (if that, and not the Lexus/3-series fighter marketing, is in fact the reason it didn't reach NA). First, that Altezza was heralded as a spiritual successor to the AE86 as well, and second it is an 86mm X 86mm Yamaha re-work of an economy engine. Third I used the lower rated motor designed for the automatic in my example which omitted the titanium valves, and other expensive bits. Yamaha had been working on that motor since I think 1986. They've kaizen-ed the hell out of it.
From an airflow/combustion/acoustics point of view, the 86mm bore/stroke is probably more important to all of their accumulated R&D than whether it is an H4 or L4.
In the 13 years since the BEAMS was introduced, there is the chance to apply new knowledge to what has already accumulated with the 3S valve events, port and chamber design. Plus they get to work with stuff like lighter, less friction, finger followers now, that they've had on bike motors, and a more balanced layout.
What I'm getting at, is I'm calling BS that the motor's torque
peak is 151 lb-ft @ 6600 rpm. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make 151 lb-ft @ 6600 rpm. Get what I'm saying?