Why would more power ruin the car??

[wbradley]

Can we get back on topic here? I knew a guy who knew a guy who installed a drop-in filter which added 3 HP. Complained it upset the balance of the car and went and traded for a Miata.

[venturaII]

BOXER!!!!! YARRRRGGHHH!!

[Yoshoobaroo]

The low CG of the motor isn't the key to the cg of the car, it's how low the HIGHEST point of the motor is. Subaru said it, we lowered the motor AND EVERYTHING ELSE WITH IT. This is where the boxer helps. Same reason Porsche can cram them under a trunk lid.

The lower top of the motor means a lower hood (which now needs 2" of space from the motor for pedestrian safety), which means a lower seating position, which means a lower roofline. The low vertical height of the motor drops the whole car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[new2subaru]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Can we get back on topic here? I knew a guy who knew a guy who installed a drop-in filter which added 3 HP. Complained it upset the balance of the car and went and traded for a Miata.

Whew! I'm glad I didn't go down that rabbit hole.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Can we get back on topic here? I knew a guy who knew a guy who installed a drop-in filter which added 3 HP. Complained it upset the balance of the car and went and traded for a Miata.

That's why I packed my AFE filter with dried cherry blossoms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wbradley]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

That's why I packed my AFE filter with dried cherry blossoms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're supposed to put those in the cabin filter!

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

The low CG of the motor isn't the key to the cg of the car, it's how low the HIGHEST point of the motor is. Subaru said it, we lowered the motor AND EVERYTHING ELSE WITH IT. This is where the boxer helps. Same reason Porsche can cram them under a trunk lid.

The lower top of the motor means a lower hood (which now needs 2" of space from the motor for pedestrian safety), which means a lower seating position, which means a lower roofline. The low vertical height of the motor drops the whole car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A. The top of the engine isn't very heavy for non boxer engines. B. They lowered the engine compared to their symmetrical awd cars where there was drive train going under the engine to the front wheels. Compared to more typical engine designs, the engine isn't very low. I'd rather have the top of the engine (aluminum head) high rather than the bottom of the engine (heavy crank) higher.

[NOHOME]

Originally Posted by Harey

Toyota, Subaru and others say that more power would ruin the twins. With the below caveats I dont understand this??

- additional power/torque stays mostly linear (ignoring torque dip)
- additional power does not add weight (or perhaps very little and that little weight is counterbalanced at the rear of the car)
- additional power is OEM engineered (not wanting to discuss the reliability of aftermarket modifications)

I understand it was not the goal of the car, but I dont understand why it would ruin the car. Yes a turbo with a big rush of torque or a big heavy engine would ruin the handling agreed. But if the additional power/torque remains linear and there is minimal extra weight I dont see how it would ruin the car?

Im not saying necessarily that the twins should have come with more power (separate discussion) I am just questioning the statement that the car would be ruined. Is there something I am missing?

Long winded answer:

More power would ruin the car because it would need to be accompanied by more of everything.

The engine in this car is unique in that it has had every ounce possible cut out of the parts. You add power to this engine at your own risk. So more power is going to need a heavier engine.

More power from engine is going to need more robustness to every single component down the drivetrain right down to the brakes. So more weight. Since the FRS's one and only superpower is the handling that is possible with low weight, any dulling of this atribute would be like Kryptonite to Superman.

Then lets look at other consequences. Cost. The FRS is priced to be sold to either a young crowd who is pre-family or an old fart who is past kids and pre retirement. Neither is a very rich market. More power increases the cost exponentially, puts the car in competition with more cars, and lowers sales because it really has nothing to offer in the Pony Car market after it gives away the light weight.

A limited edition with more power is possible, but it would be just that, Limited and expensive both to buy and maintain. Talk to any Subaru Sti owner about maintenance cost.

You and I can drop a LSx into the car and only increase the weight by a small percentage. The results are entertaining to watch and arguably safe enough. However, the factory would have to do a LOT of due diligence to protect the driver and themselves against the liabilities of more power. Can you say more insurance $$$ all around?

The FRS is a niche product, niches are great places to sell stuff if you are the first in cause you take up the whole niche. However all niche products, when you take them out of their intended niche, they look kinda silly. If you fix that, you give up the safety of the niche.

Toyobaru did their research, discovered a niche and the math said they could live there comfortably. I expect that any changes to the twins will be to reflect evolution of the niche and not any attempt to break out.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by fatoni

A. The top of the engine isn't very heavy for non boxer engines. B. They lowered the engine compared to their symmetrical awd cars where there was drive train going under the engine to the front wheels. Compared to more typical engine designs, the engine isn't very low. I'd rather have the top of the engine (aluminum head) high rather than the bottom of the engine (heavy crank) higher.

Show me a car with an inline 4, longitudinally mounted, that has a lower hood than the twins while passing current pedestrian safety standards.

The roofline drives the CG much more than a fraction of an inch lower engine CG. And that's driven my the hood height. It drives down the whole car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Show me a car with an inline 4, longitudinally mounted, that has a lower hood than the twins while passing current pedestrian safety standards.

The roofline drives the CG much more than a fraction of an inch lower engine CG. And that's driven my the hood height. It drives down the whole car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

can you show me a car with a boxer motor with a lower cog than a miata or corvette? you can talk about rooflines or whatever all you want but when i talk about center of gravity, i usually just look at the cars center of gravity.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

Long winded answer:

More power would ruin the car because it would need to be accompanied by more of everything.

The engine in this car is unique in that it has had every ounce possible cut out of the parts. You add power to this engine at your own risk. So more power is going to need a heavier engine.

More power from engine is going to need more robustness to every single component down the drivetrain right down to the brakes. So more weight. Since the FRS's one and only superpower is the handling that is possible with low weight, any dulling of this atribute would be like Kryptonite to Superman.

Then lets look at other consequences. Cost. The FRS is priced to be sold to either a young crowd who is pre-family or an old fart who is past kids and pre retirement. Neither is a very rich market. More power increases the cost exponentially, puts the car in competition with more cars, and lowers sales because it really has nothing to offer in the Pony Car market after it gives away the light weight.

A limited edition with more power is possible, but it would be just that, Limited and expensive both to buy and maintain. Talk to any Subaru Sti owner about maintenance cost.

You and I can drop a LSx into the car and only increase the weight by a small percentage. The results are entertaining to watch and arguably safe enough. However, the factory would have to do a LOT of due diligence to protect the driver and themselves against the liabilities of more power. Can you say more insurance $$$ all around?

The FRS is a niche product, niches are great places to sell stuff if you are the first in cause you take up the whole niche. However all niche products, when you take them out of their intended niche, they look kinda silly. If you fix that, you give up the safety of the niche.

Toyobaru did their research, discovered a niche and the math said they could live there comfortably. I expect that any changes to the twins will be to reflect evolution of the niche and not any attempt to break out.

I could see this argument holding up if you were wanting 300hp from the car, but I would be willing to bet that the current components on this car could handle 200whp without any sacrifice to reliability.

I think a modest increase of 25whp would give the 86 enough power to feel quick in all situations. Most of the time the 175hp is enough in this car, but there are rare instances where this car seems to fall flat on its face.

[RToyo86]

If the factory addressed the powerband of these cars and smoothed them out as most owners end up doing via aftermarket headers, I think they would sit at a great place out of the box.

It wouldn't change the peak power numbers much but it does so much for the torque below the curve. Really that's where I'm starting to notice the small delay due to the torque dip exiting corners in second gear. It makes the car extremely predictable, but I'd like a bit more punch and linear feel.

Beyond that I think the car as is could handle near 200whp without much extra modification to the rest of the car. Especially if you offer existing options cross platform like the brembo brake package on the BRZ for those who want to track/auto-x.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by JohnJuan

Corvette is 17.5" - the same as an ND Miata with the top down - See my previous post.

The C7 achieves that in part because it's wide. Moving weight up and down isn't the only path to a lower COG. It also costs a lot more than a BRZ. So all you've really told us is that the ND and the BRZ are remarkable vehicles.

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

Lexus LFA

Now we're comparing the BRZ to a $375K sports car?

Originally Posted by fatoni

can you show me a car with a boxer motor with a lower cog than a miata or corvette?

Yeah, the BRZ. When the BRZ first hit the market, the C6 was still the current Corvette. I recall back when I was first considering the car reading that the new BRZ was the lowest COG production car on the market at the time, lower even than the C6 Corvette.

Originally Posted by fatoni

The only reason you know the cog is marketing.

So? The low COG is still a factor in the handling of the car, and the use of the boxer is still a factor in the low COG. Just using facts in marketing doesn't make them false. From the examples in this thread, it looks like the only ways anybody is going lower is by going topless or going wide.

Recall what got us onto this subject in the first place:

Originally Posted by venturaII

This car's handling has zero to do with 'boxer'.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I think a modest increase of 25whp would give the 86 enough power to feel quick in all situations. Most of the time the 175hp is enough in this car, but there are rare instances where this car seems to fall flat on its face.

That's what a header and tune is for. If you ring that extra power out of the motor before it hits the consumer, the owner doesn't have any intermediate steps before going FI. That would cut into sales numbers for a car marketed to modders.