Who is happy the engine will be Naturally Aspirated?

[.GENO.]

Theres nothing like the sound and response of a NA engine.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by .GENO.

Theres nothing like the sound and response of a NA engine.

equally nothing like the sound of forced induction and the sheer power of a turbo engine

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by mines13

I like you.

:happy0180:

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Gadfly

You obviously are not a tuner...

If you compare the cost to tune both 200hp N/A motor and a 200hp turbocharged motor to 400hp it would make complete sense to you....

And you are obviously unimaginative and lazy. See how that works?

[Homemade WRX]

so for all the NA fans out there, I'm just curious what you have again a supercharger (centriful or roots)?

I keeps that responsive throttle pedal that you want but now with more power...heck, for those talking about hearing, you don't even hear centrifugals under load.

[Ryephile]

I'm not "against" superchargers. I'm not "against" turbos. They both have their time and place. Neither of my current cars are N/A, I have one supercharged and one turbo. The 2ZZ-GE IMO is not desirable as an N/A engine, as the cam lift switchover is distracting, and adding the M62 supercharger along with the ECU changes make the engine more linear and less Jekyll & Hyde. As for Diesel, one without a turbo is a sad engine, indeed. I'll just leave it at that.

Personally, if the job can't be done with N/A, then a TVS supercharger would be my first alternate. It's not about hating other aspiration techniques, but about fitting the preferred character to the vehicle in question. Cars like the Integra Type R, S2000, Miata, Corvette, Mustang Boss 302, Cayman & Boxster are all fantastic because they're N/A. Cars like the VW Golf TDI, Rx-7, Supra, STI, and EVO IX are fantastic because they're turbo. It's all about matching the character of the engine to the chassis.

Make sense?

[mines13]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

I'm not "against" superchargers. I'm not "against" turbos. They both have their time and place. Neither of my current cars are N/A, I have one supercharged and one turbo. The 2ZZ-GE IMO is not desirable as an N/A engine, as the cam lift switchover is distracting, and adding the M62 supercharger along with the ECU changes make the engine more linear and less Jekyll & Hyde. As for Diesel, one without a turbo is a sad engine, indeed. I'll just leave it at that.

Personally, if the job can't be done with N/A, then a TVS supercharger would be my first alternate. It's not about hating other aspiration techniques, but about fitting the preferred character to the vehicle in question. Cars like the Integra Type R, S2000, Miata, Corvette, Mustang Boss 302, Cayman & Boxster are all fantastic because they're N/A. Cars like the VW Golf TDI, Rx-7, Supra, STI, and EVO IX are fantastic because they're turbo. It's all about matching the character of the engine to the chassis.

Make sense?

Agree with all of this. Since I am getting the BRZ or FRS, I am retiring my DA to street duty. Boosted street duty.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

I'm not "against" superchargers. I'm not "against" turbos. They both have their time and place. Neither of my current cars are N/A, I have one supercharged and one turbo. The 2ZZ-GE IMO is not desirable as an N/A engine, as the cam lift switchover is distracting, and adding the M62 supercharger along with the ECU changes make the engine more linear and less Jekyll & Hyde. As for Diesel, one without a turbo is a sad engine, indeed. I'll just leave it at that.

Personally, if the job can't be done with N/A, then a TVS supercharger would be my first alternate. It's not about hating other aspiration techniques, but about fitting the preferred character to the vehicle in question. Cars like the Integra Type R, S2000, Miata, Corvette, Mustang Boss 302, Cayman & Boxster are all fantastic because they're N/A. Cars like the VW Golf TDI, Rx-7, Supra, STI, and EVO IX are fantastic because they're turbo. It's all about matching the character of the engine to the chassis.

Make sense?

Bravo, bravo!! An extraordinary post!

i am "against" centrifugal superchargers though. imo the only real reason to get one of those is if you have a large displacement engine and no room for a proper turbo setup. most of the people who still use centrifugals are the large displacement V8 guys. for them it makes sense. the engine itself has good low end tq and the centrifugal will help out up top. turbos are complicated, so why go there when a centrifugal is enough to get you close to 1000 hp?

[Homemade WRX]

yes, a centrifugal does increase VE as RPM increases, which does make a goofy increasing tq curve on what would otherwise be a flat NA curve.

I do however think that if you can increase the power without trade off, then why not?

Sorry that as a mechanical engineer (motorsports background...actually minor) I don't buy into the ying-yang 'soul' of the chassis matches aspiration thing. The aspiration to match the job at hand, yes. For example a turbo for an auto-x car wouldn't be my vote...much like I wouldn't take a 200hp NA car to a big road course.
NA is a fun challenge to make power with, sounds great, has crisp response but when you can get more power for far less without driveability trade off, why not?

[fa5tco]

The reason why not is because it doesn't make financial sense from a business standpoint. The car needs to be at a certain price point to sell. It would be impossible to to sell the car at that price point if it was turbo charged from the factory. The car would need heavier duty engine internals, drivetrain, axles, hub bearings, differential, fuel components, brakes, not to mention the affray cost for the induction system and piping., intercooler etc. So after everything is said and done you have a 36k 2 seated with a "backseat" that will cannibalize other car sales IF you can get people to buy them. Subaru doesn't need another 34k+ car, they need a car that's sporty that gets people with less expendable income into the dealership. If you want a turbo or superchsrged version wait until one comes out or boost one aftermarket.... sorry about typos. Kindle fire typing fail while watching decoded.

[Mitch]

I'm perfectly fine with NA. I love the sound, power delivery, and throttle response. Turbos are fun and I'd love to own a car with forced induction, but I'm not unhappy that this engine does its own breathing.

[rayman0690]

My current car is a stock Turbo car and while I enjoy almost everything about it, including the "boost" and the sound...I am looking for something with less parts and complication and PITA.

Boost leaks and boost leaks tests are no more!

I also understand the goals of this car and the philosophy behind it. I think the 2.0 NA is awesome and plenty for the car.

The people waiting for the upmarket and forced induction models...while that's awesome for them, that's not for me. I would rather play with the handling and do some light modding on the car rather than trying to be the first guy to hit 500hp-1000hp in one of the AS1 cars.

So everyone bashing the car...your models and your accessories and aftermarket components will come. They just may not be available on Day 1. You will get your chance.

And everyone who will be satisfied with the car and enjoys it for what it is, will get it on launch day.

The comparisons the car has drawn to the likes of the Miata and MG sports cars show that they are fun without being ridiculously powerful. In a car enthusiast world where normal people now daily 300-800hp cars and normal people try to break the 1000hp mark with their personal vehicles, this is to be expected. The majority of the enthusiast world has been taught and lulled into thinking they need big numbers on a sheet of paper to enjoy their car and beat the next guy's car. This car isn't about that. It is about fun. Next time you are at auto-x do a ride along with a fairly competent Miata or MG driver. You will have more fun in that car than you will in some other higher HP, electronically controlled car.

[Homemade WRX]

oh and to clarify above, I don't mean to be bashing NA engines, if it came across that way.
I already have plans to build one (FR-S) up as a basic NA setup, bolt on, maybe mild cams but something that is still very much a street car.
Then I have plans for a BRZ to get forced induction (of some sort) but much of this will come down to me actually be hands on, seeing packaging options, weighing the cost, modification and weight factors...and what the market wants

So needless to say, the shop will be busy between the TA car, standing mile car and two guinea pig Toyobarus

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by Homemade WRX

I do however think that if you can increase the power without trade off, then why not?

Sorry that as a mechanical engineer (motorsports background...actually minor) I don't buy into the ying-yang 'soul' of the chassis matches aspiration thing.

I'm an ME also, so I know exactly where you're coming from. However, saying you don't "buy into" the soul of the car is keeping the ME blinders on and not paying attention to what actually matters; the drivers' perception. Numbers, statistics, and logic are all for not if the driver is dissatisfied with the emotional connection they feel behind the wheel.

The emotional connection with the engine is through three main pieces:
*the ECU mapping of the accelerator pedal to the load/RPM table
*the sound the engine makes
*the acceleration perceived

If the pedal is mapped negatively exponential [i.e. R56 MINI], the engine will feel lazy and gutless. If the pedal is mapped positively exponential [most Chrysler V6's], the engine will feel digital, jumpy, and completely indifferent to aggressive pedal angle. Linear pedal mapping gives [surprise!] a linear feel and confident control.

If the engine sound is too quiet, it will "seem" slow. Conversely, a loud engine will be perceived quicker or simply trying too hard. If there is a mis-proportion between sound and thrust [i.e. a fart can on a stock D17 Civic, or a Bugatti Veyron] the car will seem like it's broken, or you're not in control [silent rocketship superlatives w/Veyron]. Next, the tone or music the engine creates makes a big impact on the perception. A thrashy engine [Most 80's era GM 4-bangers] sounds broken, trying too hard, and generally undesirable. A smooth engine [i.e. GM's LS series, BMW M50 inline-6, old Jaguar V12's] sounds refined, relaxed, unstressed, and elegant.

Regarding acceleration force, this is very dependent on individual experience. Some of us are Top Fuel drivers and some of us have never driven a car with a Lbs-per-HP ratio better than 20:1 [can barely get out of its own way]. As such, someone that's only driven an NA Miata will be thrilled at the thrust the 14:1 HP/Lb ratio the FR-S offers. Others accustomed to daily driving their 1,000HP Supra will be frustrated at the virtual lack of acceleration. It's all relative.

In the end, when you combine all three major elements of the engine/driver interaction, you get one piece of the cars' soul; how it reacts to the drivers' input and gives sensory feedback [acoustic and g-force].

Regards.