Who is happy the engine will be Naturally Aspirated?

[chulooz]

If the car is going to have a turbo it will have more than 200hp why else go through the hassle? So the direct comparison does not make much sense. You are also forgetting the torque you can get from boost, wither way N/A vs FI assumptions is just bench racing at its finest.

No car is built to unlimited spec levels, but budgetary and environmental concerns could easily inhibit the best options when building the car; however, we the consumers are freed of those restraints to really exploit the performance this car has to offer... with boost. I think this car will be devastating with swapped mills.

[Mr. Mcoupe]

Under normal DD'ing conditions, driving a slower car fast is a lot more fun than driving a faster car slow. Keep it NA!

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by chulooz

If the car is going to have a turbo it will have more than 200hp why else go through the hassle? So the direct comparison does not make much sense. You are also forgetting the torque you can get from boost, wither way N/A vs FI assumptions is just bench racing at its finest.

No car is built to unlimited spec levels, but budgetary and environmental concerns could easily inhibit the best options when building the car; however, we the consumers are freed of those restraints to really exploit the performance this car has to offer... with boost. I think this car will be devastating with swapped mills.

Yes and no. The example in the BTCC is real. In their case it was decided that for the turbo engines to compete with the NA engines (both 2.0L) in identical chassis, the turbo cars would need about 15 more hp (285 hp NA, 300 hp turbo) despite any large low rpm torque advantage.

Going back to the initial topic of the thread, this is an example of why people are happy about the basic car being NA. In the BTCC case, in performance driving, the response and driver's 'connected-ness' of the NA powerplant was the 'equivalent' of an extra 15 hp.

So what people are calling an emotional response to liking NA motors, actually has a measurable performance benefit.


However I've said it before, I have no illusions whatsoever of turbo engines being capable of massive amounts of more power than equal displacement NA motors. But that was not the point of this thread

Hypothetically speaking, if early on in development FHI/TMC were deciding between the FA20 at 200 hp and a turbo 1.6L at the same design goal of 200 hp, the NA car (without getting into mods, etc...) would be the superior driver's car. Hence the NA motor on launch.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mcoupe

Under normal DD'ing conditions, driving a slower car fast is a lot more fun than driving a faster car slow. Keep it NA!

while i am a fan of that statement, its a bit of a slippery slope. why not 150hp? that would be even more fun

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Yes and no. The example in the BTCC is real. In their case it was decided that for the turbo engines to compete with the NA engines (both 2.0L) in identical chassis, the turbo cars would need about 15 more hp (285 hp NA, 300 hp turbo) despite any large low rpm torque advantage.

Going back to the initial topic of the thread, this is an example of why people are happy about the basic car being NA. In the BTCC case, in performance driving, the response and driver's 'connected-ness' of the NA powerplant was the 'equivalent' of an extra 15 hp.

So what people are calling an emotional response to liking NA motors, actually has a measurable performance benefit.


However I've said it before, I have no illusions whatsoever of turbo engines being capable of massive amounts of more power than equal displacement NA motors. But that was not the point of this thread

Hypothetically speaking, if early on in development FHI/TMC were deciding between the FA20 at 200 hp and a turbo 1.6L at the same design goal of 200 hp, the NA car (without getting into mods, etc...) would be the superior driver's car. Hence the NA motor on launch.

the majority of buyers arent going to enter btcc. since we arent going to have the engine screaming around every corner, i think a healthier range of power provided by forced induction would be much appreciated.

whether we like it or even agree with it, the biggest complaint about the s2k was that it was anemic down low. from a sales standpoint it would wise to avoid that issue even if it is a little better in an actual race scenario

[Levi]

Originally Posted by fatoni

the majority of buyers arent going to enter btcc. since we arent going to have the engine screaming around every corner, i think a healthier range of power provided by forced induction would be much appreciated.

whether we like it or even agree with it, the biggest complaint about the s2k was that it was anemic down low. from a sales standpoint it would wise to avoid that issue even if it is a little better in an actual race scenario

Because people did not drive the car as it should have been. But the ones that drove it the right way keep the S2000 till today.

Today there a very many turboed cars, in fact all cars are turboed today, and what was missing was a NA car, and this is what the AS1 is for.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by fatoni

while i am a fan of that statement, its a bit of a slippery slope. why not 150hp? that would be even more fun

The most fun car I ever owned put down 100wHP. It's not about slippery slopes, this thread is still about balance and response.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

The most fun car I ever owned put down 100wHP. It's not about slippery slopes, this thread is still about balance and response.

Yes.

Another issue is that the purpose of this car is not only to appeal to enthusiasts, but to encourage enthusiasm of driving for a new generation. For these people, as well as many Subaru drivers used to the safety net of AWD, the predictable nature of the car (chassis AND engine) will go a long way considering this will probably the first RWD car that a lot of potential buyers have ever driven.

A responsive but predictable car is also a good educational car.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Levi

Because people did not drive the car as it should have been. But the ones that drove it the right way keep the S2000 till today.

Today there a very many turboed cars, in fact all cars are turboed today, and what was missing was a NA car, and this is what the AS1 is for.

im not talking about what is right or wrong. im talking about what people do. the rx8 is likely a more pure sports car than the 350z but that didnt stop it from getting smashed as far as sales were concerned.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

The most fun car I ever owned put down 100wHP. It's not about slippery slopes, this thread is still about balance and response.

im not saying that statement itself is a bit of a fallacy. im saying that using it as an argument is. its crazy to criticize something just because it makes more power.

if it was entirely about balance and response (in this turbo vs na engine oriented debate) then the best thing to do would just make this an electric car.

[Levi]

Electric adds alot of weight or then is not that practical (Tesla).

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Levi

Electric adds alot of weight or then is not that practical (Tesla).

it doesnt have to be either of those things (gt3r hybrid, 918)

[S2kphile]

I love NA especially if its high revving like Honda's VTEC engine or bikes. The excitement and thrill of being in the high RPM range anf staying there is like a drug to me.

[Levi]

Originally Posted by fatoni

it doesnt have to be either of those things (gt3r hybrid, 918)

You can afford a 911 GT3 R Hybrid or a 918 Spyder Hybrid ? Why then looking at the AS1?


Oh, and by the way, the cars you mentioned, thanks to hybrid, are NA! The only way to avoid FI in future.