Who is happy the engine will be Naturally Aspirated?

[SUB-FT86]

I like engines that are flexible and I understand Fatoni point the most. A high revving engine is fun but only when you go somewhere to drive it like that like a track. I would not like to high rev a engine in my daily commute so I would like more usable power. Also I don't want F/I either.

[Levi]

No problem with more flexible daily comute car. But today all cars are so, and what is lacking is a track car that you can drive on the roads, like the AS1. I mean the S2000 and the RX8 are gone, and not everybody wants a convertible. For a nice car like fatoni wants there is no end of choice:

BMW 1 Series, Audi A3, VW Golf, VW Scirocco, Opel Astra, Ford Focus, Renault Mégane, Citroen DS4, Alfa Giulietta, Alfa Mito, Mini, Audi A1, VW Polo, Mitsubishi EVO, Subaru WRX, Mazda MX-5 (ND comes with FI),...

[madfast]

if you want flexible, then you want modern supercharging.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Levi

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.

of course i cant but i was trying to point out that engines arent just about balance and response. no matter what we want, its going to have a price. dollar for dollar, you will have a faster more balanced car with f/i. lets not forget that with direct injection, you can get a little more boost without an intercooler. ive seen supercharger kits for my miata that weigh as little as 18lbs.

[NastyNate]

I'll take the FI and then a set of light wheels. Thatshou

[Homemade WRX]

Originally Posted by Dimman

However the point is that for similar power levels on the same size engine, the NA is superior.

no it's not...you are negating the effects of a restrictor. Either that or you just don't know how a restrictor effects and engine's powerband.

It does a lot more than simply cap the powerlevel, the powerband will taper with airflow until it hits choke, at which point it more or less limits the power level via a peak volumetric flow rate.

[Stigmaru]

This car will be dominating when corning. But you will kick urself when U get dusted by a 350z in a straight line.

[jonnyozero3]

Originally Posted by AeroWRX

This car will be dominating when corning. But you will kick urself when U get dusted by a 350z in a straight line.

As unpopular and anti-culture around here that opinion is, I fully agree. Now, many many people will be thrilled and love the base version (and I will as well), but a higher power/lighter model...maybe a "halo" model would be a great addition to the lineup.

Get a model of the car under 5.0 sec in 0-60mph and I bet Subaru will attract more BMW, Infiniti/Nissan, and Porsche shoppers than many expect. Before you grab your pitchforks, attracting more buyers of all kinds to the lineup can only be a good thing - more upgrade paths avail, more buyer support, etc.

I really hope Subaru can do that with NA (REALLY hope for NA), but if it must be FI, I hope it's supercharged. Turbo I'll take, but meh.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Homemade WRX

no it's not...you are negating the effects of a restrictor. Either that or you just don't know how a restrictor effects and engine's powerband.

It does a lot more than simply cap the powerlevel, the powerband will taper with airflow until it hits choke, at which point it more or less limits the power level via a peak volumetric flow rate.

No restrictors in BTCC. Mod and rev limits to moderate power.

[Homemade WRX]

Sorry, didn't realize that only the LPG cars had the 37mm restrictor. So now we are just comparing enignes that are restricted modifications and engine speed...so still restricting the turbo but just in other ways...which they still kept dialing them back.

Take both engines without handicaps and tell me that the turbo isn't going to win. We aren't talking about some spec class car here. It's a toy/tuner street car

For some more reading on BTCC turbo cars:
http://www.btcc.net/forum/showthread...sive-advantage
http://www.btcc.net/forum/showthread...tion-for-Croft
http://www.btcccrazy.co.uk/2011/04/2...e-pegged-back/

Alex MacDowall - “It’s impossible to keep ahead of the turbo cars, the advantage they have is massive. We definitely need more equalisation between the normally aspirated cars and the turbos but that will take time.”


Playing the devil's advocate

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Homemade WRX

Sorry, didn't realize that only the LPG cars had the 37mm restrictor. So now we are just comparing enignes that are restricted modifications and engine speed...so still restricting the turbo but just in other ways...which they still kept dialing them back.

Take both engines without handicaps and tell me that the turbo isn't going to win. We aren't talking about some spec class car here. It's a toy/tuner street car

For some more reading on BTCC turbo cars:
http://www.btcc.net/forum/showthread...sive-advantage
http://www.btcc.net/forum/showthread...tion-for-Croft
http://www.btcccrazy.co.uk/2011/04/2...e-pegged-back/

Alex MacDowall - “It’s impossible to keep ahead of the turbo cars, the advantage they have is massive. We definitely need more equalisation between the normally aspirated cars and the turbos but that will take time.”


Playing the devil's advocate

The example I was using was in TOCA's quest for parity during a transition phase to save the teams some money. The situation is this: Teams were allowed to use any combination of S2000 (old) and NGTC (new) chassis or engines in the interest of cost savings. In the interest of parity off season testing was done and to match the lap-times of the old S2000 chassis and engines, the NGTC turbo engine in an S2000 chassis needed ~5% more hp. The NGTC turbo in the NGTC chassis needed ~14% more hp.

So in identical chassis, the NGTC turbo engine needed more power to match the lap times of the S2000 NA engine.

This is for the I <3 NA side, actual numbers that justify that love.

HOWEVER...

To say that NA motors will out-power same displacement turbo motors is silly. I know this.

Because the cars are not running restrictors they were simply dropped to a mandated 7000 rpm (S2000 engines were 8500 rpm) and given a max boost of 1.7 bar absolute. The original idea was to provide a spec engine. But BTCC is a huge promotional series for manufacturers in the UK so the manufacturers objected. So the rpm/boost limits were applied universally to all engines. Without dynoing all the different manufacturers engines. Uh-oh... Now with some of the rules requiring stock head castings and valve sizes, teams like Honda, which homologated a high-flowing 220 hp K20 from a some Euro Type-R hatchback Civic were laughing. So Honda basically got a bunch of free wins as 1.7 bar on a high-flow head is a hell of a lot more power than 1.7 bar on a shitty Focus head. Oops!

So to say that the turbos were out-running the NAs is true, but in this case there is much more of a power disparity than the 285/300 that was used in the original testing.

So what ended up happening is the Honda motor got dropped down to 1.4 bar which is probably a whole lot closer to the intended 300 hp.

Now the other benefits of going to the 2.0L turbo are:

A) Durability at the required power levels. 7000 rpm is a lot kinder than 8500 rpm.

B) Durability breeds cost reduction. The figures for the NA motors was 50,000 British pounds to buy and a 20,000 pounds rebuild was due every 3 events!!!! The turbos are only allowed a single rebuild/replacement per season. Also fancy and expensive anti-friction coatings etc... are less beneficial at the lower rpm.

C) The lovely turbo benefit of easy power upgrades. Once everyone is using the NGTC engine and chassis in 2013, hp will be upped to 360 hp


So turbo love = mainly C, with some of A/B.

But NA love = the enhanced driveability that equated to 5% more power. Plus maybe the mysticism associated with NA tuning that eliminates douches who just crank up the boost and install loud atmo BPVs and think they're shit-hot 'tuners'. (although there are tons of douchey NA guys too...)

[Homemade WRX]

ok, so same chassis, the turbo application, at a given course, was estimated to need 5% more power to keep up with the difference in weight (overall and corner weights) and driveability....when the turbo motors were still being capped to 300hp by the rules.

So that pretty much is a given if you have the lag from a turbo, added weight from it and then being held to the lower power levels of the NA 2.0L.

Now I understand where you've been coming from.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Homemade WRX

ok, so same chassis, the turbo application, at a given course, was estimated to need 5% more power to keep up with the difference in weight (overall and corner weights) and driveability....when the turbo motors were still being capped to 300hp by the rules.

So that pretty much is a given if you have the lag from a turbo, added weight from it and then being held to the lower power levels of the NA 2.0L.

Now I understand where you've been coming from.

If you say so...

[Homemade WRX]

Originally Posted by Dimman

If you say so...

...then what am I missing? Enlighten me