Comparison of the best ~2 liter N/A engines ever produced

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by regal

You guys need to get out more. This is just cities listed below, in the country these 300 year old PA roads are very steep and my FRS won't pull past 4200rpm up the hill up toward my house in 3rd (no I'm not posting where I live and yes its got a 20 mph speed limit, not proud of that.) :



http://www.geographylists.com/list17y.html

Yes, there are roads that steep (>20% grade). I've driven on several of them (believe it or not, we have mountains here in Colorado...). None of them should be driven at 45-50 mph. If you were driving up them in 1st or 2nd at a reasonable speed, you wouldn't have this problem. Also, if you insist on driving up very steep roads (most of which, I would like to point out, are residential streets) like you're in the middle of a race, you shouldn't be short-shifting. Really, I don't see any validity to your complaints here.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by ZDan

With a normal valvetrain, you only get some of the energy used to compress the valvespring back at lowish rpm. The higher you rev, the less you get back. Approaching rev limit, you get practically none of it back, as the spring is doing all it can just to close the valve. At that point it isn't pushing on the closing ramp of the cam lobe much at all. On a related note, at higher revs the energy lost to accelerating the valve on the opening ramp is much greater, and you get none of that back either. Minimizing valve mass is a big deal for these reasons!

Power required to drive a conventional valvetrain at, say, 7000rpm is not going to be insignificant...

I think you do get some of it back, because cams are ground with valve acceleration/deceleration considerations. As long as the valves don't float, they follow the cam and you will suffer very large friction losses but the spring does apply a force to the cam that puts energy back into the system if the spring is applying sufficient force to decelerate the valve at maximum lift while the cam is still pushing on it. However the follower or roller or whatever has basically no leverage on the cam by the time the valve is near the seat so you probably lose most of the peak kinetic energy that the valve had while closing. The valvetrain turns at relatively constant speed though, so part of the way down the valves are moving relatively slowly and the spring can return energy to the cam efficiently. Regardless, lighter valves as you pointed out and lower coefficient of friction on the cam surface are the goal.

There was some paper where they analyzed the friction in an F20C, and I think the valve train losses increased at about the same rate as the piston group, and valves do consume a lot of power but are by no means the biggest culprit even at high speed (~20% of total friction iirc, about the same as the crankshaft bearings).

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by regal

Not recommended to drive up a hill over 6k rpm with a 2012 build date FRZ, I found out the hard way.

Is that written in a manual or just a dealership babbling?

Sports car or not, its an NA 2.0L 4cyl, there is going to be a need to downshift often.

[regal]

Originally Posted by chrisl

Really, I don't see any validity to your complaints here.

Not complaining just saying this isn't a best 2L NA engine ever produced. But it does have potential and I am optimistic that tuning and headers may bring it up to F20C level performance .

[quote=chulooz;1251759] Is that written in a manual or just a dealership babbling?



Beyond the scope of this thread, see CSG mikes tread. Basically if you have a 2013 Build you can rev to hearts delight and have nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted by chulooz

Sports car or not, its an NA 2.0L 4cyl, there is going to be a need to downshift often.

Agreed, if this were in a <2500lb car it would have gotten better reviews/reception.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by regal

Not complaining just saying this isn't a best 2L NA engine ever produced. But it does have potential and I am optimistic that tuning and headers may bring it up to F20C level performance .

I agree. You are optimistic

[regal]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I agree. You are optimistic

I am but doesn't look like Motortrend is:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features...ss-performance

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by regal

I am but doesn't look like Motortrend is:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features...ss-performance

I'm not surprised. You're not realistically going to get much more than ~75 lb-ft/liter, and at 7000rpm, that's 200hp. Until you do something to rev and breathe at higher rpm than that, there's just not much to be gained.

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by regal

I am but doesn't look like Motortrend is:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features...ss-performance

It is R&T not Motortrend and reading the article it sounds to me that more people have lost that loving feeling for the car due to harsh ride not the torque dip. They then proceed to attack the torque dip and are surprised that it has not brought staffers back to the car. I believe the same thing would have applied to the Mazda MX-5, Honda s2000, Toyota MR-S or any other sports car that carried the above mentioned "best 2.0L" of all time. They all ride rough on lousy roads.

Small four cylinder engines are always a compromise. You can make power in the low RPM range or you can make it in the high RPM range. You can never do both without sacrificing driveability and fuel economy. IMO the F20 is in the same league as most the other engines on the list. Even with the torque valley it is a pleasant engine to drive around town and then you can take it out into the hills and really attack the twisties by keeping it above 4500 RPM.

P.S. Yes, I know regal, you cannot rev yours to 4500 RPM because yours is defective. Yours will blow up!

[regal]

Originally Posted by Rampage

.

P.S. Yes, I know regal, you cannot rev yours to 4500 RPM because yours is defective. Yours will blow up!

No me and the other 10k+ 2012 buyers should have the 01C calibration, I am sure you agree? Tired of waiting on Toyota just going to have to flash it.

And R&T are morons if they think this car has a harsh ride, I want stiffer springs especially up front.

As far as the FA20, it would have been a great match (with the 01C calib) for the 2500lb curb weight design target. Instead the car is an "in between car" not a small light nimble sports car and a not quite a modern grand tourer, it has the positives and minus's of both.

I think there is an identity crisis mainly due to the engine and it will lead to less people buying it for sprawling urban areas and flat straight road rural areas.

For where I live its the best package $25k can buy, but if I still lived in Detroit I wouldn't want this car.

[Mikem53]

Originally Posted by regal

I am but doesn't look like Motortrend is:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features...ss-performance

It seems like a bunch of old farts at R&T don't enjoy a firm ride and are basing the car on that alone. It's a sports car, comes with the territory.. Although I have owned some that rode and performed better.. But at different price point.
This car is too raw for many.. Which is why I like it so much..

[Hanni_0176]

People complain about the power too much. Yes, it has lousy stock power. It's an n/a 2.0 liter... what people seem to neglect is that this is an awesome platform to tune/mod. Low weight, great aero, low cog, rigid chassis... and the last time I checked, it's not that hard to increase hp/tq.

For people wanting fast stock cars... well, then this clearly isn't the car for you. It's not like this recipe is new... the MX5 has been around for ages as a lightweight car with low hp/tq. (Obviously there are some slight differences between the two, but the concept is similar.)

[thill]

Originally Posted by Mikem53

It seems like a bunch of old farts at R&T don't enjoy a firm ride and are basing the car on that alone. It's a sports car, comes with the territory.. Although I have owned some that rode and performed better.. But at different price point.
This car is too raw for many.. Which is why I like it so much..

Shame on Road and Track. First of all, we get that the roads around their area (Ann Arbor) are poor and not maintained well. Then stick to SUV reviews only. No properly configured sports car is going to perform well on those roads (live rear axle Mustang anyone, Lotus Elise, etc)???

Second of all, Road and Track completely dropped the ball in the mods. Per the company that supplied the custom exhuast and tune:

Yeah they gave us literally one and a half days to design and fabricate a new header with no time for us to do internal testing or tuning. So they were running the big header tune with a small header and didn't have time to try any of the other tunes we sent them. Either way we really enjoyed the experience of working with the crew there at R&T.

Anyone that mods their car knows this is not how it works. You need time and patience and communication to get the right tune... On top of that they were using Visconti tunes... Yikes...

[thill]

Originally Posted by Hanni_0176

People complain about the power too much. Yes, it has lousy stock power. It's an n/a 2.0 liter... what people seem to neglect is that this is an awesome platform to tune/mod. Low weight, great aero, low cog, rigid chassis... and the last time I checked, it's not that hard to increase hp/tq.

For people wanting fast stock cars... well, then this clearly isn't the car for you. It's not like this recipe is new... the MX5 has been around for ages as a lightweight car with low hp/tq. (Obviously there are some slight differences between the two, but the concept is similar.)

It is like what Mikem53 previously stated. If you want a fast car, buy one. Unless you are willing to invest significant time, money, and effort on aftermarket mods, then you bought the wrong car if your goal is to be the street light racing champion of the block.

For $22-30K there are lots of cars out there that will beat the stock twins in the straights and around a track.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by thill

For $22-30K there are lots of cars out there that will beat the stock twins in the straights and around a track.

Sure, but how many are < 3000lbs and RWD?