Why doesnt Toyota make its own motor for the FT-86??

[Dimman]

I'm going to continue the JZ talk in the Supra thread...

[Allch Chcar]

. You guys are crazy. 140BHP at 7k, that is all I want. 0-60mph in less than 8seconds would be just fine by me. If you want more go turbo or rev it over 9k. I would like it too if designed for premium fuel, when I convert it to E85 I want a nice and high compression ratio engine. Go ahead and be as impractical as you want.

And regarding direction injection there is a rumor that the lean burn injectors aka Piezo are mucho expensive vs regular stoich injectors. Plus lean burn is very bad for emission's scores which is why diesel have such a hard time passing US emissions and still getting good mileage. I want the good motor to be USDM not just JDM or EUDM because it couldn't pass US emissions...

Diesel would be nice for those who want it but emissions in US discourage Diesels as it discounts the lean burn that make Diesels get better MPG. Diesel has only 10% more BTUs per gallon so if Diesel is 10% more per gallon here in the US it's the same price and similar $ per mile for a Direct injected Gasoline car vs Direct Injected Diesel car. Now that Gasoline tech is moving to Direct injection there is really very little advantage with emissions being what they are except that Diesels are heavier, more expensive, and last longer. Let them stay in Europe for all I care.

The Subaru vs Honda R series was moot debate and I'm glad that was resolved. Since the FT-86 is only 2 wheel drive hopefully they can put a torqueless wonder in it. It doesn't need to be fast, just fun.

[Dimman]

140 bhp at 7000rpm would be a 'FAIL' in my book if they can't get 140 until that high rpm, the motor would suck donkey balls. (unless you are talking about 140 bhp peak and a 7000rpm redline)

However this thing will have standards (other cars) that it will me measured against, and the smart money has it in the 180 to 200 bhp range.

How does E85 interact with the direct injection? Are there E85 conversions of IS350s? (I know this stuff is awesome in turbo applications, but they don't have it in my part of Canada. They do give us 94 octane at the Chevron pumps though.)

[Allch Chcar]

More like 140BHP minimum, 7k peak minimum. I ask very little , except for RWD, manual tranny, an efficient 4 cylinder, cheap, and compact 2+2. Too little HP is easier to rectify than bad MPG especially if it lowers the base price. And while 2.0l is not a guzzling large displacement, a 1.6liter can be 50-75lbs lighter in the front, get better MPG or rev higher, and be more compact. 200BHP would put it into the same performance category as the RX-8 albeit $10k cheaper and there is no guarantee that it will be any better on the corners. The Mustang/Camaro is faster either way for only a couple thousand more $$$ but it's a vastly different car. If it takes a low output turbo to achieve 200+BHP it doesn't bother me. E85 means more boost for less.

E85 will not eat the injectors if that's what you mean. Even if it is on par with Premium for cost per BTU, (E85 has 70% of the BTU's that Gasoline has), than it is cheaper than Premium per HP. The "E85 conversions" are for people with no mechanical skills, basically a bolton deal that widens the length of time the injectors are open and they are rare for specific models. As an example a proper E85 conversion involves bigger fuel injectors with different o-rings(the most likely pieces apart from the fuel lines themselves to be unsafe with long term alcohol exposure), upgrading the fuel pump, and insulating the fuel tank sensors/wires. It can make more power if it's tuned by an (E85) tuner but if you reset the ECU by unhooking the positive battery cable for 30 seconds then rehooking it back up and firing it up it will run the same as gasoline. Unless your car is designed to run better on Premium grades you probably will not feel much of a difference nor will it run noticeably different. It will just make your exhaust smell like alcohol and your MPG will be less.

Outside of states that grow corn or have Ethanol plants(not all of it is made from corn) it is rare to find a station with even one E85 pump close. In some states like Kentucky the stations are mostly centered around Louisville or out of state. I live 30 miles from a public accessible E85 station but I live in the country where everything is far away and getting it 100gallons at a time and just refueling at home is not problem for me. Some of the E85 guys frequently have problems refueling with E85 since stations are rare or spaced farther apart in most places and the blends do change with the seasons(they add less ethanol during the colder seasons so the blend actually gets more expensive during the winter) but the turbo guys get far better results than Premium grade is capable of achieving. For a street car it's hard to beat even if it was more expensive than Regular per gallon.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

More like 140BHP minimum, 7k peak minimum. I ask very little , except for RWD, manual tranny, an efficient 4 cylinder, cheap, and compact 2+2. Too little HP is easier to rectify than bad MPG especially if it lowers the base price. And while 2.0l is not a guzzling large displacement, a 1.6liter can be 50-75lbs lighter in the front, get better MPG or rev higher, and be more compact. 200BHP would put it into the same performance category as the RX-8 albeit $10k cheaper and there is no guarantee that it will be any better on the corners. The Mustang/Camaro is faster either way for only a couple thousand more $$$ but it's a vastly different car. If it takes a low output turbo to achieve 200+BHP it doesn't bother me. E85 means more boost for less.

The Civic Si is fuel efficient enough @ 2880lbs curb weight, and without direct injection (21/29mpg). The MX5 is similar. I think the FT-86 would do just fine with direct injection and whatever VVT technology chooses to implement, and a ~2600lb curbweight. Seriously, If you are looking for a 35mpg combined car, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Originally Posted by Dimman

140 bhp at 7000rpm would be a 'FAIL' in my book if they can't get 140 until that high rpm, the motor would suck donkey balls. (unless you are talking about 140 bhp peak and a 7000rpm redline)

However this thing will have standards (other cars) that it will me measured against, and the smart money has it in the 180 to 200 bhp range.

^ I'm with him.

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

. You guys are crazy. 140BHP at 7k, that is all I want. 0-60mph in less than 8seconds would be just fine by me. If you want more go turbo or rev it over 9k.

Feel free to disconnect one or two of your plugs and injectors if you want.

[BoostJunkie]

Maybe it's just me but I really don't wanna settle for anything less then 200, but maybe I'm pissing in the wing, my 07 Si was 197bhp which was like 175 to the wheels and it was ok but I guess I ruined myself with all this extra hp

Maybe we will get lucky and Toyota will say F@&$ it and have subaru stick a turbo on there and give us a 250-300bhp speed demon!!! Lol I can dream can't i

[Allch Chcar]

30mpg EPA Highway isn't efficient it is average. 35mpg EPA Combined is just crazy for anything short of a tiny car or a 6spd hybrid(The 6spd CR-Z only got a score of 34mpg combined). 25mpg combined vs 35mpg combined is a huge difference. 30mpg Combined is what most compact cars get but on Regular grade with 5spds.

The Silvia was 2750lbs before it died off in the US around 2002 with similar dimensions to the FT-86. It is not likely the FT-86 will be lower than that even with 100lbs off the engine weight(KA was 360lbs or so). 2800lbs sounds about right.

25mpg combined EPA would be par for the course. And this isn't the new Civic Si. Nor is it the New Supra. Nor is it the New WRX Coupe. You all need more realistic expectations IMHO . It's bad enough that you are expecting something besides a Hachi-Roku successor when they have practically named it the Hachi-Roku successor.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

30mpg EPA Highway isn't efficient it is average. 35mpg EPA Combined is just crazy for anything short of a tiny car or a 6spd hybrid(The 6spd CR-Z only got a score of 34mpg combined). 25mpg combined vs 35mpg combined is a huge difference. 30mpg Combined is what most compact cars get but on Regular grade with 5spds.

The Silvia was 2750lbs before it died off in the US around 2002 with similar dimensions to the FT-86. It is not likely the FT-86 will be lower than that even with 100lbs off the engine weight(KA was 360lbs or so). 2800lbs sounds about right.

25mpg combined EPA would be par for the course. And this isn't the new Civic Si. Nor is it the New Supra. Nor is it the New WRX Coupe. You all need more realistic expectations IMHO . It's bad enough that you are expecting something besides a Hachi-Roku successor when they have practically named it the Hachi-Roku successor.

I don't quite follow what you're expecting from this motor.

It's a Subaru-sourced flat four. It's a sports car. Toyota is doing this to inject some passion into the brand. Passion means exciting. Exciting means sporty. Sporty means performance comes before economy.

A modern successor to the AE86 doesn't mean the SAME performance of a 25 year old car for crying out loud...

112 bhp out of 1.6L in 1985 was pretty amazing I believe... As was the fact that is was a DOHC 16v head. It wasn't designed for economy then, and it's not going to be the focus now either.

Edit: 2002 Silvia in the US? WTF are you talking about? 240SX ended here in like the late 90's, s14 chassis.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I don't quite follow what you're expecting from this motor.

It's a Subaru-sourced flat four. It's a sports car. Toyota is doing this to inject some passion into the brand. Passion means exciting. Exciting means sporty. Sporty means performance comes before economy.

A modern successor to the AE86 doesn't mean the SAME performance of a 25 year old car for crying out loud...

112 bhp out of 1.6L in 1985 was pretty amazing I believe... As was the fact that is was a DOHC 16v head. It wasn't designed for economy then, and it's not going to be the focus now either.

Edit: 2002 Silvia in the US? WTF are you talking about? 240SX ended here in like the late 90's, s14 chassis.

240sx end '98 was it?

Yeah, 86 was sports car back in the day. I'm pretty sure other 86 owners can explain how high tech the 86 was.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

240sx end '98 was it?

Yeah, 86 was sports car back in the day. I'm pretty sure other 86 owners can explain how high tech the 86 was.

Meh, '98 '02, my point isn't affected.

Dimman,
I wasn't suggesting it be built for economy. Did you even read what I wrote? I had a modest minimum requirement for BHP. Don't go ZOM! and freak out. One of those requirements that it Rev as high as the Hachi-Roku and be faster. Are you still baffled?

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Meh, '98 '02, my point isn't affected.

Dimman,
I wasn't suggesting it be built for economy. Did you even read what I wrote? I had a modest minimum requirement for BHP. Don't go ZOM! and freak out. One of those requirements that it Rev as high as the Hachi-Roku and be faster. Are you still baffled?

You said 140hp at 7000rpm. That is baffling.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Dimman

You said 140hp at 7000rpm. That is baffling.

correction, 140Bhp w 7k... so around 170hp-ish (give or take)... but that's still too low. Subaru already made that much HP w 2L before

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

correction, 140Bhp w 7k... so around 170hp-ish (give or take)... but that's still too low. Subaru already made that much HP w 2L before

Bhp is crankshaft-measured hp. So about 110 to the wheels. He never clarified if he wanted this 140 at 7000rpm or just 140 somewhere and a 7000rpm redline.

Consider that a Phase 1 (late 80's) EJ22 (that's 2.2L for those unfamiliar with the rather obvious Subaru nomenclature) makes 135bhp and redlines at 6000rpm, without much praise being thrown at its flow characteristics.

A modern 2.0L engine that revs to 7000rpm almost HAS to make more than 140bhp unless the engineer that designs the heads is drunk or high. And if a 2.0L engine only makes 140bhp@7000rpm ZOMG! What a terrible flowing head.

This is why I'm baffled.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Bhp is crankshaft-measured hp. So about 110 to the wheels. He never clarified if he wanted this 140 at 7000rpm or just 140 somewhere and a 7000rpm redline.

Consider that a Phase 1 (late 80's) EJ22 (that's 2.2L for those unfamiliar with the rather obvious Subaru nomenclature) makes 135bhp and redlines at 6000rpm, without much praise being thrown at its flow characteristics.

I took it as, somewhere 140 w and a 7k rpm redline.

Thanks for the correction on the bhp. I always get confuse between bhp and hp.

Originally Posted by Dimman

A modern 2.0L engine that revs to 7000rpm almost HAS to make more than 140bhp unless the engineer that designs the heads is drunk or high. And if a 2.0L engine only makes 140bhp@7000rpm ZOMG! What a terrible flowing head.

This is why I'm baffled.