Is anyone else on the fence due to the engine choice?

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Fine.

Most cars are closed loop or stoich for 70% of the load range. They go into open loop at high load and there lean vs rich makes a difference. A richer mixture allows for a higher compression with advanced timing on lower grade fuel. The closer to minimum timing for peak torque the better.

Air mass determines RPM range for the torque band just like cam. You optimize both for the torque band.

DI increases the cooling effect from injecting the fuel which for Gasoline is fairly low compared to alcohols. But it does allow for a higher compression ratio to be used. I scrambled my wording, I know where compression ratio comes from.

Our engines are most energy efficient at full throttle and there they make the most power. Engines are more fuel efficient the less RPM with the least throttling. But the energy efficiency tapers as it gets out of the most efficient range. A smaller displacement engine increases the load for acceleration and cruise. So long as it isn't pushed harder or faster it's more efficient. Why do you car so much?

Scrambled wording and broad, incomplete statements are leading contributors to internet based ignorance.

I care because it's hard enough as it is to find decent info on the 'net without having to wade through the crap first. I would rather the less contribution to misinformation from here, the better.

[Allch Chcar]

I thought it was organized. And I didn't quote Wikipedia once.

Ah crud it looks terrible. Sorry sorry.

[Snaps]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

You didn't get what I said at all...yes I want it to be faster I only listed what I thought it would take to make it faster as a minimum guideline. It doesn't take 200BHP to make a 2800lbs car go faster than a 110BHP 2200lb car.

The AE86 is considered slow now, whether you like it or not. It may have been fast (or at least reasonable) in it's day, but compared to a lot of cars nowadays it would be considered slow. If you want the new iteration of it to be slow as well, by all means ask for only 140hp for 2600lbs. I personally don't want it to be 'only a little bit faster' than the 20-year-old AE86, I want it to be new, I want it to feel like it's a sports car, not something my mum's Ford Fiesta could do (example, my mum does not actually own a Fiesta )

LoL, you don't get why Mazda built the Renesis yet you used it as an example, and those are my points in bold.

Exactly, I don't see why mazda built it... I can see very little it has over the RX7 - looks worse (IMO), less power, slower acceleration, heavier, etc.

Increasing the displacement or even bolting on a turbocharger when they could increase the power with better technology is not advancement it is called "Progress" a word applied many times to things that do not signify advancement. It has also been considered a technological advancement by auto journalists but that doesn't make it true.

Is that not what Toyota is trying to do with things like VVt-i, valvematic, etc.? And the same thing turbo manufacturers do by researching and bringing out types of turbo's that spool faster, or make more boost faster?

The Mazda Rotary HP did peak when they turbocharged it but it was for a $30k car over 10 years ago. The RX-8 motor is naturally aspirated, lighter, and almost matches the HP but it takes RPM to do what it does and sells for the same $30k base price 10 years later. Success it is/was. It also handles better I hear.

As you said, you don't need a heap of power to make a car faster (in fact, that's not what you want), but Mazda screwed it up by making the RX8 both heavier and making it less powerful.

"The whole point is to make a car faster, and more efficient at the same time, while retaining or adding extra amenities."

The whole point of what? Many cars are faster than they used to be and they are not even close to as fuel efficient as they were. You can blame safety regulations or you can blame emissions, but that doesn't change the facts that most cars are simply built to be larger than they used to be and no advantage is gained other than space. If we wanted larger cars we would buy them right?

Cars are more efficient now than they ever were. Both only a few years back, and with differences of ~15 years

I am just suggesting that it doesn't take a bigger engine to make the car faster than the old one when the only difference is more weight. That's what engine technology is good at doing, worse case there is always turbo/supercharging.

I agree, but the safety regulations prevent this, cars are required to have more airbags, crumple zones, etc. than ever before, which increases weight and then you have to increse power.

The heavier Subaru engined car isn't going to be more fuel efficient than the original Hachi-Roku's, not by a long shot. And the engine will not just be more powerful but it will also be larger and yet still lighter(aluminum block). For a $20k entry level RWD car you can't ask for everything and get it.

I'm not sure about that, as an example I can use the 2010 Nissan Maxima vs. the 1994 Nissan Maxima, although the 2010 model has a larger engine(3.6L vs. 3L), it is far more efficient at 22MPG vs the 1994's 19MPG.

Ferrari is a very bad example, yes they are a "Progressive" company in regards to HP. But they have to resort to hybrid technology like Electric motors and batteries to keep cylinder count up due to Gov't regulations. No applicable points to be made there.

Ferrai use no Hybrid technology in the 458, the 458 uses a 4.5L engine compared to the 430's 4.3L, but manages to make an extra ~60hp.

A better example of the effect is the bigger block engines of the US 60's. Engine power was increasing with the OHV engine becoming mainstream after the "Rocket" was introduced in the 50's but after the technology stopped paying off as quickly they resorted to increasing the bores/stroke to keep increasing power. Eventually they had to use leaded gasoline and high compression to get more HP from the then huge displacement engines. Good times those 60s were Gas was cheap and emissions regulations were low. But the increase in power wasn't just technology it was increases in displacement and used higher octane leaded gasoline to keep increasing the compression ratio. And that's my point.

Yes, I understand that, and I agree there is a time when you get too much displacement, or too large a turbo, and it becomes excessive, which is why manufacturers should continue devloping technologies to pull more power out from every drop of fuel. There is still a very long way to go... You know all the heat that gets transferred to the engine cooling system (radiator), all of that heat is extra energy coming out of the fuel and not being harnessed by the engine, if they keep improving technologies this should eventually become near-perfect, which is when the manufacturers will need to begin to up boost levels or displacement to get more power.

[BoostJunkie]

Originally Posted by Dimman

No. (I'm in an argumentative mood today. Not always this much of a ****...)
Air mass and desired mixture ratio determine the engine's output. This is not the same thing as just the size of the motor. Engine is an air-pump analogy, blah... blah...

DI allows the engine to be tuned to run well in a leaner state which can be used to increase output OR reduce fuel requirements for the same output.

It doesn't increase compression ratio. It allows engines to be run with higher compression ratios safely.

I don't quite follow the Otto cycle is more efficient at greater loads statement. Could you expand on this? Because I don't see how this relates to a vehicle's fuel consumption. ie: just because an engine is running at it's most efficient range, does not mean it is using the least amount of fuel.

He fades back, dribbles down the middle shoots and he scores.......... I'm enjoying the convo/beating of a highschool janitor..... Oh wait sorry master of the custodial arts

[Matador]

Originally Posted by BoostJunkie

He fades back, dribbles down the middle shoots and he scores.......... I'm enjoying the convo/beating of a highschool janitor..... Oh wait sorry master of the custodial arts

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Snaps

Good points, I give.

[BoostJunkie]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

I was wondering if anyone was gonna catch that

[Snaps]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Good points, I give.

Thank you. Was nice arguing

[Conor]

Wow! I had totally forgotten about making this thread! Glad to have read it and caught up on some interesting technical info, though (insofar as Toyota's plans for the H4 engine they're building for the car).

I've actually come around on the H4/RWD format in the mean time, though.. I'd say there are pretty good odds of me picking one of these up after they've been out for a year or so.. I'm a Toyota tech and will be seeing these cars from Day 1, but I'd like to give them a chance to have a good shake down and work out the early production bugs first

And in ANY case.. I'm going to withhold final judgement until I get to drive one/do a PDI on one. If it doesn't grab my attention on that first drive.. then none of this will have mattered

-Conor
1993 MR2 (V6 swapped)
1986 MR2 (4AGE woooo)

Now... onto my responses!

Originally Posted by Dixie Normous

If this is the same "Conor" from the mr2 boards im gonna say hes not so newbish.

That's me.

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

He may be expert in MR series and/or V6 engine... but sounds like newb on boxer engine to me. Of course, I stand to be correct. I'm no way near PhD or expert of boxer engine either, but stating that cuz of boxer engine chosen over IS350 v6 engine (2GR-FSE iirc) is lame excuse to hating this car.

Engines are engines. I'm not "a noob on boxer engine" either

A 2GRFSE would be located in roughly the same spot as an H4 (it's reasonably compact).. just would have a bit more weight up top than the pancake motor. It's also a complete, proven powertrain and would have been an easy, inexpensive choice for Toyota to throw into a theoretical new Front engine/RWD car. A 2GR would blow the doors off of a car with an STI engine, stock for stock. But I guess they had other plans *shrug*

Originally Posted by 4agze

If your in to hp out of the box this car is wrong for you, this car is mirrored over the old AE86 this car will be more on balance & cornering ability not 1/4 mile runs.

Huh? Why can't I have my cake and eat it too? I like the 4AGE as much as the next guy (I have two cars with them..), but that doesn't mean that wouldn't prefer that it make twice as much horsepower.

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

V-6 in an supposed 86 successor?

Leave.

I think I'll stay.

Originally Posted by bigbcraig

Then you don't understand the concept of this car. Go buy a Z, Genesis, or Mustang.

I'm pretty sure you think this car is going to be something that it's not.

Zs are ugly and boring. Genesis coupes are awful (I've worked professionally on Hyundai/Kia products for long enough to not like anything they bulid..) and Mustangs are.. Mustangs. :| Besides, why would I want a V6 Mustang when there's that sweet new 5.0L out?

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Conor

Engines are engines. I'm not "a noob on boxer engine" either

A 2GRFSE would be located in roughly the same spot as an H4 (it's reasonably compact).. just would have a bit more weight up top than the pancake motor.

2GR-FSE would locate in same spot as an H4 boxer engine & reasonably compact? Yeah it might sit in same spot as an H4, but I don't remember 2GR been compact? If you were talkin' bout 4AG, then that's different story.

Where did I put that pic... Ah, here it is


That "pancake" engine so you call measurement came up around 17 & 3/4 inches long (that include the crank). Now, that's 2.5 Liter "pancake" engine (from GC) and not new gen 2 Liter "pancake" engine. New design 2 Liter engine might be shorter or longer IDK, but I don't remember 2GR been 17~18 inches long is it?

Originally Posted by Conor

It's also a complete, proven powertrain and would have been an easy, inexpensive choice for Toyota to throw into a theoretical new Front engine/RWD car

Yes, I gotta admit that 2GR is proven powertrain, but I don't think it's easy, inexpensive. If they really wanna go w easy inexpensive engine that is proven powertrain would be 4A & 3S or even new block 2ZZ will do (yes, I know 2ZZ is FF engine). Why they wanna put heavier 2GR?

Originally Posted by Conor

A 2GR would blow the doors off of a car with an STI engine, stock for stock. But I guess they had other plans *shrug*

Well, if they don't come w 2GR engine in this car, then put one. You're engine expert right? I'm pretty sure you can do it and I'm sure you'll enjoy more than pancake engine.

[Conor]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

2GR-FSE would locate in same spot as an H4 boxer engine & reasonably compact? Yeah it might sit in same spot as an H4, but I don't remember 2GR been compact? If you were talkin' bout 4AG, then that's different story.

The new -GR series Toyota V6s are very light and yes, reasonably compact. Not as good for weight distribution as a boxer engine, but still very good. Good enough that I seriously doubt most people could discern a handling difference.

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Yes, I gotta admit that 2GR is proven powertrain, but I don't think it's easy, inexpensive. If they really wanna go w easy inexpensive engine that is proven powertrain would be 4A & 3S or even new block 2ZZ will do (yes, I know 2ZZ is FF engine). Why they wanna put heavier 2GR?

Well.. you have to look at this from an engineering cost standpoint.. The 2GRFSE is already developed. It's done. All the R&D costs have been covered, its long-term reliability is established and there's no additional cost to using the engine beyond simple manufacturing costs as if it were in an IS350 or GS350.

Developing a new H4 (aren't they? They're not just throwing a stock Subaru 2.5L in there, right?) means R&D costs, tooling expenses, parts-sourcing and development and so on..

So.. yeah, it would be easier and cheaper to just throw a developed, smog-certified powertrain into this bitch.

4A, 3S and 2ZZ are all OLD engines. They won't meet modern emissions standards.

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Well, if they don't come w 2GR engine in this car, then put one. You're engine expert right? I'm pretty sure you can do it and I'm sure you'll enjoy more than pancake engine.

You wouldn't catch me dead, doing an engine swap into a brand-new car!

I've done the V6 in my MR2 and it's made the car an amazing daily driver, highway car and twisty road warrior.. Far superior powerband to either the stock 5SFE or 3SGTE. Excellent drivability.

If Toyota brings the FT86 to market with a modified, revvy or turbocharged H4.. I'll be happy enough with that.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Conor

The new -GR series Toyota V6s are very light and yes, reasonably compact. Not as good for weight distribution as a boxer engine, but still very good. Good enough that I seriously doubt most people could discern a handling difference.

wait, you're comparing 2 Liter vs 3.5 Liter and saying it's very reasonable light compact? I'm sorry, how much that sucker weight and how long is the engine? boxer block is full aluminum just like 2GR minus 2 less cylinder weights. I know for damn sure 2GR isn't no where near 17 inches in length. IIRC 2GR is looking at 24" ~ 27" (at least).

Putting light weight car a heavier engine isn't make serious discern of a handling difference? No offense, but I highly doubt that. It's like saying putting v6 engine into Miata. I don't care how lightweight is that v6 engine is, unless that v6 engine is lighter than 1.6~2 liter i4 engine, it damn make a difference in handling. What cuz your MR2 has v6 swapped in there, so it's same w FR cars?

Originally Posted by Conor

Well.. you have to look at this from an engineering cost standpoint.. The 2GRFSE is already developed. It's done. All the R&D costs have been covered, its long-term reliability is established and there's no additional cost to using the engine beyond simple manufacturing costs as if it were in an IS350 or GS350.

Developing a new H4 (aren't they? They're not just throwing a stock Subaru 2.5L in there, right?) means R&D costs, tooling expenses, parts-sourcing and development and so on..

So.. yeah, it would be easier and cheaper to just throw a developed, smog-certified powertrain into this bitch.

What engineering cost standpoint? THEY'RE MAKING NEW CAR. What cost standpoint you're looking at? When they made new Altezza/IS350 why they made 2GR in there instead of 1JZ or 2JZ? Engineering cost standpoint, it's a waste to put new engine in there. They still put that 2GR in there.

It's gonna be new Yamaha engineered 2 Liter boxer engine. Yes, it's gonna cost em for tooling and blah blah blah, but from this time on when they wanna use that engine in different Toyota cars, they have it and don't have to spent more money on it. Just first time is always an expensive. Toyota cares? Hell no, they had a check written $15m for penalty fee for stuck pedals, but are they broke? Ha! Not even close.

Originally Posted by Conor

4A, 3S and 2ZZ are all OLD engines. They won't meet modern emissions standards.

I hope you're trolling. 2ZZ? Really they won't meet modern emission standards? Have you ever heard of Lotus Elise? Last time I checked, they still putting OLD 1ZZ & 2ZZ. Man, they must be stupid! Why they put those OLD engines. How about 3S? Have you ever heard of Toyota Caldina, they still use OLD 3S-GTE engine.

2GR have engine oil line problem, vibrations, and other problems. What, 2GR on 5th or 6th yr and already having problem? While ZZ & A engine been around 2~3 time more, used and they keep going. No wonder they still use em. Yeah, time to create new 2GR engine.

Look, I'm not saying 2GR isn't great engine. They already made 6 cylinder FR engine. It's time to move on to 4 cylinder FR car now.

[Franisco]

Not to be obnoxious Ichi, because I agree with your argument, but the 3S isn't legal in the states anymore..

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Franisco

Not to be obnoxious Ichi, because I agree with your argument, but the 3S isn't legal in the states anymore..

What? orz

I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.