2015 WRX vs. FR-S/BRZ

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by FRSBRZGT86FAN

Where the fuck did you get those numbers from?

2015 Camry V6: 5.8 seconds
2015 WRX: 4.8-5.5 seconds
2015 GTI: 5.9 seconds
2013 Hyundai Genesis 2.0T R-Spec:5.9

I really wish I knew where you made those numbers up I found these times on carandriver, motortrend and autoblog. The camry is still essentially the fast but your stats aren't legitimate

not that it really matters because 0-60 is a pretty meaningless metric but i can totally see the camry being faster than those cars if you arent beating the shit out of it at every light.

[srt4evah]

Originally Posted by FRSBRZGT86FAN

Where the fuck did you get those numbers from?

2015 Camry V6: 5.8 seconds
2015 WRX: 4.8-5.5 seconds
2015 GTI: 5.9 seconds
2013 Hyundai Genesis 2.0T R-Spec:5.9

I really wish I knew where you made those numbers up I found these times on carandriver, motortrend and autoblog. The camry is still essentially the fast but your stats aren't legitimate

He's talking about 5-60, not 0-60. The best WRX 0-60 times required 5200RPM clutch dumps. Rolling starts, 5-60mph, give you a better indication of power generation in normal driving, 0-60 just gives you an idea how the car launches from a stop.

[DohcTor]

Originally Posted by wootwoot

I'll disagree here. We have one of the best motors Subaru has ever made under our hoods. People seem to equate better motor with being turbocharged, and that simply isn't the case.

Where did I say anything about turbo? I was talking about the boring motor

[DohcTor]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

There is no current NA 4cyl that is as good as the fa20.

K20... Look it up.
Did 200hp back in 2006

[DohcTor]

Originally Posted by wootwoot

Lol. As have I good sir. The fact that you are displeased with the power output of an engine (which is putting out 100hp per liter) doesn't take away from the fact that it is the best 4-cylinder Subaru has ever build. It very well may be the best 4-cylinder on the market today. Take a look at how it's put together, how it is holding up, and what it has been shown to be capable of. Perhaps you feel it is a bad pairing for the frame in which it sits? And maybe so, but that has nothing to do with the engine itself being "decent."

Disagree, the engine is just too weak, and don't get me started on its powerband

[DohcTor]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

No one said the fa20 is the greatest. But tons of fanboys make it sound like its the worst thing ever.

But fail to mention they are comparing it to engines that have decades of research and development over the fa20.

That's the equivalent of getting mad at your football couch for saying your a lousy player, after you miss every practice.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by FRSBRZGT86FAN

Where the fuck did you get those numbers from?

2015 Camry V6: 5.8 seconds
2015 WRX: 4.8-5.5 seconds
2015 GTI: 5.9 seconds
2013 Hyundai Genesis 2.0T R-Spec:5.9

I really wish I knew where you made those numbers up I found these times on carandriver, motortrend and autoblog. The camry is still essentially the fast but your stats aren't legitimate

Calm the fuck down and re-read my post. I'm not making anything up. Those are 5-60 mph times.

The guy I was responding to was talking about casually beating the Camry in the other lane, not full out staging/launching from 0-60 which nobody does in daily driving.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by DohcTor

K20... Look it up.
Did 200hp back in 2006

Stop putting out false info, that k series engine was put out originally in 2001. Also, you are using HP as the only metric.

You aslo need to denote WHICH k20 you are referring to. The k20a2 (I'm assuming because you are probably a dc5 fanboy), was used from 2002 to 2004. In terms of Hp, they were equal. The fa20 has more torque, better fuel economy, and produces less emissions.

The k20 was last used in 2011 in a car that didn't even come State side.

So I will say again: There is no current NA 4 cyl that is better than the fa20.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

But being fair, a lot of companies are straying from performance-oriented NA four-cylinders at the moment and going turbo. It would be like bragging about having the best five-speed transmission. Sure, it may very well be extremely competitive within that description and be a fine unit, but everyone else is starting to do something different.

[AsianStyle]

I really love the twins and can't think of a car I'd rather have in the under 40k market. However, the hands down weakest link to this car is the engine. I'm not someone who cares about peak power, but more power is always nice especially in this chassis.

The real problem with the fa20 is the willingness/confidence to rev is not there (engine noises are not too inspiring), reliability is not bullet proof (mostly shitty oem Subaru tune), and the power band (torque dip). Without those issues I think most people would be fine with the engine.

I can live with it and enjoy the car for what it is, but I understand it is not for everyone. To say this is the best 4 cylinder engine currently available is laughable. Unless honda stopped making engines that can't be right. As I stated before as a whole package I can't think of a car I would rather have, but the engine specifically is not great. Yes, it could be a whole lot worse (RX-8's Renesis comes to mind since I had a deposit on one back in 04).

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

I really love the twins and can't think of a car I'd rather have in the under 40k market. However, the hands down weakest link to this car is the engine. I'm not someone who cares about peak power, but more power is always nice especially in this chassis.

The real problem with the fa20 is the willingness/confidence to rev is not there (engine noises are not too inspiring), reliability is not bullet proof (mostly shitty oem Subaru tune), and the power band (torque dip). Without those issues I think most people would be fine with the engine.

I can live with it and enjoy the car for what it is, but I understand it is not for everyone. To say this is the best 4 cylinder engine currently available is laughable. Unless honda stopped making engines that can't be right. As I stated before as a whole package I can't think of a car I would rather have, but the engine specifically is not great. Yes, it could be a whole lot worse (RX-8's Renesis comes to mind since I had a deposit on one back in 04).

Depending on the metric you use, its all moot.

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

Depending on the metric you use, its all moot.

OK, I agree with that.

For me I couldn't care less about emissions and mpg is a tier below, linear power deliver and smooth revving. Also, I believe the K24s all have more torque than the fa20.

So, what metrics are your priorities when evaluating an engine?

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

OK, I can accept that. For me I couldn't care less about emissions. and mpg is a tier below, linear power deliver and smooth revving. Also, I believe the K24s all have more torque than the fa20.

So, what metrics are your priorities when evaluating an engine?

High hp/liter. None of the k24s have 100 hp/liter.

The old k20s that people are comparing the fa20 to, were able to produce those numbers with less restrictions on emissions compared to today's engines.

Its the entire package that makes the engine good or bad.

Having 100 hp/liter, real world 35mpg, and still exceeding federal emissions standards is an impressive feat.

To say that it is not, is just not giving credit where credit is due.

edit: Naturally aspirated

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

High hp/liter. None of the k24s have 100 hp/liter.

The old k20s that people are comparing the fa20 to, were able to produce those numbers with less restrictions on emissions compared to today's engines.

Its the entire package that makes the engine good or bad.

Having 100 hp/liter, real world 35mpg, and still exceeding federal emissions standards is an impressive feat.

To say that it is not, is just not giving credit where credit is due.

edit: Naturally aspirated

Does having 100 hp/liter make the car faster than other cars that don't hit that mark? No. Guys with Mustang GT 5.0s and anything powered by AMG's 6.3 will tell you that really quick.

It's great from an engineering perspective but it doesn't translate into mind-boggling performance. The 1999-2000 Civic Si had 100 hp/liter too but that didn't make the car better. I like it that a car can make that much with what it's got, but it's not new ground and definitely not an automatic qualifier for being something amazing.