FT-86 / FR-S size dimensions compared to Genesis, Civic, Sction tC, etc

[70NYD]

Rx8 rear seats are awesome for anyone under 6ft, but yeah anyone over that legs tend to b a bit of a issue (myn is all the way back)
Thx man awesome going off that pic it's sitting about 75mm of the ground (as the little flap infront of the front wheel on the 8 is about 120mm stock)

[Zenrael]

I'm 5'11" and I'm one click away from the furthest reach.

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by 70NYD

yes please


i think he meant in the current line up.. we all know whats GOING to happen but its USELESS to predict. when you change the drivetrain setup (ie AWD to RWD) you need to think about how you are going to put the torque down as your contact patch for power transmition has just effectively halfed, so its uselles to guess based on the current subaru engines.. one of the solutions is to lower torque but make more revvs to get more power

Just based on the fact it's a boxer, it'll have a bit more torque than say....a Honda engine of the same size.

Getting the power down with an NA engine doing 200ish hp will not be a problem at all.

[NESW20]

i think a large part of the problem is that people tend to sit WAY too far back away from the steering wheel when they drive. people near my height have no business sitting with the seat almost all the way back. you people are ridiculous.

[NESW20]

Originally Posted by Maxim

Just based on the fact it's a boxer, it'll have a bit more torque than say....a Honda engine of the same size.

not necessarily true. please stop spreading this misinformation.

[Aki]

Originally Posted by Maxim

Just based on the fact it's a boxer, it'll have a bit more torque than say....a Honda engine of the same size.

It really depends on how and where it's making the power. Honda's have lower torque because they make their horsepower at high RPMs, from 6000-8000. Horsepower is calculated from torque, and they always intersect at 5252 RPM. Any point beyond that, when horsepower gains you'll see the torque dropping on a dyno.

If the FT86's boxer engine makes say 200 hp with a 7000 redline, then yes it'll have more torque. If it makes that horsepower up higher, then you'll see similar torque figures to a Honda K20 engine.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Aki

It really depends on how and where it's making the power. Honda's have lower torque because they make their horsepower at high RPMs, from 6000-8000. Horsepower is calculated from torque, and they always intersect at 5252 RPM. Any point beyond that, when horsepower gains you'll see the torque dropping on a dyno.

If the FT86's boxer engine makes say 200 hp with a 7000 redline, then yes it'll have more torque. If it makes that horsepower up higher, then you'll see similar torque figures to a Honda K20 engine.

This is completely wrong.

What you will see is as a high strung motor spins faster to make its power it will make more torque than its slower spinning cousins. The issue that people have is that this moves the peak higher in the rpm range.

It has to do with the volumetric and combustion efficiency of the motor. With high power small displacement motors you will see stratospheric torque peaks, because they need to move a lot of air to make power. And torque is related to combustion efficiency and the speed of the air entering the combustion chambers. Since the high revving motor needs a lot of air it tends to have larger port sizing, which reduce the velocity of the intake charge, particularly at low rpm as the piston is moving more slowly. Once the piston is moving fast (enough rpm) enough to generate higher velocity through the larger ports the combustion efficiency improves and the engine will make more torque.


Let's look at some numbers of Toyota 2.0L motors:

3SFE:
115 hp @ 5600 rpm 120 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

3SGE (early):
140 hp @ 6200 rpm 130 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm

3SGE (Blacktop BEAMS manual):
210 hp @ 7500 rpm 160 lb-ft @ 6400 rpm


Comparing with other torque output of NA 2.0L motors:

Honda K20A3 (Base RSX):
160 hp @ 6500 rpm 140 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm

Honda K20Z1 (later RSX-Type S)
210 hp @ 7800 rpm 143 lb-ft @ 7000 rpm

Honda F20C:
240 hp @ 8300 rpm 153 lb-ft @ 7500 rpm

You will note that these torque maximums are all VERY close to each other, whereas the F20C has over double the power of the 3SFE. There is not a whole lot that can be done to create more torque in a fixed displacement, naturally aspirated motor.


The issue that people have with 'Honda torque' is that they don't want to work for it. You have to whip small motors hard to go fast.

Again this is why I think this car would be a disaster for Scion, having it compete directly with the much torquier (and also much torquier at much lower rpm) tC. Most people that don't appreciate and know how to use the high-revving motor will think that the tC is more powerful based on their butt dyno.

They say people buy horsepower but drive torque.

[Aki]

Originally Posted by Dimman

This is completely wrong.

What you will see is as a high strung motor spins faster to make its power it will make more torque than its slower spinning cousins. The issue that people have is that this moves the peak higher in the rpm range.

Uh what? Higher-strung motor will make MORE torque?

How about the fact that 3GSE making 159 ft/lbs at 206 hp is LESS than the 1st-gen Scion TC makes more torque (163 ft/lbs), in spite of having 45 horsepower more (161)?

And you didn't notice the fact that the F20C makes its max torque 900 RPM higher than the 3GSE? 600 RPM more for the K20Z1? I'm scratching my head at why you're pointing at those two engines, because they're still proving my point.

It's a simple math. Horsepower is calculated by torque X rpm / 5252. The higher the RPM, the less torque you need to hit the magic 200 hp number. Engines that hit their peak later in the RPM range will have less torque compared to an engine that makes it lower. Diesels and FI have lots of torque because they hit their peak at low RPMs.

Nor is torque the end-all be-all. By that logic, you should buy a Golf TDI, since it makes 236 ft/lbs of torque, which will definitely be more than an N/A 2.0 in the FT86.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Aki

Any point beyond that, when horsepower gains you'll see the torque dropping on a dyno.

6400, 7000, and 7500 rpm are all more than the magic 5252 number.

Originally Posted by Aki

Uh what? Higher-strung motor will make MORE torque?

How about the fact that 3GSE making 159 ft/lbs at 206 hp is LESS than the 1st-gen Scion TC makes more torque (163 ft/lbs), in spite of having 45 horsepower more (161)?

Apples to oranges, Aki. All the motors I reference are 2.0L, the Scion motor has an extra 400cc of displacement.

Originally Posted by Aki

And you didn't notice the fact that the F20C makes its max torque 900 RPM higher than the 3GSE? 600 RPM more for the K20Z1? I'm scratching my head at why you're pointing at those two engines, because they're still proving my point.

I'm educating you, and seem to be failing. Look at the 3SFE and the BEAMS 3SGE. Same engine, different heads. More power, higher rpm, more torque, higher rpm. The point was to show the similarities of what happens when you spin a motor for power. Again all are the same displacement. In these motors you see the power rising, the torque rising, and the peak rpms rising.

Originally Posted by Aki

It's a simple math. Horsepower is calculated by torque X rpm / 5252. The higher the RPM, the less torque you need to hit the magic 200 hp number. Engines that hit their peak later in the RPM range will have less torque compared to an engine that makes it lower.

It's good that you can understand the math calculations but your knowledge is incomplete. This is what the engines I listed disproves. In all the engines I listed, the ones that make more power at higher rpm also make more torque. And they are all the same displacement, all naturally aspirated. In fact all but the F20C even have the same bore and stroke.

If you want to come back and say if they had equal power at large rpm differences it would it would prove your point, go for it. All it will prove is that you don't have a very good understanding of how these things work.

Originally Posted by Aki

Diesels and FI have lots of torque because they hit their peak at low RPMs.

These are not the same and the reasons are different. For one diesels cannot reach high rpm due to the rate of burn of their fuel. FI is cramming more mixture in and that changes based on boost. Part of the reasons for FI is so the engines don't have to spin to make power. They are designed that way, cramming in more mixture as soon as possible. If you wanted an all out FI powerplant it would be similar to what the NA's would look like. But usually for reliability boost tapers off at higher rpm, or ignition is less aggressive. Again apples and oranges.

But saying that they make lots of torque just because their power peaks are low is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Aki

Nor is torque the end-all be-all. By that logic, you should buy a Golf TDI, since it makes 236 ft/lbs of torque, which will definitely be more than an N/A 2.0 in the FT86.

I never said it was. I just said your explanation was completely wrong.

Hope this helps.

[xantonin]

Completely stock NA 1.8L I4 engine.

[Dimman]

I'm guessing your 2ZZGE? VVTL-i high lift profile is kicking in at 6000 it looks like.

Edit: You a transplanted Canuck? Or just picked a random dyno chart?

[xantonin]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I'm guessing your 2ZZGE? VVTL-i high lift profile is kicking in at 6000 it looks like.

:party 0030:

Yeah. Not my car, but from another. Same idea though.

Thought I'd just leave that there.

Edit: You a transplanted Canuck? Or just picked a random dyno chart?

What?? lol
It's not my photo, but I know it's a stock run from the guy that posted it where I go to.

[Aki]

Okay I noticed in my earlier post that I said torque drops past 5252---which I don't know why I said that cus it's wrong. =O Torque and HP cross over at 5252 and I was pointing out that point.

Originally Posted by Dimman

Apples to oranges, Aki. All the motors I reference are 2.0L, the Scion motor has an extra 400cc of displacement.

It's not apples to oranges, because you made quite a blanket statement that torque at higher RPMs would always be more than at low RPMs. I never said "given equal displacement," and I'm not sure why you thought that at all. Since this is partially within the context of whether the FT86 should have 2.0 or 2.5L, F/I or not it's quite pertinent.

I'm educating you, and seem to be failing. Look at the 3SFE and the BEAMS 3SGE. Same engine, different heads. More power, higher rpm, more torque, higher rpm. The point was to show the similarities of what happens when you spin a motor for power. Again all are the same displacement. In these motors you see the power rising, the torque rising, and the peak rpms rising.

You're spinning your gears in vain, to put it figuratively. You spin a motor higher for more power, it's not going to be as torquey. Peak torque in the F20C being lower while having more horsepower while having higher RPMs prove that point.

In all the engines I listed, the ones that make more power at higher rpm also make more torque. And they are all the same displacement, all naturally aspirated. In fact all but the F20C even have the same bore and stroke.

No, you're simply not grasping the fact that the an engine like the F20C has to work at higher RPMs for its power, which is big part of why it's got less torque than say a Scion TC. Granted there are a lot of other factors that lead to the particular torque characteristics of an engine, but as a general principle it's true. Why else would they increases the displacement for the S2000 and have a lower redline? More torque.

These are not the same and the reasons are different. For one diesels cannot reach high rpm due to the rate of burn of their fuel. FI is cramming more mixture in and that changes based on boost.

Sigh. I know how DI works, and it's irrelevant. You can explain all day bore and stroke, DI, VVT, iVtec, intake runner length or whatever, but it's completely irrelevant. How the horsepower number is derived is contingent upon the torque. The higher the RPM at peak horsepower, the less torque there is compared to an engine making the same horsepower at a lower RPM. Engines that are peakey are just less torquey. I'm not even comparing engines, because it's not relevant.

But saying that they make lots of torque just because their power peaks are low is ridiculous.

Again, failure in comprehension. Power peaking low doesn't mean it automatically makes gobs of torque. You're mistaking causality here, and I'm not even sure why. There are many ways to get more torque, but you don't get it by purposely keeping the power peak low for sake of keeping it low... nor did I ever say that.

[70NYD]

But power is torque x rpm / 5252. So for something to have heaps of power down low it needs to have heaps of torque straight away. Where as if it doesnt have heaps of torque down low it needs to rev higher. And if geared properly any engine can make a fast high accelerating car, but to have torque down low it is usually a heavier engine cus it usually has a higher displacement. But all this is irrelevant unless you want to tow a trailer. Point for a nimble performance car I think is to accelerate fast (good gear box), change direction fast(light) and have a relatively good top speed (power up top) And to change direction fast the sprung mass should be as low as possible. That's why I don't get why people want to have heaps of torque, this isn't a heavy low revving v8..
And yea you can have a high revving v8/10 with torque straight up, not impossible, but we aren't talking about a supercar, or a one run rebuild dragster, this is for a mass production low cost car..