Why would more power ruin the car??

[Yoshoobaroo]

Double post

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by fatoni

Please dont resort to name calling. you can want to reduce cog by lowering a 60 lb roof, 180 lb driver and 8 lb hood. id take the 800 lbs of drive train. if what you were saying held any weight, i dont think the cayman would have such a high center of gravity, right? i mean, there is no engine in front so the hood can be as low as they want.

I apologise. I got heated and that was unwarranted.

Lowering the driver lowers much more than just the roof. There's all the glass, the pillars, crash beams, wiring looms and more.

I'm not saying that the boxer is the only reason the car has a low CG. I'm saying that if you replaced it with an I4, you'd have to raise up a significant portion of the car to get it to pass international regulations. In fact Tada has said that the car initially sat 15 mm lower than it does, but in order to comply to some countries standards they had to raise the suspension, causing it to have slightly more ground clearance than the WRX 😆

[Spuds]

Guys, I spent an hour last night looking for specs on this COG debate even though it's OT AF.
There aren't any manufacturer released specs for cog that I can find for the Miata or Corvette, but rumor and pseudo science put it at about half an inch lower than the twins (C6z06 and ND) so I'm going to continue under that assumption.

However, if you dropped either of those engines in a twin Id bet the COG would move upwards, because the twins were designed around and optimized for the boxer layout. Likewise, if you could even fit an FA20 in one of the other cars, you'd wind up with a higher COG as well.

I think we can all agree that the layout of the engine and design cues off of it make up only a part of COG. Perfect example are the three cars we are talking about now. Both Miata and Vette are 2-seaters. As such, they had no worries about accommodating a rear passenger. This means no crash structure, and more flexibility in seating position of the front occupants. I've ridden in a C5, and you are definitely more laid flat than a twin. I imagine Miata is similar. Both of them have structures suitable for convertibles as well, meaning it's all down low. All these things are not true for the twins, necessitating higher overall structure.

Moral of the story, cog is entirely dependent on input requirements (performance, business, manufacturing, etc) that none of us will ever know beyond what marketing tells us, which may or may not be true. These happen to also dictate optimal engine configuration. Stop comparing apples to oranges ffs and stay on topic.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by fatoni

its an inherent part of subaru but you dont know the center of gravity for anything other than the brz? doenst add up imo.

I'm sorry you're having difficulty understanding it. I don't need to have specific COG numbers for other Subaru vehicles to have heard about the boxer configuration contributing to a low COG, just as I don't need actual temperature readings to recall that it's hot in the summer in south Texas or annual snowfall totals to have heard that there are good places to ski in Colorado. I get the sense you're intentionally playing obtuse just to have something to argue about.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

I apologise. I got heated and that was unwarranted.

Lowering the driver lowers much more than just the roof. There's all the glass, the pillars, crash beams, wiring looms and more.

I'm not saying that the boxer is the only reason the car has a low CG. I'm saying that if you replaced it with an I4, you'd have to raise up a significant portion of the car to get it to pass international regulations. In fact Tada has said that the car initially sat 15 mm lower than it does, but in order to comply to some countries standards they had to raise the suspension, causing it to have slightly more ground clearance than the WRX 😆

apology accepted. i still disagree with just about everything youre saying. maybe not the idea but rather the magnitude.

Originally Posted by extrashaky

I'm sorry you're having difficulty understanding it. I don't need to have specific COG numbers for other Subaru vehicles to have heard about the boxer configuration contributing to a low COG, just as I don't need actual temperature readings to recall that it's hot in the summer in south Texas or annual snowfall totals to have heard that there are good places to ski in Colorado. I get the sense you're intentionally playing obtuse just to have something to argue about.

im not playing obtuse. youre simultaneously telling me that subaru is known for their low center of gravity, while not knowing any of the cars center of gravity and that they also dont market the low center of gravity. its just a bunch of counterintuitive statements you make.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by fatoni

youre simultaneously telling me that subaru is known for their low center of gravity, while not knowing any of the cars center of gravity and that they also dont market the low center of gravity.

Except I didn't say that, liar. In fact, I provided examples earlier of where they do. I said they don't do it endlessly.

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by venturaII

Yay - a 1 inch lower CoG for an engine assembly that weighs 100 pounds more than it should. Only an advertiser could spin that into an 'advantage'.

A heavier engine positioned low will make COG lower than a lighter engine. The more weight added to the bottom, the lower the COG. COG has nothing to do with total weight. This is high school physics ... at least it was at my time. Can you please go throw your nonsense tantrum somewhere else?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Except I didn't say that, liar. In fact, I provided examples earlier of where they do. I said they don't do it endlessly.

its weird how someone with such little regard for facts or accurate quotes gets so upturned over some semantics.

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by mrg666

A heavier engine positioned low will make COG lower than a lighter engine. The more weight added to the bottom, the lower the COG. COG has nothing to do with total weight. This is high school physics ... at least it was at my time. Can you please go throw your nonsense tantrum somewhere else?

Great logic there. "Lets make a heavier motor so it can sit lower." Since a heavier boxer engine will obviously give us a lower CoG, and we can apparently disregard all the other cars with a higher CoG which handle as well or better than the twins, let's all add even more weight to the bottom of the car, since that apparently is what makes it handle better. The marketing department can call it 'road hugging weight', and then everyone can boast about how it's what makes the car handle so well (at least, according to the commercials). You sure you didn't skip physics class?

[Harey]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

People who complain about power are in four camps, IMO.

1. They bought the wrong car, to them "performance" means speed.
2. They legit need more power for tracking the car.
3. More power, just because, always the best reason.
4. They are unable to drive the car anywhere near it's limits, regardless of power. This is the group who complains the loudest, IMO, and ignores the the cheapest upgrade advice they get here to learn to drive the car well.

IIRC, one of the interviews with Tada reported they had a specific number in mind to match the chasis to allow 9/10's fun without most of the 9/10's risk.

I'd love 300HP and more torque, but as a for-fun car not on the track that would be a waste of money around here.

People who go off topic are in four camps, IMO.

1. Didnt read the intial post
2. Cant find the 1st page button
3. Feel they need to say something when they dont understand the topic
4. Say the same things over and over again and forget which thread they are posting in

[Harey]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

More fun is an OFT flash away, for cheap. The V4 tunes and E85 is impressive.

Im confused, you constantly talk about how more power is only for people that cant drive then you post about increasing the power??

[Harey]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

I just remember that they said the car changed the way it felt. Some comments were nose heavy, delayed throttle responses, etc.

I think it was Swarb? that had three different FI setups on track and said he was faster NA.

Mike at CSG may remember.

Interesting, this is the info I was after. Adding a supercharger on top of the engine must add a reasonable amount of weight to the front. And also up reasonably high.

Delayed throttle response I thought would be with a turbo but not a well sized positive displacement supercharger.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Harey

People who go off topic are in four camps, IMO.

1. Didnt read the intial post
2. Cant find the 1st page button
3. Feel they need to say something when they dont understand the topic
4. Say the same things over and over again and forget which thread they are posting in

5. Contribute related information that is actually on topic but not what the others want to hear.
6. The original post is so vague or subjective that there is no real "topic" to start with.

[SCQTT]

This is a hoot.