That engine though. Where will it sit among the great 4cyl NA's?

[ermax]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Yeah, not gonna know for sure until we get one on a dyno... I'm *assuming* the curve shown in the dash graphic is accurate as far as the shape of the hp curve, based on the accuracy of the dash graphic in my car, where the torque dip is proudly displayed!

Which is all the OP was was getting at but Tcot pretends he is having comprehension problems. Hahaha

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Not trolling.
You have fixated on one point that I was trying to establish early on and disregarded everything I have said beyond that.

I will put it all in one spot:

1/ He was very clear that he felt that the graph was a real life number. He stated outright that it "was taken from the test mule". This is not accurate nor even remotely true. It is a laboratory formed number based upon a bench tested engine with many correction factors applied.

2/ It was his contention that the graph was a fully accurate indication of the engine abilities. I went into the fact that it is not dynamic as part of my attempt to clarify that what that gauge shows on the dash is not in fact what the car is actually doing. Even at the crank you will not see those numbers unless you meet the absolutely ideal conditions under which they were calculated. When driving the gauge follows the graph perfectly and that is nearly impossible. This is why I focused on the fact it is not dynamic and a false impression of the cars true performance. It is not my only point it is but part of the whole picture.

3/ In true paper racer form he insists on using only those two number to establish what the performance of the car will be. As pointed out many, many times by several people other than just myself there is far more involved. Something as simple as some more conservative gearing especially in the final drive could easily negate the 15% increase in power and torque. We have no idea what the rest of the specs are yet and it s possible (not probable but still possible) that the true performance of the car will be no better than the first gen. Yes there is some nice low end torque according to that pretty graph but how well does the overall car use that? Did they have to compromise something else to get it?

4/ His very thread title says "where will it sit?" but as soon as anybody tries to say anything other than oh it is perfect he throws some random bullshit into the ring to counter them. If the question was rhetorical and he has already determined from the HP and torque that it is THE greatest then why pose it? Everybody that says wait and see or tries to provide facts is somehow a "fool", "troll" or "not sane" in his eyes. Yes I like a good debate with facts, and data used to support a position but when these things are totally disregarded then it is no longer a debate and just turns into a brawl. He has repeatedly resorted to insults and name calling which right away tells me he doesn't have a real point to make and just hopes I will go away so he can find fellow believers to join him in his circle jerk. At this point I don't give a flying fuck what he or you think about what I have tried to get across in this thread but there have been over 5,000 views of this thread and if just one person walked away and said "that makes sense" then I am content.

Well, makes sense to me. That dash graphic of power and torque is so meaningless. I have FI and it would still show me the same power level and torque dip.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mrg666

Well, makes sense to me. That dash graphic of power and torque is so meaningless. I have FI and it would still show me the same power level and torque dip.

EXACTLY!

[Ultramaroon]

Can still use it as a tach.

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by ermax

For sure the FA20 is an absolute bitch to work on and that nightmare will continue with the FA24. The biggest issue with the FA20 was oil pressure and who really knows if the FA24 will continue that trend. There have been plenty of threads where people have come up with their own solutions by changing the pickup tube and drilling a hole here and there. The high compression pistons will limit bolt on FI options but the pistons could be swapped, possibly with the ones from the truck. Not being FI friendly doesn’t really cross it off the list as a great engine though.

I totally agree that the FA20 isn’t even in my top 10 greatest engines. But we aren’t talking about the FA20. Going off limited info and a “STATIC” best case low res and smoothed dyno it looks like the power band is much better. This reminds me a lot of the AP1 vs AP2. Peek didn’t go up and redline dropped a little (because they stroked it for the extra displacement) which had people bitching but after driving both it was clear that the AP2 had the edge.

All we can do right now is dream and I see nothing wrong with that. I see nothing wrong with getting hopes high over a static, overly smoothed dyno in optimal conditions at the crank vs another static, overly smoothed dyno in optimal conditions at the crank.

Thinking someone was arguing that the image on the dash was live data is either an extreme reading comprehension problem or flat out trolling. I’m going with trolling because I know Tcot isn’t a dummy but loves an argument.

Yeah, pretty sure they have just gotten way off track. I described the engines data exactly as you have now, smoothed and static. Problem is they continue to push buttons like muppets.

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

I am on the same page as far as not knowing exactly what the new variant of the FA24 will bring and you add a lot of great points @ermax. I guess the real point I am trying to bring to light with the OP is that there are other things besides technical specs and dyno charts that make an engine great or not so great and my best example of that is the current engine.

I think beefing up the midrange and lowering the redline is a good direction as far as reducing the oil pressure issue but it really doesn't fix the problem. In the lifetime of our little FA20D and the updates it got, the DIT oil pump was never one of them and that is something I never understood. They updated rocker arm geometry so they knew that was a problem, they have to have known that we are on forums bitching about lack of oil pressure. Things like that contribute to my skepticism of the new engine.

Like I said, we had a nice constructive conversation a few pages back, I do not see why your claiming otherwise. If it ended there I think we'd just see that as a normal thread of an experienced person sharing his knowledge. You wrote then what you wrote, I responded.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Not trolling.
You have fixated on one point that I was trying to establish early on and disregarded everything I have said beyond that.

I will put it all in one spot:

*BLAHBLAHFUCKINGBLAH*

Talk about trying to warp events into the imagination world you have going on. Whatever. I have confidence that people can make up their own minds on this thread, and the behavior of posters. I'm done responding to you - full stop.

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by mrg666

Well, makes sense to me. That dash graphic of power and torque is so meaningless. I have FI and it would still show me the same power level and torque dip.

Yeah I think its missing the point, its about providing some kind of a baseline for the engine that we can consider.

The assumption is that when we all get out new cars this is what our baseline dyno will probably look like, and that gives as a lot of good information about how it might drive.

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by Blighty

Yeah I think its missing the point, its about providing some kind of a baseline for the engine that we can consider.

The assumption is that when we all get out new cars this is what our baseline dyno will probably look like, and that gives as a lot of good information about how it might drive.

If it is a baseline, a simple plot in the manual will do just fine. I don't need that gimmicky animation on the dash. If that is allot of information for you, enjoy it. But let me remind that keeping your eyes on the road while driving is better.

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by mrg666

If it is a baseline, a simple plot in the manual will do just fine. I don't need that gimmicky animation on the dash. If that is allot of information for you, enjoy it. But let me remind that keeping your eyes on the road while driving is better.

Yeah I dont think anyone cares for the animation, particularly when there are some other far more interesting gauges you can opt to put there instead.

But yeah what we do care about is that by showing their little gimmicky thing they have also leaked to us what the baseline of the dyno is, well before we would likely be able to see anything like that.

I use the word 'leaked' but its entirely probable that they absolutely wanted us to see that torque line.

[mrg666]

I am disappointed on the second generation engine. Subaru sells the WRX (not STI) for a very similar price of BRZ. That turbo engine in WRX could have performed so much better in BRZ/86 at a similar cost. Hiding behind their so-called sports car philosophy, I don't like that they artificially hold this car 's performance behind their financially more favorite models. I don't want that FA24 when I know first hand how much better a 300HP FA20 can do. I am keeping my supercharged FR-S. And next car will not be a twin.

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by mrg666

I am disappointed on the second generation engine. Subaru sells the WRX (not STI) for a very similar price of BRZ. That turbo engine in WRX could have performed so much better in BRZ/86 at a similar cost. Hiding behind their so-called sports car philosophy, I don't like that they artificially hold this car 's performance behind their financially more favorite models. I don't want that FA24 when I know first hand how much better a 300HP FA20 can do. I am keeping my supercharged FR-S. And next car will not be a twin.

Yeah its a tricky one. In Australia you can get into a BRZ from about 38k aussie dollars, but the base WRX is 45. Its not insignificant difference stepping up to an AWD turbo.

I mean, cars are meant to be different. If you go with a turbo do you end up with something more like a Hyundai Veloster? If instead of lowering the CG do you raise it and add 125 pounds? Do you now need to build in more tolerance to the driveline to cater for xxx torque in daily driving, and do you do that cheaply but heavily, or expensively and lightly.

I think because its Subaru there was always certain expectation that Subaru would turbo it, IMO I think that also plays into how we think about it, and what it needs. And in some respects perhaps that expectation from a car manufacturer is a fair one.

I think there is a lot going on, I honestly don't know if the decision to add a turbo or not is purely based on sales between different car line-ups, but I don't think its Subaru that is defining what this car is, I think its Toyota.

Of course, I'm personally happy its a beefed up NA, because as I think I've said elsewhere, the one of the best parts for me about the MX5 and the 86 was the ability to actually put my foot down longer than 2 seconds at a time outside of a racetrack!

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by mrg666

I am disappointed on the second generation engine. ....And next car will not be a twin.

This addresses my thought. If not the BRZ/86, what else? More power is always nice, but how fast must the new twin be to satisfy? Suppose the new twin minimizes that torque dip, and traps at 97-98 mph. Is that enough? Would you move up to a RWD BMW 320i Coupe 6MT, which traps at 99-100 mph but also suffers from an annoying torque dip, aka turbo lag? How about a much faster but unrefined and bulky American muscle car? A FWD GTI/GLI? They don't drive like a BRZ and have t-lag. Would you sacrifice a MT and consider a 2.0T Supra?

Nobody has to buy the next gen twin. But given that all cars have compromises, will the twin remain the best <$40,000 game in town for a purist? Even if the 2.4 is not the best NA four cylinder made, will it be good enough?

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

This addresses my thought. If not the BRZ/86, what else? More power is always nice, but how fast must the new twin be to satisfy? Suppose the new twin minimizes that torque dip, and traps at 97-98 mph. Is that enough? Would you move up to a RWD BMW 320i Coupe 6MT, which traps at 99-100 mph but also suffers from an annoying torque dip, aka turbo lag? How about a much faster but unrefined and bulky American muscle car? A FWD GTI/GLI? They don't drive like a BRZ and have t-lag. Would you sacrifice a MT and consider a 2.0T Supra?

Nobody has to buy the next gen twin. But given that all cars have compromises, will the twin remain the best <$40,000 game in town for a purist? Even if the 2.4 is not the best NA four cylinder made, will it be good enough?

I was thinking about a Supra 3.0 or the new 400Z. Skeptically, I also want to see what Jackson Racing and/or Edelbrock might develop for that 13.5-compression FA24.

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by mrg666

I was thinking about a Supra 3.0 or the new 400Z. Skeptically, I also want to see what Jackson Racing and/or Edelbrock might develop for that 13.5-compression FA24.

Yup, but instead of the Supra, I'd consider an M240i to get the same engine but with a 6MT. And if the 400Z comes in around $40,000, that car could be a huge hit. But if you don't need that much power, I suspect the 2022 twin will be a huge hit too.

[x808drifter]

MX-5