Bolt-on HP estimates?

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You shouldn't just go with PEAK power and PEAK torque alone.

The earlier engine sacrifices power and torque throughout the range for a couple of peaks over limited rpm ranges. Likely the new engine's cams have a bit less duration and overlap, hence broader less peaky power curve.

At hp *peak* of 7000rpm, the new 2.4 indeed only makes 11% more power vs. the 2.0 and not 20% more as displacement would suggest, all else equal. And the new 2.4's *peak* torque is only 18% more vs. the old 2.0's *peak* torque (close to but not quite 20%).

However, if you look at power and torque at the old engine's torque dip around 4000rpm, the new engine is making about 38% more power and torque there.

On average you're going to see ~20% more power and torque throughout the powerband. The peaks have been rounded off a bit, but the midrange trough has been massively filled-in. For sure they could have kept the same amount of peakiness and same power/liter, but at the expense of midrange. I would bet that actual overall performance is the same, but without the lull in the midrange.

Here's my plot of rwhp/torque of 2022 (scaled based on the dashboard readout) vs. 2017:

Yep, too many people focus on peak numbers and ignore the "area under the curve."

That's why racing sanctioning bodies like NASA now base your pw/weight ratio on average power vs peak power.

Guys were looking for specific peak power to weight, and then over-building the engines and tuning them to produce that peak number for a few a much wider powerband vs a quick jump to it at the peak.

Which the made the cars significantly faster. You used to be able to see Miata's, particularly the guys out of 949 Racing, who had cars that made power from 5200-7500 RPMS.

[asnoir]

[stilesg57]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

Power increase and displacement increase aren't always or even usually, commensurate.

But when so much else is held equal…and most engine evolutions increase their specific output than the other way around. It’s not unprecedented, just a little weird is all.

Doesn’t matter: gonna need FI to get away from a tq dip anyway ha

[Kona61]

Originally Posted by stilesg57

But when so much else is held equal…and most engine evolutions increase their specific output than the other way around. It’s not unprecedented, just a little weird is all.

Doesn’t matter: gonna need FI to get away from a tq dip anyway ha

The midrange torque is way higher. These graphs just suck. The Y axis starts at over 100 on both, and the units are Nm which shows variations as being more significant.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by stilesg57

But when so much else is held equal…and most engine evolutions increase their specific output than the other way around. It’s not unprecedented, just a little weird is all.

Doesn’t matter: gonna need FI to get away from a tq dip anyway ha

The emissions standards have changed since the 1st-gen went on sale in late 2012.

It still baffles me that people don't understand the impact this has on power, when manufacturers are being forced to chase NOx and COx emissions.

[wheelspeed]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You shouldn't just go with PEAK power and PEAK torque alone.

The earlier engine sacrifices power and torque throughout the range for a couple of peaks over limited rpm ranges. Likely the new engine's cams have a bit less duration and overlap, hence broader less peaky power curve.

At hp *peak* of 7000rpm, the new 2.4 indeed only makes 11% more power vs. the 2.0 and not 20% more as displacement would suggest, all else equal. And the new 2.4's *peak* torque is only 18% more vs. the old 2.0's *peak* torque (close to but not quite 20%).

However, if you look at power and torque at the old engine's torque dip around 4000rpm, the new engine is making about 38% more power and torque there.

On average you're going to see ~20% more power and torque throughout the powerband. The peaks have been rounded off a bit, but the midrange trough has been massively filled-in. For sure they could have kept the same amount of peakiness and same power/liter, but at the expense of midrange. I would bet that actual overall performance is the same, but without the lull in the midrange.

Here's my plot of rwhp/torque of 2022 (scaled based on the dashboard readout) vs. 2017:

Winning post.

I'm an old fart that couldn't afford nice cars in my 20's, but liked good handling cars, so I bought 80's BMWs with their straight 6'es and really liked them for driving around suburbia and in town. They were backwards from most vehicles today... like 120 hp and 160 tq. Great torque for launching across an intersection, or coming out of a tight corner in 2nd gear. Also seems logical you get lesser penalties for mistakes... like getting a little tire spin on corner exit should be more save-able at 3000rpm instead of 6000, or penalties on mistakes like lift-off throttle during turn-in at 3000rpms instead of 6000.

I understand giving up torque for hp is fine on the track, but I don't like it for streets. I test drove a '19 BRZ and right away thought "oh hell no" because of the dip right around my normal driving rpms. I'm excited about this new engine coming out.

I'm not a tuner, and PA has emissions inspection every year, so I wasn't enthused to deal with headers and pipes and tune and the loss of warranty and added expense just to get rid of the dip.

For street-driving, torque and where you can get it is so much more interesting than hp. And torque is still fun on the track also. It's really a shame that all the magazines and online reviewers focus so much on hp.

Anyway, great site. I like the mentality of this car, keeping it light and fun, and can't wait to try one out with the new motor. I think I'll love it.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by wheelspeed

Winning post.

I'm an old fart that couldn't afford nice cars in my 20's, but liked good handling cars, so I bought 80's BMWs with their straight 6'es and really liked them for driving around suburbia and in town. They were backwards from most vehicles today... like 120 hp and 160 tq. Great torque for launching across an intersection, or coming out of a tight corner in 2nd gear. Also seems logical you get lesser penalties for mistakes... like getting a little tire spin on corner exit should be more save-able at 3000rpm instead of 6000, or penalties on mistakes like lift-off throttle during turn-in at 3000rpms instead of 6000.

I understand giving up torque for hp is fine on the track, but I don't like it for streets. I test drove a '19 BRZ and right away thought "oh hell no" because of the dip right around my normal driving rpms. I'm excited about this new engine coming out.

I'm not a tuner, and PA has emissions inspection every year, so I wasn't enthused to deal with headers and pipes and tune and the loss of warranty and added expense just to get rid of the dip.

For street-driving, torque and where you can get it is so much more interesting than hp. And torque is still fun on the track also. It's really a shame that all the magazines and online reviewers focus so much on hp.

Anyway, great site. I like the mentality of this car, keeping it light and fun, and can't wait to try one out with the new motor. I think I'll love it.

You must have had a 325e. The 325i/is were 167hp/165tq.

I loved the one I had years ago. Popped the M20, then swapped the S52 from a 99 M3 into. 240/240 at the wheels was a blast in that car.

[shiftless]

The most fun cars I've ever owned had considerably lower power to weight ratios than the GR86 so I'm going to be fine. Doesn't mean I won't do an ethanol tune and a S/C kit out of warranty.

'93 Sentra SE-R - 140
'90 Miata - 116
E46 328i ZSP - 190

[stilesg57]

Agreed that some (but not most) of the best fun-to-drive cars I’ve owned had lower power/weight ratios. But:

1) I’m not sure any of them had lower torque/weight ratios; 2) none of those cars would’ve been less fun with more power; and 3) I owned those when I was younger and poorer and dammit I’m a grownup now and I want to have my cake and eat it too

Good, well put together, reliable FI kits can’t come out fast enough for these things IMO.

[wheelspeed]

Originally Posted by stilesg57

Agreed that some (but not most) of the best fun-to-drive cars I’ve owned had lower power/weight ratios. But:

1) I’m not sure any of them had lower torque/weight ratios; 2) none of those cars would’ve been less fun with more power; and 3) I owned those when I was younger and poorer and dammit I’m a grownup now and I want to have my cake and eat it too

Good, well put together, reliable FI kits can’t come out fast enough for these things IMO.

Ha ha, true. I'm in the same situation... finally old enough to have some choices, so doing some crazy cross-shopping like BRZ/FRS, 370Z, Corvette, Camaro 1LE, Lotus Elise, old coupe CTSV. I test-drove a new Miata 2x and it just felt too small and like I sat too high in it. But, even a 'maro, Elise, Corvette, etc, I'd put all-season tires on it because it's more fun to out-drive the car in safe turns than it is to be near death pushing the envelope of sticky wide tires. I really like the sound of the reviews for this new Toyobaru as far as flinging it around some crappy Pittsburgh roads. I've been lurking various sites and heard of people going from a Miata, to a vette, and back to the miata again calling the vette "meh" because it was over-powered for streets. Not into the miata but very interested in this new gen-2.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by wheelspeed

Ha ha, true. I'm in the same situation... finally old enough to have some choices, so doing some crazy cross-shopping like BRZ/FRS, 370Z, Corvette, Camaro 1LE, Lotus Elise, old coupe CTSV. I test-drove a new Miata 2x and it just felt too small and like I sat too high in it. But, even a 'maro, Elise, Corvette, etc, I'd put all-season tires on it because it's more fun to out-drive the car in safe turns than it is to be near death pushing the envelope of sticky wide tires. I really like the sound of the reviews for this new Toyobaru as far as flinging it around some crappy Pittsburgh roads. I've been lurking various sites and heard of people going from a Miata, to a vette, and back to the miata again calling the vette "meh" because it was over-powered for streets. Not into the miata but very interested in this new gen-2.

I test drove a Camaro 1LE a few years ago, absolutely ridiculous car if it fits you. I'm short so I thought it felt perfect, even though it's very bunker like.

The salesman did not enjoy me hanging the tail out up the onramp.

[Kona61]

[timurrrr]

So 197.6 whp with just a catback?
Looks like 200 whp are within reach with a catback, tune and a performance air filter.

[austintampa]

Originally Posted by timurrrr

So 197.6 whp with just a catback?
Looks like 200 whp are within reach with a catback, tune and a performance air filter.

be really nice if this engine was a bit limited in OEM trim and tune - and has a significant amount more to gain NA.

make the waiting period of turbo kit development not as painful.

also heres hoping for a beefed up transmission and bottom end.