Dyno Numbers

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

Caveat emptor.

Hehe, well I should clarify - id expect honesty about certain things.

A spec sheet is a spec sheet right. Some variation might exist, but how far until it breaches advertising laws?

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by Blighty

Hehe, well I should clarify - id expect honesty about certain things.

A spec sheet is a spec sheet right. Some variation might exist, but how far until it breaches advertising laws?

You are 100% correct that Subaru and Toyota purport facts. No lies told. But by emphasizing “peak torque now occurs at 3,700 rpm” without full context, is marketing exploiting that fact to help us infer the torque dip is nearly gone when it appears it is not. It is still a Bactrin Camel torque curve, only with the first hump now being just a tiny bit higher than the second hump. A spec sheet doesn’t convey that information.

The smoother graph of the torque-curve on the dashboard doesn’t help either. If future dynos confirm these two initial dynos are correct, must the dashboard graph be to perfect scale? The 1st gen Twin displayed that dip to proper scale. Why doesn’t the 2nd gen Twin do the same? Again, that assumes these two dynos are correct.

For me, I just want to know if it is irritating in daily driving. I imagine that like nearly all of us on the forum, we now know to pay special attention to this when we test drive it, see how it suits our preferences. For the record, I’m still excited to drive it!

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

But by emphasizing “peak torque now occurs at 3,700 rpm” without full context, is marketing exploiting that fact to help us infer the torque dip is nearly gone when it appears it is not.

My take is that the gen 1 engine power complaints reached a meme level very early on, where facts don't matter and every reporter has to mention how terrible it feels to floor it at 5th gear going 50 MPH (looking at you, Everyday Driver). It makes me wonder how it would have played out if Subaru tuned the FA20 to have the first torque hump higher than the second like in the FA24...
The marketing for the FA24 had to "solve" the FA20's "issue", and the easiest is to raise the first hump and lower the second hump to give the on-paper benefit of peak torque arriving earlier.

At the end of the day, peak HP and torque figures are the very beginning of comparing two engines. The RPM at which these peaks occur is the next step, and a full dyno chart is very helpful (especially if you already drove different engines with different "types" of dyno charts and know what to expect in the driving experience). But most people don't really do that (or know or care), hence the HP wars, and most journalists take marketing material at face value and build a narrative off of that (I'm sure a lot of the gen 2 reviews would have been different if the second hump would have remained higher and on-paper you still would get a "peaky torque").

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

You are 100% correct that Subaru and Toyota purport facts. No lies told.

They keep saying the peak torque is 3700 rpm. It is clearly not. It is closer to 3200rpm on the dyno charts we have seen. 3700 rpm is halfway down the dip.

If that's not a lie what would you call it?

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

For me, I just want to know if it is irritating in daily driving.

That is really the important factor here, and so far I am trusting the reviewers when they say it is not annoying. I suppose I won't really know for certain until November.

[Blighty]

Just on that Dyno.

I'm really not sure if its a good idea to take a 18km engine and just hit the dyno. That car isnt broken in. A bit of that will be truck on and off and low speed stuff, not for any length of time.

I'm not saying you need to drive it or load it up for 1000km, but certainly a few hours to allow those honing marks on the cylinder to come off and the other bits and pieces to seat right.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Blighty

Just on that Dyno.

I'm really not sure if its a good idea to take a 18km engine and just hit the dyno. That car isnt broken in. A bit of that will be truck on and off and low speed stuff, not for any length of time.

I'm not saying you need to drive it or load it up for 1000km, but certainly a few hours to allow those honing marks on the cylinder to come off and the other bits and pieces to seat right.

That is true. As an anecdotal example, Matt Farah said a few times that his Focus RS picked up a lot of power after the break in period.

Maybe the mid range torque will get better after some miles are on the engine? I'd be good with that.

But I hear your point that these results are still very early and we shouldn't put too much weight on the literal first dyno chart we've ever seen.

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by Pete

They keep saying the peak torque is 3700 rpm. It is clearly not. It is closer to 3200rpm on the dyno charts we have seen.

And that large discrepancy gives me reason to question those two dynos. Could they be inaccurate? Rarely does the shape of a stock torque curve deviate from the manufacture's claims. Peak values, yes. Location of those peaks, not so much. Hopefully we can see other dynos for confirmation.

[Baldeagle]

I have NO idea where this person obtained his info. But at 4:37 into the video he states:

“Yes it still has a torque dip, but instead of losing more than 15 pound feet, it loses five, and over a much smaller rev range.”

If we divide 5 lbs-ft by 184 lbs-ft, we get a 2.7% decrease, not the 15% reflected by the two dynos. And to those with a keen eye, at what rpm does the torque peak on the 2.4’s graph? Looks about 3,500 rpm to me. If we assume this graph came from Subaru (and that may be foolish), why would Subaru’s graph show a peak at 3,500 rpm if Subaru’s claims the peak occurs at 3,700? Or am I getting too nit-picky?

[Pete]

He got those numbers and graph from the dashboard display on the new car. That graph is exactly why we were disappointed when the actual dyno chart came out.

But, like you have said, the dyno graph we have seen is early and we should wait for more data before making judgements.

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

And that large discrepancy gives me reason to question those two dynos. Could they be inaccurate? Rarely does the shape of a stock torque curve deviate from the manufacture's claims. Peak values, yes. Location of those peaks, not so much. Hopefully we can see other dynos for confirmation.

Really? Because I'm not sure I've seen many, if any, dyno's of the first gen that matched up to the torque curve claimed on the dash. Surely they were all "close" I guess, and they represented the torque dip the dash displayed. But in terms of peak value locations? Just google stock brz dyno and notice that they all peak shortly before 3k and shortly before 5k RPM. That's pretty far off from the advertised curve the manufacturers have always claimed with a peak at 6400 RPM. On top of that, the manufacturers have made the torque curve look like it is always on the rise up to those RPM's, which I have never seen to be the case on any actual stock dyno's.

https://i.ibb.co/j44pp8S/torque-1.png

It's just too early to be judging anything. The dyno we see speaks of general truth and displays accurate torque peaks. The torque dip still exists, smaller in RPM range, but it's there.

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

Really? Because I'm not sure I've seen many, if any, dyno's of the first gen that matched up to the torque curve claimed on the dash. Surely they were all "close" I guess, and they represented the torque dip the dash displayed. But in terms of peak value locations? Just google stock brz dyno and notice that they all peak shortly before 3k and shortly before 5k RPM. That's pretty far off from the advertised curve the manufacturers have always claimed with a peak at 6400 RPM. On top of that, the manufacturers have made the torque curve look like it is always on the rise up to those RPM's, which I have never seen to be the case on any actual stock dyno's.

https://i.ibb.co/j44pp8S/torque-1.png

It's just too early to be judging anything. The dyno we see speaks of general truth and displays accurate torque peaks. The torque dip still exists, smaller in RPM range, but it's there.

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27534

The link above confirms what you stated about a 1st gen twin. It also shows a meaningful difference between a 4th gear and a 5th gear run. Thanks.

[Sasquachulator]

You guys realize that marketing wants the biggest numbers, and the FA20 peaks at its highest value at 6400RPM.
It peaks just shy of that at its 3000 or so RPM "first peak".
I suppose the characteristic dip right after the first peak makes the engine feel a bit more torque-deprived and peaky (like a smaller displacement, higher revving engine with no torque, like a honda B16 or 2ZZ) than an engine that typically redlines at 6500rpm

[timurrrr]

Originally Posted by Ohio Enthusiast

At the end of the day, peak HP and torque figures are the very beginning of comparing two engines. The RPM at which these peaks occur is the next step, and a full dyno chart is very helpful (especially if you already drove different engines with different "types" of dyno charts and know what to expect in the driving experience).

That. Two engines with identical peak hp and torque at identical rpms in the same car can still provide very different performance if one has an M-shaped torque curve, and the other has a П-shaped torque curve (where the two "corners" of the curves are for the peak torque and hp).

[Kona61]