Production Toyota FT-86 Details and Design Previewed by Toyota Sports Vehicle Boss

[Exage]

Originally Posted by madfast

its fun to waste gas and rev like a madman in light traffic? not for me at least. the ABILITY to rev high should always be there, but if the trade off is crap torque down low most people would say thats a bad thing. i think there IS a happy medium, and hopefully the FT will be right there. usable tq down low, while still having high rev capability...

imo the best way they can do this is not with displacement, but with compression. the D4-S system allows them to run higher compression. couple that with a square, or imo more likely a slightly undersquare, engine geometry and you should have respectable torque across the rev range.

Much in the way you ponder why someone would want a stick over DCT. To each his own.

With the boxer limitations and concerning 100hp/L NA, I would highly recommend not getting hopes up that this will have great deal of torque in the low end. I would say 150lb-ft is a reasonable approximation.

As a side note:

SUB-FT86 you complain so much about your RSX being gutless I have to ask: Is it a Type-S? Because if it isn't then that would explain a great deal to me.

[chulooz]

Im with you on the TQ idea madfast. I love spinning my motor up to the heavens just like the next guy, but when Im going up a hill at 30mph in 3rd I like know that I can slam the gas and it will actually get going.

I realize that the 2.0 probably wont crush me to the back of my seat but constantly downshifting for the car to get going is NOT sporty, its annoying.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Exage

Much in the way you ponder why someone would want a stick over DCT. To each his own.

With the boxer limitations and concerning 100hp/L NA, I would highly recommend not getting hopes up that this will have great deal of torque in the low end. I would say 150lb-ft is a reasonable approximation.

As a side note:

SUB-FT86 you complain so much about your RSX being gutless I have to ask: Is it a Type-S? Because if it isn't then that would explain a great deal to me.

Its the base model which makes TQ earlier than the Type S but it isn't enough.

[bigbcraig]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

But look at your chart, the 6th gear on the STI is geared SHORTER than the 5th gear on the WRX! Basically they are sacrificing efficiency and quietness for acceleration. What I'm saying would be analogous to taking the 6th gear, and instead of having nice even ratios between the gears, boost it past the wrx 5th gear so it can get extra good fuel economy.

THe STI's gearing blows my mind. People who autocross get pissed at them because they can't hit 60 in second (my MY08 WRX will hit 67-68 before the limiter kicks in); and the 6th gear as you said is shorter than my 5th.

With such a wide torque band, why in the hell does the STI need such close gears?

In fact, if it didn't cost so much, I would be putting in a LONGER 5th gear (maybe 4th too) in my WRX. 70mph is 3000rpm; and it would have no problem pulling it at 2400 I'm sure.

My turbo spools instantly at 3000 rpm (I can build full boost by 2400 rpm!) - which is cool when you want to smoothly pass someone but obnoxious when you start to build boost... on cruise control... just because the highway turned a bit uphill.

And building boost for no good reason is no good for fuel economy.

[Exage]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Its the base model which makes TQ earlier than the Type S but it isn't enough.

Yes the k20a3 isn't Honda's finest engine (especially in stock form), peak torque is 141lb-ft @ 5000 and 160hp @ 6500 with a redline of 6800rpm. Forced to propel ~2700lbs and I bet it is an underwhelming experience.

It's disappointing to see that you're displeased with it, but I can't say that I would be any different.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by bigbcraig

THe STI's gearing blows my mind. People who autocross get pissed at them because they can't hit 60 in second (my MY08 WRX will hit 67-68 before the limiter kicks in); and the 6th gear as you said is shorter than my 5th.

With such a wide torque band, why in the hell does the STI need such close gears?

In fact, if it didn't cost so much, I would be putting in a LONGER 5th gear (maybe 4th too) in my WRX. 70mph is 3000rpm; and it would have no problem pulling it at 2400 I'm sure.

My turbo spools instantly at 3000 rpm (I can build full boost by 2400 rpm!) - which is cool when you want to smoothly pass someone but obnoxious when you start to build boost... on cruise control... just because the highway turned a bit uphill.

And building boost for no good reason is no good for fuel economy.

The STI's power climbs very slowly after its peak torque at very low rpm, so the benefit from more gears is much smaller than any N/A engine.

I feel like what people like to have is torque that peaks early and slowly drops off (that's what a lot of turbos feel like lol). They want to be able to floor it at a low rpm and get more of a kick. If you care about how fast it actually is, the peak horsepower is so much more relevant. I think people ask for too much, they want more revs so they get more power out of the displacement, but they also want more displacement in the first place so they can feel more acceleration. In short it looks like people just want a car that's designed to go a lot faster. People who complain that their cars are gutless can only be placated by a bigger engine (or more powerful, or a turbo). The peak torque on an N/A motor even when tuned for high rpm performance is not that much greater than the max torque at lower rpm.

btw, i like how a large portion of all discussion on this forum ended up coming to this thread

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Exage

Yes the k20a3 isn't Honda's finest engine (especially in stock form), peak torque is 141lb-ft @ 5000 and 160hp @ 6500 with a redline of 6800rpm. Forced to propel ~2700lbs and I bet it is an underwhelming experience.

It's disappointing to see that you're displeased with it, but I can't say that I would be any different.

BINGO!!!!

But that's my point about the FR-S. I feel it will have a similar Torque 2 Weight ratio.


I think my engine would've been better off in a car that weighs 2100lbs though. My car weighs near 2800 lbs as I have the premium base.

[[es vi: eks]]

Maybe if the gearing isnt tall enought prehaps you could install a over drive unit?
Do they still even make them now for cars?
Since the FT86 is RWD prehaps one could fit one on the end of the Gbox or rear diff etc?
So you have the 6 speed and OD just to squeese that little bit more out of the fuel economy on long trips etc?
Just a idea im throwing out there... I got no clue if this would even work?
Only dealing I had with these are on a few old cars in the past.

[MrVito]

Originally Posted by [es vi: eks]

Maybe if the gearing isnt tall enought prehaps you could install a over drive unit?
Do they still even make them now for cars?
Since the FT86 is RWD prehaps one could fit one on the end of the Gbox or rear diff etc?
So you have the 6 speed and OD just to squeese that little bit more out of the fuel economy on long trips etc?
Just a idea im throwing out there... I got no clue if this would even work?
Only dealing I had with these are on a few old cars in the past.

Overdrive is not a unit that is bolted onto a car, it is a sub 1:1 ratio gear in your transmission, if I am not mistaken all production passenger vehicles now have an overdrive, some have more than one, which bring me to my next point...


In a 2004 STi 5th is the 1:1 gear, so if you really wanted good hwy cruising mpgs and a decent transmission, design it with ratios similar to 5 speeds of the 90's.

maybe not as big of a gap between 1st and second as this

1st- 3.321
2nd- 1.902
3rd- 1.308
4th- 1.000
5th- 0.759

but something similar with a 4:08-4:10 rear end, leaves you with a 1-4 gear set that is both useful, and enjoyable to row through, then make 6th a second overdrive gear, at say .063ish. I say this because if my math is correct, with a 4.08 rear, you'd be around 4k rpms in 5th gear at 80mph. Then again, I'm sure my though process if horribly flawed here, and fully expect someone to tell my why I'm a moron any second now.

[chulooz]

I wouldnt call you a moron, unless you actually meant what you said with a ".063ish" 6th hahaha

[SVTSHC]

Originally Posted by MrVito

Overdrive is not a unit that is bolted onto a car, it is a sub 1:1 ratio gear in your transmission, if I am not mistaken all production passenger vehicles now have an overdrive, some have more than one, which bring me to my next point...


In a 2004 STi 5th is the 1:1 gear, so if you really wanted good hwy cruising mpgs and a decent transmission, design it with ratios similar to 5 speeds of the 90's.

maybe not as big of a gap between 1st and second as this

1st- 3.321
2nd- 1.902
3rd- 1.308
4th- 1.000
5th- 0.759

but something similar with a 4:08-4:10 rear end, leaves you with a 1-4 gear set that is both useful, and enjoyable to row through, then make 6th a second overdrive gear, at say .063ish. I say this because if my math is correct, with a 4.08 rear, you'd be around 4k rpms in 5th gear at 80mph. Then again, I'm sure my though process if horribly flawed here, and fully expect someone to tell my why I'm a moron any second now.

Now THAT would be some serious "negative balls"...

well... at least for an 04 STi, you'll need about a hundred more ponies to make that feel comfortable IMO

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Exage

With the boxer limitations and concerning 100hp/L NA, I would highly recommend not getting hopes up that this will have great deal of torque in the low end. I would say 150lb-ft is a reasonable approximation.

for peak tq, 150 is quite good for 2.0L. but what i want is a flat tq curve. if the engine is to be relatively high rev, if they can hold the tq flat up into the rpm range, then there really isnt much more that you can ask for imo.

[serialk11r]

@SUB FT86 the torque/weight ratio is only relevant if the gearing is the same, but the rev limit on this car is almost certainly going to be higher so the gears will be different to use the top end power.

@SVTSHC if he's doing the computations correctly with the final drive ratio he listed, that would make 6th gear 3320 rpm at 80 or 2905 at 70. Which is still "more balls" than a WRX in 5th, which someone pointed out last page turns about 3000 at 70, but the WRX has less torque than the STI.

[MrVito]

that 1-5 list of ratios is from the 240sx/Silvia btw, just over 200hp, w/ a 4.08 rear in the highest trim silvias, and they weighed in at about 2700-2800lbs depending on the options. Seems like a good set of gear ratios, then add 6th for you economical highway driving, just a thought though.