New rumor: 1.6-liter turbocharged engine one year after initial introduction

[Matador]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

It might just be me but I have a hard time believing that Subaru would put the same powerplant from its flagship sports car into the BRZ. Setting aside and obvious 4 day debate in this thread of RWD vs. AWD, the BRZ would be better than the WRX STI in every single way if it shared the same power output. It would be lighter, more agile, and more neutral in cornering (ok, so there's a bit of RWD vs. AWD in that statement...moving on!) while coming in with a cheaper MSRP.

But again, the WRX STI is Subaru's flagship sports car, its their bread and butter. From a respect pov how could they possibly outfit an "entry level" sports car with its same powerplant?

No clue what Toyota will do.

Well, at the price they would probably ask for it, it won't exactly be an "Entry level" sports car would it?

I see your point though.

Originally Posted by Levi

Subaru Cosworth Impreza STI CS400 Annihilates Supercars At Cholmondeley Pageant Of Power

If you can wrap your head around that breathlessly exciting headline, then you can begin to understand the significance of a £49,995 Subaru taking on the likes of Ariel, Lexus, and Nissan's GTR and destroying them.

The Cosworth Impreza STI CS400 devastated the competition at the 1.2-mile Cholmondeley sprint circuit for the annual Pageant Of Power, with former British Rally Champion Mark Higgins behind the wheel. The 400-horsepower STI recorded a time of 66.08 seconds with an average speed of 65.45mph, which was enough to beat the Ariel Atom V8, the Lexus LF-A, and the Ford Focus RS500 in the wet.

"Ours was not only the fastest hatchback, but also the quickest vehicle in any class when the circuit was wet, which speaks volumes for its capabilities," said Kenyon Neads, marketing director for Subaru UK. "It was no surprise the Subaru stand in the paddock was a hive of activity throughout the weekend."

In fact, the little Cossie (sounds strange to call it that when it's not a Ford) was only beaten by the Lamborghini Gallardo LP570-4 Performante, a car that, Subaru is quick to remind you, costs almost 4 times as much.

[Spaceywilly]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

It might just be me but I have a hard time believing that Subaru would put the same powerplant from its flagship sports car into the BRZ. Setting aside and obvious 4 day debate in this thread of RWD vs. AWD, the BRZ would be better than the WRX STI in every single way if it shared the same power output. It would be lighter, more agile, and more neutral in cornering (ok, so there's a bit of RWD vs. AWD in that statement...moving on!) while coming in with a cheaper MSRP.

But again, the WRX STI is Subaru's flagship sports car, its their bread and butter. From a respect pov how could they possibly outfit an "entry level" sports car with its same powerplant?

No clue what Toyota will do.

You could've made the same argument about the WRX and STI before those came out. Same basic engine, one is just made to handle more power than the other. With the 1.6L turbo they could do the same thing. Basically they'd have a WRX and STI in either AWD or RWD, and an NA 2.0l for the base BRZ for people who want that. Everybody wins.

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

It might just be me but I have a hard time believing that Subaru would put the same powerplant from its flagship sports car into the BRZ.

Anything's possible, but I'm thinking the same as you.

But just the WRX motor will do. Like the Forester. Didn't they say same engine mounts so people can swap engines?

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

It might just be me but I have a hard time believing that Subaru would put the same powerplant from its flagship sports car into the BRZ. Setting aside and obvious 4 day debate in this thread of RWD vs. AWD, the BRZ would be better than the WRX STI in every single way if it shared the same power output. It would be lighter, more agile, and more neutral in cornering (ok, so there's a bit of RWD vs. AWD in that statement...moving on!) while coming in with a cheaper MSRP.

But again, the WRX STI is Subaru's flagship sports car, its their bread and butter. From a respect pov how could they possibly outfit an "entry level" sports car with its same powerplant?

No clue what Toyota will do.

Subaru is notorious for just using the same engine over and over again across all their platforms. The current EJ257 found on the impreza STI also sits in the Legacy B/STI and Forester STI. If Subaru wanted to take the same new STI engine and slap it in both the BRZ and Impreza, legacy, and Forester at the same time. It wouldn't be shocking, its just the way they do business.

And with WRX now moving away from the chains of the impreza platform possibly getting smaller in size i could see the wrx and brz both sharing similar parts if not the exact same engine.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by madfast

like i said, they would have to cut a ton of weight for the 1.6L to make enough power. high strength steel, etc. can only cut so much weight. the car would have to be way smaller. so maybe that's why they're going to make the WRX a separate model.



"Only" 400cc? do you know how fast a 400cc sportbike can go? and lets separate the WRC rally car from the street car here. in WRC they can run with a super high idle, anti-lag and all that stuff that keeps the boost up. on the street all you have is whatever the 1.6 can muster to make boost. AND that boost is likely to be spiky, etc. its the nature of the beast.

again the alternative is a dramatic downsizing of the car into a FT or miata sized machine. its 100% possible. but if we assume its going to stay similar to the current 4 door, 5 passenger car? 1.6L is NOT enough....

I know the difference between an EJ257 and EJ207 is 500cc, as is the difference between my old 1JZGTE and a 2JZGTE.

With the right tech both the smaller engines will out-spool (make boost = making torque) the bigger ones. In the JZ case a VVT-i second-gen 1JZGTE with the medium single turbo will make it's peak torque (280 lb-ft) at 2400 rpm vs the first-gen 2JZGTE with its fancy sequential system with twin (less inertia) smaller turbos making its peak (315 lb-ft) at 4000 rpm.

Point here being it's not just about displacement.

Besides, the numbers from the Juke and the Mini out of their turbo 1600's aren't bad at all.

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by Dimman

With the right tech both the smaller engines will out-spool (make boost = making torque) the bigger ones. In the JZ case a VVT-i second-gen 1JZGTE with the medium single turbo will make it's peak torque (280 lb-ft) at 2400 rpm vs the first-gen 2JZGTE with its fancy sequential system with twin (less inertia) smaller turbos making its peak (315 lb-ft) at 4000 rpm.

Point here being it's not just about displacement.

It's not ALL about displacement, more like 80/20 in favor of displacement. It's all about air flow, the more air you have the easier the turbine wheel will spin. If you took that same 1JZ with the VVTi goodies and bored/stroked it to match the 2JZ in the MK4, you would increase the air flow, which in turn would increase spool time. So that 280lbft@2400rpm would be 280lbft@<2400rpm.

The smaller the engine the more severe the trade offs will be. Larger engines give you a nice long and fat torque curve, smaller engines can be tweaked to increase torque at low speeds, others at mid-range, and other will only run hard at high rpm.

TLDR: Larger displacement = more robust and forgiving torque curve.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

It's not ALL about displacement, more like 80/20 in favor of displacement. It's all about air flow, the more air you have the easier the turbine wheel will spin. If you took that same 1JZ with the VVTi goodies and bored/stroked it to match the 2JZ in the MK4, you would increase the air flow, which in turn would increase spool time. So that 280lbft@2400rpm would be 280lbft@<2400rpm.

The smaller the engine the more severe the trade offs will be. Larger engines give you a nice long and fat torque curve, smaller engines can be tweaked to increase torque at low speeds, others at mid-range, and other will only run hard at high rpm.

TLDR: Larger displacement = more robust and forgiving torque curve.

Point is that madfast is focusing only on the displacement.

A well developed turbo 1.6L isn't automatically going to suck balls because it's 400cc short of a 2.0L. His Evo X motor isn't a POS just because the STI's is a 2.5L.

But tech for tech, you are naturally correct, there is no replacement for displacement when it comes to torque and by association spooling turbos.

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Point is that madfast is focusing only on the displacement.

A well developed turbo 1.6L isn't automatically going to suck balls because it's 400cc short of a 2.0L. His Evo X motor isn't a POS just because the STI's is a 2.5L.

But tech for tech, you are naturally correct, there is no replacement for displacement when it comes to torque and by association spooling turbos.

Agreed, it isn't automatically going to suck, but it is inferior to an equally built 2.0L. Which brings really my only question... from a STRICTLY PERFORMANCE VIEW POINT... why does anyone want a 1.6L when 2.0-2.5L are already the norm for small displacement yet performance oriented cars? I can't see getting excited about a lesser motor (all accessories aside).

Please don't say the 1.6 is more economical.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

Agreed, it isn't automatically going to suck, but it is inferior to an equally built 2.0L. Which brings really my only question... from a STRICTLY PERFORMANCE VIEW POINT... why does anyone want a 1.6L when 2.0-2.5L are already the norm for small displacement yet performance oriented cars? I can't see getting excited about a lesser motor (all accessories aside).

Please don't say the 1.6 is more economical.

Lighter. Better MPG. You know CAFE and all that.

[ichitaka05]

If it was FR car that was smaller/lighter than FRS prob I'll accept 1.6L turbo

Where did that tiny concept car they had? A lot of ppl hated that look (but I kinda liked it). Damn it, can't find it. Someone help, it's white tiny car & iirc it was sitting on red carpet and it was shown at one of auto show in Japan.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Where did that tiny concept car they had? A lot of ppl hated that look (but I kinda liked it). Damn it, can't find it. Someone help, it's white tiny car & iirc it was sitting on red carpet and it was shown at one of auto show in Japan.

Yeah what happened to that. It had a shark like snout on that thing.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

Agreed, it isn't automatically going to suck, but it is inferior to an equally built 2.0L. Which brings really my only question... from a STRICTLY PERFORMANCE VIEW POINT... why does anyone want a 1.6L when 2.0-2.5L are already the norm for small displacement yet performance oriented cars? I can't see getting excited about a lesser motor (all accessories aside).

Please don't say the 1.6 is more economical.

It's not so much that the excitement about the 1.6T precludes excitement for a 2.0T, it's that they are probably going to make the 1.6T. If they do the 1.6T and follow with an equal tech 2.0T later (unlike the EJ207/EJ257) everyone will be all silly for the 2.0T.

But right now, they are probably going to make the 1.6T, not even rumours of a 2.0T yet. (although I expect that if they do downsize the WRX to 1.6L they may make a 2.0L for the WRX STI)

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by tranzformer

Yeah what happened to that. It had a shark like snout on that thing.

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

If it was FR car that was smaller/lighter than FRS prob I'll accept 1.6L turbo

Where did that tiny concept car they had? A lot of ppl hated that look (but I kinda liked it). Damn it, can't find it. Someone help, it's white tiny car & iirc it was sitting on red carpet and it was shown at one of auto show in Japan.

Eh, I never saw anything else about it. Not enough interest in it to get any new info. I was disappointed that they dropped the 3 door idea for a convertible. I think most people saw the 1.3L part and moved on.

Originally Posted by Dimman

It's not so much that the excitement about the 1.6T precludes excitement for a 2.0T, it's that they are probably going to make the 1.6T. If they do the 1.6T and follow with an equal tech 2.0T later (unlike the EJ207/EJ257) everyone will be all silly for the 2.0T.

But right now, they are probably going to make the 1.6T, not even rumours of a 2.0T yet. (although I expect that if they do downsize the WRX to 1.6L they may make a 2.0L for the WRX STI)

The WRX I could see, if they reduce weight since 270PS is the same as the current WRX. But the engine would have to be pretty epic to get away with less than a 2.0L displacement in the next STI.

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Point is that madfast is focusing only on the displacement.

A well developed turbo 1.6L isn't automatically going to suck balls because it's 400cc short of a 2.0L. His Evo X motor isn't a POS just because the STI's is a 2.5L.

But tech for tech, you are naturally correct, there is no replacement for displacement when it comes to torque and by association spooling turbos.

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

Agreed, it isn't automatically going to suck, but it is inferior to an equally built 2.0L. Which brings really my only question... from a STRICTLY PERFORMANCE VIEW POINT... why does anyone want a 1.6L when 2.0-2.5L are already the norm for small displacement yet performance oriented cars? I can't see getting excited about a lesser motor (all accessories aside).

Please don't say the 1.6 is more economical.

it's not that 1.6LT is what we want. It's that's it looks like it's what we're going to get. Big difference to 1.6L sucks because it's 1.6L. That is just stupid in every sense of the word.

And who said a destroked 2.0L to 1.6L has less performance? There's advantages in going a bit smaller too...

Originally Posted by Dimman

It's not so much that the excitement about the 1.6T precludes excitement for a 2.0T, it's that they are probably going to make the 1.6T. If they do the 1.6T and follow with an equal tech 2.0T later (unlike the EJ207/EJ257) everyone will be all silly for the 2.0T.

But right now, they are probably going to make the 1.6T, not even rumours of a 2.0T yet. (although I expect that if they do downsize the WRX to 1.6L they may make a 2.0L for the WRX STI)