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

[Type[R]+]

I'll scan the magazine article I have on the 'new wrx'. It's an interesting read. Says they looking at 160kw single turbo wrx 1.6L, and 200+kw out of the twin charged STI 1.6L. Not too bad in my books.....

[Random_Art]

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.

Is this what you were talking about, Ichi?

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Random_Art

Is this what you were talking about, Ichi?

No that's not the one... but I did find it (in google)
Sorry, correction on my statement. frankenstein concept car.






now if this thing came w 1.6L turbo w base price tag of $16, sold for me. personally I kinda like the design. Kinda like new gen Capp or something

[MtnDrvr86]

i think is the one, I couldnt find the thread with the whole article though so externtal linkage
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...aby-ft-86.html

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1095

ichi got there first, oh well

[blur]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

looking at 160kw single turbo wrx 1.6L

If it comes down to a 200hp 1.6l turbo vs a 200hp 2.0l yamaha boxer, I'd have a hard time choosing . . .

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by blur

If it comes down to a 200hp 1.6l turbo vs a 200hp 2.0l yamaha boxer, I'd have a hard time choosing . . .

Id take the turbo every time, but thats just me. It's so much easier to make power, very cheaply too. ECU tune + exhaust =

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by blur

If it comes down to a 200hp 1.6l turbo vs a 200hp 2.0l yamaha boxer, I'd have a hard time choosing . . .

Give me yahmaha boxer. Done and done.

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

And who said a destroked 2.0L to 1.6L has less performance?

Physics said it. When it comes to maximum performance, a stroked 2.0 > 2.0 > destroked 2.0 if all the supporting hardware is the same.

Originally Posted by tranzformer

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

I asked nicely not to say economy. lol A MPG or two is hardly anything to brag about, and definitely not a reason to give up almost 25% of my engine's displacement. And a 1.6L block would be what, 5#s lighter? That's weight loss I can live without.

There is no argument for a 1.6L over a 2.0L unless the 1.6L is a Rotary engine.

[PAImportTuner]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

I don't ever think the question was "will" they come out with a turbo version. The question has always been; what markets will it appear in? Skeptical for U.S.

I would be skeptical about it for a TRD and/or STi release in US. But it is for new WRX and STi as I said in another thread.

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

Physics said it. When it comes to maximum performance, a stroked 2.0 > 2.0 > destroked 2.0 if all the supporting hardware is the same.

Did physics say it? are you sure?

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

Did physics say it? are you sure?

Yes, I am sure. Do you have a counter argument or just baiting me?

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

Yes, I am sure. Do you have a counter argument or just baiting me?

Im just suprised you can say that so adamantly?

Are you aware of less piston speeds, less piston loads, higher engine efficiencies with short stroke ect?

Are you aware that sports bikes are short stroke for better performance?

[RRnold]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

Im just suprised you can say that so adamantly?

Are you aware of less piston speeds, less piston loads, higher engine efficiencies with short stroke ect?

Are you aware that sports bikes are short stroke for better performance?

Who said sportbikes!?!

[Exage]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

Im just suprised you can say that so adamantly?

Are you aware of less piston speeds, less piston loads, higher engine efficiencies with short stroke ect?

Are you aware that sports bikes are short stroke for better performance?

And we go round the circle again with the "no" usable low-midrange power, low torque nonsense again.

Honestly, there's really no point trying to argue or persuade. He wants engine Tq and doesn't like engine Hp streetwise. Fair enough...

But for the record, torque-less 2ZZ and I get along quite famously in both the low and high rpm ranges.