FA20 Engine Wins Ward's 10 Best Engines of 2013

[Accurate Race Shop]

I figured this motor was done seeing awards sense it was made as a 2 stroke in 1896 by Karl Benz and Chrysler. For those who didn't know the flat 4 boxer motor came before the v style motor in 1888 with dimler and maybach. Just thought it would have seen it's lifetime achievement award by now lol.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

[Jeffsu350]

Originally Posted by Snoopyalien24

Wow 37 MPG? Do you drive it in reverse?

I got 37.7 mpg driving from DC to Hartford ct with no traffic and one fuel stop.

I average 33-34 mpg with 80% highway driving

I really have not gotten below 33 mpg for any one tank of gas .... If you exclude the 6 mpg tanks at autox

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by regal

One thing folks aren't factoring in (and I'm not picking on firehawk) is that this is RWD, there is significant powertrain/torque loss spinning the back wheels vs fwd.

I wonder if there has ever been a more fuel efficient rwd car made ?

Significant? I would not say that 0-6% more drivetrain loss are significant. (FWD vs RWD)

95% of new BMWs from the dealership around here have way better fuel figures.
The whole 1-series lineup is more fuel efficient. Okay the 320hk/450nm M135I is about the same or a little worse compared to GT86 by a very small margin.
Most of 3 and 5 series around here are more fuel efficient...

Yes, lots of engine models available here that is not in the US.

[whtchocla7e]

Originally Posted by jcX4ever

Matrix XRS 1.8L ~$18k was rated 180hp.
Celica GT-S ~$22-25k 1.8L rated 180hp or 190hp(some counties)
Corolla XRS $17k 1.8L was rated 164hp and 170hp but averagely dynoed at ~155whp. I guess that's 180hp assuming 15% drive-train loss.

That's nice but these engines wouldn't pass the modern emission tests.

An engine is not just the power/torque output.

The fact that they can make the engine more efficient and keep the same power output is the real achievement here.

But I guess people don't really give a shit about the technology and the advantages it brings. MOAR powahhh!!!!!

[motofreak32]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Better than not having low-end torque at all. Look at the 200hp/2.0L NA engines that have come before it.



No crickets on my FR-S. I only use name-brand gas though. CEL is fixed with a flash/ECU update.



To be honest, I don't really care what my engine look like. I'd rather have the lower CG and inherent smoothness of a boxer layout than go with an inline-4 for its traditional "looks".


I drive mine just like I drive my 2.0t MK6 GTI, another 200 hp mill. I'm getting 28 mpg with the FR-S, compared with 25 mpg in the GTI. Same exact commute, same driver.



If you're that upset about your engine and transmission, why not sell your car? Would save you a lot of heartache. I'd never own a car where I hated the powertrain that much. Life's too short to drive cars you don't like IMO.

[czar07]

Originally Posted by RaceR

Significant? I would not say that 0-6% more drivetrain loss are significant. (FWD vs RWD)

95% of new BMWs from the dealership around here have way better fuel figures.
The whole 1-series lineup is more fuel efficient. Okay the 320hk/450nm M135I is about the same or a little worse compared to GT86 by a very small margin.
Most of 3 and 5 series around here are more fuel efficient...

Yes, lots of engine models available here that is not in the US.

Yeah lets go ahead and compare a $80000+ BMW to a $30000 Toyota...

On another note, BMW advertises the X5 3.0L diesel turbo as 7.5L/100kms. In reality (I have one) it only gets 9.0L/100.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by BRZnut

To be honest, I am one of those coming from the nissan 3L VQ and I think the low end torque/performance on my BRZ beats the VQ. Can't say what higher RPM will compare since i'm stilll in the break in period and haven't gone above 4K RPM yet!

Your 3L VQ vehicle must've weighed over 4000 lbs because I know the VQ is pretty torquey but I have only driven the 3.5L versions.

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by czar07

Yeah lets go ahead and compare a $80000+ BMW to a $30000 Toyota...

Who said anything about that price?
For me BMW would be be most natural comparison when comparing RWD cars vs the 86 in terms of fuel efficiency. (BMW have lots of engines, and also cars that does not weight that much more. New 1-series with engines that both below and higher than the 86)

I compared cars/engines with the same fuel efficiency when talking about the M135I.
UK price difference: 25k vs 30k. And the 30k car is larger, much more premium, have larger brakes, "adjustable suspension", beefier drivetrain etc..etc.. etc.. stuff that makes it more expensive when not taking engines into consideration.

A 125I (the new F20/F21) is about the same as price as the GT86 in UK. The 125I is way more powerful and have a much lower fuel consumption too.

I could compare a 118I with the GT86. But the 86 would not have a chance in terms of power vs. efficiency even if the premium BMW was cheaper. Which is the case in UK, and especially (here) in Norway.

The engines I mentioned above are all different.
-3l straight six turbo
-2l I4 turbo
-1.6l I4 turbo
They are quite representative for the industry in terms for fuel efficiency. BMW does not make magic engines that are above the rest of the industry. They are just there among the top with MANY others. Many of which who does not make premium cars at a higher price...

I was just showing that the fuel specs on the 86 was nothing to be impressed about, even for RWD cars. If rwd cars were normal for most brands, most brands would have more fuel eifficient rwd cars at low prices. But BMWs are RWD, and in the EU, quite comparable in price even if its a premium brand.

You could argue that those new engines are turbocharged... Ok, lets take a 2008 model 125I with a NA 210hp/270nm 3l straight six had. Quite close in fuel consumption with the 2012 GT86 . And that car is a lot heavier. The engine/car is also discontinued (atleast here it is) because newer (turbocharged) engines makes 10-35% more power with about 20% lower fuel consumption.

The thing is, I can use larger displacement engines from the past in heavier cars and still compare to the smaller displacement FA20 engine in a lighter car.

Again, in not saying the FA20 is bad. But fuel efficiency for a RWD car is nothing to brag about in my opinion.

The engine options American sees makes it easy to believe otherwise.
In the US, you could probably brag about the efficiency.
In Norway, people with some knowledge of fuel efficiency on new cars would just laugh if you would try to brag about fuel efficiency of the 86.

In terms of efficiency the FA20 is not impressive at all. Its just OK for what it is, and bad compared to modern smaller turbo engines, which is basically the standard when looking at all competitive engines. And that is the thing. All new competitor in terms of engines (thinking about engines found in new hot hatches, 1-series etc...) have moved away from NA, so its quite hard not to compare it against its modern day (turbo) rivals.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by RaceR

A 125I (the new F20/F21) is about the same as price as the GT86 in UK. The 125I is way more powerful and have a much lower fuel consumption too.

I could compare a 118I with the GT86. But the 86 would not have a chance in terms of power vs. efficiency even if the premium BMW was cheaper. Which is the case in UK, and especially (here) in Norway.

The engines I mentioned above are all different.
-3l straight six turbo
-2l I4 turbo
-1.6l I4 turbo
They are quite representative for the industry in terms for fuel efficiency. BMW does not make magic engines that are above the rest of the industry. They are just there among the top with MANY others. Many of which who does not make premium cars at a higher price...

I was just showing that the fuel specs on the 86 was nothing to be impressed about, even for RWD cars. If rwd cars were normal for most brands, most brands would have more fuel eifficient rwd cars at low prices. But BMWs are RWD, and in the EU, quite comparable in price even if its a premium brand.

You could argue that those new engines are turbocharged... Ok, lets take a 2008 model 125I with a NA 210hp/270nm 3l straight six had. Quite close in fuel consumption with the 2012 GT86 . And that car is a lot heavier. The engine/car is also discontinued (atleast here it is) because newer (turbocharged) engines makes 10-35% more power with about 20% lower fuel consumption.

The thing is, I can use larger displacement engines from the past in heavier cars and still compare to the smaller displacement FA20 engine in a lighter car.

Again, in not saying the FA20 is bad. But fuel efficiency for a RWD car is nothing to brag about in my opinion.

The engine options American sees makes it easy to believe otherwise.
In the US, you could probably brag about the efficiency.
In Norway, people with some knowledge of fuel efficiency on new cars would just laugh if you would try to brag about fuel efficiency of the 86.

In terms of efficiency the FA20 is not impressive at all. Its just OK for what it is, and bad compared to modern smaller turbo engines, which is basically the standard when looking at all competitive engines. And that is the thing. All new competitor in terms of engines (thinking about engines found in new hot hatches, 1-series etc...) have moved away from NA, so its quite hard not to compare it against its modern day (turbo) rivals.

Writing it's "nothing to brag about" is a far cry from writing "It sucks. Simple as that".

The USA EPA ratings for the FT86 6AT are pretty good while the 6MT are unimpressive, but the car routinely beats them (based on my experiences as well as others'). Even going by its conservative USA EPA ratings, no other gasoline MT RWD car in the USA attains this MPG (the Mustang V6 is close on the highway though it's not known for exceeding its EPA ratings).

That written, if we got the 125i over here or other more efficient RWD cars like you guys in the EU, maybe my enthusiasm for the FT86's efficiency would be diminished too.

Addressing a couple points in your previous post, dynoing 143 lbf*ft is only 5% loss (unrealistically low even for the most drivetrain-efficient FWD car, never mind a RWD car) unless the FA20's torque is underrated. I expect it's actually 156-158 lbf*ft (quite good for a cheap N/A 2L).

I agree with you that high-end output is only OK (nothing special compared to Honda's and Toyota's high revvers).

IMO the torque dip isn't a big deal (especially since it's already underrated down low). Coming from other high revvers, I don't have a problem with a narrow power band... to me using the shifter is part of the fun. Obviously this is a personal preference.

Every engine is a compromise between cost, output, throttle response, willingness to rev, smoothness, efficiency, weight, size/packaging, ease of maintenance, durability, reliability, longevity, etc. Though some of those are TBD, so far the FA20 seems to strike a good balance.

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Writing it's "nothing to brag about" is a far cry from writing "It sucks. Simple as that".

Ill try to explain why I can say it "It sucks. Simple as that"
I you were from Norway and had to pay 10K USD more in CO2 taxes compared to say, the engine in Cooper S (GT86 gets about 350% higher CO2 taxes). You would probably say, that it sucks to pay that much more. Hence, you could easily say, the fuel consumption sucks. Yeah, the taxes suck, big time! But they are related to the fuel consumption.
If you are able to understand the reasoning behind that from where you are sitting. You would probably understand it 10x better if you lived here and have pay that yourself.

Ill give you another argument. Here is the EU rating system for CO2. GT86 is at 181g. Rated "F". I know there is A+ rating too.


A+ -8
A - 7
B - 6
C - 5
D - 4
E - 3
F - 2
G- 1

If I were to rate a movie that sucks from a scale from 1-8. I could give it a rating of 2. Which is an "F". Same as the rating of the GT86 on the official CO2 standard thingy (picture).


Another one:
Future EU CO2 goal are 85g per km for new cars sold in 2020.
Having a car that is rated at 181g.. That would suck.. Not just a little either.
By looking at standards in the not to distant future you would actually have to sell 1 electric car for every GT86 sold. And still the CO2 goal would not have been reached... Why? Because fuel efficiency of 181g CO2 would suck..

Another one:
Basically every modern 170-250hp fuel efficient engine in a car with simular weight as the 86 are rated "C" or a good "D". And most of them have way more power available.

Another one:
On paper the Cooper S only have a little less HP, and a little more torque compared to the 86. The engine in the Cooper is already some years. And the new model should be able to output more power and have 15% less fuel consumption..

For those who are not aware. Ill post this once more.. On same dyno:


Compare power at 4k rpm. Compare fuel efficiency 136g CO2 and 181g CO2.
If the engine in my cooper one day had the same power at 4000rpm as the 86, and worse fuel consumption. That would suck! There would be something seriously wrong with the engine, and I would have visited the dealer right away.

General stuff:
I would say cell phone camera sucks compared to full frame DSLR.
I would say cheap surround system would suck compared to a decent home cinema.
I would say a no-name budget tv sold from a food chain sucks compared to high-end model in the same size.
Many people would say the differences are subtle. I would say the difference are huge and that the the bad stuff sucks.

Deslock, I remember you from GT5 competitions earlier. I dont know about you. But if my laptime on Nordschleife is off by 0,7%, that sucks for me. I still think people who are 5% slower than me have ok lap-times.
But if someone can post laptimes 1% faster than me. I feel I suck compared to them...

It all depends on your point of view.

Hope some get my point of view. People are allowed do disagree!
Moral of my post: What sucks for some are subtle differences for others..
:happy0180:

[suzuka]

Originally Posted by pr086

and in the comments people are already talking crap about it being on the list. people love to hate on our cars

The fact that BRZ/FRS was first in the industry (... is it?) to apply hybrid port-injection/direct-injection in an engine deserves to be on Wards list.

[Doughnuts]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

I drive mine just like I drive my 2.0t MK6 GTI, another 200 hp mill. I'm getting 28 mpg with the FR-S, compared with 25 mpg in the GTI. Same exact commute, same driver.

Pretty much the same for me as well
FRS : 30mpg
Mk5 GLI 2.0T : 26MPG

And honestly the CBFA/CCBA engine in the mk6 is a great engine as well; quite a modable engine, and due to the improvements over the BPY in the mk5s its a quite reliable one. (If you all think the HPFP on the FA20 is bad, the BPY 2.0Ts in the 2006-2008 VWs had a self destructing HPFP)

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by Snake

As most of you guys are from America, you don't know about the Renaultsport Clio 200. This is a 2ltr NA 4cylinder making 200hp. In some markets it is priced well below the 86, here in Australia, it is priced basically line ball.

The motor in this runs 11.5:1 compression with 215NM of torque with 95% of that produced from just below 3k rpm. In terms of the way that this car makes power it is far more impressive than the 86 and it does so without direct injection. The power band begins from around 4500RPM and it revs to 7500RPM. My previous car was the older 2001 - 2004 172hp version and even the motor in that was more impressive in the way it made power than the 86.

Don't get me wrong, the 86 is a much better overall car, but the motor in the Renault is more impressive for a 2ltr NA 4cylinder. Part of the reason for this is the longer stroke and smaller bore but even with the longer stroke it feels like it wants to rev to 7500RPM more than the 86.

That's interesting. I always wondered why we (North Americans) never got the French cars (Renault/Citroen/Peugeot). They are surprisingly some of the largest car manufacturers in the world even without selling here and they seem to be pretty decent performance/quality/reliability. At least we have Michelin tires.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by RaceR

Ill try to explain why I can say it "It sucks. Simple as that"
I you were from Norway and had to pay 10K USD more in CO2 taxes compared to say, the engine in Cooper S (GT86 gets about 350% higher CO2 taxes). You would probably say, that it sucks to pay that much more. Hence, you could easily say, the fuel consumption sucks. Yeah, the taxes suck, big time! But they are related to the fuel consumption.
If you are able to understand the reasoning behind that from where you are sitting. You would probably understand it 10x better if you lived here and have pay that yourself.

Ill give you another argument. Here is the EU rating system for CO2. GT86 is at 181g. Rated "F". I know there is A+ rating too.


A+ -8
A - 7
B - 6
C - 5
D - 4
E - 3
F - 2
G- 1

If I were to rate a movie that sucks from a scale from 1-8. I could give it a rating of 2. Which is an "F". Same as the rating of the GT86 on the official CO2 standard thingy (picture).


Another one:
Future EU CO2 goal are 85g per km for new cars sold in 2020.
Having a car that is rated at 181g.. That would suck.. Not just a little either.
By looking at standards in the not to distant future you would actually have to sell 1 electric car for every GT86 sold. And still the CO2 goal would not have been reached... Why? Because fuel efficiency of 181g CO2 would suck..

Another one:
Basically every modern 170-250hp fuel efficient engine in a car with simular weight as the 86 are rated "C" or a good "D". And most of them have way more power available.

Another one:
On paper the Cooper S only have a little less HP, and a little more torque compared to the 86. The engine in the Cooper is already some years. And the new model should be able to output more power and have 15% less fuel consumption..

For those who are not aware. Ill post this once more.. On same dyno:


Compare power at 4k rpm. Compare fuel efficiency 136g CO2 and 181g CO2.
If the engine in my cooper one day had the same power at 4000rpm as the 86, and worse fuel consumption. That would suck! There would be something seriously wrong with the engine, and I would have visited the dealer right away.

General stuff:
I would say cell phone camera sucks compared to full frame DSLR.
I would say cheap surround system would suck compared to a decent home cinema.
I would say a no-name budget tv sold from a food chain sucks compared to high-end model in the same size.
Many people would say the differences are subtle. I would say the difference are huge and that the the bad stuff sucks.

Deslock, I remember you from GT5 competitions earlier. I dont know about you. But if my laptime on Nordschleife is off by 0,7%, that sucks for me. I still think people who are 5% slower than me have ok lap-times.
But if someone can post laptimes 1% faster than me. I feel I suck compared to them...

It all depends on your point of view.

Hope some get my point of view. People are allowed do disagree!
Moral of my post: What sucks for some are subtle differences for others..
:happy0180:

So to summarize your post:

• EU taxes mean efficiency and emissions are important (and future standards will be stricter)
• There are cleaner, more efficient, and more powerful cars that weigh about the same as the FT86
• The MCS is especially clean and efficient
• You value high quality stuff and you're competitive

As I wrote, "if we got the 125i over here or other more efficient RWD cars like you guys in the EU, maybe my enthusiasm for the FT86's efficiency would be diminished too".

Other than the MCS, even reasonably powerful FWD cars in the USA are heavier than the FT86. For lightweight RWD cars, all that's left over here are the FT86 and MX5.