What is your prediction on FT86 power and Subaru 086a power?

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Axel

Interesting use of the RX8's freestyle doors.

[86Fan]

Originally Posted by Deslock

My logic goes something like this:

1. We know that the FT86 will be an inexpensive car.
2. We know that attaining specific torque output as high as 85 ftlbs/L from a NA piston engine is very expensive.
3. Therefore, your prediction of 85 ftlbs/L is not possible for the FT86.
4. However, 75 ftlbs/L is possible.
5. Something that is possible is more realistic than something that is impossible.
6. Therefore, 75 ftlbs/L is a more realistic prediction for the FT86 than 85 ftlbs/L.

It's unlikely to be that high in a cheap NA 2.0L.

Which statement is fallacious?

I'll be surprised if the NA FT86 has anything below 145 ftlbs, but at least it's a remote possibility (while 170 ftlbs is not, unless Toyota repositions it as an upscale vehicle).










Tell you what... I'll wager my 150 ftlbs against your 170 ftlbs. I propose that the rules be:

1. The bet is for NA only.
2. If Toyota uses a different size engine, we'll compare my 75 ftlbs/L to your 85 ftlbs/L.
3. The wager is void if the FT86 base price climbs above $35k (since then Toyota will have repositioned the car as no longer being a cheap RWD successor to the AE86).
4. We'll go by the officially announced torque value for the production car.
5. Whichever one of us is closer gets to pick a charity that the other person must donate $10 USD to.
6. If it's 160 ftlbs, we both donate $10 to charity.

What do you say?

Your logic has some fallacies. I already said my prediction could be high but yours is definitely low. I’m not sure why you are not getting this.

The car is targeted to be around the $20000, and yes it could be relatively inexpensive, but that doesn’t tell us the TRUE cost of the car let alone the engine cost. We don’t even have the exact pricing for the car yet. So let me ask you, do you know the TRUE cost of the EJ20 engine if it was capable of producing 160 lb-ft vs. the TRUE cost of producing 150 lb-ft? I am really curious to know your answer.

Could you also help me find the TRUE cost of 2GR-FSE and 2GR-FE? And like I said before, the FE is used on Camry's to RAV4's so other than DI, what would make this engine “much more expensive”?

It's unlikely to be that high in a cheap NA 2.0L.
I see. So only a marginal increase of 5 lb-ft or 2.5 lb-ft/L from the NA concept based on your prediction of 150 lb-ft is “more realistic”. I just find it funny that not even your own example of the SI shows a 2.5 lb-ft/L increase.
I'll be surprised if the NA FT86 has anything below 145 ftlbs, but at least it's a remote possibility
How is 141-145 lb-ft even a remote possibility. That’s a 0-5 lb-ft increase with DI with respect to the base and NA concept engine. If you are going to say it’s a “cheap” engine then please show me how much more it would cost to increase torque by 0-5 lb-ft based on your 150 lb-ft prediction.
It even sounds funny saying torque would not increase at all with DI since you said it’s conceivable that FT86 could have only 141 ftlbs. Not to mention if Toyota does work on the engine makes your statement even more unlikely.

Which statement is fallacious?
Starting from your first post and another affirmation here in your 2nd reply:
Only said that 70-75 ftlbs/L was more realistic for NA (especially given Toyota's commitment to cost cutting).
= 140-150 lb-ft/L. So how is 140 lb-ft even realistic for this engine when it gets 141 lb-ft in the base engine without even having DI?
And your other ranges don’t even sound “more realistic” when you don’t even know if Toyota is cost cutting on the engine to a point where they won't go above 150.

Also, how about you answer all of my questions from my previous reply instead of skipping it?

It also brings me to another point. Why does toyota have to use boxer engines and not use their own engines? Wouldn't using their own engines be more cost effective?

Why would I need to put a wager in for the 160 lb-ft range when I said it's possible for this engine? You however should though put in some money, since you think it’s too “costly” for Toyota to do it and it doesn’t fall into your 140-150 lb-ft/L “more realistic” range. But I’ll put in a wager that it’s not 150 lb-ft if you put in the same amount saying that it will be 150 lb-ft.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by 86Fan

I already said my prediction could be high but yours is definitely low. I’m not sure why you are not getting this.

I already explained this.

Originally Posted by 86Fan

So only a marginal increase of 5 lb-ft or 2.5 lb-ft/L from the NA concept based on your prediction of 150 lb-ft is “more realistic”.

Than 85 ftlbs/L? Yes.

Originally Posted by 86Fan

I just find it funny that not even your own example of the SI shows a 2.5 lb-ft/L increase.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Originally Posted by 86Fan

How is 141-145 lb-ft even a remote possibility.

I already answered this.

Originally Posted by 86Fan

Also, how about you answer all of my questions from my previous reply instead of skipping it?

I haven't answered all of your questions simply because you're asking a lot of them (some of which are tangential and/or redundant) and I don't have enough spare time to answer them all. So, I've tried to keep it focused on the crux of the discussion:

1. Your prediction is 170.
2. mine is 150.
3. You said my prediction is not any more realistic than yours.

Everything else is subsidiary. If you want to research exact engine prices, more power (pun!) to you.

Originally Posted by 86Fan

Why would I need to put a wager in for the 160 lb-ft range when I said it's possible for this engine?

We both said 160 is possible and it's the average of our predictions.

Originally Posted by 86Fan

But I’ll put in a wager that it’s not 150 lb-ft if you put in the same amount saying that it will be 150 lb-ft.

That would be like me proposing "I’ll put in a wager that it’s not 170 lb-ft if you put in the same amount saying that it will be 170 lb-ft". I wouldn't expect you to agree to that.

You wrote that 150 ftlbs and 170 ftlbs are equally realistic, so it's time to put up or shut up. It's only $10 and it's for charity anyway, so unless you're no longer confident in your prediction, why not? :p

If you're not willing to do that, then I'm going back to my previous suggestion: let's agree to disagree and move on. We've both made our arguments and predictions, and this discussion has become repetitive and circular.

[zigzagz94]

I say base model 2.0l 160 hp
and GT-S model 2.0l 190hp 165ft/lb tq

I also think since you can get a TRD supercharger on a Fj cruiser and a Scion Tc that the possibilities of factory boost for the FT-86 are probably good. It may not happen the first year though. My guess FI model probably will be around 265hp like the wrx.

[scape]

i don't think the supercharged vs (if it comes out) will ever produce that much

maybe 200-210; but even that seems unlikely

[86Fan]

Originally Posted by Deslock

I already explained this.


Than 85 ftlbs/L? Yes.


Not sure what you mean by this.


I already answered this.





















I haven't answered all of your questions simply because you're asking a lot of them (some of which are tangential and/or redundant) and I don't have enough spare time to answer them all. So, I've tried to keep it focused on the crux of the discussion:

1. Your prediction is 170.
2. mine is 150.
3. You said my prediction is not any more realistic than yours.

Everything else is subsidiary. If you want to research exact engine prices, more power (pun!) to you.


We both said 160 is possible and it's the average of our predictions.


That would be like me proposing "I’ll put in a wager that it’s not 170 lb-ft if you put in the same amount saying that it will be 170 lb-ft". I wouldn't expect you to agree to that.

You wrote that 150 ftlbs and 170 ftlbs are equally realistic, so it's time to put up or shut up. It's only $10 and it's for charity anyway, so unless you're no longer confident in your prediction, why not? :p

If you're not willing to do that, then I'm going back to my previous suggestion: let's agree to disagree and move on. We've both made our arguments and predictions, and this discussion has become repetitive and circular.

No, you are making this a circular argument. You have not answered all my questions because you have no idea what the extra cost is to increase output by 10 lb-ft. Same goes for any other torque rating on the same motor. Thus, your prediction is not more realistic because you don't know the answer to whether the cost would increase.

Also let me refresh your memory,

Only said that 70-75 ftlbs/L was more realistic for NA (especially given Toyota's commitment to cost cutting).
= 140-150 lb-ft/L. So how is 140 lb-ft even realistic for this engine when it gets 141 lb-ft in the base engine without even having DI?
And your other ranges don’t even sound “more realistic” when you don’t even know if Toyota is cost cutting on the engine to a point where they won't go above 150.

I already answered this.

No not really, read the first paragraph. Also I'll remind you again,

I'll be surprised if the NA FT86 has anything below 145 ftlbs, but at least it's a remote possibility
How is 141-145 lb-ft even a remote possibility. That’s a 0-5 lb-ft increase with DI with respect to the base and NA concept engine. If you are going to say it’s a “cheap” engine then please show me how much more it would cost to increase torque by 0-5 lb-ft based on your 150 lb-ft prediction.
It even sounds funny saying torque would not increase at all with DI since you said it’s conceivable that FT86 could have only 141 ftlbs. Not to mention if Toyota does work on the engine makes your statement even more unlikely.

Not sure what I mean? Your Civic SI example shows an increase of 5 lb-ft/L not 2.5 lb-ft/L from the result of DI. Thought you would be able to do the simple math.

We both said 160 is possible and it's the average of our predictions.
Why would you even ask me to put in a wager for 160 then? I won't have to when I say it's possible.
You however should, you clearly said this is a cheap motor and you also said, NA piston engines that get above 70-75 ftlbs/L are generally expensive. So tell me how can this motor able to get to 160 lb-ft and be cheap and generally expensive at the same time?

I made it quite clear that my prediction could be high. You keep regurgitating the same thing over and over again but you have yet to show me that your 150 lb-ft is more realistic based on cost of the engine. Your prediction is based on your 140-150 lb-ft statement since the torque falls right at 150 lb-ft. Pretty simple to see.

Time to put up money when you said your prediction is more realistic. I'm confident that you won't be right and like I said mine could be high. Please I'm so willing to bet you won't be right.

[scape]

hp/ft-lbf, these are NA engines at 2.0L

toyota 3ZR-FAE: 158/144 (i4 config)

subaru 2.0r (i can't find engine name): 158/137 (h4 config)


so between the two of them I feel confident they can attain 165-170hp/145-150ft-lb (155 is a possibility though I don't see 160 happening anytime soon)

however, the celica gt-s (codeveloped engine with yamaha) i think produced 180hp/133ft-lbf; so we may see even higher horsepower rating than 170, possibly closer to 185-190

[scape]

if it did let's say produce 190hp, weighing in at 2600; it'd compete in acceleration against a subie of 225hp and 3200 lbs (something I see making quite a lot of sense); and later a possible turbo version for toyota competing with the higher end wrx model (though I doub't toyota will ever compete with STI model); assuming subaru's won't lose any weight

[86Fan]

Originally Posted by scape

hp/ft-lbf, these are NA engines at 2.0L

toyota 3ZR-FAE: 158/144 (i4 config)

subaru 2.0r (i can't find engine name): 158/137 (h4 config)


so between the two of them I feel confident they can attain 165-170hp/145-150ft-lb (155 is a possibility though I don't see 160 happening anytime soon)

however, the celica gt-s (codeveloped engine with yamaha) i think produced 180hp/133ft-lbf; so we may see even higher horsepower rating than 170, possibly closer to 185-190

Scape FYI, the EJ20 dohc with avcs never produced such low torque.

[scape]

as a naturally aspirating version, that was the number that kept popping up as I searched around. surprised me

[Kenji]

Originally Posted by scape

hp/ft-lbf, these are NA engines at 2.0L

toyota 3ZR-FAE: 158/144 (i4 config)

subaru 2.0r (i can't find engine name): 158/137 (h4 config)


so between the two of them I feel confident they can attain 165-170hp/145-150ft-lb (155 is a possibility though I don't see 160 happening anytime soon)

however, the celica gt-s (codeveloped engine with yamaha) i think produced 180hp/133ft-lbf; so we may see even higher horsepower rating than 170, possibly closer to 185-190

I hope you're right about the 185-190hp #. And if by some miracle Toyota gives us 200hp as a nice round #, I'd be

[YourFearlessLeader]

Im gonna guess from pictures of the tach (7.5k redline), that the motor will put out probably 140ft/lbs. of torque and 180bhp. (base motor)

reasons:
1. This is not a drag car, it is supposed to be designed for "drifting" and road racing.

2. Obviously, they can not sink too much money into upgrading the motor if they are going to keep the rest of the car up to par with the rest of the market (interior, comfort, exterior, paint quality, etc.) while still marketing to a target audience.

Sure, they could have a wonderful interior and an LSD, and this is and that, but then you are driving the costs up and pushing the car out of its projected price point. I don't think they will too much to the base engine.

As long as they keep the weight of the car down, it will perform.

[ichitaka05]

Just one Q. Why ppl are assuming those low TQs? Subie's EJ engine never had a low TQ. They always stay right next to HPs. My RS has 160hp/166tq, even new 2.5i have 170hp/170tq. I've never seen stock EJ engine that has low TQ. Even EJ20 engine, some has 5~10tq more than hp.

Also low rev. STI always rev close to or over 8,000RPM. Only US STI rev to 6,500RPM. So I don't see why FT86 wouldn't rev up to 8,000RPM.

Originally Posted by scape

subaru 2.0r (i can't find engine name): 158/137 (h4 config)


so between the two of them I feel confident they can attain 165-170hp/145-150ft-lb (155 is a possibility though I don't see 160 happening anytime soon)

Are you talking bout EJ20R? If that's the one it's from '93~'99 Legacy pushing 275 bhp.

[YourFearlessLeader]

I have no problem with the idea of the engine revving high, possibly close to 8k.
However, an N/A engine which such a high rev limit is going to want to make power towards redline (and since this car is not being engineered to be a drag car, it will have the top end power) or else the redline would not be what it is. The car does not need to make gobs of torque at 2000rpm in order to be fast. If the motor did make great torque towards the bottom end, it will simply run out of steam up top. - This is where the Scion tC FAILED. Plenty of low end power, and fun in 1st and 2nd gears, but it completely falls on its face in 3rd gear.

Hopefully, the NA version will have a high compression ration (at least 11:1), and make power at the high end. That way, we will get the benefit of good fuel economy when cruising around town, and power when we need it (around the track at high RPMs)