Who is happy the engine will be Naturally Aspirated?

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by ryude

Honestly, 7.5 seconds is not that bad. RWD with a good Torsen LSD and solid 6spd manual are things you cannot just "bolt-on". A few mods will take the car into the mid 5 second 0-60 easily. I think people are being a little TOO critical of what the car is supposed to be.

And I think people are NOT being critical enough of what this car is supposed to be. I'm not saying it should be running 13-second quarter miles and 5-second 60mph dashes, but come on now.

2011 Toyota Camry 2.5L 169hp/167lbft; FWD, 6spd A/T; 3300 lbs: 0-60 = 7.8-8.1s; 1/4m = 16.2@86

FRS 2.0L 200hp/?lbft; RWD, 6spd M/T; 2700lbs?; 0-60 = <7s; 1/4m = <15.5s

Is that really TOO critical for a sports car? lol

[ryude]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

And I think people are NOT being critical enough of what this car is supposed to be. I'm not saying it should be running 13-second quarter miles and 5-second 60mph dashes, but come on now.

2011 Toyota Camry 2.5L 169hp/167lbft; FWD, 6spd A/T; 3300 lbs: 0-60 = 7.8-8.1s; 1/4m = 16.2@86

FRS 2.0L 200hp/?lbft; RWD, 6spd M/T; 2700lbs?; 0-60 = <7s; 1/4m = <15.5s

Is that really TOO critical for a sports car? lol

We don't know yet how fast the car will be. I can only assume it will be faster than a 2011 scion tc, which runs 15.7-16.0 with a decent driver.

Edit: Whoops, that's an automatic. The 6spd manual does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and 15.0 1/4 mile. Damn, would suck if the fr-s is slower than that.

[serialk11r]

Those figures you just listed suggest these "<7 second" estimates are conservative.
On the internet I found some source suggesting the base Lotus Elise with the 1ZR-FAE 1.6L engine does 0-60 in about 6.5s, and that's with only 136hp (granted it has Valvematic which they say increases torque down low). That gives only 14.4 pounds/hp, which is worse than a 200hp FT with 2800lb weight...Say the FT is 2600lb, then I don't think 6 seconds is impossible. The Lotus does have weight distribution advantage but that only gets you so far when you're down on power.

[ryude]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Those figures you just listed suggest these "<7 second" estimates are conservative.
On the internet I found some source suggesting the base Lotus Elise with the 1ZR-FAE 1.6L engine does 0-60 in about 6.5s, and that's with only 136hp (granted it has Valvematic which they say increases torque down low). That gives only 14.4 pounds/hp, which is worse than a 200hp FT with 2800lb weight...Say the FT is 2600lb, then I don't think 6 seconds is impossible. The Lotus does have weight distribution advantage but that only gets you so far when you're down on power.

Those scion tc times are motortrend tested times.

[serialk11r]

Wasn't referring to Scion tC, I was referring to the Camry comparison. It would indeed be pathetic if this car, with quite a bit more power, quite a lot less weight, were only a tiny bit faster than a Camry.

Same goes with the tC actually, which seems rather slow now that I think about it.

[subatoy]

I personally hate torqueless high reving engines.
You have to force the engine all the time to get some power out of it.
down shift like crazy to pass a minivan.

I understand the benefits of NA but why the hell can't they simply
have 2 engine options and freaking make everybody happy.
200hp NA and something with around 250hp with some normal torque like at lesat 235lb/tq.
I would be more than happy to pay extra for a turbo engine that allows me to modify a car easier and for cheaper than an NA application.

[serialk11r]

Eh 2 engine options would be nice, except that would cannabilize sales for WRX and stuff :/

[ryun84]

Well that may all change in 2013, depending on where the WRX and STI go. That's when the planned split from the Impreza line is supposed to happen. WRX/STI may get a lot smaller. And if they do, cannibalizing may be inevitable. But I'm sure there will be enough differences to distinguish between the 2 (RWD vs. AWD, 2 doors vs 4 doors(?), etc.).

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by subatoy

I personally hate torqueless high reving engines.
You have to force the engine all the time to get some power out of it.
down shift like crazy to pass a minivan.

I understand the benefits of NA but why the hell can't they simply
have 2 engine options and freaking make everybody happy.
200hp NA and something with around 250hp with some normal torque like at lesat 235lb/tq.
I would be more than happy to pay extra for a turbo engine that allows me to modify a car easier and for cheaper than an NA application.

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by subatoy

I personally hate torqueless high reving engines.
You have to force the engine all the time to get some power out of it.
down shift like crazy to pass a minivan.

I disagree. :happy0180:

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Marrk

I disagree. :happy0180:

I agree with your disagreement

[dominican]

Originally Posted by subatoy

I personally hate torqueless high reving engines.
You have to force the engine all the time to get some power out of it.
down shift like crazy to pass a minivan.

I understand the benefits of NA but why the hell can't they simply
have 2 engine options and freaking make everybody happy.
200hp NA and something with around 250hp with some normal torque like at lesat 235lb/tq.
I would be more than happy to pay extra for a turbo engine that allows me to modify a car easier and for cheaper than an NA application.

I will always prefer NA over turbo, due to the simple fact that turbo cars add complexity and heat to the system, making it inherently less reliable.



In terms of power delivery, well, I've owned a number of cars, and my two most favorite were the 2000 540i 6 speed Msport and my current Honda Prelude. Those cars couldn't be more different in their power delivery though. The 540i had seemingly endless amounts of torques, even in 6th gear, just a little blip of the throttle on the highway would reward you with passing power. For spirited drives, it was fun to feel the surge of power, and putting the hammer down felt like nothing else, with 4.4 liters of Bavarian muscle to back up the sweet growl from the Eisenman exhaust. The Prelude is very different.



My prelude is modified, with a 3.5 inch headers back exhaust, no cats, type S engine, M2B4 LSD transmission, etc... It's a great car, but in order to get any real power, you have to rev the nuts off of it. You may think that's not a good thing, but I actually prefer it to the heavy stomp of the 540. See, when I'm out just cruising in top gear, I don't really want to go fast, and the car stays below 3k RPMS, where it feels more like an older accord than anything sporty. It'll just cruise and not have much poke, even if you step on it. However, if I want to punch it, all I do is drop it to third, get it into VTEC, and power through as I hear the engine roar to 7500 RPMS. It's a great feeling, and I much prefer it to the lazy, low slung feel of torquey V8 engines.

So, yes, I do prefer peaky little engines with high redlines. I know I'll enjoy the FR-S engine because it is a boxer engine, and that is my favorite engine design due to it's effective balancing and great sound. I'm glad to be finally able to get an NA tuned boxer with some gusto from a company other than Porsche

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by dominican

I will always prefer NA over turbo, due to the simple fact that turbo cars add complexity and heat to the system, making it inherently less reliable.

I agree. :happy0180:


I would add that, regardless of the reliability issue, complexity and heat and never a good thing.

[coyote]

Turbocharging is not complex, compared to direct injection.

My NA engine will be removed the day I get the car. If anyone in Australia wants a spare, I'll sell it cheap.