First Drive Review of Toyota FT-86 / Scion FR-S Mule! [Car magazine]

[SUB-FT86]

I also never said that torque can be felt as a number, I more so made it out to be able to be felt if plentiful. And weight,and gearing definitely plays a part in that feeling.

200 lb of tq@4500 rpms in a 2000 lb vehicle will feel better than the same amount in a 3000 lb vehicle. Torque to Weight ratio

[serialk11r]

The torque that the engine produces across its rev range is really highly dependent on the engine. Some engines (most Honda engines for example) have 2 cam profiles that they switch between. This can either be done so that you get as much torque as possible everywhere, or you have less torque at lower speeds for better efficiency. A lot of engines however only have one cam profile to work with, that they can usually phase, but it's still only one lift profile. Thus they run out of steam outside their optimal range, which is much narrower than if you have 2 different profiles. A lot of engines are tuned for maximum torque down low, because they pull heavier cars that tend to be driven at lower rpm most of the time.

You might feel a torquey engine more because if the torque peaks at a lower rpm, there is a distinct increase in acceleration that you feel. My mom's 4500 pound Honda Pilot has this "lurch" at around 2500 rpm. It's still pulling slowly, but just not as slowly as before, so it feels faster. I think when people talk about being able to feel engines with a lot of torque, they are talking about higher displacement engines that have torque peak at a low rpm, thus that sensation that the power is "coming on" has some psychological effect.

Torque to weight ratio only applies if the gearing is the same. Gearing tends to be more influenced by horsepower, at least in sports cars. Say they took a car with a 4.5L engine, replaced it with an F1 engine displacing only 2.4L, and swapped the gearbox, and removed the tachometer so you wouldn't know how fast the engine is turning. You'd feel the car going just as fast, despite the huge decrease in torque.

Turbo kinda messes this up because you can create very peaky power at low rpm, and not much improvement to max power. But you can feel a huge amount of acceleration at a lower speed (which takes less energy). A sports car needs more max power, because performance driving happens at higher speeds, so they are designed a bit differently to meet that goal, which can sacrifice some low speed driving characteristics.

Another thing is displacement tends to vary a lot more than rev range. Most cars rev past 5-6000, and street cars don't go past 9000 typically. Meanwhile, displacement varies from 1.3L to a ridiculous 7L on street cars. Thus on a street car, torque almost translates into power because most engines have more or less similar rev limits, but widely varying displacement (which basically determines torque). So in that sense, SUB FT86 you are right about torque because torque tends to correlate with engine power and overall acceleration. But strictly speaking torque is a figure that is only relevant when considering a particular engine (it gives a clue as to how efficient it is, what it's designed for, etc.), but not as a performance figure for the car.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

The torque that the engine produces across its rev range is really highly dependent on the engine. Some engines (most Honda engines for example) have 2 cam profiles that they switch between. This can either be done so that you get as much torque as possible everywhere, or you have less torque at lower speeds for better efficiency. A lot of engines however only have one cam profile to work with, that they can usually phase, but it's still only one lift profile. Thus they run out of steam outside their optimal range, which is much narrower than if you have 2 different profiles. A lot of engines are tuned for maximum torque down low, because they pull heavier cars that tend to be driven at lower rpm most of the time.

You might feel a torquey engine more because if the torque peaks at a lower rpm, there is a distinct increase in acceleration that you feel. My mom's 4500 pound Honda Pilot has this "lurch" at around 2500 rpm. It's still pulling slowly, but just not as slowly as before, so it feels faster. I think when people talk about being able to feel engines with a lot of torque, they are talking about higher displacement engines that have torque peak at a low rpm, thus that sensation that the power is "coming on" has some psychological effect.

Torque to weight ratio only applies if the gearing is the same. Gearing tends to be more influenced by horsepower, at least in sports cars. Say they took a car with a 4.5L engine, replaced it with an F1 engine displacing only 2.4L, and swapped the gearbox, and removed the tachometer so you wouldn't know how fast the engine is turning. You'd feel the car going just as fast, despite the huge decrease in torque.

Turbo kinda messes this up because you can create very peaky power at low rpm, and not much improvement to max power. But you can feel a huge amount of acceleration at a lower speed (which takes less energy). A sports car needs more max power, because performance driving happens at higher speeds, so they are designed a bit differently to meet that goal, which can sacrifice some low speed driving characteristics.

Another thing is displacement tends to vary a lot more than rev range. Most cars rev past 5-6000, and street cars don't go past 9000 typically. Meanwhile, displacement varies from 1.3L to a ridiculous 7L on street cars. Thus on a street car, torque almost translates into power because most engines have more or less similar rev limits, but widely varying displacement (which basically determines torque).

This generally happens in high revving 4 cylinder engine vehicles though. A Ferrari 458 italia, Gallardo Lp560 and a Lexus LFA would never sacrifice low,mid and high range. Hell even a high revving 6 cylinder has good torque throughout like a 370Z/Z4M/e46 M3.

[serialk11r]

I think it's more that they have so much power anyways that it feels strong no matter what. The torque at 2000rpm could be a shit 75% of max torque, but that doesn't matter as much when you have 5 liters of displacement, you still are making a crapload more power than a 2L engine. When you have a small engine, it typically goes into a cheaper car, so fuel efficiency is more of a consideration, so they will reduce the torque at lower rpm. A Ferrari 458 Italia has very very smart cams with 3d profile, can't really compare that to your typical production car. If you look at a VQ37VHR dyno chart, you'll see that you have to wait until over 3000rpm for the torque to build up. But you have almost 2 times the displacement of a 2L engine, so it doesn't matter, there is still a lot more power to the wheels.

In short, a faster car is a faster car

[Pattyrick]

Snooped a bit around in Cars.com. I was kinda disappointed that the test mule got 4 stars, but later discovered that the website gives out few 4+ ratings (Shelby GT500 got a 3), which are reserved for the high-end Audi's, Lambo's, Lotus', and Porsches

[Jordo!]

Whoa -- might still be called "Celica?"

Sold!

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

It's pretty great as far as regular auto boxes go. Dare I say even the best automatic outside of a DSG/Sequential box?

How is it in terms of drivetrain losses?

The auto Z puts down the same exact power as the manual (as well as being a bit quicker in straight line performance); dynojet estimated losses are about 17% for both AT and MT.

Very, very intrigued... really want one.

Aw, but no power booster options?

EDIT: Going by these numbers it's about 20% drivetrain loss http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...art/index.html

That's not bad... be interesting to see how close it is to it's manual counterpart.

[Buggy51]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

How is it in terms of drivetrain losses?

The auto Z puts down the same exact power as the manual (as well as being a bit quicker in straight line performance); dynojet estimated losses are about 17% for both AT and MT.

Very, very intrigued... really want one.

Aw, but no power booster options?

EDIT: Going by these numbers it's about 20% drivetrain loss http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...art/index.html

That's not bad... be interesting to see how close it is to it's manual counterpart.

Hmm, but that was from at least 3 years ago. Do you think it has a slight improvement now? Or I suppose technology doesn't change that fast?

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

How is it in terms of drivetrain losses?

The auto Z puts down the same exact power as the manual (as well as being a bit quicker in straight line performance); dynojet estimated losses are about 17% for both AT and MT.

Very, very intrigued... really want one.

Aw, but no power booster options?

EDIT: Going by these numbers it's about 20% drivetrain loss http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...art/index.html

That's not bad... be interesting to see how close it is to it's manual counterpart.

I would love it if the auto suffered the same drivetrain loss as the manual.

[chulooz]

20% seems a bit high for this car, wouldnt you agree?

[SUB-FT86]

Not when its a automatic.

[ryridesmotox]

LOL at the Torque argument. Are you guys saying that you can define a hp number by the top end pull of a car? LOL... Obviously you guys are used to little 4 bangers that rev to the moon. The car in my sig is my second 4 banger, I am usually a V-8 guy, but with fuel costs and the economy... you get the idea. My car makes about 400lbs/tq and 350hp at the wheels depending on the dyno its running. You can tell a given amount of hp or tq based on car weight, gear ratio and a given accelration time from xmph to xxmph. Obviously each car is different.

Let me put it like this....
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall
Torque is how far you move the wall
Oversteer is your ass hitting the wall first
Understeer is your face hitting the wall

And the sudden stop you feel after the wall is God smacking you in the face for being an idiot and putting your car into a wall.

I'll take my 3k rpm of torque over 350lbs/ft at the wheels over a redline banger like a S2k any day of the week.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by ryridesmotox

LOL at the Torque argument. Are you guys saying that you can define a hp number by the top end pull of a car? LOL... Obviously you guys are used to little 4 bangers that rev to the moon. The car in my sig is my second 4 banger, I am usually a V-8 guy, but with fuel costs and the economy... you get the idea. My car makes about 400lbs/tq and 350hp at the wheels depending on the dyno its running. You can tell a given amount of hp or tq based on car weight, gear ratio and a given accelration time from xmph to xxmph. Obviously each car is different.

Let me put it like this....
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall
Torque is how far you move the wall
Oversteer is your ass hitting the wall first
Understeer is your face hitting the wall

And the sudden stop you feel after the wall is God smacking you in the face for being an idiot and putting your car into a wall.

I'll take my 3k rpm of torque over 350lbs/ft at the wheels over a redline banger like a S2k any day of the week.

I don't get your wall analogy except for the oversteer and understeer. The rest dosnt make sense. Lol

[ryridesmotox]

It's not supposed to make sense exactly... its more of a joke... but if you stretch your imagination a little it can make sense a little haha