Why doesnt Toyota make its own motor for the FT-86??

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by himbo

The reason that NA Subie motors have crappy hp/lt ration is because the motor traces its roots from the 1960's and it has absolutely terrible heads.

This is an ignorant inference, generalization, and plain old lie in regards to the Subaru engine.

[NESW20]

Originally Posted by chulooz

This is an ignorant inference, generalization, and plain old lie in regards to the Subaru engine.

evidence to the contrary?

i am also of the opinion that generally, subarus don't have great head/port designs. i know that boxer engines can make power with good heads and/or turbos, but it seems to me that the subaru n/a engines don't make much power, relative to their size.

-Mike

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by NESW20

evidence to the contrary?

i am also of the opinion that generally, subarus don't have great head/port designs. i know that boxer engines can make power with good heads and/or turbos, but it seems to me that the subaru n/a engines don't make much power, relative to their size.

-Mike

The modern design of the EJ engine is just NOT from the 60's; traces it's roots is a joke of rhetorical diction, like saying toyota engines trace their roots from the 30's (which isnt much of an explanation of fail, as it is a honor to long standing engineering). The heads, whether opined crappy or not (they are not crappy they just have a different goal aside from HP) are NOT the only other reason why the N/A has a 'relatively' crappy HP/L... like someone mentioned, observe the Tq/L, its what Subaru is really about.

So the 60's part is ignorant inference, the terrible heads is the ignorant generalization, and the premise in full is the plain old lie.

[NESW20]

well, when i get on Subaru's website, i see their 2.5L n/a engine that makes 170hp and 170ft.lbs. that's 68hp/L and 68ft.lbs/L.

honda, with their 2.0L Si engine (K20Z3 i think?), has 197hp and 139ft.lbs. 98.5 hp/L and 69.5ft.lbs/L.

please don't for a minute think that i don't like subarus or the 2.5n/a engine. i just think their heads could use some improvement is all.

-Mike

[chulooz]

haha, fair enough, we'll just have to wait and see if Toyota can do anything about it.

[Myka]

Originally Posted by chulooz

The modern design of the EJ engine is just NOT from the 60's; traces it's roots is a joke of rhetorical diction, like saying toyota engines trace their roots from the 30's (which isnt much of an explanation of fail, as it is a honor to long standing engineering). The heads, whether opined crappy or not (they are not crappy they just have a different goal aside from HP) are NOT the only other reason why the N/A has a 'relatively' crappy HP/L... like someone mentioned, observe the Tq/L, its what Subaru is really about.

So the 60's part is ignorant inference, the terrible heads is the ignorant generalization, and the premise in full is the plain old lie.

I remember reading that rally cars or awd cars focus more on torque, but that would be where cam specs come into play rather than head flow right? If subaru had cylinder heads and said, "Okay, we want more torque." They would turn to cam specs. Do you have flow numbers from any of the boxers? I'll look, but I'm new at this internet thang, I usually be out hasslin da streets and e-thuggin

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by NESW20

well, when i get on Subaru's website, i see their 2.5L n/a engine that makes 170hp and 170ft.lbs. that's 68hp/L and 68ft.lbs/L.

honda, with their 2.0L Si engine (K20Z3 i think?), has 197hp and 139ft.lbs. 98.5 hp/L and 69.5ft.lbs/L.

please don't for a minute think that i don't like subarus or the 2.5n/a engine. i just think their heads could use some improvement is all.

-Mike

Wait, wait, wait... you're comparing Si to base model Impreza? Am I the only one think that's not the fair comparison. Base Impreza is only Impreza with NA engine. While Civic has ridiculous amount of NA engine and model to choose from. Specially you're using top base Civic Si (in US), while you're using lowest base for Impreza? Because it's NA?

Also you have forgotten about the drive train. If that KA20 engine was put to AWD drive train, do you think it'll dyno same amount of hp & tq? My guess, I don't think so.

Honda has fan for NA engine, but Subaru fan is pure Boxer Turbo engine. Took em over 10 year to finally get extra 5hp/3tq and still running SOHC on current 2.5L engine (EJ253) on NA, while took em 3 yrs to get 20hp/26tq on Turbo with DOHC (EJ257). Subaru don't give a damn about NA Boxer engine (no offense to Subie fan here). They put their whole research into TURBO boxer engine. Cuz they know that, they can't make good NA boxer engine like Porsche and no one is stupid enough to buy $30k plus NA Impreza while you can buy Turbo ver for cheaper.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Wait, wait, wait... you're comparing Si to base model Impreza? Am I the only one think that's not the fair comparison. Base Impreza is only Impreza with NA engine. While Civic has ridiculous amount of NA engine and model to choose from. Specially you're using top base Civic Si (in US), while you're using lowest base for Impreza? Because it's NA?

Also you have forgotten about the drive train. If that KA20 engine was put to AWD drive train, do you think it'll dyno same amount of hp & tq? My guess, I don't think so.

Honda has fan for NA engine, but Subaru fan is pure Boxer Turbo engine. Took em over 10 year to finally get extra 5hp/3tq and still running SOHC on current 2.5L engine (EJ253) on NA, while took em 3 yrs to get 20hp/26tq on Turbo with DOHC (EJ257). Subaru don't give a damn about NA Boxer engine (no offense to Subie fan here). They put their whole research into TURBO boxer engine. Cuz they know that, they can't make good NA boxer engine like Porsche and no one is stupid enough to buy $30k plus NA Impreza while you can buy Turbo ver for cheaper.

bhp is bhp. Same goes for torque. AFAIK, the Subaru engine figures are not at the wheels. So yeah, corrected for drive train losses, it ought to put down the same hp & tq.

Also, comparing a Turbo engine to an NA engine is pure bollocks. Apples to oranges; Turbo engines almost always have a higher specific output (hence why in motorsport their displacement is calculated @ 1.7x the rating).

[Siriusly.Andrew]

Like Matador said, when they list those HP / TQ numbers, they don't give you WHP, its BHP. (Basically what the engine can produce at the crank)

Also, what Matador said, Turbo vs NA isn't a fair comparison either, which is why he picked the 2.0L K20 vs the 2.5L EJ25 because it was the closest comparison available.

I don't find any error to the logic there.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

bhp is bhp. Same goes for torque. AFAIK, the Subaru engine figures are not at the wheels. So yeah, corrected for drive train losses, it ought to put down the same hp & tq.

Also, comparing a Turbo engine to an NA engine is pure bollocks. Apples to oranges; Turbo engines almost always have a higher specific output (hence why in motorsport their displacement is calculated @ 1.7x the rating).

No, it's totally different. 2wd bhp vs awd bhp. I need to look for thread on some dude change his Impreza Wagon into FR with stock NA engine and when he dyno it, hp & tq was higher.

So it's okay to use top model Honda engine vs low model Subaru engine? That's more like Apples to Oranges here. Bring the current low model AWD/4WD NA Honda i4 engine (in US) vs current low model AWD NA Subaru H4 engine (in US) and compare the hp/l & tq/l. That should be Apple to Apple.

[NESW20]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Wait, wait, wait... you're comparing Si to base model Impreza? Am I the only one think that's not the fair comparison. Base Impreza is only Impreza with NA engine. While Civic has ridiculous amount of NA engine and model to choose from. Specially you're using top base Civic Si (in US), while you're using lowest base for Impreza? Because it's NA?

Also you have forgotten about the drive train. If that KA20 engine was put to AWD drive train, do you think it'll dyno same amount of hp & tq? My guess, I don't think so.

Honda has fan for NA engine, but Subaru fan is pure Boxer Turbo engine. Took em over 10 year to finally get extra 5hp/3tq and still running SOHC on current 2.5L engine (EJ253) on NA, while took em 3 yrs to get 20hp/26tq on Turbo with DOHC (EJ257). Subaru don't give a damn about NA Boxer engine (no offense to Subie fan here). They put their whole research into TURBO boxer engine. Cuz they know that, they can't make good NA boxer engine like Porsche and no one is stupid enough to buy $30k plus NA Impreza while you can buy Turbo ver for cheaper.

i'm comparing their ENGINES. both are small displacement 4 cylinder engines currently available on the market. i was showing that Subaru n/a 4 cylinders don't necessarily have more "torque/L" than other engines. BHP is "brake horsepower" as measure at the crankshaft (on an engine dyno, with the engine not installed in any car, only on a stand in a shop/lab). you are thinking of WHP or "wheel horsepower" as measured by chassis dynomometers (the rollers that cars drive on). they are not the same. all car manufacturers list BHP in their spec sheets.

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

No, it's totally different. 2wd bhp vs awd bhp. I need to look for thread on some dude change his Impreza Wagon into FR with stock NA engine and when he dyno it, hp & tq was higher.

So it's okay to use top model Honda engine vs low model Subaru engine? That's more like Apples to Oranges here. Bring the current low model AWD/4WD NA Honda i4 engine (in US) vs current low model AWD NA Subaru H4 engine (in US) and compare the hp/l & tq/l. That should be Apple to Apple.

2wd and awd whp are different. bhp is bhp is bhp is bhp is bhp. the reason your example of the FR impreza had a higher HP rating after it was converted was because there was less drivetrain loss, so more of the engine's BHP was converted into WHP.

the only reason i chose the n/a 2.5L subaru engine is because they don't offer a high-output version here in the US, except the 3.6L H6. it has HP ratings of 256hp and 247ft.lbs of torque. that's 71hp/L and 68.6ft.lbs/L. that's their "high end" n/a engine here in the US.

but just to make you happy, here's the breakdown for honda's base level Civic engine: 1.8L I4. 140hp and 128ft.lbs of torque. when you do the math, it's 77.8hp/L and 71.1ft.lbs/L. Subaru still falls behind in the specific power and torque output.

i hope all of this makes sense for you. drivetrain has NOTHING to do with BHP, only WHP. you are getting the two confused.

-Mike

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by NESW20

i'm comparing their ENGINES. both are small displacement 4 cylinder engines currently available on the market. i was showing that Subaru n/a 4 cylinders don't necessarily have more "torque/L" than other engines. BHP is "brake horsepower" as measure at the crankshaft (on an engine dyno, with the engine not installed in any car, only on a stand in a shop/lab). you are thinking of WHP or "wheel horsepower" as measured by chassis dynomometers (the rollers that cars drive on). they are not the same. all car manufacturers list BHP in their spec sheets.



2wd and awd whp are different. bhp is bhp is bhp is bhp is bhp. the reason your example of the FR impreza had a higher HP rating after it was converted was because there was less drivetrain loss, so more of the engine's BHP was converted into WHP.

the only reason i chose the n/a 2.5L subaru engine is because they don't offer a high-output version here in the US, except the 3.6L H6. it has HP ratings of 256hp and 247ft.lbs of torque. that's 71hp/L and 68.6ft.lbs/L. that's their "high end" n/a engine here in the US.

but just to make you happy, here's the breakdown for honda's base level Civic engine: 1.8L I4. 140hp and 128ft.lbs of torque. when you do the math, it's 77.8hp/L and 71.1ft.lbs/L. Subaru still falls behind in the specific power and torque output.

i hope all of this makes sense for you. drivetrain has NOTHING to do with BHP, only WHP. you are getting the two confused.

-Mike

K, I totally mistaken the bhp & whp on that one, sorry.

Still, I've said that, do the current low model AWD/4WD NA Honda i4 engine (in US) vs current low model AWD NA Subaru H4 engine (in US) and compare the hp/l & tq/l. Comparing FF/FR vs AWD isn't really fair comparison.

I'm using current CR-Z, which is 4wd. They have K24Z1 engine inside & pushin' 166hp/161tq (from wiki) do the math and 69hp/l & 67tq/l. Looks to me, it's almost same hp/ & tq/l range as current Subaru engine me.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

No, it's totally different. 2wd bhp vs awd bhp. I need to look for thread on some dude change his Impreza Wagon into FR with stock NA engine and when he dyno it, hp & tq was higher.

Like Mike said, chassis dynos measure whp not bhp.

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

I'm using current CR-Z, which is 4wd. They have K24Z1 engine inside & pushin' 166hp/161tq (from wiki) do the math and 69hp/l & 67tq/l. Looks to me, it's almost same hp/ & tq/l range as current Subaru engine me.

eh?

The CR-Z uses a 1.5L engine and hybrid motors. It makes like 122hp. Total.

Did you mean CR-V?

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

Like Mike said, chassis dynos measure whp not bhp.

Never mind, don't worry bout it.

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

eh?

The CR-Z uses a 1.5L engine and hybrid motors. It makes like 122hp. Total.

Did you mean CR-V?

out of that quote I've wrote, only reply I get is the name mistake and not commenting on hp/l & tq/l which I thought was the main topic. Yes, thank you. I meant to write CR-V, not CR-Z.