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

[bigbcraig]

Back on topic, lol...

Ya'll need to stop comparing base EJ25s to Si's and S2000s. Subaru doesn't seem to have great N/A stats, because they dont make a N/A performance enigne! They turbo all performance engines.

To get a fair comparison, you have to compare regular Civic models to regular Imprezas.
Looking at UK models (There are more similarly sized engines),...

A base Civic with the 1.4L engine gets 100hp at 6000RPM, 127 NM at 4800 RPM
A base Impreza with 1.5L is 2000 pounds cheaper and gets 107hp at 6000, 142NM at a much more useable 3200RPM

A base Civic with the 1.8L engine gets 140hp at 6300RPM, 174 NM tq at 4300RPM
A base Impreza with 2.0L is cheaper and gets 150hp at 6400RPM, 196 NM at a more useable 3200RPM.

If you want to talk about something like the Type-R, you must look at not just engine aspiration and displacementbut model purpose and price:

Civic Type-R. 201hp at 7800, 193NM at 5600.
Impreza WRX-S, about 500 pounds more expensive, 255hp at 5600, 390NM at 3000. About twice the torque at a much lower RPM. Yes, it's turboed, but that is Subaru's performance offering. And it really it is barely more expensive, even though it's not NA.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by bigbcraig

Back on topic, lol...

Ya'll need to stop comparing base EJ25s to Si's and S2000s. Subaru doesn't seem to have great N/A stats, because they dont make a N/A performance enigne! They turbo all performance engines.

To get a fair comparison, you have to compare regular Civic models to regular Imprezas.
Looking at UK models (There are more similarly sized engines),...

A base Civic with the 1.4L engine gets 100hp at 6000RPM, 127 NM at 4800 RPM
A base Impreza with 1.5L is 2000 pounds cheaper and gets 107hp at 6000, 142NM at a much more useable 3200RPM

A base Civic with the 1.8L engine gets 140hp at 6300RPM, 174 NM tq at 4300RPM
A base Impreza with 2.0L is cheaper and gets 150hp at 6400RPM, 196 NM at a more useable 3200RPM.

If you want to talk about something like the Type-R, you must look at not just engine aspiration and displacementbut model purpose and price:

Civic Type-R. 201hp at 7800, 193NM at 5600.
Impreza WRX-S, about 500 pounds more expensive, 255hp at 5600, 390NM at 3000. About twice the torque at a much lower RPM. Yes, it's turboed, but that is Subaru's performance offering. And it really it is barely more expensive, even though it's not NA.

How is that apples to apples again? you cannot compare NA hp to turbo hp and even less so, to torque.

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

How is that apples to apples again? you cannot compare NA hp to turbo hp and even less so, to torque.

I think his bases of 'apples' is in the R&D section of a performance engines... the fact is subaru just does not develop any significant NA performances engines, they leave that to their turbo engines.

So in the same way that it is unfair to compare a turbo subie to a NA honda, it is unfair to compare a Honda performance oriented engine to a Subaru economically oriented engine.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by chulooz

I think his bases of 'apples' is in the R&D section of a performance engines... the fact is subaru just does not develop any significant NA performances engines, they leave that to their turbo engines.

So in the same way that it is unfair to compare a turbo subie to a NA honda, it is unfair to compare a Honda performance oriented engine to a Subaru economically oriented engine.

[bigbcraig]

Originally Posted by chulooz

I think his bases of 'apples' is in the R&D section of a performance engines... the fact is subaru just does not develop any significant NA performances engines, they leave that to their turbo engines.

So in the same way that it is unfair to compare a turbo subie to a NA honda, it is unfair to compare a Honda performance oriented engine to a Subaru economically oriented engine.

Exactly.

Also, the first two sets of comparisons i posted there are about as apple-to-apple as you can get, IMO.
In both cases, the Subaru was less expensive (even with AWD); and had similar power with more torque. Which is better for normal, calm driving - what the cars were designed for.

If Subaru was to make a N/A performance boxer, there's nothing that says the boxers will still be low-revving and all torque: that's just what these were built for. JDM EJ207's rev and make power to 8k stock with no problem.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by chulooz

I think his bases of 'apples' is in the R&D section of a performance engines... the fact is subaru just does not develop any significant NA performances engines, they leave that to their turbo engines.

So in the same way that it is unfair to compare a turbo subie to a NA honda, it is unfair to compare a Honda performance oriented engine to a Subaru economically oriented engine.

I never said it was fair to compare a type r engine to a subaru motor. His turbo comparison is just as baseless as if I had. Furthermore, if you are going to compare economy engines, might as well include the economy no?

[bigbcraig]

Economy is really hard to compare because of intrinsic chassis differences. Looking at the MPG numbers of a slightly heavier, AWD car and comparing them to a lighter FWD is unfair; and does not stand as a basis on the economy in the FT.

If I had seen published fuel consumption per load from an engine dyno, trust me, I would've listed it.

[NESW20]

Originally Posted by NESW20

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.

bigbcraig - this is what i posted before. base model engine compared to base model engine (i posted Subaru 2.5L figures in a different post). apples to apples right there. you and i agree on the fundamentals; we both know that power/torque output has nothing to do with cylinder layout. it's all about head/intake/exhaust design.

however, i'm not sure why you're bringing up the base price of the cars... i'm sure we could find cheaper cars that have similar specific power outputs.

are you a Subaru salesman?

-Mike

[bigbcraig]

Originally Posted by NESW20

bigbcraig - this is what i posted before. base model engine compared to base model engine (i posted Subaru 2.5L figures in a different post). apples to apples right there. you and i agree on the fundamentals; we both know that power/torque output has nothing to do with cylinder layout. it's all about head/intake/exhaust design.

however, i'm not sure why you're bringing up the base price of the cars... i'm sure we could find cheaper cars that have similar specific power outputs.

are you a Subaru salesman?

-Mike

Yeah, I saw your post and was going to quote / reinforce but it was several pages old in the thread.

As far as the price... meh, i dont know.

I'm not a salesman , but an ME student... although I am a bit of a Subaru fan.
I'm not ever going to say that Subaru is automatically the best or doesn't have flaws, but I got annoyed reading many pages of boxer bashing just because there were more examples of N/A performance I4's. You're exactly right about engine specifics and not layout defining the engine.

Nevertheless, I'd like to see a boxer in the FT.

[NESW20]

haha, yeah, i was just jabbing your ribs a little bit with the salesman comment.

i would also like to see a nice n/a boxer in the FT. revvy boxer with good heads = WIN.

-Mike

[mrtodd]

Originally Posted by Franisco

Geo Metro soccer ^

Touche.

Anyway, it looks like this debate really splits our community in half.

It all comes down to who likes factory boosted engines vs high revving/high output NA motors.

Personally, I'm with the latter. Fact is, more R&D is going to go into the combustion chamber burn properties and head flow characteristics on an NA motor, which means that when I boost it, it will have more HP/TQ than the comparable factory boosted engine. IMO, factory turbo'd motors tend to cut corners during development. The reasoning behind my hypothesis are the dyno charts of several aftermarket boosted engines on various cars (mainly Nissan and Honda) are INCREDIBLY responsive to boost, more so than comparable factory boosted variants.

And don't give me shit about the factory boosted variants being more reliable. It's not hard to properly bulletproof an engine, it just takes educated planning during the building and tuning phases.

All I am saying is that I want the better engine to start with, so I can get the most HP/TQ in the end after I'm through with it. If Subaru does everything on the engine and it turns out to be up to par with current high output I4's, then I'm all for it. If Toyota takes over the heads just for that reason, all for that too. If Subaru drops the ball and just puts in their dumb 150HP 2.0L, then, well, they're stupid.

Also, I am biased to higher revving motors as well, as it gives me more room to play with gearing....plus it just sounds bad ass.

Anyway, in the end, Subaru makes pretty cool motors...i really like the H4....but when it comes down to modern performance numbers (on paper), they just don't cut it. This doesn't mean they can't compete in our little game, they (Subaru) just choose to do things differently.

[Siriusly.Andrew]

I really wish they'd let Yamaha in on the head design like they had with many of their previous motors.
I like the 2ZZ-GE as a good example. Head flow characteristics of this particular motor are better than that of the Civic Si's, which is something to smile about.

What Toyota dropped the ball on with this motor was more along the lines of the internals. You didn't see many 2ZZ's over 200whp for a while after people had been playing with the engines for a long time. Between the high compression pistons and "weak" internals, people would have rathered played with the 1ZZ-FE which could handle a bolt on turbo set-up.

I would love to see Yamaha handle heads while Subara / Toyota build the rest in conjunction with one another. Research it together, build it together. Make it the best it could be and not leave anything out.

Thats just my fantasy when companies would work together, than be so tied up in competition all the time. Competition is good, I agree, but in a project like this I'd like to see more collaboration from the two.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Siriusly.Andrew

I really wish they'd let Yamaha in on the head design like they had with many of their previous motors.
I like the 2ZZ-GE as a good example. Head flow characteristics of this particular motor are better than that of the Civic Si's, which is something to smile about.

What Toyota dropped the ball on with this motor was more along the lines of the internals. You didn't see many 2ZZ's over 200whp for a while after people had been playing with the engines for a long time. Between the high compression pistons and "weak" internals, people would have rathered played with the 1ZZ-FE which could handle a bolt on turbo set-up.

I would love to see Yamaha handle heads while Subara / Toyota build the rest in conjunction with one another. Research it together, build it together. Make it the best it could be and not leave anything out.

Thats just my fantasy when companies would work together, than be so tied up in competition all the time. Competition is good, I agree, but in a project like this I'd like to see more collaboration from the two.

Yeah I agree on working together... Either way, Subaru gonna be profiting from this anyways. Next gen NA Impreza might come out DOHC instead of SOHC w 180~200hp and WRX & STI w better internal flow, higher RPM, more everything! Win win for Subaru. lol

[[es vi: eks]]

Well prehaps the new nxt generation heads may not need to be touched?
Since Subaru had planned to use DI any way....
Hopefully they will make it flow really well to Improve effeicenty?
But we wont really Know untill the release the new engine....? That may not be untill the same time the FT86 is released.