Who is happy the engine will be Naturally Aspirated?

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

Lol WOW, this board came a LOOOONG way since my last trip here. Last time I was here the "solid numbers" were just starting to surface and the doubts started to rise. I mentioned my skepticism and was met with a torrent of bull headed blindness, was called a troll etc etc so i left. I come back now that the numbers ARE here and people ARE coming to grasp the d fact that this car is anything but the second coming of Christ and really IS just "Another option in this price bracket with no REAL strong motivator behind it and a muuuch darker place.

But let me touc base here with some posts..

Sorry but TL;DR, after a few paragraphs I got the jist of your speech and skimmed the rest. The difference between you and me is when they attacked me with bullheaded blindness and called me a troll. I stuck it out. I wanted less HP in exchange for a cheaper, lighter, and better handling car. I was bashed and flamed for it. I still maintain that opinion, but now that the engine was designed, the HP announced, there isn't much point on me beating my drum. Instead I'm looking at other options, like test driving, the possibility of the lowest spec coming over at a later date, etc.

The whole "admiration" accusation for this car is as overblown as much as the lack of HP. This is one of the few cars that is outright advertised as sports car yet don't have the supercar levels of acceleration people have come to expect from muscle cars and supercars alike. A car that sacrifices speed and acceleration, for agility and communication. Even if you don't like it, you should at least learn enough to appreciate it and move on. This is not a car you can get away with unwarranted hate/praise without at least driving it.

We've got people that like the car as is and we've got people who are waiting it out for a high power version. We've also got people like me who shouldn't/wouldn't spend $25k on this car. But we're still here and even if we come across as hating everything about this car, we're still here watching and talking about it and waiting until we can test drive it and decide whether to buy it.

[mrtodd]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

Will your car be different from the other BRZ's/FRS's it sure as heck will, but you're absolutely disillusion if you think the end result will total less than a WRX out the door. Even with the WRX's current ~5,000 dollar markup over MSRP your still going to be spending much less money on the WRX than you would boosting your BRZ from scratch. I'm assuming you haven't put together your own turbocharger system or you would realize those "3,000-4,000" dollar turbo builds are almost NEVER 3000-4000 dollars...If they come CLOSE to those figures it's ALWAYS because they are turbocharging a platform that has been around for ages and ages and has been done so many times you could find cliff notes on how to turbocharge that car and that engine at a elementary school library.

I never said I would be boosting it, nor did I say anything about a "3,000-4,000 dollar turbo build." I stated I wouldn't need to spend the difference in money increasing HP/TQ numbers that would be adequate for myself. Performance is relative. My point of this previous post was this - if you idolize the performance of the STi, then why not buy that and quit complaining? You're taking my post out of context.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

Factor in the turbocharger, the charge pipe, the exhaust manifold, the exhaust tubing, the metal work from drilling mounting, welding bungs, the oil lines, the inter-cooler, the couplings, the dump tubing, the blow off valve, the waste gate, the controller, the various catch cans here and there to keep your system gunk free, then there's the engine internals that will likely have to be tweaked to keep everything from having tolerances tighter than that of a space shuttle like a tear down to see what the ring lands look like, are they meaty or flimsy? is the powder cast piston sturdy enough to handle ANYTHING or was it designed with lightweight revving in mind and waiting on the right temp fire to melt a hole in it. Will you shove a MLS in the head, will the stock studs/bolts meet the parameters, will those settings be screwed up by using OEM head hardware because no one makes aviation grade studs etc etc.

"Shove a MLS in the head"...? I didn't know Subaru/Toyota, or any other current engine manufacturer will using anything BUT MLS for the headgasket? I'm assuming you mean an aftermarket, thicker than stock, MLS gasket with the intent to lower static C/R. Sigh... Really? You really do take me to be an idiot. Again, this point is moot considering I never mentioned building a turbo kit. Thanks for compiling a list, though, however lacking it may be!

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

And that isn't even ventured down the long arduous task of fuel management/engine management and tuning. Will the EMU allow for piggyback programming? will you need a stand alone just to make use of it? will your car even RUN without the EMU or is this some great security system that will cut off the electrical start signal from the ignition if it's not in factory condition?
Will the emu throw codes for no reason other than to give you a hard time
etc etc.

I know the enormous task of tuning all to well. Such a thing CAN BE dreadful, yes when attempting to cut corners, but it's nothing new to me. Even so, again, I never specified anything in regards to specific engine tuning in my previous post.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

Building plenty of engines should have thought you at least these 2 things.
1. No two engine builds are the same. So pretending to have everything buttoned up and in the bag before anythings hit the shop floor is about as inappropriately boisterous as going into a church yelling about how many people you mowed down in some war.

2. There is a world of difference between building a performance engine from a power plant that is brand new to the tuning world and building a performance LSx, B Series, 302, EJ20, 4g63 etc etc.

I never said I had "everything buttoned up and in the bag." It really is beginning to sound like you have not read everything in the conversation between Ash and I - need I repeat again the point of our conversation? Your second point, however, I do agree with for the most part. I wouldn't say a "world of a difference" between them, considering that production 4-stroke engines haven't changed substantially in the past 20 years, the basic concepts are very much the same. In fact, discussions I've had on previous engine builds about combustion chamber burn theory still seem to have plenty of merit even today and in fact, seem to have manifested itself in later engine models' combustion chamber, piston, and porting design. So in the end, YES, you are absolutely correct in the fact that tuning and building the FA20 will most certainly be different than any other engine I've built; however, it's not as big as a difference as your choice of words makes it out to be. Either way, again, I never stated a specific plan for what to do with the engine in my first post. So....moot point, again.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

This entire statement contradicts the first statement:"to make your car different than all the others on the road, all while costing less than the car you mentioned"...

You talk of his "spending 10k on ground effects door stabilizers and wings" as a infantile insult, when in fact he is bringing up the EXACT same point you argued in favor of. "To make your car different from the rest

Putting a turbocharger system on the BRZ without any sort of "goal" in performance, or even a benchmark to shoot for (in the comparison no one wants to make) holds no more merit than putting fender flares wings blacked out lenses stretched tires and camber;camber;camber.

Who says the car has to LOOK different? That's not my idea of modification, nor is it anything I'd spend my money on. *shrugs* To each his own. And let me repeat myself, again, I never said anything about boosting it in my original post.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

As for the last bit of the paragraph about spending less and getting the performance you want. NO, you cannot. You can no more say that about this car right now than he can say this car is destined for performance mediocrity. You don't know how reliable this car is to beNOWgin with, yet somehow you'll manage to make it as "fast as you want it to be all while maintaining reliability"... How fast do you want it? Do you have a first hand account on exactly what this car feels like on a track or other performance situation as it sits? No..So you don't know whether you'll need to spend 10 dollars or 10 thousand.

This is where you are completely wrong. Note that I said, "performance I want." Desire is subjective, so is performance. That being said, you have no idea at what level of performance will suit MY needs in this car. And neither do I at this point! Who knows, maybe I'll be perfectly happy with the stock output? The point is that I won't be spending as much as it costs to buy a WRX STi - if I was to spend anything close to the costs of that car, I'd just buy that car to begin with. Again, you're missing the point of our discussion.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

THEN to go on and talk about reliability on a BRAND new car with a BRAND new engine after you just completely dismissed the idea of keeping the warranty? That's the ramblings of someone who really doesn't value ANYTHING about a good performance vehicle...

Hey, if you want your warranty that's totally okay with me. I just don't value it as high as other people do. I'm sorry that such a concept irritates you.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

Say what you want about this car and what it could do, but the fact remains..The people who produced the engine, Subaru...Fuji heavy.. They've produced "engine families" of this scale only ONE other time. This is a HUGE move for Subaru, to drop an engine lineup and make a new one. The LAST time they did this was over 2 DECADES ago, and for the entire FIRST decade after their engines had problem after problem after problem, it took them nearly 20 years to even ADMIT FAULT to their engines having reliability issues, but now you're going to jump headlong into their brand new engine, dismiss a warranty for no other reason than pride

We both know you are absolutely correct about the lack of history on this engine. Even so, it sounds like you're assuming that the first thing I'd do is "bolt on a turbo kit" that I apparently don't know how to piece together, and ruin my factory warranty. Fact is, you have no idea what my own personal plans are for this car. You're making plenty of assumptions here. I never outlined what my own performance goals are for this car. My point was that not everyone is as equally worried about the factory warranty. Perhaps if I was to buy it new, straight out of the dealer's lot, then sure, I'd be much more worried about a powertrain warranty.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

So you've stated your opinion on him..Let's see how much of a grasp on engine tuning/modification YOU display after openly criticizing someone else simply based on their disagreement over an un-spoken for car.

You seem to be taking plenty of offense over a simple post on an online forum, but sure, I've got a little bit of extra time at the moment. I'll read on.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

You know what this says to me? This says to me you don't really understanding tuning but you're willing to read a press package as if it was the gospel.

"86 mil bore and stroke with a very low center of gravity!!" Wow!!! You know what that means to an experienced engine builder? Truly nothing. We're on a web site talking about a car we might lease/buy etc so we can put a couple grand into it to make it our own. What's not happening? We're not being given these cars to perform hundreds of thousands of dollars of R&D work, we're not going to use this car as the focal point of a potential million dollar racing campaign. We're not in the big leagues, so you know what the engines "low center of gravity" really means? it really means it'll have clearance issues with the parts we ad, and it'll be a tight fit for people with big hands to work underneath it. That's all. In the real world the center of gravity will account for nathan in the grand scheme of things. The ONLY reason it is getting the attention it is getting is because Toyota/Subaru TOLD you it was important. The use of engines as a pivot/anchor point in cars in the normal world has and will remain a practice used as a counterbalance, when the chassis/driveline has a fundamental flaw of some kind that can't be corrected via standard practices without overshooting the budget, you lower things to make the changes you already HAVE made or are going TO make more effective.. Lowering the CoG on a lincoln town car or Honda prelude doesn't turn it into some lucid beast of a track car.

You have an excellent point about my "low center of gravity" wording there. Chances are this most certainly will make working in the engine bay a major pain in the ass, but maybe not. That's something we'll find out first hand soon enough. Either way, a low CoG just seems like a nice bonus to me since all of the engines I've worked on have been relatively higher in the engine bay. Just expressing that it's something I'm excited for. My post had nothing to do with lowering anything on the car, rather that this engine is horizontal and situated much lower than what I'm used to. Again, you're making plenty of assumptions here, putting plenty of words in my mouth. It really seems like you're taking my words out of context. Oh well.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

Direct injection + High compression means one thing. Tuning companies don't have to do any work to sell products...All they have to do is sell you a Flasher. Instead of them having to do work on new products for a new car, now they only have to sell you a small little black box that plugs into a diagnostic port and adjusts your fuel map...Instant profit margin jump for their company.

Hah. Flash the ROM by some random aftermarket company's "chip". Thanks but no thanks. I prefer having control over the fuel and spark/valve timing values myself.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

That's because they're smaller, and less sophisticated.

Less sophisticated engines = More material + Less moving parts

more Material = sturdier
Less moving parts = less sources for catastrophic failure.

Such is your opinion, and I fully respect that.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

1. They should have left more overhead...Drop the performance in favor of ACTUAL tuning ability, because right now this car is nothing but a 200HP Easter egg. it's done cooking and that's all it's ever going to be is a hardboiled egg, the only change that can happen is in the form of paint jewels and glitter....

I agree with you for the most part in concept; however, I disagree with you on the notion that "the only change that can happen is in the form of paint jewels and glitter...." That statement seems pretty extreme, to me. There will be plenty of people that will build this platform (ie "change") to put down some really awesome numbers - both on the track and the dyno.

[KeepGuessing]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Sorry but TL;DR, after a few paragraphs I got the jist of your speech and skimmed the rest. The difference between you and me is when they attacked me with bullheaded blindness and called me a troll. I stuck it out .

I stuck it out the first time, and was banned for not kissing this cars ass.(quite literally) So the second time around when the flaming started (much like the first time) I just logged off for a while before they had the chance.

The whole "admiration" accusation for this car is as overblown as much as the lack of HP. This is one of the few cars that is outright advertised as sports car yet don't have the supercar levels of acceleration people have come to expect from muscle cars and supercars alike.

I understand that as a whole the "performance car" community is expecting too much from basic cars, that I don't argue with one bit. But in THIS generation of engine production, an age where adding direct injection to a simplistic already dated design can net impressive results, an age where you can almost spec for spec determine a cars power output based on displacement, engine technology aspiration, compression ratio, bore stroke and other details. For a company to produce such a lack luster product, with aspects of the engine that SHOULD account for more than what's being delivered is...Well distasteful. I don't think anyone here was expecting a VQ35 equivalent under the hood, but for a 2.0L square flat 4 with direct injection and lift/timing control and all the accompanying accoutrements that go along with researching designing and debuting an engine in 2011 to produce less power and less torque than a 10 year old Honda engine, without direct injection, without variable phasing on both cams, with lower compression.....Even the fuel economy isn't that far between the two...I just don't understand WHY they would choose to go with that, unless they really have that little faith in the engine to handle more power and feel they'll hit their factory performance ceiling that soon...I understand it's "Subaru" and they are notoriously 10 years behind the curve as far as engine technology but this is a bit much for a big budget high expectation vehicle.

But in continuation..

Originally Posted by mrtodd

I never said I would be boosting it, nor did I say anything about a "3,000-4,000 dollar turbo build." I stated I wouldn't need to spend the difference in money increasing HP/TQ numbers that would be adequate for myself.

Actually, what you said was.

to make your car different than all the others on the road, all while costing less than the car you mentioned.

Which was in response to, "Why would I want to void the warranty and install my own turbo when Subaru makes...etc"

No where did I say you were on your way to the dealership to pick up your car, you used a figurative consumer in him, i used a figurative consumer. Simple conversational basics. As for your point of "if he idolizes the STi then he should stop talking about the BRZ and buy it" I don't see how that is even remotely a reasonable conclusion. Clearly the kid has some misappropriated "faith" in subaru's abilities, but he is clearly correct that there is too much of an attempt at niche filling and not enough time focusing on the strong points of the companies. As I mentioned above, Subaru is generally a company YEARS behind in the engine development department. This engine doesn't change that ONE bit. WHY they made the decisions they made as to who does what and what are the focal points of each model is clearly and purely business/financial in origin. But he's righ

"Shove a MLS in the head"...? I didn't know Subaru/Toyota, or any other current engine manufacturer will using anything BUT MLS for the headgasket? I'm assuming you mean an aftermarket, thicker than stock, MLS gasket with the intent to lower static C/R. Sigh... Really? You really do take me to be an idiot. Again, this point is moot considering I never mentioned building a turbo kit. Thanks for compiling a list, though, however lacking it may be!

Excuse me, maybe I should have said "shove and Entirely MLS headgasket"...Or perhaps "shove a newly redesigned Multi Layered Steel Headgasket without subaru's problematic graphite overlay treated with your own applied overlay/sealing agent" then you might have gotten it the first time through without any qualms.
If your responses are just going to be housewife-esque nit picking replies as to the depth in which I go into an attempted turbocharger build let me know ahead of time so that way I know not to leave out every bung grommet and varying -an hose and it's appropriate length so that way your follow up responses won't be such a half-assed attempt at passive aggressive belittling.

I know the enormous task of tuning all to well. Such a thing CAN BE dreadful, yes when attempting to cut corners, but it's nothing new to me. Even so, again, I never specified anything in regards to specific engine tuning in my previous post.

Since when was specificity a prerequisite for implication?

I never said I had "everything buttoned up and in the bag." It really is beginning to sound like you have not read everything in the conversation between Ash and I - need I repeat again the point of our conversation? Your second point, however, I do agree with for the most part. I wouldn't say a "world of a difference" between them, considering that production 4-stroke engines haven't changed substantially in the past 20 years, the basic concepts are very much the same. In fact, discussions I've had on previous engine builds about combustion chamber burn theory still seem to have plenty of merit even today and in fact, seem to have manifested itself in later engine models' combustion chamber, piston, and porting design. So in the end, YES, you are absolutely correct in the fact that tuning and building the FA20 will most certainly be different than any other engine I've built; however, it's not as big as a difference as your choice of words makes it out to be. Either way, again, I never stated a specific plan for what to do with the engine in my first post. So....moot point, again.

Exactly, to each his own. Now to sit here and ride the acceptance train to a vehicle who's goal is to reach a broad market while completely ignoring the fundamental goals of the vehicle is silly. As silly as saying a F430 is a terrible automobile for it's lack of cargo space. Like it or not, approve of it or not, the press packages, sales pitches and overall ad-campaign of this vehicle puts more emphasis on this cars ability to screw on a front lip and mount a functionless spoiler than ANY other aspect of this vehicle. The car is being branded as a Scion, the company who's focus is customer identification, individuality and catering to such wants. You take that gem of information, and set it along side with the bombardment of accessories and glitter being offered for this car months before it's release and it's pretty clear to see what the meaning behind their hammering of "This is a tuner car" really means. Which is pretty clear as to what Ash is saying. He heard "Tuner car" he wanted "Tuner car" with the Sti/WRX what subaru offers is a more complete tuner car at this point than what the BRZ offers, why you ask? Because it covers more directions, clearly. Whether or not he said it directly, i'm willing to bet this Ash fellow would be happy with a BRZ that could SEE 270-280HP without forcing him to tear the car to pieces and spend an additional 10,000 dollars out of pocket to see it. Does this car NEED the 270HP out of the lot? Of course not, no car does. Should it be an option to consumers? If you're going to associate the phrase "Sports car" with it it damn well should.

^^^Exactly what I said in the quote....

But you value reliability, or did you just say that for the sake of adding the word? If there was no point in you giving credit to the cars reliability, then why mention it? Also, i'm glad that you have 25,000 dollars of throw away money. That is wonderful for you and yours to be so successful. Once again, this is a "Introductory Sports car" not a "Sultan of Brunei Sports Car". This car's being praised on it's practicality and cost, and once it's on the road; it's running cost. If you don't have to worry about your super-trust worth brand new subaru engine taking a dump on you on the highway because you own 2 towing companies 5 auto shops and you are your own wholesale supplier of engines faaantastic. To the rest of the unassuming public who are interested in this car...You know the volumes of people that will make up the companies revenue, the people that will determine whether they will pursue further ventures like this or further model advancements, it will matter.Because pissing away 25,000+ doesn't sound like a grand idea.

I'd be content with agreeing with you had it not been for the torrent of cars facing problem after problem WITHOUT being turbocharged, without being high strung and without seeing "performance driving" situations. Once again, it took subaru 4 generations of headgasket to get one that "presumably will hold"...A problem they encountered that is a direct result of their engine configuration..Not a fluke waterpump bearing, not a problem with a batch of cogs that weren't properly heat treated, a problem a 8 year old with a glass of water could see would present itself.

You've covered a large amount of it at this point, I think it's safe to say you've got plenty of time to read and respond, let's not be coy here.

I agree with you for the most part in concept; however, I disagree with you on the notion that "the only change that can happen is in the form of paint jewels and glitter...." That statement seems pretty extreme, to me. There will be plenty of people that will build this platform (ie "change") to put down some really awesome numbers - both on the track and the dyno.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure there will be a fair share of people who put 2jz-gte's F20C's EJ20's etc etc, big budgets hold no bounds. But then the car is merely a shell of it's former self. Propping a Coyote 5.0 under the hood of a Murker XR4 hardly portrays how much potential the Murker has and producing a 2.2L B16A hardly shows the merit of that engine either. Which i'm pretty sure you understand what i'm saying in relation to the FA20.

[AshWilliams]

No, I just got bored with people who are glad that the car is underpowered and think they are expert engine builders to the point that they feel confident in voiding a warranty and spending 5 grand on a turbo build that may or may not produce the same performance gains as the manufacturer would (and with the same durability) just go get their own unique snowflake of a car, then bemoan anyone who wants to buy a manufacturer tuned car because if they want a fast one they should have built one themselves. Not even mentioning it's easier to make minor changes to a manufacturer tuned car to make it faster than start with a blank slate.

I'm not a builder. I'm a driver. I don't want to spend my weekends getting my hands dirty, and waste time I could spend driving it, because that somehow is supposed to complete the experience for me. We all have the friend with the tuner car that spends its time in the garage and sees the street only to light up its dashboard with error codes or blows its engine after one 1/4 mile attempt.

A track day just requires a tire swap, I don't need to be a self-proclaimed expert in engines to do that. And if I want to race it, I'll just make sure that there's a guy on our team that is as good of an engine guru as some of the guys in this thread claim to be.

I just hope he doesn't crash the car.

[Ryephile]

--> KeepGuessing, you're missing the two most influential parts of the engine equation: emissions regulations, and cost. An old Honda B16 wouldn't pass emissions today, and making it do so would likely cripple its power output. The FA20 is about as cheap an engine can get these days and still claim to have modern tech [w/ DAVCS and D-4S being the only two pieces of tech]. There's no valve lift adjustment, unlike the old Honda's, so that's a disadvantage for the FA20 on top of modern emissions and cramped exhaust routing.

--> AshWillams, nobody is making you do anything. I also think you're overreacting to an engine you've never driven. Based on your previous posts it seems that this kind of car, in which this engine "fits" very well, isn't your brand of vodka.


For extra credit, list naturally aspirated engines currently in production that make at least 100HP/L.

[CyberFormula]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

For extra credit, list naturally aspirated engines currently in production that make at least 100HP/L.

Ninja 250
CBR 250
GSXR 600
GSXR 1000
GSXR 1300
Yamaha R6
Yamaha R1
Triumph daytona 675
Triumph street triple
Civic Si
Celica GTS
S2000
Ferrari 458
Ferrari 430
Porsche 911 GT3
Porsche 911 GT3 rs
Porsche carrera s

...my scooter

[bimmerboy]

my e-peen is bigger than yours!

[old greg]

Originally Posted by CyberFormula

Ninja 250
CBR 250
GSXR 600
GSXR 1000
GSXR 1300
Yamaha R6
Yamaha R1
Triumph daytona 675
Triumph street triple

Motorcycles are cheating.

[Kunzite]

I'm getting sick of so many posts implying that I would be an idiot if I'd dare to like this car, and it's power. I don't see anyone forcing people into " kissing this cars ass.(quite literally)", not even to like it. Yet I see BS like this

People, you can like much more powerful cars, or even need them - but this doesn't make the 86 a bad car!

CyberFormula: no bike engines, pls.
Civic Si - 201HP from 2.4 l; nope.
Celica - no longer in production. Was it 158HP from 2l?
S2000, no longer in production
Ferrari 458 - yes
Ferrari 458 - no longer in production
Porsche 911 GT3 (rs) - yes
Porsche carrera s - yes, barely.

In other words, 100HP/l is more or less supercar territory

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by Kunzite

I'm getting sick of so many posts implying that I would be an idiot if I'd dare to like this car, and it's power. I don't see anyone forcing people into " kissing this cars ass.(quite literally)", not even to like it. Yet I see BS like this

People, you can like much more powerful cars, or even need them - but this doesn't make the 86 a bad car!

CyberFormula: no bike engines, pls.
Civic Si - 201HP from 2.4 l; nope.
Celica - no longer in production. Was it 158HP from 2l?
S2000, no longer in production
Ferrari 458 - yes
Ferrari 458 - no longer in production
Porsche 911 GT3 (rs) - yes
Porsche carrera s - yes, barely.

In other words, 100HP/l is more or less supercar territory

The previous Civic Si made 197hp from 2.0L (the Type R made 225 from a 2.0L and the Mugen RR made 240 from a 2.0L). The Celica was 180hp (more in Japan) from a 1.8L. Of course they're out of production, but only by a few years.

[Levi]

Originally Posted by CyberFormula

Ninja 250
CBR 250
GSXR 600
GSXR 1000
GSXR 1300
Yamaha R6
Yamaha R1
Triumph daytona 675
Triumph street triple
Civic Si
Celica GTS
S2000
Ferrari 458
Ferrari 430
Porsche 911 GT3
Porsche 911 GT3 rs
Porsche carrera s

...my scooter

How did you not mention the BMW M3?

4.0l V8, 420 PS, 400 Nm, 8.400 RPM

[Allch Chcar]

If you got banned, well, I don't suppose you want anyone to rub it in, so I won't. I don't worship this car either, but I do try to keep my expectations realistic; negative or otherwise.

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

...
I understand it's "Subaru" and they are notoriously 10 years behind the curve as far as engine technology but this is a bit much for a big budget high expectation vehicle.
...

If you hadn't noticed from the Miata comparisons, Mazda has this problem too. They always seem to be behind the curve and in the past they dealt with Ford to help spread costs for their engine development. The cost to develop a new engine is huge and the FA20 is Subaru's first GDI engine. I'm not using this to excuse it, but provide a background if you will.

My argument isn't that the output is fantastic, it isn't. But it's at least competitive. FYI, it does make as much power at the same peak RPM as the new Civic Si's K24 and scored the same EPA score. Considering the differences in the two, the K24 has more displacement so less efficient, the Twins are RWD so more losses than FWD, it's doesn't differ greatly.

Honestly, I'm reserving my opinion of the engine's character until I get a chance to really drive it. 90% of my driving is low RPM acceleration and cruising plus how it responds is just as important as how much power it makes.

[Ryephile]

Motorcycles and out-of-production cars are obviously irrelevant comparisons, as neither have to pass current emissions standards.

Here's the list I put together of MY2012+ normal production cars with at least 100HP/L

Originally Posted by Rare Air @ 100HP/L MY2012+ production

Audi R8, 430HP/4.2L
Audi R8, 525HP/5.2L
Audi R8 GT, 560HP/5.2L
BMW //M3, 414HP/4.0L
Ferrari 458 Italia, 570HP/4.5L
Ferrari 599 Fiorano, 620HP/6.0L
Ferrari 599 GTO, 670HP/6.0L
Ferrari California, 453HP/4.3L
Ferrari FF, 651HP/6.3L
Ferrari F12berlinetta, 730HP/6.3L
Lamborghini Aventador, 691HP/6.5L
Lamborghini Gallardo, 562HP/5.2L
Lexus LFA, 552HP/4.8L
Porsche 911 Carrera, 345HP/3.4L
Porsche 911 Carrera S, 385HP/3.8L
Porsche 911 GT3RS, 415HP/3.8L
Scion FR-S, 200HP/2.0L
Subaru BRZ, 200HP/2.0L

Now, if we take out cars you can't actually buy unless you're already on their "special list":

Originally Posted by Rare Air, mere mortals can purchase

Audi R8, 430HP/4.2L
Audi R8, 525HP/5.2L
Audi R8 GT, 560HP/5.2L
BMW //M3, 414HP/4.0L
Lamborghini Gallardo, 562HP/5.2L
Porsche 911 Carrera, 345HP/3.4L
Porsche 911 Carrera S, 385HP/3.8L
Scion FR-S, 200HP/2.0L
Subaru BRZ, 200HP/2.0L

That leaves the FR-S and BRZ as the only car anywhere near the price range most of us are looking at. The //M3 is 2.4x the price of the FR-S [at $60k starting, and the base 991 911 Carrera is 3.3x the price @ $82k starting. ...and those are the next cheapest options for 100HP/L naturally aspirated. Rare air indeed people.

[Allch Chcar]

Ryephile, the FRS doesn't make 100HP/L. It only makes 197BHP.

Even then, you didn't include the 2011 Civic Si which makes exactly the same HP/L as the FRS. Emissions have not changed that much in one year.