FR-S/BRZ vs. Genesis Coupe

[Dragonitti]

Originally Posted by fatoni

you dont read a book in the dark but it doesnt mean they cease to exist. wtq stands for wheel torque. i think we make an assumption as a car community that we are talking about the wtq that most closely represents the tq at the flywheel (whick isnt even very standard as being as close to something doesnt really mean that much)...but he wasnt so all i did was try to explain it

Sorry, but you are inaccurate. It's pretty standard that the online community refer to cars power via their dyno numbers, not crank numbers. Manufacture brochures are the only media source that refers to a cars crank hp numbers (i.e. flywheel numbers). When someone puts a "W" it means just that...to the wheels. No one brags about flywheel power, because it doesn't factor in your drivetrain and how much is making to the ground. Again, only Manufactures speak in flywheel language.

If I were to refer to my cars flywheel hp then I would sit there and add the 15% drivetrain loss commonly associated with FWD and say my numbers are 374hp/368tq (according to a dyno dynamics. According to a Dynojet then 419hp/413tq).

Crank hp for the FT-86 is rated at 200hp. On a dyno with an estimated 20% drivetrain loss for RWD vehicles it's going to put down 160whp ballpark. Notice 200hp and dyno after drivetrain components 160whp. That is if Toyota didn't under rate the motor like some Manufactures have done with cars before.

If you have had your car dynoed before, 9 out of 10 people refer to that number when stating their power. Only the uninformed refer to their cars Flywheel hp and tq.

[Dark]

Originally Posted by fatoni

name a component of this nef force you keep bringing up that will be affected by the shape of the car but not the size or power that is not the drag coeffecient and please explain to me where you are coming from because as far as im concerned if two cars have the same power delivery, frontal area and same weight the one that has the smaller cd will be faster

I think you got me wrong since the first response, and I was dragged along. I didn't really use xB and Veyron comparison. When I said brick-like car, I meant something hardly a car, which has no car personality. It was your own assumption about me comparing xB and Veyron. I think you would probably get me by now.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Dragonitti

Sorry, but you are inaccurate. It's pretty standard that the online community refer to cars power via their dyno numbers, not crank numbers. Manufacture brochures are the only media source that refers to a cars crank hp numbers (i.e. flywheel numbers). When someone puts a "W" it means just that...to the wheels. No one brags about flywheel power, because it doesn't factor in your drivetrain and how much is making to the ground. Again, only Manufactures speak in flywheel language.

If I were to refer to my cars flywheel hp then I would sit there and add the 15% drivetrain loss commonly associated with FWD and say my numbers are 374hp/368tq (according to a dyno dynamics. According to a Dynojet then 419hp/413tq).

Crank hp for the FT-86 is rated at 200hp. On a dyno with an estimated 20% drivetrain loss for RWD vehicles it's going to put down 160whp ballpark. Notice 200hp and dyno after drivetrain components 160whp. That is if Toyota didn't under rate the motor like some Manufactures have done with cars before.

If you have had your car dynoed before, 9 out of 10 people refer to that number when stating their power. Only the uninformed refer to their cars Flywheel hp and tq.

if were gonna argue its going to be about semantics which is fine really. i understand the difference between hp and whp. i think the reason people brag about whp is because thats the number they measured. i dont think its fair to call something standard simply because an internet community uses it frequently especially when you are using terms like "closest to" and "estimated." its entirely possible measure the the bhp from the wheels. again, all i was doing is explaining that in a lower gear you are going to have more tq to the wheels. sorry if this appears to have turned into a little bit of a trollercoaster

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Dark

I think you got me wrong since the first response, and I was dragged along. I didn't really use xB and Veyron comparison. When I said brick-like car, I meant something hardly a car, which has no car personality. It was your own assumption about me comparing xB and Veyron. I think you would probably get me by now.

like without wheels?

[Dark]

Originally Posted by fatoni

like without wheels?

Like I said, it depends on how you see it. If you think a brick-like car is everything equal and CoD is better than Veyron, then it is. I personally see it as a car with high CoD, thin wheels+tires, unstable, et al. And again, if you think brick-like car has everything better than Veyron, then it does. I'm not going to comment on that again.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dragonitti

Crank hp for the FT-86 is rated at 200hp. On a dyno with an estimated 20% drivetrain loss for RWD vehicles it's going to put down 160whp ballpark. Notice 200hp and dyno after drivetrain components 160whp. That is if Toyota didn't under rate the motor like some Manufactures have done with cars before.

I do imagine that this engine is underrated or choked up pretty badly due to emissions, toyota knows most of us on the forum and a good amount of people not on the forum will put some sort of exhaust on this car to make it sound better and louder, if its not underrated i do expect good gains from bolt ons

my celica was rated 181 hp from the factory - 15% drive train loss = 153 whp

but my car dynoed from 158-162 whp bone stock on different dynos...

now im running 183 whp from bolt ons alone(192whp with pfc) which puts me at 210(220 with pfc) crank hp from a 1.8L
that's 116.6 hp per liter

so getting the ft86 up to 230 crank hp shouldn't be a problem (since the ecu is programmable(freed up) i can see 250 crank hp with cold air, headers , high flow exhaust. 125 hp per liter would be some pretty damn good efficiency


all talking in theory though, but all possible especially if the engine is underrated then i could see more gains...

for example
2012 ft-86
say if it were 2660 lbs
had 212 whp after mods and tune
= 12.547 power to weight

2012 mustang v6
3453 lbs
259.25 whp (after 15% drivetrain loss, being optomistic ofc and not using 20% drivetrain loss)
= 13.319 power to weight

2013 genesis coupe 2.0T
3294 lbs
233 whp (assuming under the same drive train loss as the mustang)
=14.092 power to weight

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

What the hell are you talking about? WTQ is short for Wheel Torque.

Do you understand the following?

1. What is typically shown on a power & torque vs RPM dyno chart is wheel power, but is not wheel torque (rather it's engine torque minus system losses).
2. Cars make more torque at the wheels than they do at the engine due to the fact that your engine spins faster than your wheels (and gearing multiplies your engine torque).

If so, it's nonsensical for you to write "2k gets you 70-80 whp- 80-100 wtq. In a tc that's probably about 20-25 whp-10-15 wtq." and "And another thing 300wtq on FWD is epic fail".

Originally Posted by Dragonitti

Just because one car is an AWD or RWD does not automatically guarantee it's going to be faster than the FWD competitor.

Did I claim otherwise? I don't hate FWD because it's slow (it isn't). I hate FWD because (all else being equal) it's not as fun. Of course, all else is not always equal and I'd rather drive a MCS than a V6 Mustang. But thanks to the FT, I won't have to settle for either of them.

Originally Posted by Dragonitti

Point of your picture is what?

You used the term wtq to describe something that is not wheel torque (after I thought it had been explained).

Originally Posted by Dragonitti

You don't dyno a car in 1st gear. It's the gear that's closest to 1:1 ratio. So again, his statement doesn't make sense. And a stock NA would not dyno 300ftlbs in 5th gear. Not making much sense and I'm not the only one not getting what he's talking about with the the whole wtq comments. WTQ stands for wheel torque in the gear that's closest to 1:1 ratio on a Dyno, it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

The overall ratio isn't anywhere near 1:1 in any gear. For most cars, it's in the ballpark of:

1st gear 12.0:1 to 16.5:1
top gear 2.5:1 to 4:1

Please reread what I wrote about how much wheel torque an S2k and MX5 make, and see my response to SUB-FT86 earlier in this post.

[SUB-FT86]

So what you're trying to say is torque doesn't lose torque to the wheels, only horsepower? If so that doesn't sound right. There is not a single dyno that I know of that shows the multiplied amount of torque based on gearing.

[Dragonitti]

Originally Posted by fatoni

if were gonna argue its going to be about semantics which is fine really. i understand the difference between hp and whp. i think the reason people brag about whp is because thats the number they measured. i dont think its fair to call something standard simply because an internet community uses it frequently especially when you are using terms like "closest to" and "estimated." its entirely possible measure the the bhp from the wheels. again, all i was doing is explaining that in a lower gear you are going to have more tq to the wheels. sorry if this appears to have turned into a little bit of a trollercoaster

Internet, car enthusiast, car groups...it's pretty standard across the board that anyone "other" than Manufactures talk in w(wheel)hp.

The "closest to" is referring to gears when on the dyno. It is what it is, that's how cars are measured. There is nothing else other than sitting there trying to do a series of mathematical equations, that's what dynos do already. Pretty sure some can take into account the gearing ratio of a vehicle when the dyno operator puts in the parameters for that car. But seriously do we need to be THAT anal about it?

Sure you have more torque to the wheels in lower gears, but that is not how a car is dynoed.

[Dragonitti]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

I do imagine that this engine is underrated or choked up pretty badly due to emissions, toyota knows most of us on the forum and a good amount of people not on the forum will put some sort of exhaust on this car to make it sound better and louder, if its not underrated i do expect good gains from bolt ons

Underatted means 100% stock, but dynoing more than it should thus the number at the crank is more than what was stated from the dealer, not adding mods to the engine and opening up the restriction of flow.

[Mr.Jay]

I think (hope) this thing will be chocked up to make emissions easier for sure as well as underrated

[Dragonitti]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Did I claim otherwise? I don't hate FWD because it's slow (it isn't). I hate FWD because (all else being equal) it's not as fun. Of course, all else is not always equal and I'd rather drive a MCS than a V6 Mustang. But thanks to the FT, I won't have to settle for either of them.

The fun part is bitch slapping those AWD and RWD cars with a FWD...

Originally Posted by Deslock

You used the term wtq to describe something that is not wheel torque (after I thought it had been explained).

It sounds like you are just being anal retentive. It is the standard measuring device, do you have a new method of acquiring the wheel torque that the rest of the free world is unaware of? Please do share. It is what we have to work with across the board period. I never stated a gear was going to be exactly 1:1. Cars are dynoed in the gear closest to 1:1 is what I stated. Like I said, if you want to design a system of measurement that finds out 100% down to the tenth degree, then have at it boss.

But to sit here an nit pick a common talk of wheel torque vs engine torque (being that wheel torque is in reference to a dyno measurement) is just being anal. No one cares that you think it doesn't represent the 100% accurate number seen at the wheels. It is common calculation and talk among all enthusiast. They don't sit there go...."well, it isn't really wheel torque you know, because X this and Y that..."

If the gear is multiplying the torque then so what....If that's what makes it to the ground, then that's what makes it to the ground.

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by pastuch

Your in the minority... nearly 80% of the people on Gencoupe forum voted that they dislike the new front end.
...snip...
The 2013 should be a a substantial improvement, Hyundai does listen to customer feedback. They put the engine we want in the 2.0T and fixed interior issues like the seatbelt holder. I just wish they put the Vega bumper on the 2013 with the new headlights and didn't include cheesy fake hood scoops. It screams low rent!

I invite you to check that thread again. That poll expired in August and, as said before, was based on crappy cell phone shots. I reopened the poll recently, and while we don't have as many votes (probably because we aren't getting Autoblog guests now) a wide majority of those who have voted do prefer the facelift now that we've seen the entire car.

Also, really, Vega? That's by far the ugliest kit made for the car, probably tied only with that godawful Tomato kit. Though I agree on the fake hood vents. Those are fail no matter how you look at it.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

So what you're trying to say is torque doesn't lose torque to the wheels, only horsepower?

That is not what I am saying.

Still not sure if you're pulling my leg. If so, bravo sir, bravo. If not, here's a more detailed explanation:

Drivetrain losses affect both engine torque and power. Look at this RSX-S dyno chart (slightly less peak torque and a slightly higher redline than what's expected from the FT):



It shows wheel power (which is the same as engine power minus drivetrain losses) and engine torque minus drivetrain losses (which is not the same thing as wheel torque). Note that this dyno's torque values don't exist anywhere: engine torque is amplified by gearing as it's diminished by friction, so by the time the RSX loses ~12% of its engine torque due to the drivetrain, it also gains ~220-1330% due to gearing (exchanged for a decrease in angular speed since the wheels are spinning slower than the engine).

So engine torque is slightly higher than the ~115-125 lbf*ft shown on that dyno, and wheel torque is *much* higher.

Why use these nonexistent pseudo engine torque values? (that account for drivetrain losses, but are plotted at the engine's angular speed rather than wheel speed)

A couple reasons:

• That's how this type of dyno works. By measuring force and speed at the wheels, it's very easy to figure out wheel power. Since engine speed is also measured, it's easy to then calculate engine torque (but because wheel power was used, drivetrain losses are represented).
• Including drivetrain losses with the engine torque makes it easy to calculate what wheel torque will be for various gear ratios.

In mathematical terms:

P = Power
T = Torque
w = angular speed
N = system efficiency (0.8-0.9 in most MT cars)
r = overall gear ratio

P = T * w
P_wheels = P_engine * N
T_wheels = T_engine * N * r (side note: w_wheels = w_engine / r)
T_wheels = P_wheels / w_wheels
T_wheels = P_engine * N / w_wheels [eq 1]

This basic relationship can also be described in terms of linear force at the wheels (rather than angular force, aka torque):

F = Force
v = velocity

P = F * v
F_wheels = P_wheels / velocity
F_wheels = P_engine * N / velocity [eq 2]

As eq 1 and eq 2 show, at any given vehicle speed, you increase force at the wheels if you increase engine power.

BTW, this page is handy when working out this sort of thing: http://www.fatboyraceworks.com/gears/ (it currently only has Honda data, but you can plug in anything).

I don't know if that clarified or confused things, but either way this is off topic. If anyone wishes to discuss it further, I suggest moving to PM or at least to a different thread.