New rumor: 1.6-liter turbocharged engine one year after initial introduction

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by madfast

you did. you mentioned F1. the F1 turbo cars rev to 12000 rpm. they also had big ass turbos. how else did they make 1200+ hp?



in terms of turbo tech? yeah. pretty much... rally teams rebuild their engines how many times?



lol the hardware was there, but mitsu isnt stupid enough to actually have it work...



it is impossible to get both high hp and super quick spool from a 1.6L. just because you slap a turbo on a small displacement motor doesnt make it a performance car. im talking about performance cars. 1.6L is not an engine to put in a performance car unless its light as heck...



both. the FT is lighter so it wont need as much hp to make it go, BUT that doesnt change anything about the tq curve, area under curve, etc.

They wouldn't be slapping a turbo on an economy motor, for fuck sakes...

Subaru has how many 1.6L motors in its current line up?

They would be building a performance 1.6L turbo motor for the purpose of connecting the future WRX to the WRC's 1.6L requirement. And possibly for whatever is left over of the WRC's homologation requirements.

The whole point of the WRC and F1 moving to smaller turbo motors is that the FIA has decided to make the tech more relevant to road cars.

On top of that Subaru's knocked a ton of weight of the Impreza, and a reasonable assumption would be that the lightweight philosophy will carry over to the WRX/STI.

Compared to your Evo X you would be talking only a 400cc displacement loss for what could amount to about a 200-400 lbs weight loss. And the EJ207 compared to the EJ257 has shown that an appropriately tuned smaller displacement motor is able to perform on par, or even better, than larger ones. And the EJ207 isn't even using all of the turbo spooling tech that's available.

[Type[R]+]

Madfast, have you heard of WRC group N?

You trying to tell me no rally turbo tech is in a Mitsubishi Evo? You trolling?

Originally Posted by madfast

lol the hardware was there, but mitsu isnt stupid enough to actually have it work...

You really want to go there? Seriously? After all that's been posted up? Seriously? Are you sure? Seriously?

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by madfast

it is impossible to get both high hp and super quick spool from a 1.6L. just because you slap a turbo on a small displacement motor doesnt make it a performance car. im talking about performance cars. 1.6L is not an engine to put in a performance car unless its light as heck...

I will let you in on a little secret, but you have to be very quiet. It's called a Variable geometry turbocharger. Shhhhhhh. The Europeans might hear you......

[chaoskaze]

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

I will let you in on a little secret, but you have to be very quiet. It's called a Variable geometry turbocharger. Shhhhhhh. The Europeans might hear you......

That's too expensive,I would say something like that twincharger 1.4 TSI from vw is more possible.... but I don't think so Let's keep dreaming.

=P first post here....been checking this website on a daily basis for a while now

[Levi]

I would still prefere a NA 2,5l H4 producing 250-300 PS. As I see how to debate of NA vs. FI goes with the FT-86/BRZ, I really hope TRD/Gazoo are going to offer a good turbokit/superchargerkit for the 2,0l good for over 300 PS and and enginekit to bring it up to 2,5l for up to 300 PS in NA form. In this way both the FI and NA fans will be satisfied.

[serialk11r]

82mm 4g63 I think there's one small mistake in your explanation of that particular antilag system. You said the delayed ignition timing means the fuel is mostly unburned, but I don't think that's true. If the ignition timing is delayed 40 degrees lets say, that certainly does reduce combustion efficiency, but its main effect is essentially reducing the engine's compression ratio to about 2:1 (the flame having to spread most of the length of the cylinder means this can be below 2, depending on engine speed), which means very little energy is extracted from the fuel in terms of work, and most is blown out the exhaust...except the turbo uses that to keep on spinning

I read that modern anti-lag don't do that though, they feed air from the compressor directly into the turbine (controlled by a valve so you don't have gases leaking the wrong way under power). Theoretically, that would mean some portion of turbine power (possibly up to 60%, if turbine and compressor are operating at max efficiency) goes back into the system, so even without fuel it should spin a good bit longer. It's like cutting the fuel to a jet engine off, as opposed to cutting the fuel and then blocking the intake. Since the engine still runs it also pumps a little air through and keeps it going, and you can tune the engine to still add some fuel (like a carbureted engine) even when the throttle pedal is released to add some of the effect of the "old" ALS.

[SUB-FT86]

So Madfast, how do you feel about the Mini Cooper JCW? 208hp@5500/197tq@2000-5000rpms tq in a 2600 lb car sounds much better than my 2.0liter 155hp@6300/140tq@5000 rpms in a 2770 lb car. Even if my car was a type S(141tq@6000RPMS) the JCW's engine sounds more of a daily drivers engine IMHO. 141tq@5-6000 rpms < 197 tq@2-5000 rpms.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

lawl, link for Physics defying.
http://www.crzforum.com/forum/afterm...dly-crz-5.html

Originally Posted by Type[R]+

Lawl!

Not too small. Nissan was planning to use a 1.6T in the S16. Honda's B16A/B's are animals with a turbo strapped on them. WRC is 1.6T. Formula one going to 1.6L next season.

How much more performance do you want?

All this. While IMO I'd prefer at least a turbo 2.0, a 1.6 is perfectly capable of making 500hp on boost.

Originally Posted by Dimman

They need to bring back strict homologation rules.

ie if Ford wants to use a 1.6L turbo AWD Fiesta with anti lag and sequential trans, in WRC, they have to make at least 2500 of them!



That would instantly make the Fiesta interesting to me.

Werd son.

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

All this. While IMO I'd prefer at least a turbo 2.0, a 1.6 is perfectly capable of making 500hp on boost.

Don't get me wrong, I do too, but nothing wrong with a 1.6L turbo.

Volumetric efficiency is the name of the game, and 500cc/cylinder is it for NA engines. That goes out the window somewhat with the addition of a turbo.

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by Levi

I would still prefere a NA 2,5l H4 producing 250-300 PS. As I see how to debate of NA vs. FI goes with the FT-86/BRZ, I really hope TRD/Gazoo are going to offer a good turbokit/superchargerkit for the 2,0l good for over 300 PS and and enginekit to bring it up to 2,5l for up to 300 PS in NA form. In this way both the FI and NA fans will be satisfied.

A good rotrex supercharger will do nice!

Here's a kit from here in Australia:
http://www.bulletcars.com/supercharg...er-system.html

[blur]

What's the MPG gonna look like on a turbo 1.6l?

[Type[R]+]

Originally Posted by blur

What's the MPG gonna look like on a turbo 1.6l?

Should be very good.

Mini JCW (155kw 260nm) gets a low 34mpg.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Dimman

They need to bring back strict homologation rules.

ie if Ford wants to use a 1.6L turbo AWD Fiesta with anti lag and sequential trans, in WRC, they have to make at least 2500 of them!



That would instantly make the Fiesta interesting to me.

Sure, if you are fine with paying $25k for a Fiesta with AWD and turbo, than it would be a great idea.

Originally Posted by Levi

I would still prefere a NA 2,5l H4 producing 250-300 PS. As I see how to debate of NA vs. FI goes with the FT-86/BRZ, I really hope TRD/Gazoo are going to offer a good turbokit/superchargerkit for the 2,0l good for over 300 PS and and enginekit to bring it up to 2,5l for up to 300 PS in NA form. In this way both the FI and NA fans will be satisfied.

If this ever happens it'll just be a matter of turboing the N/A 2.0L block to get more torque. Obviously a turbo engine will perform better in the long run but if you want more torque you're going to have to use a bigger displacement.

This car is not getting a 2.5L, we already know that by now Levi. Subaru is switching over their US cars to the standard 2.0L displacement they use everywhere else.

Given the price for a Subaru turbo engine, I would probably stick with the N/A 2.0L either way.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Dimman

They would be building a performance 1.6L turbo motor for the purpose of connecting the future WRX to the WRC's 1.6L requirement. And possibly for whatever is left over of the WRC's homologation requirements.

like i said, they would have to cut a ton of weight for the 1.6L to make enough power. high strength steel, etc. can only cut so much weight. the car would have to be way smaller. so maybe that's why they're going to make the WRX a separate model.

Originally Posted by Dimman

Compared to your Evo X you would be talking only a 400cc displacement loss for what could amount to about a 200-400 lbs weight loss. And the EJ207 compared to the EJ257 has shown that an appropriately tuned smaller displacement motor is able to perform on par, or even better, than larger ones. And the EJ207 isn't even using all of the turbo spooling tech that's available.

"Only" 400cc? do you know how fast a 400cc sportbike can go? and lets separate the WRC rally car from the street car here. in WRC they can run with a super high idle, anti-lag and all that stuff that keeps the boost up. on the street all you have is whatever the 1.6 can muster to make boost. AND that boost is likely to be spiky, etc. its the nature of the beast.

again the alternative is a dramatic downsizing of the car into a FT or miata sized machine. its 100% possible. but if we assume its going to stay similar to the current 4 door, 5 passenger car? 1.6L is NOT enough....