All-New 2022 Subaru BRZ Makes Global Debut

[beltax90]

。

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Not sure why the 4.1 is being knocked around since it was already bumped up to a 4.3 for 3 years now. I think that the difference it made between my 2014 and my 2020 is one of my favourite things. It is truly noticeable for the better.




A lot of what they will do with it will be dictated by emissions and mileage. I know people like to pretend that is meaningless but it is their constraint and they have to compromise.


As I said above I completely love the change from the 4.1 to 4.3 but it came at a cost. I drive the same route, the same way every day. My drive is 95% 70mph with cruise on 80% of that time so there is very little fluctuation in mileage.
With the FRS my average mileage was an unwavering 32MPG. With the 86 it is now an unwavering 30MPG. I don't care but even though it is only 2MPG you can bet that Subaru/Toyota will! As the requirements get tighter and tighter they will need to scavenge every single MPG they can get and that will be counter to what most "enthusiasts" want from the car.

That’s probably true too. Obviously mpgs didn’t stop them with the refresh but 2mpg is a 6.25% reduction in fuel economy, which is significant to bean counters. With that said, 0-60 is still likely to lead the decision making, IMO. If the gearing requires an extra shift then they will stretch out the gearing to make it not happen for whatever is faster on paper, especially to make it faster than the last gen.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Not sure why the 4.1 is being knocked around since it was already bumped up to a 4.3 for 3 years now. I think that the difference it made between my 2014 and my 2020 is one of my favourite things. It is truly noticeable for the better.

1. With 3.9 gearing, the 2.4 will still provide greater torque to the wheels vs. the 2.0 with 4.3 gearing.
2. With greater displacement, probably need to gear a bit taller for mpg

For me, shorter (numerically "higher") gearing is more of a drag-strip or "zero-to-XXmph" thing. Once you're rolling, you're still free to rev each gear out up to 7400rpm if you want.

I remember serious sportbikes from the 90s, the "R" track-oriented versions would have *taller* final-drive (sprocket) gearing, with closer transmission ratios. The idea being who cares how you're geared below minimum corner speeds...

With the FRS my average mileage was an unwavering 32MPG. With the 86 it is now an unwavering 30MPG. I don't care but even though it is only 2MPG you can bet that Subaru/Toyota will!

Just went to "fuelly.com" and confirm, average mpg 2013-2016 = 27.0mpg, 2017-2020 = 26.1mpg. (note: I averaged by number of cars they have data for each year, not by number of miles reported).

As the requirements get tighter and tighter they will need to scavenge every single MPG they can get and that will be counter to what most "enthusiasts" want from the car.

Yeah, counter to what most "enthusiasts" want. But for me, personally I'd like for cars to get smaller and lighter-weight, and that is one way to improve fuel mileage! Unfortunately CAFE regs have been tweaked to FAVOR bigger cars, and ESPECIALLY big/dumb SUVs

[Cephas]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I remember serious sportbikes from the 90s, the "R" track-oriented versions would have *taller* final-drive (sprocket) gearing, with closer transmission ratios. The idea being who cares how you're geared below minimum corner speeds...

True damn story. Made them a bear to launch, if you did want to go drag racing. If I remember right, the K5 GSXR1k was the first bike to have a 100mph first gear. Madness.

[Cephas]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Back to DSM as another example of that phenomenon. They had one engine for two model years that might have crank walk issues but if you listen to the internet it was every engine they every made that was going to self destruct. The reality was it was somewhere in the hundreds but it is such a common myth it is meme worthy.

I guess if somebody would have left them stock they might've been okay... But I never saw anybody leave them stock, so for awhile around here you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a pulled-over-and-smoking DSM.

After that it was Evos and SRT4s.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ZDan

1. With 3.9 gearing, the 2.4 will still provide greater torque to the wheels vs. the 2.0 with 4.3 gearing.
2. With greater displacement, probably need to gear a bit taller for mpg

For me, shorter (numerically "higher") gearing is more of a drag-strip or "zero-to-XXmph" thing. Once you're rolling, you're still free to rev each gear out up to 7400rpm if you want.

I remember serious sportbikes from the 90s, the "R" track-oriented versions would have *taller* final-drive (sprocket) gearing, with closer transmission ratios. The idea being who cares how you're geared below minimum corner speeds...



Just went to "fuelly.com" and confirm, average mpg 2013-2016 = 27.0mpg, 2017-2020 = 26.1mpg. (note: I averaged by number of cars they have data for each year, not by number of miles reported).



Yeah, counter to what most "enthusiasts" want. But for me, personally I'd like for cars to get smaller and lighter-weight, and that is one way to improve fuel mileage! Unfortunately CAFE regs have been tweaked to FAVOR bigger cars, and ESPECIALLY big/dumb SUVs

True for 1 and 2.


Ya the regs are all leaning in one way and sometimes put the other vehicles in a tight spot. They could probably use their fleet carbon credits to offset some of requirements but they like to hang onto those for their heavy hitter bigger volume vehicles.

[DarkSideFRS]

Originally Posted by Cephas

I got bad news for ya'... Co-developed platforms are basically where everything is going. It's already been this way for some time. Yamaha building motors for Volvo, Volvo building motors for Ford, Subaru building a motor (and most of the rest of the car) for Toyota, Toyota slapping a body kit on a Z4 and calling it a Supra... Lots of economic reasons for this, and it won't slow down as long as car companies continue to take financial interests in each other.

That said, the FA20 hasn't been that bad, after the early model year woes were over. Nothing like the trail of disaster that, say, Nissan's QR25DE motor was, at significantly lower power numbers. The boxer is unlikely to be as rock-solid as some of Toyota's native power plants, sure. But it also makes a lot more juice, sounds loads better, and lowers the CG of the car as an added bonus.

i know and it's sad cos it's all to drive cost down.... subaru to me is like the GM of japan... they make shit motors... between the issues i had with mine due to the recall and my buddy's STI getting rod knock, i have lost all faith in subaru motors... i wish toyota would have partnered with honda for the 86 development

[Cephas]

Originally Posted by DarkSideFRS

i know and it's sad cos it's all to drive cost down.... subaru to me is like the GM of japan... they make shit motors... between the issues i had with mine due to the recall and my buddy's STI getting rod knock, i have lost all faith in subaru motors... i wish toyota would have partnered with honda for the 86 development

Nonsense... if there's a GM in Japan, it's Nissan. Remind me to tell you one day how I nursed my wife's Sentra Spec-V through not one, but two fatal design flaws.

[DarkSideFRS]

Originally Posted by Cephas

Nonsense... if there's a GM in Japan, it's Nissan. Remind me to tell you one day how I nursed my wife's Sentra Spec-V through not one, but two fatal design flaws.

Nissan made some of the best 6 cylinder motors of all time.. the RB motors in the past and the more recent VQ motors.. those motors are solid... maybe they were not as good with 4 cylinder motors haha

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by ZDan

1. With 3.9 gearing, the 2.4 will still provide greater torque to the wheels vs. the 2.0 with 4.3 gearing.
2. With greater displacement, probably need to gear a bit taller for mpg

For me, shorter (numerically "higher") gearing is more of a drag-strip or "zero-to-XXmph" thing. Once you're rolling, you're still free to rev each gear out up to 7400rpm if you want.

I remember serious sportbikes from the 90s, the "R" track-oriented versions would have *taller* final-drive (sprocket) gearing, with closer transmission ratios. The idea being who cares how you're geared below minimum corner speeds...



Just went to "fuelly.com" and confirm, average mpg 2013-2016 = 27.0mpg, 2017-2020 = 26.1mpg. (note: I averaged by number of cars they have data for each year, not by number of miles reported).



Yeah, counter to what most "enthusiasts" want. But for me, personally I'd like for cars to get smaller and lighter-weight, and that is one way to improve fuel mileage! Unfortunately CAFE regs have been tweaked to FAVOR bigger cars, and ESPECIALLY big/dumb SUVs

I dont think the favor is towards bigger cars neccessarily, but i do think the ever changing regulations just keeps ADDING things to the cars which makes them bigger and heavier.

[Cephas]

Originally Posted by DarkSideFRS

Nissan made some of the best 6 cylinder motors of all time.. the RB motors in the past and the more recent VQ motors.. those motors are solid... maybe they were not as good with 4 cylinder motors haha

I mean, sure, but the electrical problems are ubiquitous across their fleet. I'm mildly surprised the Leaf didn't spontaneously burst into flames.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

I dont think the favor is towards bigger cars neccessarily, but i do think the ever changing regulations just keeps ADDING things to the cars which makes them bigger and heavier.

CAFE_2017-25_Fact_Sheet.pdf
The CAFE standards are based on a vehicle’s size, or footprint,8 where every size vehicle has a fuel economy target. Generally, the larger the vehicle footprint, the lower the corresponding vehicle fuel economy target.

8 Essentially, the space between the points at which the tires touch the ground.

https://www.cargroup.org/wp-content/...US-Economy.pdf
Footprint Standard
The new fuel economy regulations include a vehicle footprint standard. The standard assigns different
fuel economy targets to vehicles based on individual footprint, which is equivalent to the vehicle width
multiplied by the wheelbase.25 Vehicles with a smaller footprint are assigned a more stringent fuel
economy standard than vehicles with larger footprints. Researchers have suggested that a footprint-based
CAFE standard incentivizes automakers to increase the size of the vehicles they produce.26

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Cephas

I guess if somebody would have left them stock they might've been okay... But I never saw anybody leave them stock, so for awhile around here you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a pulled-over-and-smoking DSM.

After that it was Evos and SRT4s.

Or modded them right! I was on a DSM forum (when forums were just text only and harder than hell to navigate) and saw a lot of dumb stuff done once the cars became cheap enough. Even worse than here! The guys that did things right and spent some cash were rarely on the side of the road. Those that took shortcuts or cheeped out rarely left it. There was also the simple fact that most of them that were made were NA SOHC engines that people turboed and then grossly over boosted didn't help. The DOHC engines were far more robust but they were only about 20% of the 3 million cars that were made over the gens.


I did have a catastrophic failure but it was my own fault for thinking "I am double the recommended schedule to change the timing belt but it is still fine so I will wait a bit more". Turned the head into a piece of modern art with the valves. Wasn't the car's fault though.

[Cephas]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Or modded them right!

What, do you mean to say it's inadvisable to stuff 40psi through a shitty little 2L motor with stock internals?