Car & Driver Comparison Test Review: Veloster N vs. GTI vs. BRZ vs. GR86

[Robertw]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

What id the dyno readings are falsified?

Ah yes (grabs tin foil hat), go on I'm listening.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

What id the dyno readings are falsified?

1/4-mile trap speeds somewhat confirm that the new engine is underrated. 101mph vs. 95mph suggests about 21% more power vs. last-gen. A more significant bump than expected for sure...

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Robertw

Ah yes (grabs tin foil hat), go on I'm listening.

If under rated is an option then misreported by error or deliberation is as well.
There is zero reason why it would be officially under rated. None.
The discrepancy's in the measured drivetrain loss are just to great to be ignored. Something is off someplace.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by ZDan

1/4-mile trap speeds somewhat confirm that the new engine is underrated. 101mph vs. 95mph suggests about 21% more power vs. last-gen. A more significant bump than expected for sure...

Yep, I was skeptical of the dynographs until I saw the difference in trap speeds. Toyota and by extension Subaru learned from BMW that underrating your engines is a good thing, it makes your cars look faster than their ‘matched’ competition.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

If under rated is an option then misreported by error or deliberation is as well.
There is zero reason why it would be officially under rated. None.
The discrepancy's in the measured drivetrain loss are just to great to be ignored. Something is off someplace.

You may not like it, but many manufacturers have been doing it for decades. It makes the cars look good in comparison tests, and it also make sure that even if you get an absolute dog of an engine with a shit transmission, you still get the advertised horsepower. Not that that really happens anymore, but that was one of the historical reasons for underrating drivetrains.

[Robertw]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

If under rated is an option then misreported by error or deliberation is as well.
There is zero reason why it would be officially under rated. None.
The discrepancy's in the measured drivetrain loss are just to great to be ignored. Something is off someplace.

Using a Car and Driver article for consistency.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...a-dyno-tested/

"Next up on the dyno: the 2021 Supra. Engine revisions for this year include a new cylinder head and exhaust manifold, plus redesigned pistons. Toyota claims the turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six produces 382 horsepower and 368 lb-ft of torque at the engine's crankshaft. After a few runs on the dyno, the 2021 engine put down 388 horsepower and 421 lb-ft at the wheels. Remove the driveline losses, and the engine appears to be capable of 400 horsepower at the crank."


FYI, I still have my tin foil hat on for the next reply.

[Tcoat]

I give up.
It is the bestest car evers. As good as a Porsche! Let's ignore that other cars have changed in the interim.
The first gen was crap. Minivans and bicycles beat it every time.
Let's check back in a year and see what people are saying.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

There is zero reason [I can think of] why it would be officially under rated. None [that I can think of].

FTFY

The discrepancy's in the measured drivetrain loss are just to great to be ignored. Something is off someplace.

What's measured at the dyno is NOT "drivetrain loss". What is measured is power at the dyno drum. Taking a manufacturer's rated engine horsepower and subtracting what is measured at an independent dyno is going to be a potentially *wildly* inaccurate estimate of drivetrain loss. You'll be way closer just using 13% as a near-enough guess for an FR car like this.

All evidence suggests that the new engine is underrated. Dyno results (I wouldn't 100% rely on these), 1/4-mile trap speeds (a lot more reliable particularly if done by the same people and corrected for atmospheric conditions), and the fact that the new engine makes peak power at the same rpm as the last one (which suggests power gain roughly commensurate with displacement increase: +20%). Other manufacturers have underrated power output, it's nothing new.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Brand hierarchy is still a thing. The 2.0 Supra has a reported 255hp @$43,000 and laid down 215whp at Dsports dynojet. The Gen2 86 is laying down similar whp @ $28k. Nothing is off they just underrated it like GM, BMW and Porsche have done for years. How is this a bad thing. The engine is performing far better than I anticipated. Its already throwing up near K24A swap numbers dead stock.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

Gen1 cars are amazing, but your statement is not true. See below cut and paste from your link:

“ With only 200 horses and a 6400-rpm torque peak, there's no power cushion to adjust the *mid-corner pace”

Praise was there, but “not enough power” was too.

You should continue your quote with the next sentence:

"The Subion challenges drivers to maintain speed and when apex velocity is maxed out, so is the driver-satisfaction gauge."

So it wants to say that it is a momentum car. This is the pretty much the same for the new car which keeps the same character.

[Ernest72]

I’ll wait to test drive one and feel the difference. Numbers don’t mean as much for a DD. Still not switching from my 16 at stage 2. But if the new one feels great things could change, ya never know.

[Blighty]

Its probably a combination of things.

We know it is a 232 HP engine in japan, perhaps the lower rating in the US was based on a specific quality of pump gas, and with some good quality pump fuel you are getting another 4 or 5hp over the 228.

Other improvements in the drivetrain like the lightened drive shaft and perhaps some new oiling in the dif are also contributing to a reduction in loss.

I guess at the end of the day only toyota and subaru will be able to fully explain why the performance is looking as good as it is.

[Lantanafrs2]

Lots of resentment towards the new car. Its substantially quicker. That cant be argued.

[Ernest72]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

Lots of resentment towards the new car. Its substantially quicker. That cant be argued.

I don’t think it’s resentment, it’s uncertainty. If you own a Gen 1, you really can’t make a decision whether it’s worth it through videos, or dyno comparisons, etc.

I wholeheartedly, without a doubt believe that the Gen 2 stock is faster than my 16 with tune and catless header. But from a DD perspective, is that extra torque and power, worth returning to stock , selling various parts or maybe transferring some to a Gen 2, the additional money on the trade or sale and paying taxes again.

My gut feeling is it’s not worth it for my DD, but I will never know for sure until I get to drive one and do a direct comparison for myself.

There may be some people looking for something to justify staying with the Gen 1 (some confirmation bias going on). But after 25 years in the science field I know how to be objective. At the moment I am happy with the Gen 1 even if every Gen 2 is faster than me. Every minivan has been faster than me for the last 5 years of ownership, so its meaningless.

But my opinion could change after driving one. Nothing beats the direct comparison.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by ZDan

All evidence suggests that the new engine is underrated. Dyno results (I wouldn't 100% rely on these), 1/4-mile trap speeds (a lot more reliable particularly if done by the same people and corrected for atmospheric conditions), and the fact that the new engine makes peak power at the same rpm as the last one (which suggests power gain roughly commensurate with displacement increase: +20%). Other manufacturers have underrated power output, it's nothing new.

Not all evidence. Top speed in European car is very close to the old one which suggests that catalog power is not underrated. They didn't have any reason to underrate top speed in Germany and no reason to limit it electronically for stability reasons. If you don't want to listen me, then listen Tcoat. He knows what he is talking about...