Engine feel Gen1 vs Gen2 comparison

[Robertw]

Originally Posted by RippedManiac

This is like AP1 vs AP2 S2000.

I wonder if AP2 owners were total jerks to AP1 owners too. Or its just the ones whos been PAID for their driving

Didn't the AP2 make less power, more torque, but lowered the redline vs the AP1? Meanwhile the 2nd gen BRZ makes significantly more power, and torque across the board.

So the discussion regarding AP1 vs AP2 and which has the better motor could be more subjective (depending on what you prefer tq or hp), meanwhile 1st gen vs 2nd gen BRZ the motor discussion regarding which is better is clearly more objective?

[sds]

Originally Posted by RippedManiac

This is like AP1 vs AP2 S2000.

I wonder if AP2 owners were total jerks to AP1 owners too. Or its just the ones whos been PAID for their driving

Originally Posted by Robertw

Didn't the AP2 make less power, more torque, but lowered the redline vs the AP1? Meanwhile the 2nd gen BRZ makes significantly more power, and torque across the board.

So the discussion regarding AP1 vs AP2 and which has the better motor could be more subjective (depending on what you prefer tq or hp), meanwhile 1st gen vs 2nd gen BRZ the motor discussion regarding which is better is clearly more objective?

AP2 didn't make >20% more power than the AP1.

The power increase in the 2nd gen twins for many folks made the difference between a "great car that's slow" and a "great car that's quick enough," and ultimately, that's really what matters. It's finally passed the bar for "quick enough"--and yes, there is a binary distinction there. A sports car with an underwhelming engine just isn't well-rounded.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by RippedManiac

I believe in a thing called love.

Just listen to the rhythm of my heart

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Robertw

Didn't the AP2 make less power, more torque, but lowered the redline vs the AP1? Meanwhile the 2nd gen BRZ makes significantly more power, and torque across the board.

So the discussion regarding AP1 vs AP2 and which has the better motor could be more subjective (depending on what you prefer tq or hp), meanwhile 1st gen vs 2nd gen BRZ the motor discussion regarding which is better is clearly more objective?

AP1's usually dyno around 5-10 whp less than AP2's. Early AP1's were also lighter and considered the most raw (no DBW, no VSA, plastic rear window, bumpsteer issues, etc.) In my experience, AP2's are a bit faster than AP1's in a straight line, around 1-2 car lengths at the end of 3rd.

So I can kind of see the connection he's making. 1st gen 86 has the smaller engine, makes less power/torque, and is slower than 2nd gen. But it's also lighter and more raw overall, sort of like the AP1.

In the S2000 community, there was a rift between AP1 and AP2 owners when the AP2 came out. It kind of continues today, although mostly joking around.

--------------------

Back to the original topic, I think Subaru/Toyota really shot themselves in the foot with the 1st gens having the sound tube. After I removed mine, I was pretty shocked how refined and smooth (albeit quiet) the engine sounded. It actually felt smoother in the upper RPM's than my friend's AP2 for example. From videos, the 2nd gen cars seem to have a smoother synthetic engine note than the 1st gen's gritty sound tube so that should help.

[Robertw]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

AP1's usually dyno around 5-10 whp less than AP2's. Early AP1's were also lighter and considered the most raw (no DBW, no VSA, plastic rear window, bumpsteer issues, etc.) In my experience, AP2's are a bit faster than AP1's in a straight line, around 1-2 car lengths at the end of 3rd.

So I can kind of see the connection he's making. 1st gen 86 has the smaller engine, makes less power/torque, and is slower than 2nd gen. But it's also lighter and more raw overall, sort of like the AP1.

In the S2000 community, there was a rift between AP1 and AP2 owners when the AP2 came out. It kind of continues today, although mostly joking around.

I would see the connection being made if the 2nd gen BRZ made 5hp more than the 1st gen, but that's not the case. Since this thread is about the motors, idk how one can spin an argument that the FA20 is better...

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Robertw

I would see the connection being made if the 2nd gen BRZ made 5hp more than the 1st gen, but that's not the case. Since this thread is about the motors, idk how one can spin an argument that the FA20 is better...

He was responding to a comment that the 1st gen felt more raw to drive, albeit slower. He connected that to AP1 vs. AP2. He's not saying the FA20 is better.

[Robertw]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

He was responding to a comment that the 1st gen felt more raw to drive, albeit slower. He connected that to AP1 vs. AP2. He's not saying the FA20 is better.

Gotcha. I guess I'm ok with a car feeling slightly less "raw" for 50 more hp, and spending the $300 in poly bushings to add some "raw" NVH back into the car later.

[ZDan]

AP1 vs. AP2 isn't exactly analogous. AP2 tested 1mph faster in the 1/4 vs. AP1, 2nd-gen FT86 is *6mph* faster in the 1/4 vs. 1st-gen.
While AP2s typically dyno 3-5% higher, they have less rpm headroom above power peak.

For me, most of the AP1 vs. AP2 changes are desirable, but losing 800-1000rpm was a disappointment for many of us... Improving the rear suspension geometry for the AP2 was a big benefit and IMO didn't make it "less raw", it just fixed a glaring error. Glass rear window with defrost? Fine! I went with a glass window when I replaced the top in my AP1.

For gen-2 FT86, you get +20% torque most places and +30% in the midrange, same peak power rpm, basically unchanged redline/rev-limiter (+100rpm on the tach), barely any weight gain, it all looks great to me! Except for slightly even more abysmal weight distribution at ~55.5/44.5 vs. 55/45...

[PBR]

[QUOTE=ZDan;3498248]AP1 vs. AP2 isn't exactly analogous. AP2 tested 1mph faster in

For gen-2 FT86, you get +20% torque most places and +30% in the midrange, same peak power rpm, basically unchanged redline/rev-limiter (+100rpm on the tach), barely any weight gain, it all looks great to me! Except for slightly even more abysmal weight distribution at ~55.5/44.5 vs.

The weight distribution is annoying. Looking for a lightweight battery and about to install Cusco rear LCAs because they looked like the heaviest I could find haha. Never got on with my AP2. The lack of steering feel was a big disappointment. Also the chassis felt wobbly. Don't know the figures bit I'd guess the torsional rigidity to be quite low. Found the S2k to be less than the sum of its parts where the 86s are more than the sum or their parts.

[7 skulls]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Just listen to the rhythm of my heart

There's a chance we can make now.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by ZDan

AP1 vs. AP2 isn't exactly analogous. AP2 tested 1mph faster in the 1/4 vs. AP1, 2nd-gen FT86 is *6mph* faster in the 1/4 vs. 1st-gen.
While AP2s typically dyno 3-5% higher, they have less rpm headroom above power peak.

Yep to be clear, I don’t think it’s the same situation, just that there are similarities. Interestingly I’ve heard AP1’s are now being sought for their “rawness” even if arguably not as good.

Originally Posted by PBR

The weight distribution is annoying. Looking for a lightweight battery and about to install Cusco rear LCAs because they looked like the heaviest I could find haha. Never got on with my AP2. The lack of steering feel was a big disappointment. Also the chassis felt wobbly. Don't know the figures bit I'd guess the torsional rigidity to be quite low. Found the S2k to be less than the sum of its parts where the 86s are more than the sum or their parts.

An easy and useful way to gain weight back on the rear of the gen 2 is to add a spare tire. That’s something they deleted from the gen 2 (probably to minimize listed weight gain between generations) but also affected the weight balance.

[PBR]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Yep to be clear, I don’t think it’s the same situation, just that there are similarities. Interestingly I’ve heard AP1’s are now being sought for their “rawness” even if arguably not as good.



An easy and useful way to gain weight back on the rear of the gen 2 is to add a spare tire. That’s something they deleted from the gen 2 (probably to minimize listed weight gain between generations) but also affected the weight balance.

Good call

[OkieSnuffBox]

Adding weight to the rear to change the distribution seems silly. Lightweight battery and AP Sprint brakes alone on the front pulls 40+ lbs out. Lightweigh 17" wheels will pull even more.

Not to mention, on the street or for the average HPDE driver, I seriously doubt you'd even notice the small change in weight distribution by adding the "trunk junk" back.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

An easy and useful way to gain weight back on the rear of the gen 2 is to add a spare tire. That’s something they deleted from the gen 2 (probably to minimize listed weight gain between generations) but also affected the weight balance.

IMO this makes it even more annoying. The car gained ~40 lb. while removing the spare, so it's more like +65 lb. with vs. with or without vs. without. Adding weight to the rear of the car will hurt rather than help performance while barely "improving" F/R distribution.

FWIW I run to a minimum weight for my class, so I run with all the trunk junk, sub-5 lb. battery, 2-piece front rotors, catless header, empty washer reservoir, around 55 lb. off the nose of the car, still ~53.5F/46.5R.

Just wish they'd make a shorter-wheelbase version with rear wheels moved forward ~10". Or same wheelbase with both fronts and rears moved ~4" forward. That would give it a decent 50/50 - 52/48 F/R weight distribution for an FR car. Also, it looks frankly ridiculous having the rear wheels shoved way far aft, as if that's what people who miss the Scion tC might want!