GR86 ACTUAL 0-60 and Weight

[alphasaur]

14 seconds flat in the 1/4 is very quick for a N/A four banger. GTI, mazdaspeed 3, veloster turbo etc etc are all upper 13s low 14s.

[nikitopo]

I wouldn't say that power loses are exactly the same with 1st gen, because the engine revs faster and the rotational inertia is increased. As others said a ~15% loss is just an estimate and not the exact number of what you have on the crank.

[Lantanafrs2]

Theres more to acceleration than torque and horsepower. Gearing, traction etc. are a big part of it as well.

[mazeroni]

15% also works so well being it perfectly supports the 209 figure that Savagegeese got at the dyno. If the current car kept its 102.5 hp/ liter that means it makes 246 crank, minus 15% = 209. But yes, the losses could be lower and the actual crank could be lower too.

But only Subaru and Toyota know what is going on with the engine.

Part of me wonders if they are underrating the engine now because they know in the future, emissions will require they have to tune the engine more conservatively. So they don't want to list 240hp+ and then in 2-3 years have to list it as 228. They are listing it as 228 now, knowing that will be the actual number by the end of its lifespan. Have to wait and see if the car gets slower over time.

The 2022 Mustang GT just had this happen. It losses 10 hp. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2...s-regulations/

[Frost]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

15% also works so well being it perfectly supports the 209 figure that Savagegeese got at the dyno. If the current car kept its 102.5 hp/ liter that means it makes 246 crank, minus 15% = 209. But yes, the losses could be lower and the actual crank could be lower too.

But only Subaru and Toyota know what is going on with the engine.

Part of me wonders if they are underrating the engine now because they know in the future, emissions will require they have to tune the engine more conservatively. So they don't want to list 240hp+ and then in 2-3 years have to list it as 228. They are listing it as 228 now, knowing that will be the actual number by the end of its lifespan. Have to wait and see if the car gets slower over time.

The 2022 Mustang GT just had this happen. It losses 10 hp. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2...s-regulations/

That's a very good point.

[ayau]

Which is why fully electric vehicles are all the rave these days. "Zero" emissions coming out of the car.

It would appear the EPA cares more about emissions coming from the tailpipe rather than production/mining of the batteries. Just speculation.

[dragoontwo]

That's because the batteries aren't mined here so its not their problem. Its all the tailpipes here that are the problem.

[timurrrr]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

15% also works so well being it perfectly supports the 209 figure that Savagegeese got at the dyno. If the current car kept its 102.5 hp/ liter that means it makes 246 crank, minus 15% = 209.

Well, it's a lot of ifs and buts.
You're assuming that Savagegeese's data is perfectly correct (despite being an outlier so far),
and that the engine kept the same hp/liter, which it most likely didn't.

Here's an alternative point of view:

1. Savagegeese's data is an outlier for whatever reason
2. the power loses are ~30 hp in both cars.
3. 1st gen: 200–205 hp at crank - 30 = 170–175 whp.
4. 2nd gen: 228 hp at crank - 30 = 198 whp, which aligns with "high 190's whp" mentioned previously by Toyota engineers.

[Dzmitry]

Though intriguing, this discussion is stretching too far into the numbers. Everyone will have their opinions. Don't really care about the numbers... The acceleration time and quarter mile are PLENTY impressive for this car with superior handling characteristics.

We've got a little animal coming. And for those that are into tuning, some headers at the minimum, and E85 if available, will give this baby the potential for low 13's in the quarter mile. THAT will be impressive and awesome for a modern NA 4-banger that didn't even have serious acceleration in mind.

[Kona61]

Originally Posted by timurrrr

Well, it's a lot of ifs and buts.
You're assuming that Savagegeese's data is perfectly correct (despite being an outlier so far),
and that the engine kept the same hp/liter, which it most likely didn't.

Here's an alternative point of view:

1. Savagegeese's data is an outlier for whatever reason
2. the power loses are ~30 hp in both cars.
3. 1st gen: 200–205 hp at crank - 30 = 170–175 whp.
4. 2nd gen: 228 hp at crank - 30 = 198 whp, which aligns with "high 190's whp" mentioned previously by Toyota engineers.

I personally have seen 1st gens dynoing much closer to 155-160ish than 170-175. Regardless! The car is faster than a S2K and that makes me happier than any dyno ever could lol.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

The acceleration time and quarter mile are PLENTY impressive for this car with superior handling characteristics.

Originally Posted by Kona61

Regardless! The car is faster than a S2K and that makes me happier than any dyno ever could lol.

This. The real world results against known cars is enough to get me very excited about the straight line performance. Like Matt Farah said the car no longer needs an asterisk, and that is good enough for me.

[nikitopo]

Why does it say "Results above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec."? I was aware that timing for a quarter mile starts from a standstill. So is it not really a 14.0 sec , but more likely a 14.3 sec?

It looks that C&D changed this procedure back in '19:

https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...hange-rollout/


I believe that it is not an apples to apples comparison with the older S2k timings.

[timurrrr]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Why does it say "Results above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec."? I was aware that timing for a quarter mile starts from a standstill.

See also

Originally Posted by nikitopo

So is it not really a 14.0 sec , but more likely a 14.3 sec?

Depends.
If you go to a drag strip in the US, it will tell you you did 14.0.

But 14.3 represents the "standstill to quarter mile" time better indeed.

Originally Posted by nikitopo

It looks that C&D changed this procedure back in '19:

https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...hange-rollout/

I believe that it is not an apples to apples comparison with the older S2k timings.

That's a good point!
They did however specify that they'll be re-calculating times for past vehicles.
Ideally we should check each individual test for old cars to see if they've been updated,
and which of the two numbers were picked for the comparison above.

[timurrrr]

Agree with the sentiment that real acceleration numbers, and results of real side-by-side drag races is what really matters to measure straight line performance.

Otherwise we are making some questionable assumptions (power losses are always the same %!), questionable data (some dynos show low 190's, some show 209), and then a few more layers of guestimation...
The combined range of uncertainty of the results is probably almost as big as the actual change in performance.