2015 WRX vs. FR-S/BRZ

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

Does having 100 hp/liter make the car faster than other cars that don't hit that mark? No. Guys with Mustang GT 5.0s and anything powered by AMG's 6.3 will tell you that really quick.

It's great from an engineering perspective but it doesn't translate into mind-boggling performance. The 1999-2000 Civic Si had 100 hp/liter too but that didn't make the car better. I like it that a car can make that much with what it's got, but it's not new ground and definitely not an automatic qualifier for being something amazing.

We are not talking about performance of the car. I am talking specifically about the engineering and how the fa20 is a really good engine. No one said it was the best engine. I did say, IMO of course, there is not a better NA 4 cyl currently.

This is all getting way off topic, by the way.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

But being fair, a lot of companies are straying from performance-oriented NA four-cylinders at the moment and going turbo. It would be like bragging about having the best five-speed transmission. Sure, it may very well be extremely competitive within that description and be a fine unit, but everyone else is starting to do something different.

It's not so much straying, as they were essentially forced to change because of worldwide emissions and fuel economy standards. That's the real reason Honda switched from a high-strung NA engine to FI for their higher performance Civics. They made numerous statements to that effect when discussing why they discontinued the K20 a few years ago.

@tahdizzle is right. The FA20 is the best NA 2.0L on the market today (for better or worse), and as Toyota mentioned during development, it was only feasible to develop a 100 hp/L NA engine in today's regulatory climate due to the efficiency gains of direct injection.

Last thing - I've owned a K20 and B18 in the past. Honestly the FA20 is fine for what it is and revs nicely once you get past 4500 RPM. If I had any complaint, it'd be the torque dip, but even in the torque dip it's still making more torque than a K20A2. With a tune and UEL header, the torque dip doesn't bother me anymore and the engine sounds great.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

It's not so much straying, as they were essentially forced to change because of worldwide emissions and fuel economy standards. That's the real reason Honda switched from a high-strung NA engine to FI for their higher performance Civics. They made numerous statements to that effect when discussing why they discontinued the K20 a few years ago.

The reason is irrelevant, especially when the switch to FI had just about always resulted in more hp, more torque, better fuel economy and lower emissions. And that has been the outcome in just about every application. There are few reasons to stick with NA... not saying it's outdated at all, but when you weigh the pros and cons, you should almost expect it to happen, ESPECIALLY in the performance realm. Even Ferrari has strapped a couple of snails on their cars, and the 488 GTB's numbers already destroy the 458 Speciale's. Not that I ever thought the car is slow, as I have had track time in a 458.

[EAGLE5]

I have a tune and EL header. I have to be careful with the throttle in turns. Otherwise the back steps out. Don't know what cars you guys are driving, but I can't imagine they're an FR-S. The engine is just fucking peachy. It sings. It causes fizzy feelings. If you drive the FR-S as it is meant to be driven, you will not need more power. If you drive it in a straight line all the time, you bought the wrong car, fool.

[tahdizzle]

At pretty much stock power levels (headers back bolt ons) I can't kick the tail out as easily since I switched to 245 re11a tires.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

The reason is irrelevant, especially when the switch to FI had just about always resulted in more hp, more torque, better fuel economy and lower emissions. And that has been the outcome in just about every application. There are few reasons to stick with NA... not saying it's outdated at all, but when you weigh the pros and cons, you should almost expect it to happen, ESPECIALLY in the performance realm. Even Ferrari has strapped a couple of snails on their cars, and the 488 GTB's numbers already destroy the 458 Speciale's. Not that I ever thought the car is slow, as I have had track time in a 458.

I think the reason is relevant insofar as people love to sing Honda's praises, but even Honda couldn't find an economical way to create a 100 hp/L NA 2.0 engine in the current regulatory climate. It's not like they just decided to walk away because they got tired of NA. So Toyota/Subaru deserve some credit with the FA20.

Also interesting point about Ferrari - apparently even their engineers don't particularly like turbos:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...turbocharging/

Turbos have their upsides, especially in terms of "real estate under the curve". They definitely punch above their weight for that reason when it comes to lap times. And if I was looking to win a horsepower limited race at all costs, I'd go with a turbo with fat midrange for that reason.

But maybe I'm old school - I just think NA is more exciting and responsive. This particularly hits home for me comparing the 2.0L TFSI in my GTI vs. the FA20 in my FR-S. Even with the TFSI making peak torque as low as 1800 RPM using a small turbo, the transient response never feels as crisp as a NA engine.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

But it's constantly improving though. Turbos have come a loooong way. I grew up with a 1985 Mercedes 300D Turbodiesel, and I remember how slowly it responded. World of a difference in my 2006 Evo and in my brother's 2015 320i.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

But it's constantly improving though. Turbos have come a loooong way. I grew up with a 1985 Mercedes 300D Turbodiesel, and I remember how slowly it responded. World of a difference in my 2006 Evo and in my brother's 2015 320i.

Yeah definitely. I used to have an STI with an EJ257 that was essentially developed a decade prior. I think turbo engines have come a long way since then.

I think engineers are constantly working on ways to make turbos more responsive. And now that the whole automotive world has shifted to turbos, I'm hoping we'll see continued development there.

[EAGLE5]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

At pretty much stock power levels (headers back bolt ons) I can't kick the tail out as easily since I switched to 245 re11a tires.

I superglued my ass to the chair and then I wondered why the chair stuck to me.

[Poodles]

Originally Posted by shiro

What I found feasible and affordable with the FA20 to add the perfect amount of power is two simple things. Add the third one if you have the money and want the flexibility of fuel.


1. Upgrade the port injectors and fuel pump
2. Tune for E-85* and adjust the 91 tune for the new injectors
3. Add a flex-fuel kit to auto adjust (no laptop required to switch tunes).


I have a person here in Omaha that is running E85 and that was the only adjustment he did to his car (from what I could see). The car hauls ass and seems like the perfect balance too while maintaining the physics of the car and not requiring other performance parts.


*Depending if E85 is available for you

If you're still NA, there's no reason to mess with the injectors or fuel pump to use E85.

Originally Posted by FRSBRZGT86FAN

Not anymore if you buy a modern car, the turbos of today have such good cooling, usually coolant is routed through the turbo like on the new ecoboost motors and wrx and such through a water jacket or even ports routed through the turbo.

"Following a hot shutdown of a turbocharger, heat soak begins. This means that the heat in the head, exhaust manifold, and turbine housing finds it way to the turbo’s center housing, raising its temperature. These extreme temperatures in the center housing can result in oil coking.
To minimize the effects of heat soak-back, water-cooled center housings were introduced. These use coolant from the engine to act as a heat sink after engine shutdown, preventing the oil from coking. The water lines utilize a thermal siphon effect to reduce the peak heat soak-back temperature after key-off"

Another Source: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=465156

It honestly depends on the era of car, dare I say pre-2006? Also simple logic if you're constantly hitting boost don't go immediately turning it off, cool down a bit before your final destination by going slow.

Water cooled turbos came around in the 80's. Also, modern synthetic oils are very very hard to break down that way.

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

There is no current NA 4cyl that is as good as the fa20.

Depends on the metric. Making 100hp/liter with fantastic emissions and good gas mileage? Yep, it wins. But let's be honest, it doesn't have the smooth and linear powerband of the Miata motor, or the fun top end punch of a Vtec motor.

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

I think the reason is relevant insofar as people love to sing Honda's praises, but even Honda couldn't find an economical way to create a 100 hp/L NA 2.0 engine in the current regulatory climate. It's not like they just decided to walk away because they got tired of NA. So Toyota/Subaru deserve some credit with the FA20.

Also interesting point about Ferrari - apparently even their engineers don't particularly like turbos:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...turbocharging/

Turbos have their upsides, especially in terms of "real estate under the curve". They definitely punch above their weight for that reason when it comes to lap times. And if I was looking to win a horsepower limited race at all costs, I'd go with a turbo with fat midrange for that reason.

But maybe I'm old school - I just think NA is more exciting and responsive. This particularly hits home for me comparing the 2.0L TFSI in my GTI vs. the FA20 in my FR-S. Even with the TFSI making peak torque as low as 1800 RPM using a small turbo, the transient response never feels as crisp as a NA engine.

They spoke about the development of the twins and said they could either get 200HP and have crap emissions or get good emissions and 150HP or so. The D4S injection system solves that issue and only Toyota has it.

Ultimately the reason people think this car doesn't have enough power is very simple: the chassis is so good that it feels like it should have more power. "Confidence inspiring" are overplayed buzz words, but it's applicable here.

[srt4evah]

The thread has gone off subject of BRZ vs WRX, but since it's already gone there, I'll add my two cents.

I think the FA20 is a pretty good, maybe really good motor, but I really wish it had either of two things:

More displacement to add another 20-30lb/ft of torque, the Honda 2.4L makes over 170tq and the Mazda 2.5L, in a non-performance setup, makes 185tq while delivering 38mpg max.

Or

Another 2000RPMs of revving room to give it another 20-30hp. Let it rev out like the F20C in the S2000 did over 15 years ago.

I realize that for the latter, emissions standards of today may be an issue, but for the former, it's possibly a packaging issue with no room to stroke the FA20, or it would require a larger bore and block.

In any case, it's pretty good, but within the limitations of the GT86 engine bay it maybe as good as it can get from the OEM.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by srt4evah

The thread has gone off subject of BRZ vs WRX, but since it's already gone there, I'll add my two cents.

I think the FA20 is a pretty good, maybe really good motor, but I really wish it had either of two things:

More displacement to add another 20-30lb/ft of torque, the Honda 2.4L makes over 170tq and the Mazda 2.5L, in a non-performance setup, makes 185tq while delivering 38mpg max.

I agree, I think most people complaining about the lack of torque/power would have been happy with Honda's 2.4L. My sister has a first-gen TSX and it feels substantially stronger off the line than the FA20. And you only sacrifice about 500 rpm at the top end with the bigger engine.

Of course, Toyota wanted a boxer for the lower COG, so perhaps they would have sourced Subaru's 2.5L flat-4, which I'm not particularly fond of.

[FRSBRZGT86FAN]

Originally Posted by Poodles

If you're still NA, there's no reason to mess with the injectors or fuel pump to use E85.



Water cooled turbos came around in the 80's. Also, modern synthetic oils are very very hard to break down that way.



Depends on the metric. Making 100hp/liter with fantastic emissions and good gas mileage? Yep, it wins. But let's be honest, it doesn't have the smooth and linear powerband of the Miata motor, or the fun top end punch of a Vtec motor.



They spoke about the development of the twins and said they could either get 200HP and have crap emissions or get good emissions and 150HP or so. The D4S injection system solves that issue and only Toyota has it.

Ultimately the reason people think this car doesn't have enough power is very simple: the chassis is so good that it feels like it should have more power. "Confidence inspiring" are overplayed buzz words, but it's applicable here.

I was referring to widespread mainstream usage

[Tcoat]

Here guys!
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39707