That engine though. Where will it sit among the great 4cyl NA's?

[Goingnowherefast]

Originally Posted by TommyW

How to make the FA20 amazing:
1) Blow it up
2) Have Dylan rebuild it using an IAG block
3)Install a JDL 421 Header and better catback
4) Have Zach tune it

But like, I heard from a friend that there's cars you can buy with a good engine right out of the box. Maybe it's just a rumor

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

I hate boxers, but mostly due to the design being a pain in the ass to work on.

I always say this: With boxers the easy stuff is hard and the hard stuff is easy.

Pulling the motor? Easy it's like a few hours.
Separating engine/trans? Insanely easy because the motor is so physically short.
Spark plugs? Like a 3 hour job that's insanely stressful.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Red-86

Whilst appropriate gear selection is important, there is no getting around the fact that to get to the power band above 5k rpm from a stop, you still have to briefly endure the mid-range torque dip since engines cannot magically teleport from 1k rpm to 5k rpm (well, maybe the LFA V10 can! ). It is the impact the torque dip has on getting up to speed initially that bothers some people a lot, and also has an impact on the 0-100 times etc. Of course, this doesn't bother some people, and it really bothers others.

Poor shifting probably has a bigger affect than torque dip in any form of measurement. It is a 10% drop for a fraction of a second when accelerating through it.
The way people talk it is as if the torque totally disappears. There is very nice torque up to the dip but the graph readers ignore that and focus on that one brief blip.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast

But like, I heard from a friend that there's cars you can buy with a good engine right out of the box. Maybe it's just a rumor

Like the one there is and the one that is coming.

[Willpower]

Well no it can’t magically teleport, but first gear is so short and quick to run through though that under full throttle it’s just not noticeable, at least not to me. Good thing I reckon. Saves me money as I have had no desire to modify the car.

Originally Posted by Red-86

Whilst appropriate gear selection is important, there is no getting around the fact that to get to the power band above 5k rpm from a stop, you still have to briefly endure the mid-range torque dip since engines cannot magically teleport from 1k rpm to 5k rpm (well, maybe the LFA V10 can! ). It is the impact the torque dip has on getting up to speed initially that bothers some people a lot, and also has an impact on the 0-100 times etc. Of course, this doesn't bother some people, and it really bothers others.

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

It is a 10% drop for a fraction of a second when accelerating through it. ..There is very nice torque up to the dip.

You are obviously correct that the dip lasts only a fraction of a second when accelerating through it in first gear. I also agree that when driving slowing and using shift points <2,800 rpm, the car feels great. However in moderate traffic, in which I needed 30%-40% throttle with a 3,000–4,000 rpm shift point, I felt that torque dip with nearly every shift. To make a big deal out of it is horribly unfair to the car.

To me, it is like turbo lag in my current car. When floored, barely noticeable. Daily driving? Much more pronounced. If the new 2.4 strengthens that dip and makes the car a better daily driver, that can significantly improve the overall experience of the car. Necessary? No. Welcome? Yes.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

You are obviously correct that the dip lasts only a fraction of a second when accelerating through it in first gear. I also agree that when driving slowing and using shift points <2,800 rpm, the car feels great. However in moderate traffic, in which I needed 30%-40% throttle with a 3,000–4,000 rpm shift point, I felt that torque dip with nearly every shift. To make a big deal out of it is horribly unfair to the car.

To me, it is like turbo lag in my current car. When floored, barely noticeable. Daily driving? Much more pronounced. If the new 2.4 strengthens that dip and makes the car a better daily driver, that can significantly improve the overall experience of the car. Necessary? No. Welcome? Yes.

Or Vtec

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Cephas

^ This man could depress a hyena.

OMG I laughed O L and read it to my wife.

[Guff]

I'm just hoping it doesn't feel like a truck motor.

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by Guff

I'm just hoping it doesn't feel like a truck motor.

It won't. They've taken the turbo off and raised the redline. It's still a relatively low torque (250Nm), high-ish revving NA motor - basically an FA20D on steroids. I suspect it will be fine. Probably not brilliant, but competent and (hopefully) reliable.

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by Red-86

It won't. They've taken the turbo off and raised the redline. It's still a relatively low torque (250Nm), high-ish revving NA motor - basically an FA20D on steroids. I suspect it will be fine. Probably not brilliant, but competent and (hopefully) reliable.

250Nm isn't relatively low to anything else Na and 4cyl though.

I am hoping the engine gets a better note - I see no sound tubes in the engine bay, so perhaps they are happy enough with it? I think I can hear in the video some nice noises when its shifts to the DI only, but that's something that needs to be heard in person.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Guff

I'm just hoping it doesn't feel like a truck motor.

Which, not coincidently, is exactly what it was originally designed to be in the F configuration!

Originally Posted by Blighty

250Nm isn't relatively low to anything else Na and 4cyl though.

You really love your paper racing don't you?
By your standards of determining how effective an engine is you should be looking at diesels! Gobs and gobs of torque. More than you could ever want. Won't work worth shit in a sportscar but in the parking lots you will be the torque bragging champ!

[Cephas]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

You really love your paper racing don't you?

It's way cheaper than actual racing, to be fair.

[TylerLieberman]

205hp from 2L = 102.5hp/L
228hp from 2.4L = 95hp/L

Car hasn't been released yet. Engine has no real world data or info available. All we know is larger displacement and more torque.

What are we celebrating?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by TylerLieberman

205hp from 2L = 102.5hp/L
228hp from 2.4L = 95hp/L

Car hasn't been released yet. Engine has no real world data or info available. All we know is larger displacement and more torque.

What are we celebrating?

We do know that it makes peak torque at 3700rpm and which could be good or bad. For street driving that would be nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk