Dyno Numbers

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Jianlun

Wonder what kind of rod stroke ratio the MonsterSport FA24 has, with its long 93mm stroke.

Monster Sport Bore & Stroke is 90x93


& honestly, using same short block as FA20, won’t be able to do 2.6. I think both Monster Sport & Subaru knew that block can handle up to 0.4liter bore.

[Jianlun]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Monster Sport Bore & Stroke is 90x93


& honestly, using same short block as FA20, won’t be able to do 2.6. I think both Monster Sport & Subaru knew that block can handle up to 0.4liter bore.

I meant the rod length to stroke ratio. Because MonsterSport stroked it up to 93mm, its rod stroke ratio would be worse (more side force, friction, less revvy etc) than the already poor 1.5 ratio of FA20.

And that got me thinking, if MonsterSport could stroke an FA20 up to 93mm, they would be able to stroke the new FA24 (very similiar block) up to FA26 muahahah.

Also, on the basis that it is easier for one to bore out (change liners and pistons) than stroke up (change crank, potentially need machining out reliefs to prevent rod interfering with block due to longer crank throws etc), why didn't (or couldn't) MonsterSport go with 94mm x86mm bore stroke, and instead the much harder 90mm x 93mm. And why toyobaru manage to do that. Wonder how thin the liners are in a toyobaru FA24...

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

I'm not stating gen2 FA sucks, just I prayed they learn their lesson from EZ engine... but that's different topic in general.

Putting my opinion on the side, there's another 2.4 Liter FA engine we can compare em to see what's the difference. We can see it has same kind of power output. If tq dip is gone, we can guess other mods that made the difference (example: Header). , Other than the dip, we can "assume" it has same kind of power curve. If not, it'll be interesting discussion what causes the curve difference. From there, we can somewhat expect from aftermarket mods on FA24.

It looks to me that gen2 FA has a similar tq dip like gen1 FA. Maybe the drivers don't feel the dip that much, because the overall tq is higher.

Let's hope as you said gen2 FA to not have any serious engine issues. Reliability will be a serious hit for the platform if they didn't learn the lessons of the past.

[new2subaru]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Let's hope as you said gen2 FA to not have any serious engine issues. Reliability will be a serious hit for the platform if they didn't learn the lessons of the past.

Are you talking about the valve spring recall?

[Baldeagle]

Been said already. The 2.4’s torque curve has nearly the exact same shape as the 2.0’s, just shifted higher because of the greater displacement. I find the marketing hype to be disingenuous. All this talk about 2.4’s peak torque occurring at 3,700 rpm versus 6,000 rpm for 2.0’s, and therefore implying the 2.4 has a different personality is nearly a lie. If the 2.0’s torque curve were just a few lbs-ft lower at its second peak (6,000 rpm), it too would have claimed it’s peak torque occurred around 3,000 rpm. In many ways, Subaru is pissing on our boots and telling us it’s raining.

We can all reserve final judgement until we test drive the car and access the degree to which the torque dip is irritating or not. I am still very optimistic this twin will be a winner and will most likely be the next car in my garage. However with the new Z realistically priced about $10,000 higher, with its flaws too, I wonder which car is the better value. If discriminant drivers want/need a set of headers and a tune on the Twin to make it acceptable for their needs, that price gap will narrow rapidly. Fortunately we have the final say in what we purchase. Can’t wait to test drive both cars.

[x808drifter]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

Are you talking about the valve spring recall?

Valve Springs.
Shoddy sealant work.
Chirpy HP Fuel Pumps. (not a problem, more annoyance)
Fule Pumps from some o the newer cars.

[new2subaru]

Originally Posted by x808drifter

Valve Springs.
Shoddy sealant work.
Chirpy HP Fuel Pumps. (not a problem, more annoyance)
Fule Pumps from some o the newer cars.

Valve spring and goop early on. Meh to the noisy pumps.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

Are you talking about the valve spring recall?

Oh no. Ichi was mentioning about the older family of Subaru engines.

[FrickingReallySlow]

They didn't use any sealant for any mating surfaces! timing cover just bolts right on~ +1 HP +20 Longevity

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Just remember Monster Sport made FA24 kit making almost same kinda spec of TQ/HP. Wonder if same TQ curve as this stock FA24

For a reference, here’s a vid

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

It looks to me that gen2 FA has a similar tq dip like gen1 FA. Maybe the drivers don't feel the dip that much, because the overall tq is higher.

Let's hope as you said gen2 FA to not have any serious engine issues. Reliability will be a serious hit for the platform if they didn't learn the lessons of the past.

I just hope the new FA motor can handle FI better without worry of rods snapping.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by slimfit

^^Dumb question, but do both catted and catless headers produce the same results? Or is it only catless?

Catless only. You can run a lot more timing and there is a weird back pressure resonance generated by the catalytic converters location which causes the dip.

[RippedManiac]

New one has like 5 lbs of tq loss at dip compared to mines' 28 lbs stock.

After header and tune my dip was reduced to 17lbs, with the lowest point of of the dip being 5 lbs away from stock peak.

I think this car's NA max w/o corn gonna be around 215-220 whp.

Im glad my 17 isnt that far behind xD

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

Been said already. The 2.4’s torque curve has nearly the exact same shape as the 2.0’s, just shifted higher because of the greater displacement. I find the marketing hype to be disingenuous. All this talk about 2.4’s peak torque occurring at 3,700 rpm versus 6,000 rpm for 2.0’s, and therefore implying the 2.4 has a different personality is nearly a lie. If the 2.0’s torque curve were just a few lbs-ft lower at its second peak (6,000 rpm), it too would have claimed it’s peak torque occurred around 3,000 rpm. In many ways, Subaru is pissing on our boots and telling us it’s raining.

We can all reserve final judgement until we test drive the car and access the degree to which the torque dip is irritating or not. I am still very optimistic this twin will be a winner and will most likely be the next car in my garage. However with the new Z realistically priced about $10,000 higher, with its flaws too, I wonder which car is the better value. If discriminant drivers want/need a set of headers and a tune on the Twin to make it acceptable for their needs, that price gap will narrow rapidly. Fortunately we have the final say in what we purchase. Can’t wait to test drive both cars.

Its not talk, its what subaru and toyota are purporting as facts.

And if I might add the dyno we saw was WAY WAY off what they said, not like perhaps a little manufacturing variation off, more like some kind of issue off.

I mean nothing can take away from what everyone has said about the car, so there is that storm in a tea cup feel, but you would expect honesty in marketing.

I will say that they are dynoing the car at 13km on the clock. There are potentially a lack of things being seated.

The base model Z is a pony car with those tiny (for its weight) brakes and no LSD - well thats my opinion anyway. Good for the street and drags. Have they confirmed a price more than 'around' 40k? Love the top spec though, that is actually pretty amazing - hope they can stay under 50k.

I struggle with its hard right angle square mouth, matching with the overmakeup'ed eyelash headlights. looks terrible to me - felt it looked worse in motion too. rear is divine.

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by Blighty

Its not talk, its what subaru and toyota are purporting as facts.

And if I might add the dyno we saw was WAY WAY off what they said, not like perhaps a little manufacturing variation off, more like some kind of issue off.

I mean nothing can take away from what everyone has said about the car, so there is that storm in a tea cup feel, but you would expect honesty in marketing.

Caveat emptor.