2.0 >2.4 NA by Monster Sport

[Chad_W]

Originally Posted by Snake

The 200 to 243hp bump in power seems a bit low considering all the other work they did.

But that'd be why it'd be interesting to see the dyno, I'd assume they made significantly more torque everywhere so it'd probably feel much faster than the 43hp bump suggests.

Clearly something is missing here. Most stock FA20 can see a roughly 20% increase in power through ecu mapping and header. An increase in displacement with all the supporting they are doing, should also see an minimum increase in as 20% as well. Engines aren't just a simple mathematics equation (they're many, many equations), but it's reasonable to assume that you would see 240hp with the displacement increase alone and be able to 20% more with all the supporting mods and tuning. It would odd to think that this car makes less than 280-290hp. It's possible that they're comparing 200bhp to 243whp.

[Snake]

Originally Posted by Chad_W

Clearly something is missing here. Most stock FA20 can see a roughly 20% increase in power through ecu mapping and header. An increase in displacement with all the supporting they are doing, should also see an minimum increase in as 20% as well. Engines aren't just a simple mathematics equation (they're many, many equations), but it's reasonable to assume that you would see 240hp with the displacement increase alone and be able to 20% more with all the supporting mods and tuning. It would odd to think that this car makes less than 280-290hp. It's possible that they're comparing 200bhp to 243whp.

Video definitely looks like they have the finished product on the engine dyno, not in a car on a chassis dyno.

Could be that it makes all the additional torque down low so it doesn't bump up the peak power?

Sent from my HUAWEI RIO-L02 using Tapatalk

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by Snake

Could be that it makes all the additional torque down low so it doesn't bump up the peak power?

Mid range torque is needed in the FA20, Increase the torque, that would be very welcome.

[churchx]

This is jdm NA car. It's supposed to be high-rev-ed. While it's simpler to daily drive with more torque more down, i find in some ways more enjoyment/involvement feel due this need of high-reving & rowing through gears to keep in powerband vs relaxed driving in one gear and lazy accelerator use only for change of pace. Imho it would be more fun to make this car more high revving vs adding more torque down low. Even in cases if later one would make car faster then former

[Bach415]

According to the sign they had at TAS17, the price of this engine package, believe it or not, is 1,950,000 yen, which converted to USD is around 17211 USD. Attached is the picture of it I took when I was there. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Chad_W]

Originally Posted by Snake

Video definitely looks like they have the finished product on the engine dyno, not in a car on a chassis dyno.

Could be that it makes all the additional torque down low so it doesn't bump up the peak power?

Sent from my HUAWEI RIO-L02 using Tapatalk

Torque is 190 at 5800, so it doesn't seem like too much down low. We still need dyno chart to tell the whole story.

Looking at the list of supporting modifications, 243 hp at the crank would be disappointing even without the bump in displacement.

[Pat]

Again, we don't know all of the details with this engine, but if things are what they seem to be at first blush, this looks to be a pretty spendy proposition given the engine output.
It seems to me like this is just more confirmation of why the Jackson or Edlebrock superchargers are the way to go with this engine.
I can't imagine paying more money for a Subaru flat four than a Porsche flat six. The normally aspirated Porsche engines are SO much nicer to drive than the FA20, too.

[Traktor]

I wonder what cams they used? I recall on LS builds the bigger bore engines need a more aggressive cam to move the power band up. (Very different engines I realize)
243 PS is what you might expect with the stock 2 cat exhaust and a stock-like tune. But they looked to be running Catless EL headers with a custom tune.
Very disappointing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by churchx

Imho it would be more fun to make this car more high revving vs adding more torque down low.

Good points all. I would like the power for the track days powering out of the corners. But for $17,000 I don't need it that bad.

[irax]

Stock header, but after market intake and cat back exhaust + e85 will get that same power lol.

[Lantana frs]

Another jdm money toilet imo.

[-Willis-86touge]

Just checked out there web site and there's another video of a dyno with just an intake. Before it is 187ps to the wheels and after intake it is 195ps to the wheels. I think the 2.4 stated is to the wheels. So 243ps to the wheels witch makes since. So converted 239whp

[Turdinator]

2l @ 200hp bored and stroked to 2.4l @ 240hp... Why are people disappointed? There are losses they would have to overcome. Increasing the stroke would make for a pretty crappy rod ratio and increasing the bore will negatively effect the quench built in to the combustion chamber....

[Traktor]

Originally Posted by Turdinator

2l @ 200hp bored and stroked to 2.4l @ 240hp... Why are people disappointed? There are losses they would have to overcome. Increasing the stroke would make for a pretty crappy rod ratio and increasing the bore will negatively effect the quench built in to the combustion chamber....

Because it costs $17k and an ACE Header + a tune on a stock engine will get you around 240 at the crank on 91 fuel. Other headers will generally get maybe 10-15 less chp than the ACE.
As stated above, that engine appeared to be running a catless header and has a custom tune, so you would expect bigger gains even taking into account the losses from increased capacity. You wouldn't quite get the 120hp/litre in the ACE example, but still...
And then there was all the porting/polishing work that seems to have been for naught?