FT-86 in Gran Turismo 5

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

I'm no engine buff, but I suspect that most of the engines you cite are older and less fuel-efficient designs than those the carmakers are currently bringing into play, so their relevance as a basis for the FT-86 comparison is limited; the engine in the FR-S will of necessity be a more frugal with fuel given the upcoming changes in gas mileage regulations.

As to the power peak, I was going only by the graph, it looked a bit higher than 8K there.

Even high-end sixes don't often get that high - IIRC current Porsches redline at about 7200; my father's older 911 had a 6800 redline.

[70NYD]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

I'm no engine buff, but I suspect that most of the engines you cite are older and less fuel-efficient designs than those the carmakers are currently bringing into play, so their relevance as a basis for the FT-86 comparison is limited; the engine in the FR-S will of necessity be a more frugal with fuel given the upcoming changes in gas mileage regulations.

As to the power peak, I was going only by the graph, it looked a bit higher than 8K there.

Even high-end sixes don't often get that high - IIRC current Porsches redline at about 7200; my father's older 911 had a 6800 redline.

Then you should not comment on something you don't understand
Your fathers 6 had more cylinders, more rods and therefore more reciprocating mass..

[Dragonitti]

Originally Posted by Dimman

For the Gs not having that much torque, all we know is that it's turbo'd. We don't know how much boost. Given that its peak is at 6500 rpm it's probably not making that much boost.

And as for needing a huge amount of torque for drifting, there are other options, like clutch-kicking, to put the motor in its powerband.

PS: for those who don't know, hold the e-brake button a little longer in GT5 (whole series I think) to clutch-kick.

I have drifted before, I know you can clutch kick...that's a great way to wear out the clutch over other initiation techniques. It's no wonder though that an AE86 is hardly found in podium positions in FD or D1. It's better suited for D1 though since they usually have high speed drifts where you don't need a lot of torque.

If the weight is really low then the FT won't need as much torque, but I'm one that prefers torque over reving to a billion and back.

[Siriusly.Andrew]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

I'm no engine buff, but I suspect that most of the engines you cite are older and less fuel-efficient designs than those the carmakers are currently bringing into play, so their relevance as a basis for the FT-86 comparison is limited; the engine in the FR-S will of necessity be a more frugal with fuel given the upcoming changes in gas mileage regulations.
.

Most of the engines listed are less than 10 years old, and made around 100hp/litre and achieved ~40 mpg.
two engines stand out as being older, but that doesn't make them any less likely to be listed as they still produced a sizable amount of power (for their time) and achieved impressive fuel mileage.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Dragonitti

I have drifted before, I know you can clutch kick...that's a great way to wear out the clutch over other initiation techniques. It's no wonder though that an AE86 is hardly found in podium positions in FD or D1. It's better suited for D1 though since they usually have high speed drifts where you don't need a lot of torque.

If the weight is really low then the FT won't need as much torque, but I'm one that prefers torque over reving to a billion and back.

Yeah, this thing is supposed to be the 'spiritual successor' to the Hachi, so it will be similar in both its benefits and limitations. The GT5 version has a pretty good low-end torque curve, but we will always be limited by its 2.0L displacement.

FI's going to be the way to go for any high-level drifting.

But I'm pretty happy with the stock GT5 version. Very predictable, with a little bit of steady-state understeer on the high speed sweepers. If the production version matches the GT5 version it will be incredible for the price point.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Siriusly.Andrew

Most of the engines listed are less than 10 years old, and made around 100hp/litre and achieved ~40 mpg.
two engines stand out as being older, but that doesn't make them any less likely to be listed as they still produced a sizable amount of power (for their time) and achieved impressive fuel mileage.

A primary reason those older engines got such good mileage has less to do with the engine, and more to do with the lower vehicle weight of the models they powered compared to current common models. Drop these engines in say a 2900 lb 2011 Corolla and say goodbye to 5-10 of those mpg (if driven the same way). Unless it comes in around 2500 lbs, I doubt we'll see a high-revving 4 banger with good mileage in an FT-86 (that is if they are going to give it around 200 hp and reasonable torque).

Also, IIRC Toyota has already indicated they're going with a Subie (or Subie-type) boxer engine; the current Sti redlines at 6600. An NA version will, of course, rev higher? Doubtful - the Impreza's current redline is down at 6200. The dream of an 8000 rpm engine for the FR-S is understandable but it's unlikely to survive the realities of cost control - the costs associated with a custom redesign to that spec would be prohibitive for what Toyota is promising will be a relatively cheap sports car.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

A primary reason those older engines got such good mileage has less to do with the engine, and more to do with the lower vehicle weight of the models they powered compared to current common models. Drop these engines in say a 2900 lb 2011 Corolla and say goodbye to 5-10 of those mpg (if driven the same way). Unless it comes in around 2500 lbs, I doubt we'll see a high-revving 4 banger with good mileage in an FT-86 (that is if they are going to give it around 200 hp and reasonable torque).

Also, IIRC Toyota has already indicated they're going with a Subie (or Subie-type) boxer engine; the current Sti redlines at 6600. An NA version will, of course, rev higher? Doubtful - the Impreza's current redline is down at 6200. The dream of an 8000 rpm engine for the FR-S is understandable but it's unlikely to survive the realities of cost control - the costs associated with a custom redesign to that spec would be prohibitive for what Toyota is promising will be a relatively cheap sports car.

A few issues that some research could have addressed for you...

New Subaru engine design is different than current (and ancient) EJ series. Aims at efficiency mainly from reducing frictional and inertial losses.

Toyota has had no problem outsourcing free-revving head design to Yamaha. See what they did with another ancient 2.0L, the 3SGE BEAMS.

This motor is going to be direct or semi-direct injected. This will do good things for the motor's performance relative to economy.

Toyota has made single-purpose high rpm motors before, 2ZZGE.

This car isn't going to have 'great' economy. It's going to have good economy relative to its performance. You want great economy, get a Yaris or Prius.

[Dark]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

A primary reason those older engines got such good mileage has less to do with the engine, and more to do with the lower vehicle weight of the models they powered compared to current common models. Drop these engines in say a 2900 lb 2011 Corolla and say goodbye to 5-10 of those mpg (if driven the same way). Unless it comes in around 2500 lbs, I doubt we'll see a high-revving 4 banger with good mileage in an FT-86 (that is if they are going to give it around 200 hp and reasonable torque).

Also, IIRC Toyota has already indicated they're going with a Subie (or Subie-type) boxer engine; the current Sti redlines at 6600. An NA version will, of course, rev higher? Doubtful - the Impreza's current redline is down at 6200. The dream of an 8000 rpm engine for the FR-S is understandable but it's unlikely to survive the realities of cost control - the costs associated with a custom redesign to that spec would be prohibitive for what Toyota is promising will be a relatively cheap sports car.

Do you know that boxer that is used in FT-86 is not the same as the one in any 2.0L Subaru boxer? If they use the same engine, it wouldn't take them almost 3 years to release the car. They would just slap the current 2.0L boxer in and call it a day.

According to a video of the GT5, FT-86 used D-4S(Direct Injection) technology that could be found in Lexus models. However, the current boxer doesn't even have direct injection, but it can deliver great mileage at the 4 wheels.

Making high rev engine is not unrealistic for Toyota. They just made one over 9000rpm(LFA), and their old sport cars are also high rev. That's said, Toyota can easily make high rev engine with today technologies.

And No. I never heard someone from Toyota saying the car is cheap, but it's "affordable" or "inexpensive". FT-86 appears to be a better car than its competitor, so "affordable" is not going to be less than 23K in this case.

[dalli]

Do i suck or what, I did not really take the chance to ride it stock but i got a question.

I tuned my ft-86, i also lowered it but i keep freaking spinning out.

What gives? I spin out more than a dam cobra which puts down 492 HP( with 0 traction control + 1 ABS) and i rarely spin out on a cobra

I only tuned it to 299 HP 195 torque-lb. I basically spin out every heavy turn + straights(lol<<) ( i spin out at 0 trac and @ 5 traction control + 1 ABS) I also lowered it.


now i gotta bring back its stock, i guess i gotta buy a new one for that to happen since i upgraded its engine.

Does the stock version behave like this?

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by dalli

Do i suck or what, I did not really take the chance to ride it stock but i got a question.

I tuned my ft-86, i also lowered it but i keep freaking spinning out.

What gives? I spin out more than a dam cobra which puts down 492 HP( with 0 traction control + 1 ABS) and i rarely spin out on a cobra

I only tuned it to 299 HP 195 torque-lb. I basically spin out every heavy turn + straights(lol<<) ( i spin out at 0 trac and @ 5 traction control + 1 ABS) I also lowered it.


now i gotta bring back its stock, i guess i gotta buy a new one for that to happen since i upgraded its engine.

Does the stock version behave like this?

Yeah, that's one thing I hate bout GT5, can't make it stock again when you upgrade your engine. (same w chassis).

Stock ver grips... still drift here and there, but not as bad as moded ones. I tuned it to 360hp and ?tq and w racing tires, still can't grip at all most of the time. lol

Tune it lil by lil and make it the way you like.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by dalli

Do i suck or what, I did not really take the chance to ride it stock but i got a question.

I tuned my ft-86, i also lowered it but i keep freaking spinning out.

What gives? I spin out more than a dam cobra which puts down 492 HP( with 0 traction control + 1 ABS) and i rarely spin out on a cobra

I only tuned it to 299 HP 195 torque-lb. I basically spin out every heavy turn + straights(lol<<) ( i spin out at 0 trac and @ 5 traction control + 1 ABS) I also lowered it.


now i gotta bring back its stock, i guess i gotta buy a new one for that to happen since i upgraded its engine.

Does the stock version behave like this?

What are your suspension settings? Fully adjustable?

[Siriusly.Andrew]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

A primary reason those older engines got such good mileage has less to do with the engine, and more to do with the lower vehicle weight of the models they powered compared to current common models. Drop these engines in say a 2900 lb 2011 Corolla and say goodbye to 5-10 of those mpg (if driven the same way). Unless it comes in around 2500 lbs, I doubt we'll see a high-revving 4 banger with good mileage in an FT-86 (that is if they are going to give it around 200 hp and reasonable torque).

Also, IIRC Toyota has already indicated they're going with a Subie-type boxer engine; the current Sti redlines at 6600. An NA version will, of course, rev higher? Doubtful - the Impreza's current redline is down at 6200. The dream of an 8000 rpm engine for the FR-S is understandable but it's unlikely to survive the realities of cost control - the costs associated with a custom redesign to that spec would be prohibitive for what Toyota is promising will be a relatively cheap sports car.

I'm going to use a reference I have personal experience with, as I own a 2004 Toyota Matrix XRS.
2ZZ-GE - 8200rpm redline 180hp @ 7600rpm 130ft-lbs @ 6800rpm -- all the power is at high revs -- engine still produces 40+ mpg
my car weighs 2750lbs and I weigh 210lbs. That is a total of 2960lbs (give or take a few). It was rare for me to log less than 40mpg on a fuel cycle. Thats with normal driving, mostly in town and a few pulls through first gear on the highway. It's not hard to imagine a 2900lb car with 200hp that revs to 8k getting 40mpg.

Subaru doesn't build their engines for NA performance, or for high revs. Therefore your Subaru reference is kinda moot. This is a, for the most part, designed performance engine that will be going in a designed to be performance car. Which makes your statement about the car being heavy and therefore getting poor mileage also mostly irrelevant.
I suppose there is some ideology in there too -- if the engine performs as well as we hope and they said it will it wouldn't be unlikely to see the engine in other applications. I just hope nothing like a 2900lb Corolla.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Siriusly.Andrew

I'm going to use a reference I have personal experience with, as I own a 2004 Toyota Matrix XRS.
2ZZ-GE - 8200rpm redline 180hp @ 7600rpm 130ft-lbs @ 6800rpm -- all the power is at high revs -- engine still produces 40+ mpg
my car weighs 2750lbs and I weigh 210lbs. That is a total of 2960lbs (give or take a few). It was rare for me to log less than 40mpg on a fuel cycle. Thats with normal driving, mostly in town and a few pulls through first gear on the highway. It's not hard to imagine a 2900lb car with 200hp that revs to 8k getting 40mpg.

Subaru doesn't build their engines for NA performance, or for high revs. Therefore your Subaru reference is kinda moot. This is a, for the most part, designed performance engine that will be going in a designed to be performance car. Which makes your statement about the car being heavy and therefore getting poor mileage also mostly irrelevant.
I suppose there is some ideology in there too -- if the engine performs as well as we hope and they said it will it wouldn't be unlikely to see the engine in other applications. I just hope nothing like a 2900lb Corolla.

Gotta agree w almost all, but Subaru do make high rev cars. JP ver of Subie rev pretty high rpm (over 8k rpm redline), just US ver get screwed & get only 6.5k rpm. Over 8k is pretty good isn't it?

[Matador]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Gotta agree w almost all, but Subaru do make high rev cars. JP ver of Subie rev pretty high rpm (over 8k rpm redline), just US ver get screwed & get only 6.5k rpm. Over 8k is pretty good isn't it?

I concur.