Would you prefer that the FRS had a "real" engine?

[akash_]

Originally Posted by venturaII

Hang on...you're saying that the '86 is going to hang right with a WRX STi, a car with over 100 horsepower more than us and DOUBLE the torque, in a roll on at legal highway speeds? Are you sure the other guy knew he was in a race? lol


Edit: If that's the case, I should be able to walk away from a standard WRX, which a friend of mine has. This will be a pretty easy test...

no joke it was today. i was just going on the high way when out of no where a wild wrx sti shows up with its mean exhaust rolling on high rpms next to me, looks at me with the lets go face. i was thinking y not i probably lose anyway. so i drop in to 4th and 3 honks go. i stayed with him till we hit about 120ish mph when he started pulling ahead a few feet.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Tromatic

That would require "driver involvement" and some effort.

[Tromatic]

We are lucky to have this car at all, Tada and his crew put one over on the suits. The complainers are just, at this point in the run of the car, 'tards.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Tromatic

We are lucky to have this car at all, Tada and his crew put one over on the suits. The complainers are just, at this point in the run of the car, 'tards.

Amen. I will say with exuberance this little car is a stroke of genius pushed through by some great guys with healthy sacks.

[Target70]

random off topic ignorant thoughts. If you turned an inline 4 or 6 sideways (as in cylinders parallel to the ground) and modified the oil pan to hang at a right angle to the block, wouldn't it end up providing just as low of a center of gravity as a flat layout? Also from my lack of understanding I thought that the flat 4 engine was naturally balanced because the diagonally opposite pistons fired at the same time giving equal force on both sides of the crank at the same time, but if that was true, there would only be 2 power strokes for every cycle. That doesn't sound right, but it would explain why this engine has such weak low end torque. /thinking out loud

[Tromatic]

I got shit before for saying it was a taste of a "supercar" that normal humans can afford. Shame it's what cars used to be as well. Whatever, every time I hop in mine I smile, pat the dash, and we both have a blast. Sucks to be those who cant.

[Tromatic]

Originally Posted by Target70

random off topic ignorant thoughts.

From all of the background information I have seen regarding the development of this car, this engine (and its specs) were a very deliberate choice. Compromises had to be made, and they were made by gearheads, not corporate. The story of how this car came to be would make a fine book some day, as it is a miracle it even made out of a design studio to start with.

ETA: Tada is a stellar vehicle designer. He must also be regarded as a stellar bullshitter as well to have sold this car into production.

[Kostamojen]

Originally Posted by Target70

but it would explain why this engine has such weak low end torque. /thinking out loud

Almost all the previous NA Subaru engines were primarily known for low end torque. This engine was designed to be the opposite.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Target70

random off topic ignorant thoughts. If you turned an inline 4 or 6 sideways (as in cylinders parallel to the ground) and modified the oil pan to hang at a right angle to the block, wouldn't it end up providing just as low of a center of gravity as a flat layout? Also from my lack of understanding I thought that the flat 4 engine was naturally balanced because the diagonally opposite pistons fired at the same time giving equal force on both sides of the crank at the same time, but if that was true, there would only be 2 power strokes for every cycle. That doesn't sound right, but it would explain why this engine has such weak low end torque. /thinking out loud

It's not the firing pattern. Just the masses swinging back and forth are more in balance. If you drew a line from above the engine to below it dead center through the crank, there are still some net shaking forces about that axis due to the stagger of the pistons.

[Hotrodheart]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

Don't really need a reason to not like something do I? I absolutely hate Eggplant and I cant give you a reason for that either, just don't.

I bought the car despite the engine because I like the way the car handles. As T-coat said, so far, it serves the purpose of converting chemical energy into torque.

My feelings for the rotary are much the same. It's a neat science experiment, but not to my liking.

Given my druthers, I would prefer a V6 or L4 design. For the record, I don't like any of the flat engines be it in a Subaru or a Ferrari or a VW.

Not sure where people think I am trolling, I asked a legitimate question and expected a considered answer. I am constantly amazed by people who try to interpret insult into anything they read on a Forum.

So, my question still stands, "Would this be a better car with a non boxer engine?

Well, guess what? That's why there is more than one car model in the marketplace. Ever see those big stores with all the new cars parked in front? That is called a CAR DEALER, and you can walk in ANY one of then and buy a car with ANY kind of engine you want.


And then you can piss THEM off with dumb questions..

[soulreapersteve]

Originally Posted by Tromatic

I get a strange sense of pleasure knowing that about one quarter of the FR-S/BRZ's is see are being driving by people who would rather be driving something else. Those people are, as far as I can tell, retarded. Yeah, it has limitations in the engine room. If you cant learn to drive around them and have massive fun despite those limitations, either sell the car or do something about it.

/thread

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by venturaII

It doesn't lack peak power, but it sure could use some help in the midrange. Whoever signed off on that torque dip as acceptable in a sports car should be fired. I realize the dip can be driven around on a track, but as this is a street car, it's in just about the worst spot possible. Luckily it seems a header is all that's needed to fix the issue, but it's a little disappointing that it's needed in the first place. Having to keep the motor under 3500rpm, or over 5000 is kind of a PITA on public roads.

I think, I've mentioned this, but tq dip is boxer engine characteristic. Here's '06 Porsche Cayman dyno


You can find all other Porsche cars that have boxer engine have same characteristic tq dip. Do you wanna tell Porsche fire the engineers for having tq dip?

Cuz... a lot of car journalist don't complain bout that tq dip on Porsche.

Originally Posted by venturaII

I understand what causes the dip. Apparently so do many other people who make headers designed to cure it. I just find is a little disappointing that a redesigned exhaust is needed not to boost peak numbers, which is what people usually shoot for, but rather to prevent falling into a hole right when you'd normally expect a motor to wake up. Not so disappointing that the rest of the car's positives didn't outweigh this one negative, but to me it's a pretty significant faux pas for a sports car.

If you understand it, then why you don't downshift to avoid that tq dip? Just like turbo or Vtec, if you lack power in certain area, you avoid it by downshifting or do other things.

Tada-san is well aware of that tq dip. I've mention to him on this issue in person. He told me interesting things. He told me that, there are people uses that into advantage. For section, I thought he was crazy. How in the hell you take that tq dip as an advantage? He kept going explaining that, some owners uses this car not only for "racing", but they uses as their "commute" car. They uses that dip to save on MPG. Some owner shown Tada-san some unbelievable MPG... that's a cool story, but I still wasn't really convinced. Prob he saw my face and saw that I had funny weird face (I was born w that funny weird face lol) and went on explaining that, he could of reduced the tq dip to almost none... but at the same time, he would of sacrificed a lot more than what he gain from loosing that tq dip (sorry, it's been a while & forgot the details). He explain that, FT-86 Project was open canvas project and want to keep that open canvas for us as well. If you don't like the dip, there's tuner/parts out there to fix that issue. If you don't like the engine, you can swap em out. He won't get offended by swapping out the engine. He wanted all of us to make "Your own 86" & "86 that's different from other 86 owner".

Now, I'm not gonna BS saying that this car is perfect. Cuz it's not. It lack something. That something may vary with everyone. Tada-san & other engineers gave us open canvas to work on, so why not work on it? If you wanted perfect car from the beginning, then sorry, this isn't the car.

Now, I forgot who posted, but yes, if they wrote a book bout this car... it'll be one hellova book and I mean it in good way. I've heard so~~~~~~~~~~~ many behind the scene story from Tada-san and every one of em is awesome story.

[Tromatic]

F-in LOL. If this car was 70K, the idiots would be praising the very same things they complain about now.

[Tcoat]

Well said Ichi even if partially done in Engrish (not an insult it showed your passion).
I do have to disagree with one point though. There is a very large group of us here where the car is damned near perfect as is. I could name probably 100 off the top of my head but Ultra, Trom and Sar pop right to mind. We are the crowd that just drive it and don't get bent out of shape over dyno graphs and if the engine bay is pretty. We clock our miles, get our groceries and have fun when it presents itself. Those that want to street race or feel they need more can look down upon us if they wish but we are the guys the car was really made for and will be the ones that keep it alive.
End sermon.