Car and Driver is F-ing Stupid

[krayzie]

Actually the argument could be even simpler. Toyota went thru all the trouble of convincing their own top brass to put in D-4S, in addition to convincing Subaru to go with the NA engine and trying to get it to rev over 7000rpm reliably, and now you want them to throw all that effort out and stick in a turbo? LMFAO!

[Da Brz]

Originally Posted by krayzie

Actually the argument could be even simpler. Toyota went thru all the trouble of convincing their own top brass to put in D-4S, in addition to convincing Subaru to go with the NA engine and trying to get it to rev over 7000rpm reliably, and now you want them to throw all that effort out and stick in a turbo? LMFAO!

I'm not one who thinks it NEEDS FI. I think that's an easy option for them.


Another easy option would be to add a few more mm's of stroke to it to increase the torque. Make it a 2.2 liter. Play with the tune a little and get rid of the sporadic power delivery (torque dip).

[venturaII]

What would this imaginary factory forced induction '86 use for a transmission? Certainly not the current one which is made of glass...warranty claims would be comically high. Not that there aren't transmissions out there that are stronger, but we've all seen attempts to make them fit our tunnel. That means a different pan would be required, which is not a small difference on a production line.

[Da Brz]

Originally Posted by venturaII

What would this imaginary factory forced induction '86 use for a transmission? Certainly not the current one which is made of glass...warranty claims would be comically high. Not that there aren't transmissions out there that are stronger, but we've all seen attempts to make them fit our tunnel. That means a different pan would be required, which is not a small difference on a production line.

You couldn't beef the transmission with stronger internals?


Not really arguing, just curious. Swapping parts is a lot easier than a whole new transmission.

[unhappymeal]

Originally Posted by Da Brz

I think that's all just excuses. Toyota itself huge. They have the FA20DIT and it may be laggy but it's probably better than the FA20. I don't see how it could be worse.


I could also argue with your statement about GM's info up there, but it'd be outside the scope of this argument.


I guess some people just see the world as half empty. I see it as half full. TRD already has a supercharger for it. There's no way Toyota couldn't figure it out.


I understand all your points and they're all valid. But they're also speculative. As all of this is, I guess.


To me, they're stuck in a loop. As you said, it's a low-volume car, so maybe they don't wanna spend the money on it. But then again, "no power" for better or for worse is the monkey on this cars back in the public's eyes. If this car suddenly started eating Mustangs and Camaros, people might take notice and buy more. It really would become the poor man's Cayman.

Toyota is a massive company, but the facts are the facts. Neither Toyota nor Subaru are sitting on a mountain of great performance parts that they can just plug into the BRZ like GM can with the Camaro or Nissan with the 370Z

Toyota's inline-4 performance engine development died with the last Celica. They only recently introduced their turboed 4 in the Lexus IS and it's by all accounts a dog. I already went over why I think an existing performance Subaru engine is not an option.

All things considered, the FA20 is actually a good engine. It makes reasonable power, produces more torque than the K20 and makes it earlier than the F22, revs reasonably well and allows the engineers to fulfill their mission of a low COG.

Could Subaru or Toyota engineer a better engine and drivetrain? Absolutely, but why would they for a low volume vehicle that shares little across the product line-up?

Suppose Subaru did engineer a FA22 making 220 horsepower and 180 lb ft torque. What else would they use it in amortize the costs? The Impreza and Crosstrek sure as hell don't need it given their mission. The Outback? It's going to get a turbo. Drivers of those cars buy torque, not top end and rev happiness. Toyota doesn't need a H4 engine. What's the business case for this outside the BRZ?

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by Da Brz

You couldn't beef the transmission with stronger internals?


Not really arguing, just curious. Swapping parts is a lot easier than a whole new transmission.

Sure, but that'd require all new engineering and assembly infrastructure, with virtually no production numbers to amortize that cost (remember that a F/I 86 would be more expensive and sell even fewer units than what we have right now). So much for parts bin upgrading.

[darthpnoy1984]

I'm already happy with what the car produces pretty amazing considering with the fuel economy standards government demands these days. We'll likely see a minor displacement bump maybe a 8 speed automatic a la IS250-F programming lol 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Poodles]

Originally Posted by venturaII

Yeah, I can read Wikipedia too. Problem with that, is when it's written by someone who never read the original marketing and advertising material, and PR interviews with GM reps in all the major car rags of the day, and only has folklore and hindsight to base their assumptions on, the article is written from the perspective of a fan. If you've read them, you'd recall that every car magazine of the day would preface their critique of the car with "we know it wasn't intended to be, but what if...", knowing that if enough of the public got behind them, they could convince GM to make the car THE MEDIA wanted. George Milidrag and Hulki Aldikacti?? Not exactly in the list of GM's premier designers, which is why they were simply given already proven drivetrain and suspension platforms (which were then used for many more years by GM after the Fiero, as very successful and popular platform bases). And the claim that the '88 car was their 'original design' is garbage as well, as the revamp clearly had the technical influence of Lotus who were being courted at that time, and were not even in the picture in the late 70's when the Fiero concept started. EVERYONE at GM was still in 'Fuel Crisis' mode, including designers, because they knew what was selling. Even the CORVETTE was stuck with a 180bhp 305.


And as far as 'crap' design goes, even the lowly original '83 production cars used GM's then-brand new X-platform design, which was the basis for one of their most popular and successful drivetrain/chassis platforms lasting well into the 2000's, and powered the best selling car in America in the very first year of it's production.


The low budget was due to the economy being in the dumps, and GM basically not trusting a couple of nobody-designers to make something remotely marketable. That they had the smarts to use parts-bin engineering is a testament to the final product, not a detriment. Was it dull, especially when viewed through the eyes of someone weaned on vehicles of the 90's or later? Sure - but EVERYTHING back then was.

My info was from several histories and articles written, not wikipedia. As such, the original internal intention and design was for a sports car. What got through GM brass and got into production is a far cry from it, that's the point. The parts bin issue (and by extension, badge engineering) is an overall issue with the original "Big 3" that took us all the way to the bailouts and even effects today.

I'm well aware of how dull that era was, especially for US cars.

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

80s were some dark times for US-made autos. I blame it on many things but CAD systems were in their infancy and they weren't good at modeling more organic shapes. That coupled with the ever-present drive to control manufacturing costs resulted in some ugly, rickety looking shit.

The upside was smaller panel gaps and body panel parts that were true bolt on. Then again, it's easy to have tight tolerances on a box...

Originally Posted by Yardjass

This is literally the only logical explanation that I've been able to come up with for people rabidly defending the lack of forced induction or real power in these.

Much like GM, Subaru isn't going to make a cheaper model that beats their top of the line model, the STI. Period.

Originally Posted by Yardjass

There is absolutely no reasonable argument for why these cars should only come with low levels of power. Mustang/Camaro/Challenger, Supra, 300ZX, MR2, Genesis coupe, and Impreza/Lancer are just a few of the cars historically offered in a slower base model and one or more faster models as an option. Even Miata, the poster child for this "slow car fast" rhetoric, offered a turbo speed one that wasn't that fast stock but could be tuned fairly easily. Now Fiat has the 124, which can make 200 wheel with nothing more than an ECU reflash.

Mustang/Camaro/Challenger sell more in a month then Subaru does in a YEAR of the BRZ. Supra and 300ZX were halo cars for their respective brands, BRZ isn't even close. MR2 would be a better comparison, but the Japanese brands were flush with cash then. Internal struggles in Toyota for performance to return to their lineup is probably one of the issues in that regard. Genesis coupe sells a hell of a lot more than the BRZ as well.

Miata didn't get a turbo until a second generation. Fiat will fall apart...

Originally Posted by Yardjass

I own a regular NA8 miata. My brother has one with a jackson racing supercharger. Given the choice, I'll take his car every time because since it isn't making enormous power levels to where it does nothing but spin the tires, it is in fact, more fun. Also, because it is only making a modest power increase, there has not been one single problem with his car related to power breaking parts or any of the other nonsense that people try to say.

Cars are designed far more intensely than most people think. 100K miles is where most of their design is aiming for, and with Toyota and Subaru having such high numbers on reliability and resale, you damn well know they aren't going to half ass things.

Originally Posted by Yardjass

The fact is that this car could, and should, be offered in TRD/STI trim with a turbo making the same power levels as a new WRX, and they could do it for under 35 grand. The take rate would probably be less than 20 percent but they would sell. It doesn't mean the regular version is not a great car but I think that other than hurting the feelings of some cry babies, adding more options would be a positive step and a good thing.

Not going to happen right now. Maybe once they make an FA25 for the STI with a hell of a lot more power to be competitive again, and then uncork the WRX, it might happen as then it could slide under both of those.

As it is, a jackson racing supercharged twin would walk a WRX and possibly an STI, and there is simply no way that would fly with Subaru's branding department...

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

The Miata is faster and lighter.

Wasn't at the time the twins were designed, next!

Originally Posted by unhappymeal

I always see this refrain and I have to ask, what is your basis that it'd cost less than $35k? If you look at other RWD coupes--370Z, Genesis, Mustang and Camaro--you realize they have enormous economies of scale going for them.

-370Z is on a platform that underpins Infinitis and the VQ37HR is also shared with Infinitis.
-Genesis was a unique platform, but the 2.0T was lifted straight out of the Mitsubishi parts bin and the 3.8 was used in a bunch of other Hyundais.
-Mustang is also a unique platform, but the Coyote has been in development for god knows how long and the Mustang sells order of magnitudes more than the BRZ.
-Camaro sits on a platform shared across Cadillac. The 2.0T is a refinement of the LNF developed way back for the Cobalt SS, HHR SS and Sky roadster. The 3.6 V6 is a warmed over engine that sits in everything from Malibus to Cadillacs. Lastly, the V8 is sourced from Corvettes and the design itself is used in GM trucks--it's also been around for 150 years.

Yep, this is exactly why the WRX has the FA20 as well...

Originally Posted by unhappymeal

Where do you propose that Subaru and Toyota find the same economies of scale to bring a BRZ STi down to a price point competitive with the above cars? The chassis is unique and would require further reinforcement. Drivetrain? That came out of a Matrix XR and is near its limits. Engine? The EJ25 wouldn't fit nor would the EZ36. The FA20DIT is laggy with a garbage top end. It would need to be significantly re-worked to suit the character of the car and even then it would still probably be laggy. Look at the work that Porsche did on their B4 family of engines (oversquare so it will rev, variable geometry turbos, electronically controlling the by-pass valve and throttle on lift so boost isn't lost, etc.) and journalists still hate it.

Well, the chassis has been proven to hold the power (as is usual for very stiff cars) but it would likely be tweaked as it already has been for the tS and Performance Package will be. Dunno why you think the drivetrain is from the Matrix when it shares lots of pieces with Subaru models... It's also not near it's limit, as it has the signs of typical Toyota overbuilding (though not to the extent as say a Supra). Keep that fing EJ away from my car... EZ36 has already been swapped, but would likely screw with the handling. The FA20DIT isn't any more laggy than any other factory turbo setup that isn't in the 6 figure range. It's purposely detuned so as not to compete with the STI (look at any dyno sheet or the Levorg). Journalists hated on the Porsche because of the steering from what I can remember...

Originally Posted by unhappymeal

On top of the chassis, drive train and engine issues, they would still need more expensive wheels, tires and brakes. Sure, they could raid the WRX/WRX STi parts bin, but it wouldn't be cheap. All that work for what? To sell a couple thousand more BRZs and GT86s per year? Toyoda had a hard enough time convincing Subaru to build the BRZ. Good luck convincing them to give up more capacity at Gunma for a BRZ STi when they are already capacity strained and North America's (the World's?) fastest growing brand.

Wouldn't be cheap? THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT. BRZ tS and the forthcoming Performance Pack both have what's needed. Also, Subaru doesn't want to grow this fast, they want to stay niche (don't really understand this...)

Originally Posted by unhappymeal

Edit #1: I forgot to add the costs of federalizing the car. A new engine, power train and reinforced chassis would be considered a variant so they'd have to spend millions federalizing a BRZ STi.'
Edit #2: I also forgot about the weight penalty. It takes 350 lbs to go from an Impreza to a WRX. Would you want a 3,100 - 3,200 lb BRZ?

Now we get to the meat. Right on the money, especially on the weight issue.

Originally Posted by Da Brz

I think that's all just excuses. Toyota itself huge. They have the FA20DIT and it may be laggy but it's probably better than the FA20. I don't see how it could be worse.

Direct injection has terrible issues with carbon buildup on the back of the valves. Not to mention the D4S system gives better economy, power, and emissions. Ask anyone who tunes them...

Originally Posted by Da Brz

I guess some people just see the world as half empty. I see it as half full. TRD already has a supercharger for it. There's no way Toyota couldn't figure it out.

That they only produced a few of and was used for racing, then promptly sold off. Obviously there was an issue there that they didn't want to deal with.

Originally Posted by Da Brz

To me, they're stuck in a loop. As you said, it's a low-volume car, so maybe they don't wanna spend the money on it. But then again, "no power" for better or for worse is the monkey on this cars back in the public's eyes. If this car suddenly started eating Mustangs and Camaros, people might take notice and buy more. It really would become the poor man's Cayman.

The cabin is already noisy. The ride is too stiff for many people. It wouldn't handle the power the top end pony cars put out.

Know how you fix that? Weight.
Sound insulation = weight
Bumpy ride = weight smooths it out
Stronger chassis = weight

Then it wouldn't be the scalpel it is and would be just another fat ass car made for fat ass Americans

Originally Posted by Da Brz

You couldn't beef the transmission with stronger internals?


Not really arguing, just curious. Swapping parts is a lot easier than a whole new transmission.

Well, you can. The issue is the type of failures happening. Syncros getting eaten can be fixed through partial redesigns. Sheering teeth off of the main gears requires either larger gears to spread the load, or a redesign of the helical, which would induce noise (in other words, straight cut gears).

Keep in mind Toyota put a much (and I mean MUCH) beefier transmission in the Supra when it got turbocharged. It only got beefier when it came to the MKIV Supra. Granted, they already have the transmissions that could work... but they're all autos (IS350 and IS-F only come with autos). I'm sure Aisin could do it, or they could got the Getrag again.

Originally Posted by unhappymeal

Toyota is a massive company, but the facts are the facts. Neither Toyota nor Subaru are sitting on a mountain of great performance parts that they can just plug into the BRZ like GM can with the Camaro or Nissan with the 370Z

Toyota's inline-4 performance engine development died with the last Celica. They only recently introduced their turboed 4 in the Lexus IS and it's by all accounts a dog. I already went over why I think an existing performance Subaru engine is not an option.

All things considered, the FA20 is actually a good engine. It makes reasonable power, produces more torque than the K20 and makes it earlier than the F22, revs reasonably well and allows the engineers to fulfill their mission of a low COG.

Could Subaru or Toyota engineer a better engine and drivetrain? Absolutely, but why would they for a low volume vehicle that shares little across the product line-up?

Suppose Subaru did engineer a FA22 making 220 horsepower and 180 lb ft torque. What else would they use it in amortize the costs? The Impreza and Crosstrek sure as hell don't need it given their mission. The Outback? It's going to get a turbo. Drivers of those cars buy torque, not top end and rev happiness. Toyota doesn't need a H4 engine. What's the business case for this outside the BRZ?

All that for 20HP that I could get from a retune and/or E85? Then again, they did all this other stuff to it this time...

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by unhappymeal

All things considered, the FA20 is actually a good engine. It makes reasonable power, produces more torque than the K20 and makes it earlier than the F22, revs reasonably well and allows the engineers to fulfill their mission of a low COG.

You forgot to mention that it takes to modest boost like a duck to water.

Mind blowing that people are running superchargers and turbos on a 12.5:1 CR engine safely with a ~50% power increase while being emissions legal.

I can't wait to slap a blower on this thing in a few years.

[Cal3000]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

The Miata is faster and lighter.

It's faster, but not by a wide margin. They are still in the same performance catagory. Miata is slightly more expensive if you tack on the LSD option. Miata is a convertable, but the twin's size allow it to have more utility. They are basically the same boat. Miata gets the praise for everyone and journalists, but the FRS needs more power and it's too expensive. I don't understand that logic. lol.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Cal3000

It's faster, but not by a wide margin. They are still in the same performance catagory. Miata is slightly more expensive if you tack on the LSD option. Miata is a convertable, but the twin's size allow it to have more utility. They are basically the same boat. Miata gets the praise for everyone and journalists, but the FRS needs more power and it's too expensive. I don't understand that logic. lol.

The Miata has spent 27 years unyieldingly hardlining what Mazda believes a sports car to be. All the 'it needs more power' articles stopped generating advertising revenue a decade ago after they killed the Mazdaspeed.

Maybe if Toyota kept the Celica nameplate alive instead of calling it a tC and moved it to the 86 it would have gotten a bit more slack. But I have a feeling that may not have happened due to the Subaru collaboration, Toyota didn't want to 'tarnish' the Celica nameplate for lack of a better word.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

You forgot to mention that it takes to modest boost like a duck to water.

Mind blowing that people are running superchargers and turbos on a 12.5:1 CR engine safely with a ~50% power increase while being emissions legal.

I can't wait to slap a blower on this thing in a few years.

I still have a hard time convincing people that a little boost doesn't automatically blow up these engines.


Even after showing them logs and dynos of Edlebrock/JCRS 86s they still don't want to believe it.

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by Poodles

My info was from several histories and articles written, not wikipedia. ..

Well that's a real interesting talent you have then, because your comments are almost verbatim with the article. I can't wait to read about the FT86 in another 25 years - I'm sure Wikipedia will say Tada REALLY wanted the 300 horsepower STi motor, but it was Toyota/Subaru brass who held him back... <rolleyes>

[Toroll]

Originally Posted by krayzie

Actually the argument could be even simpler. Toyota went thru all the trouble of convincing their own top brass to put in D-4S, in addition to convincing Subaru to go with the NA engine and trying to get it to rev over 7000rpm reliably, and now you want them to throw all that effort out and stick in a turbo? LMFAO!

Fun Fact.

7000 rpm is very low for a car that has 86mm stroke. The stroke is usually what determines the rev limit. Shorter strokes can rev higher than longer stroke. The reason being is, PISTON SPEED limit.

Examples:
The 2zz in other cars are set to rev at 8,600rpm. It has 85mm stroke.
The K20 can easily rev att 8,300 rpm. Yes it is also 86mm bore x86mm stroke like the FA20.

The FA20 stroke will allow it to rev past 8,000 rpm but wasn't tuned to do that.

So no, Toyota/Subaru did not give any effort to make the FA20 to rev high even though the stroke already allows it.