FA20 Engine Wins Ward's 10 Best Engines of 2013

[Jeffsu350]

Is there an award for the car that has won the most awards?

Ward's 10 Best Engines of 2013 Announced

Judges impressed by innovative new gasoline engines over plug-in hybrids or all-electrics

SOUTHFIELD, Mich., Dec. 12, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Ward's 10 Best Engines, the premiere industry honors for car and light truck engines, have been announced for 2013. For the first time in seven years, the list is comprised entirely of gasoline-powered engines, with no hybrid, all-electric or diesel powertrains to be found.

While this result might seem to go against the grain of the industry's push into alternative fuels and propulsion systems, WardsAuto editors who judged the awards see the list as proof there is significant innovation still happening in the development of traditional gasoline engines, making them more fuel-efficient and refined than ever.

"We're always excited to see the advancements being made in hybrids and all-electric vehicles," says Drew Winter, editor-in-chief of WardsAuto World magazine. "But there are still significant barriers for the average consumer to look past when considering these vehicles. The cost for most of them remains high, and the driving ranges of the battery electric vehicles will have to be extended to meet the needs of most people."

Instead, the WardsAuto judges found significant innovations in fuel efficiency and overall refinement in the traditional gasoline engines that power the majority of vehicles that will be on the road for the foreseeable future.

Now in its 19th year, the Ward's 10 Best Engines competition recognizes the latest powertrain technologies that are affordable to most consumers, boost horsepower and torque, are highly efficient, sound appealing and pair up well with their respective vehicles. This year's winners (and the vehicles tested) are:

3.0L TFSI Supercharged DOHC V-6 (Audi S5)
2.0L N20 Turbocharged DOHC I-4 (BMW 328i)
3.0L N55 Turbocharged DOHC I-6 (BMW 135is coupe)
3.6L Pentastar DOHC V-6 (Ram 1500)
2.0L EcoBoost DOHC I-4 (Ford Focus ST/Taurus)
5.8L Supercharged DOHC V-8 (Ford Shelby GT500)
2.0L Turbocharged DOHC I-4 (Cadillac ATS)
2.4L DOHC I-4 (Honda Accord Sport)
3.5L SOHC V-6 (Honda Accord)
2.0L FA DOHC H-4 Boxer (Subaru BRZ)

WardsAuto editors chose the winners after spending October through early December driving 40 vehicles in their routine daily commutes around metro Detroit. Editors scored each engine based on power, technology, observed fuel economy and noise, vibration and harshness characteristics. There is no instrumented testing. To be eligible, each engine must be available in a regular-production U.S.-specification model on sale no later than first-quarter 2013, in a vehicle with a base price below $55,000. Winners from the 2012 competition were automatically eligible and evaluated against the new engines for 2013.

"The world's automakers are showing no signs in slowing down when it comes to making gasoline engines the best choice for today's and tomorrow's drivers," Winter says. With new technologies such as "stop-start" – which shuts down the engine when a vehicle comes to a stop or idles -- automotive engineers are proving they have no shortage of tricks up their sleeves for reducing fuel consumption and cost of ownership."

More details on the ten winning engines have been posted today to WardsAuto.com. Complete stories and a video package about the Ward's 10 Best Engines will be featured Jan. 7 on WardsAuto.com and in upcoming issues of WardsAuto World digital magazine and the WardsAuto Engine and Technology Update e-newsletter.

[rapidcars]

I guess reliability has no influence.

[pr086]

and in the comments people are already talking crap about it being on the list. people love to hate on our cars

[NOHOME]

How can an engine that tosses Check Wallet Lights and has a Camel shaped torque curve win awards for anything?

I am not saying it is a terrible engine, but I can't think of anything that it does that I could brag about? Power, power delivery, fuel consumption, smoothness...all under the "Meh" category as far as I can tell.

Reliability? Too early to tell; guess we will ave to start the clock ticking if the CELs ever stop going on.

[whtchocla7e]

Show us another 100hp/liter engine in production for $25K.

[rapidcars]

Originally Posted by whtchocla7e

Show us another 100hp/liter engine in production for $25K.

The RSX-S and Civic Si (before they went to the 2.4 liter) but those had less low end torque. Good point, I think we tend to forget how impressive that is.

[Jeffsu350]

37 mpg highway isn't something to laugh at either ... Especially in a 200 hp engine you can have fun with

[wbradley]

[QUOTE=NOHOME;606366]How can an engine that tosses Check Wallet Lights and has a Camel shaped torque curve win awards for anything?

QUOTE]

Dromedary or Bactrian?

[Books]

Issues with a first gen engine? Unheard of! Fwiw it's not that bad at all for a launch. I'm about 4k post CEL with no issues. Other than the CEL, idle dip and loud fuel pumps aren't major issues (ie new Ford Fusion engine fires).

2 Liters and 200 Hp, plenty of torque, dual injectors, high compression, high revving (thanks to 86*86mm pistons), great fuel mileage, and i'm sure's tons more.

Sure we all want more power but for what it is, it is a very well engineered engine.

Originally Posted by NOHOME

How can an engine that tosses Check Wallet Lights and has a Camel shaped torque curve win awards for anything?

That's mainly a design issue (camel torque). Whether you like it or not, it allows both commuters and spirited drivers/racers have their tabletop torque. For an NA engine, it's pretty great to have all that torque in such ranges.

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by rapidcars

The RSX-S and Civic Si (before they went to the 2.4 liter) but those had less low end torque. Good point, I think we tend to forget how impressive that is.

THIS THIS THIS.

For a 2.0 liter engine, it's really smooth for what it could have been.

[that_one_guy]

yes, the engine has its faults, but you forget what they said about the test:

"Editors scored each engine based on power, technology, observed fuel economy and noise, vibration and harshness characteristics. There is no instrumented testing."

This really isn't an objective test of the engine. It's more a subjective test of the car and at the end they were only asked to comment about the engine. If the car as a whole made the editors feel good while driving it, then of course they are more likely to look past any faults it has in any particular area.

I feel if you look a any individual part of this car, your opinion would be "meh" at best. The beautiful thing about this car is when you bolt all of those "meh" parts together you get

[DarkSunrise]

I will say, the FA20 is quite torquey down low for a NA 2.0L making 200 hp. I've also been getting much better gas mileage than expected, and it's a fairly smooth engine. So I can see why it would make the list.

Now if someone could fill out the midrange please

[Dezoris]

Been waiting for 2.5 months for a new ECU. It's so hot you can't get parts to make the engine run properly.

[Snoopyalien24]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

How can an engine that tosses Check Wallet Lights and has a Camel shaped torque curve win awards for anything?

I am not saying it is a terrible engine, but I can't think of anything that it does that I could brag about? Power, power delivery, fuel consumption, smoothness...all under the "Meh" category as far as I can tell.

Reliability? Too early to tell; guess we will ave to start the clock ticking if the CELs ever stop going on.

100hp/liter for under $25k with a very low COG and in a RWD package that hasn't existed since the 60's or 50's

Originally Posted by whtchocla7e

Show us another 100hp/liter engine in production for $25K.

Exactly

Originally Posted by rapidcars

The RSX-S and Civic Si (before they went to the 2.4 liter) but those had less low end torque. Good point, I think we tend to forget how impressive that is.

Tomorrows technology is impressive

Originally Posted by Jeffsu350

37 mpg highway isn't something to laugh at either ... Especially in a 200 hp engine you can have fun with

Wow 37 MPG? Do you drive it in reverse?