Comparison of the best ~2 liter N/A engines ever produced

[regal]

Originally Posted by chrisl

You missed the point - even in the torque dip, you're making a LOT more than 100 ft-lbs at the wheels because of the transmission. Specifically:

1st gear: 1480 ft-lbs at the wheel in the torque dip (for 6MT)
2nd: 897 ft-lbs
3rd: 632 ft-lbs
4th: 497 ft-lbs
5th: 410 ft-lbs
6th: 314 ft-lbs

(all assuming no loss, 100ft-lbs at crank).

Yes but that's relative. Those numbers are very low for a sporty 2800lb car. If it had 18 gears maybe your point makes sense to me

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by regal

Yes but that's relative. Those numbers are very low for a sporty 2800lb car. If it had 18 gears maybe your point makes sense to me

It is relative, if your complaining about it you're the one who bought the wrong car. Complaining about the torque dip is as stupid as about complaining about a turbo engine boost lag, or the lack of top end power of a diesel.

[chulooz]

People often complain about the dip but rarely praise having two power bands.

[regal]

Originally Posted by Rayme

It is relative, if your complaining about it you're the one who bought the wrong car. Complaining about the torque dip is as stupid as about complaining about a turbo engine boost lag, or the lack of top end power of a diesel.

How is pointing out a fact complaining? This a list of the best 2L N/a engines of all time. In stock form the FA20 just doesn't belong on the list IMHO. Many people including professional auto reviewers point out the torque dip and the FA20 never gets raves reviews by any auto reviewers. The existence of a dip isn't the issue, its the severity of it right as you rev over 3k.

BTW the torque dip is easily eliminated with proper tuning and headers, no reason to label stupid the majority who rightly believe 100ft-lbs at the wheels (in the dip) is not enough for a 2800lb car. Smart is CI and that is typically started by identifying areas of deficiency.

[Mikem53]

Originally Posted by Rayme

It is relative, if your complaining about it you're the one who bought the wrong car. Complaining about the torque dip is as stupid as about complaining about a turbo engine boost lag, or the lack of top end power of a diesel.

I mentioned this before.. I test drove the car before I bought it. To tell you the truth.. The tq dip is not really an issue in everyday driving.. Most of these people complaining about it wouldn't even know it existed if it wasn't for the dyno printouts. It looks worse on paper than it actually feels in the real world.
If it was as bad as some mention.. Why did they buy the car in the first place?
You can always maintain rpms to where you land above or below the "dip" if necessary. The OEM did a good job of keeping tq low and high in the powerband considering the engine size, rpm range and budget they had to work with.
The overall package works great! The compromises made are reasonable and still deliver a great driving experience.. Especially considering the cost of entry.
I wouldn't want to lose my warranty over a tune trying to fix something that's not really an issue to begin with..

[Mikem53]

Originally Posted by regal

How is pointing out a fact complaining? This a list of the best 2L N/a engines of all time. In stock form the FA20 just doesn't belong on the list IMHO. Many people including professional auto reviewers point out the torque dip and the FA20 never gets raves reviews by any auto reviewers. The existence of a dip isn't the issue, its the severity of it right as you rev over 3k.

BTW the torque dip is easily eliminated with proper tuning and headers, no reason to label stupid the majority who rightly believe 100ft-lbs at the wheels (in the dip) is not enough for a 2800lb car. Smart is CI and that is typically started by identifying areas of deficiency.

What fact? C&D, motortrend and every other review by a professional reviewer I have seen has never mentioned the tq dip or driveability issues.
Not everyone wants to void their warranty with a tune.. Or thinks there is a need for a tune, headers.
It's not the engine that makes this car so special.. It's the right combination of parts.. While the engine is no huge stand out.. It's 100hp per L and fuel economy are respectable and match the chassis well.. Not to mention the awesome throttle response and CR.. Not much to complain about IMO.

[448hpsti]

That Alfa Romeo 16v 2.0 in the old 164

[regal]

Originally Posted by Mikem53

What fact? C&D, motortrend and every other review by a professional reviewer I have seen has never mentioned the tq dip or driveability issues.
Not everyone wants to void their warranty with a tune.. Or thinks there is a need for a tune, headers.
It's not the engine that makes this car so special.. It's the right combination of parts.. While the engine is no huge stand out.. It's 100hp per L and fuel economy are respectable and match the chassis well.. Not to mention the awesome throttle response and CR.. Not much to complain about IMO.

And every recent review I've read wants more engine output with the twins, even Pobst's latest comments are "add a turbo", and this thread is about the best 2L NA engine's ever. The FA20 just isn't there. As you say it isn't a huge stand out.

[Mikem53]

Originally Posted by regal

And every recent review I've read wants more engine output with the twins, even Pobst's latest comments are "add a turbo", and this thread is about the best 2L NA engine's ever. The FA20 just isn't there. As you say it isn't a huge stand out.

In case you missed this fact... Wards 10 best.. FA20

http://m.wardsauto.com/vehicles-amp-...dohc-h-4-boxer

[regal]

Originally Posted by Mikem53

In case you missed this fact... Wards 10 best.. FA20

http://m.wardsauto.com/vehicles-amp-...dohc-h-4-boxer

Key word 2013's best engines. They don't make 'em like the used to, just read this thread there is a lot of good learnings.

[boxer 2.5]

Originally Posted by Rayme

It is relative, if your complaining about it you're the one who bought the wrong car. Complaining about the lack of top end power of a diesel.

HA! I love it.

[Mikem53]

Originally Posted by regal

And every recent review I've read wants more engine output with the twins, even Pobst's latest comments are "add a turbo", and this thread is about the best 2L NA engine's ever. The FA20 just isn't there. As you say it isn't a huge stand out.

Everybody complains about "wanting" more power.. That's a given.
Other 2.0L engine may produce more power.. But that doesn't make them better
For this application.. The s2k was not better than the FA20 when it comes to everyday usability in real world driving.. Nor would it sit down low and allow the same cog as the boxer setup.. Saying there are better engines out there is easy.. making it all fit and work in an affordable package that provides this level of fun is not so easy..
I bought the car for its everyday real world performance.. If I wanted a faster car.. I would have bought one..

[regal]

Originally Posted by Mikem53

Everybody complains about "wanting" more power.. That's a given.
Other 2.0L engine may produce more power.. But that doesn't make them better
For this application.. The s2k was not better than the FA20 when it comes to everyday usability in real world driving.. Nor would it sit down low and allow the same cog as the boxer setup.. Saying there are better engines out there is easy.. making it all fit and work in an affordable package that provides this level of fun is not so easy..
I bought the car for its everyday real world performance.. If I wanted a faster car.. I would have bought one..

No one is arguing but this thread is not about the car it's about 2l NA engines, its a good read.

[Hanni_0176]

People often complain about the dip but rarely praise having two power bands.

I mentioned this before.. I test drove the car before I bought it. To tell you the truth.. The tq dip is not really an issue in everyday driving.. Most of these people complaining about it wouldn't even know it existed if it wasn't for the dyno printouts. It looks worse on paper than it actually feels in the real world.
If it was as bad as some mention.. Why did they buy the car in the first place?
You can always maintain rpms to where you land above or below the "dip" if necessary. The OEM did a good job of keeping tq low and high in the powerband considering the engine size, rpm range and budget they had to work with.
The overall package works great! The compromises made are reasonable and still deliver a great driving experience.. Especially considering the cost of entry.
I wouldn't want to lose my warranty over a tune trying to fix something that's not really an issue to begin with..

I feel the same way. I do not understand why so many people complain about the torque dip from 3k to 4k-ish. During normal daily driving, I shift at 3k and cruise at 2k, and the car has plenty enough power in the 2k-3k range. When I want to drive spiritedly (or when I start tracking the car), I keep the rpm's at or above the 4.5k rpm range, so I still don't notice the torque dip. The only time the torque dip really comes into play, for me, is when launching from a stop... and it only affects first gear.

I guess some people drive differently? Or simply think it's bad because it sounds bad and it looks bad on a dynograph?