4 cylinder cars

[jarviz]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

200 hp out of a NA 2.0L is pretty good. In fact, I think Subaru/Toyota's the only manufacturer that's been able to do that without variable lift cams.

Yes my thoughts too. I was referring to just NA engines.

[jarviz]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

I love the twins, but I really think toyota messed up sourcing the subaru flat 4. I personally would have preferred toyota developing a higher revving inline 4 that made closer to 240-250hp.

I don't buy into this whole needs lowest cog bs. I agree high cog is bad, but switching to an inline 4 would not make the car suddenly handle like a SUV. This whole cog thing just screams marketing BS and having a bullet point in their ADs.

but what would the price difference be if Toyota had added an extra 40-50HP. I believe weight savings was a primary goal for them.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by Mikem53

08 vette..

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by BlaineWasHere

Toyota didn't just source the motor, they sourced the whole car. If Toyota had developed such a motor for the car, as you say, it would have been a $30K car.

I'm not saying that is the only thing Toyota sourced from Subaru. Just saying that is the only thing I would have done differently. Also, at $30k I would still buy this car in a heartbeat. The BRZ limited and the monogram series isn't too far off $30k.

The cars I were cross shopping with the twins were far more expensive than $30k. If the car was priced near or below the s2000 I still would have bought it.

[mush]

Cla45

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by jarviz

but what would the price difference be if Toyota had added an extra 40-50HP. I believe weight savings was a primary goal for them.

You think that a flat 4 is lighter than an equivalent inline 4?

[gily25]

They brought just enough to this car to make it the perfect base for aftermarket mods. Why do you want to spend huge fortunes on R&D when you can make aftermarket companies do it for you, then just incorporate their designs? The problem with the current consumer for this car, is that the comparisons are to other vehicles that are in their 3rd or more generation and those cars include aftermarket R&D. It would only be fair to compare the twins to other first gen vehicles or vehicles that are 100% oem design.

[#944_10_Series_FRS]

Genesis Coupe (turbo) 2.0L @ 274HP

[N1rve]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

I love the twins, but I really think toyota messed up sourcing the subaru flat 4. I personally would have preferred toyota developing a higher revving inline 4 that made closer to 240-250hp.

I don't buy into this whole needs lowest cog bs. I agree high cog is bad, but switching to an inline 4 would not make the car suddenly handle like a SUV. This whole cog thing just screams marketing BS and having a bullet point in their ADs.

They were going towards a balanced car, and a flat 4 is more balanced than a regular inline 4.

[Eurasianman]

Originally Posted by #944_10_Series_FRS

Genesis Coupe (turbo) 2.0L @ 274HP

2008-2010 Cobalt SS turbocharged with GM Stage 1 (manufacturer option/does not affect warranty) 2.0L @ 280HP. Does that count? :P

Side note, I am pretty happy with the power from the FA20. Just wish 2nd gear (manual) would be a bit taller to hit 60 MPH (Seriously stops at 59 MPH! WTF?! )

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by 993Fan

Big rigs have 4-cylinder engines and they have plenty of torque and horsepower!

I thought most big rigs used inline 6s...

[wlfpck]

A lot of honda engines make 200 or more N/A as a 4-cylinder.

F20b
F20c
F22c1
H22 (regular)
H22 (from type S prelude)
K20 (certain ones)
K24 (certain ones)

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by N1rve

They were going towards a balanced car, and a flat 4 is more balanced than a regular inline 4.

Balanced in what way?

Yes, flat 4s are more balanced than inline 4s, but how does that make the car it self more balanced?

I don't have a bias against flat engines. I don't even hate the FA20. I'm just stating my opinion that Toyota could have made a more special vehicle with a different engine. Subaru is not known for their N/A engines and I personally would rather have the linear power delivery of N/A over FI.

I guess my real issue is with the reliability of the FA20. This engine is far from bullet proof and having modest power on top of that is pretty meh. As stated above 90-00 Honda inline 4s have been making 200hp without direct injection.

As a package I love the car and can't think of another car I'd rather buy anywhere near its price range.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

Honda's F20c bests it by 40hp but torque is roughly the same. I'm fairly certain the extra power comes in the last 2,000rpm; if Subaru were to build a 9,000rpm-revving boxer it might do the same, but the cost would put the FR-S/BRZ over $30k

Agreed. I still doubt the FA20 is going to match the F20c if run up to 9krpm while remaining 86x86 and without having variable cam lobes. The strict adherence to the 86x86 thing put them in a "box". pun intended.

Originally Posted by Turbowned

The S2000 was more like $40k in today's dollars, something the Honda fanboys are quick to forget. I'm sure if you dumped $10k in the FA20 it would produce more power

The Mazda MX-5 has a 2.0L that only produces 167hp. The older Genesis coupe only made 210hp out of a turbo 2.0L, granted that number has increased to 274hp since the twins were introduced.

I don't agree that the delta in cost of the S2000 vs a car like the FRS is simply due to the 40hp difference in the engine. The S2k had a more expensive suspension design, it was a convertible and it shared almost nothing from any other vehicle... all of which increased cost.

But I agree with the rest. When not compared to Honda, making a 100hp/liter on pump gas is pretty darn good. But when compared to some Honda engines, and considering it has advanced technology like D4S and a CR of 12.5:1, the fact that it only makes 100hp/liter could be frustrating to some...but really it shouldn't be.

For reference: the 2.0L SkyActiv-G DI engine from Mazda has almost the same CR (12.1:1) as the FA20 but can run on regular (87 octane) pump gas, however it does make less HP (155HP).

So the FA20's NA output could be pretty good or pretty bad depending on what shade of lenses you're looking through.