4 cylinder cars

[Frost]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

Haha, well I'm not saying I want this car to turn in to a SUV. I just don't buy into the 1-2" difference in COG would change the dynamics of the car by that much and would be a worthy sacrifice to raise reliability or power output.

I guess there is no reason Toyota couldn't have come up with a flat 4, but realistically they would have probably just developed an inline 4.

I do buy into the 1-2" COG drop - think about how many people drop their car 1-2" via suspension mods etc. That's why so many reviewers keep saying this car is great out of the box.

Toyota doesn't want to reinvent the wheel but given how this marriage with Subaru has gone, I don't think they will pursue it and thus maybe pull some R&D peeps into a new engine or refreshed version of this car.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

I was just saying your are filtering the number of engines to pick from quite a bit by placing all these restrictions, that I never put on the car.

You're right. Toyota placed those restrictions on themselves: surpass current emissions requirements (US isn't the most strict, I think Japan or EU is), 2.0L, NA, and export the engine to all markets with no problems. It's a lofty goal and they fucking nailed it.

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

Again nothing is wrong with the FA20. I'm fine with the car and the engine, but if I could have changed something in the development of the car that would be it and I would sacrifice cost and cog to achieve it.

And there's the rub. You would have paid more for more performance and your perfect car simply doesn't exist, Porsche is too expensive, STI/Muscle cars are too heavy yada yada yada. Compromises.

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by Frost

I do buy into the 1-2" COG drop - think about how many people drop their car 1-2" via suspension mods etc. That's why so many reviewers keep saying this car is great out of the box.

Toyota doesn't want to reinvent the wheel but given how this marriage with Subaru has gone, I don't think they will pursue it and thus maybe pull some R&D peeps into a new engine or refreshed version of this car.

I think handling dynamics are more like black magic with so many variables going on. I don't think its correct to say a straight drop in the car to lower the COG instantly equals a better car.

[AsianStyle]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

You're right. Toyota placed those restrictions on themselves: surpass current emissions requirements (US isn't the most strict, I think Japan or EU is), 2.0L, NA, and export the engine to all markets with no problems. It's a lofty goal and they fucking nailed it.



And there's the rub. You would have paid more for more performance and your perfect car simply doesn't exist, Porsche is too expensive, STI/Muscle cars are too heavy yada yada yada. Compromises.

I think your absolutely wrong about the emissions standards. If you look at several imported cars you will see that the JDM cars had more power. I doubt they de-tuned these engines to bring to Europe or the states.

JDM Civic Type R = 222hp
Euro Civic Type R = 198hp

JDM S2000 = 247hp
Euro/US S2000 = 237hp

Yes, I know it doesn't exist that's why it was an imagining of what I wish Toyota did. I will gladly take what I can have, hence I own the FRS, but if a new version does come out with what I want. I will be first in line for one.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

You're right. Toyota placed those restrictions on themselves: surpass current emissions requirements (US isn't the most strict, I think Japan or EU is), 2.0L, NA, and export the engine to all markets with no problems. It's a lofty goal and they fucking nailed it.

You got it wrong, US has the strictest emissions, aside from particulate matter. The NOx is why diesel cars never made it over here. Japanese engines make more power since their emissions are a bit more lax.

Also fuel economy has very little to do with the engine in this comparison. The fuel economy a normal driver gets is a function of weight, aero, and transmission. An F20C might use 5% more fuel or so with the same gearbox and car, but the S2000 has horrible aero and horrible gearing. The extra final drive reduction gear explains most of the extra fuel economy loss.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

I think your absolutely wrong about the emissions standards.

European version of the 86 is rated at 197 hp.
http://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/gt86-specs-prices
147 kW = 197.1 HP

I'll make a table after I get home from work:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summari.../l28186_en.htm
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/allstandards.htm

I think this is the proper US table:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/li.../tier2stds.htm

Originally Posted by serialk11r

You got it wrong, US has the strictest emissions, aside from particulate matter. The NOx is why diesel cars never made it over here. Japanese engines make more power.

Diesel engines are regulated differently, we're talking about petrol, like I said I'll back up my claim later in the day and possibly eat my words.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Frost

I do buy into the 1-2" COG drop - think about how many people drop their car 1-2" via suspension mods etc. That's why so many reviewers keep saying this car is great out of the box.

Toyota doesn't want to reinvent the wheel but given how this marriage with Subaru has gone, I don't think they will pursue it and thus maybe pull some R&D peeps into a new engine or refreshed version of this car.

I think the 1-2" drop has more to do with the stupidly large wheel gaps that Toyota products have than it does to lower the CoG. Does it handle better? sure, but now it looks like it has proper stance vs 4x4 stance.


Ever notice how the Euro cars have almost even wheel gap and every other car maker has this enourmous wheel gap making a car look like a 4x4? (Toyota Corolla is the worst culprit for this imo)

[Photonic]

I don't mean to toot my own horn and this is not what was requested..

KA24DE. The 240sx motor.

150 hp stock @ 5500 rpm
160 FTLBS of torque @ 4500

Correct me if I am wrong.

I do Know on every dyno I have seen (and meh buddy is 14 year nissan master tech , only certified GTR tech and loves his KA'S!!!)

I have been indoctrinated ..but I have seen KA's on stock fuel, with turbo welded to the manifold cut into with a hacksaw ... running massively lean ..this guy ..he ran for 2 years before he brought it into my friends PERSONAL garage ..for a rebuild ..

And he didint need it ..he just wanted to go to 400hp instead of 240HP. (for the last 2 years)

All engines arent created equal but the KA24 is the V8 OF 4CYLINDERS. Always more torque than horsepower ...thanks to its long ass stroke ..and low rev limit.

I love the KA...

[ripper]

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.

i was kind of thinking why didn't they put an ej257 or ej20 boosted motor and get massive hp/wt and loads of torque. the fa20 is sufficient but a little more torque would be just perfect. but... i've got to say i really love the fuel economy of the fa20 compared to my sti.

wrt low cog, i think it's a key contributor to the mid-engine like performance that the twins have.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by AsianStyle

I think handling dynamics are more like black magic with so many variables going on. I don't think its correct to say a straight drop in the car to lower the COG instantly equals a better car.

Keeping all else equal (suspension travel, roll center/suspension geometry, etc.), a straight 1-2" drop in COG will instantly make a better handling car. There's no question about that.

[ZDan]

There's no way on earth the boxer engine lowers the car's c.g. by 1-2". I would guesstimate less than 1/2" vs. an upright inline-4. Nothing you would be able to feel, probably less than you could detect with a stopwatch with a consistent driver.

One problem with flat engines is that you usually have to mount them with the crankshaft a bit higher in order to have clearance for the exhaust coming straight out the bottom of the cylinder heads. Look at how high the engine sits:


Some F1 designers dallied with flat engines a LONG time ago before deciding that V-engines were a better solution to get c.g. as low as possible.

Anyway, case in point: C7 Corvette's c.g. height is 17.5" with a 6.2 liter V8, 911S c.g. height is 19" with a 3.8 liter flat-6.

I'm very impressed with the FR-S/BRZ c.g. height, but IMO it's more to do with attention to overall design details as with using a flat engine configuration. I would bet that with a V4 configuration, or an I-4 laid over at 45 degrees (a-la Porsche 924/944/964) the c.g. would be as low or could be even lower.

[DarkSunrise]

Yeah I dont think the boxer config will drop more than an inch, was just responding to his statement about 1-2" not being significant. that said, the 17.5" cg height for the c7 is a somewhat apples to oranges since it's got a dry sump.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Some F1 designers dallied with flat engines a LONG time ago before deciding that V-engines were a better solution to get c.g. as low as possible.

Anyway, case in point: C7 Corvette's c.g. height is 17.5" with a 6.2 liter V8, 911S c.g. height is 19" with a 3.8 liter flat-6.

I'm very impressed with the FR-S/BRZ c.g. height, but IMO it's more to do with attention to overall design details as with using a flat engine configuration. I would bet that with a V4 configuration, or an I-4 laid over at 45 degrees (a-la Porsche 924/944/964) the c.g. would be as low or could be even lower.

With the Corvette there's also the fact that the engine is heavier (most likely?), or at least the crank and reciprocating group are, so you automatically have more mass relative to the chassis mass sitting lower. The 911 doesn't have as much engine - ballast. The 911 is also a taller car though I think.

A really heavily tilted I4 would be pretty awesome.

[Calum]

Originally Posted by ZDan

There's no way on earth the boxer engine lowers the car's c.g. by 1-2". I would guesstimate less than 1/2" vs. an upright inline-4. Nothing you would be able to feel, probably less than you could detect with a stopwatch with a consistent driver.

One problem with flat engines is that you usually have to mount them with the crankshaft a bit higher in order to have clearance for the exhaust coming straight out the bottom of the cylinder heads. Look at how high the engine sits:


Some F1 designers dallied with flat engines a LONG time ago before deciding that V-engines were a better solution to get c.g. as low as possible.

Anyway, case in point: C7 Corvette's c.g. height is 17.5" with a 6.2 liter V8, 911S c.g. height is 19" with a 3.8 liter flat-6.

I'm very impressed with the FR-S/BRZ c.g. height, but IMO it's more to do with attention to overall design details as with using a flat engine configuration. I would bet that with a V4 configuration, or an I-4 laid over at 45 degrees (a-la Porsche 924/944/964) the c.g. would be as low or could be even lower.

I thought that was due to strength issues and that they'd have to make braces that would basically circle the engine to prevent movement of the ends of the block.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was only a few pound difference between the pushrod v8 and the DOHC flat six. It would be interesting to find out for sure.