Welcome to the Toyota GT 86 / Scion FR-S / Subaru BRZ Community Forums | Toyobaru.net.

View Poll Results: What Engine Specs Would You Like to See?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • 2.0 L,190 hp,150 tq,32 mpg average(reg fuel), ~14.9 ET

    5 10.87%
  • 2.0 L,210 hp,150 tq, 30 mpg average(premium) ~14.7 ET

    4 8.70%
  • 2.0 L, 200 hp, 180 tq, 28 mpg average(premium) ~14.5 ET

    8 17.39%
  • 2.0 L turbo,250 hp,230 tq,25 mpg average(premium) ~14.0 ET

    12 26.09%
  • 2.5 L,220 hp,200 tq,26 mpg average(reg fuel) ~14.3 ET

    8 17.39%
  • 2.5L turbo, 280 hp, 270 tq, 22 mpg average(premium) ~13.5 ET

    9 19.57%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 49 of 49
  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    STL
    Age
    27
    Posts
    514
    It looks like the production version is going to have about 200 hp and 170 tq, spin to 7600 rpm, weigh 2750-2850 lbs, 23 city - 28 highway mpg (~25 mpg average on assuming premium gas), and cost $27000-$28000 USD. This closely resembles option 3 on the poll. Currently it has 18% of the vote and is tied for 3rd most popular.

    IMO, I would rather have this car either in more base form for a NA, meaning lower compression ratio, only port injection, and a cheaper base price or have a turbo. By having so much power on an NA engine, I suspect it will have over 11:1 compression ratio to make that power from an NA engine without going over 8000 rpm. This means it will be hard to turbo the car without swapping pistons. So long to cheap modified power.

    Just my 2 cents.
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Nemesis View Post
    My 07 Saturn sky turbo was 2.0 direct injection turbo with 260hp and 260lbft of torque, torque available at a very low rpm. I got no worse then 27mpg, best was 36mpg, reg was 32-34. Parts were cheapish and reliability was incredible for GM standards, better then my mr2. Saturn offered a dealer installed reprogramming plus injector mod that boosted power to over 300 hp and 300 lbft. The upgrade didn't void the factory warranty either. Price? With Saturns no haggle pricing in 2007, right at 31k out the door. if I didn't need room for a baby seat, I would still have the Sky redline, but replaced the seats. The only issue I ever had was that they apparently tried to cut corners with the type of foam they used and many owners had the foam loosing shape. Most just removed the old padding and replaced it with a higher grade. If GM can do this, I'm sure Toyota can match or do better if they decide to make a DI turbo 2.0.
    This!

    Is it just something in the boxer design that makes it more fuel hungry than equivalent inline engines?

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    STL
    Age
    27
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by drperry View Post
    This!

    Is it just something in the boxer design that makes it more fuel hungry than equivalent inline engines?
    Technically, they should be more efficient due to not having balance shafts or counter weights because the pressure on the crank is balanced naturally by the design.
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  4. #34
    Cal
    Cal is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,755
    Good thing no one buys a sports car for fuel economy.
    Team Scoobie Member

    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    Naw, "bang for the buck" as in performance. I'd rather than and need a shot of penicillin.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    STL
    Age
    27
    Posts
    514
    Sadly, the actual specs are closest to option 2, the least preferred option. Not only does it have 10 less hp than the option, but worse mpg! The only thing good so far is that the car is sub-2700 lbs stock. Means with weight reduction like cf hood/hatch, light rims, etc, you can get a full interior car to something like 2500 lbs or so. Still, needs MO POWA!!
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  6. #36
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3
    2GR-FSE. 306HP 277lb-ft. Normally aspirated. Nuff said.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    STL
    Age
    27
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by JimK View Post
    2GR-FSE. 306HP 277lb-ft. Normally aspirated. Nuff said.
    Yes, but it would not fit the cross-member that the small boxer is practically sitting on. The bay just won't fit it.

    Look at the power this 2.0 is "supposed" to have.

    2012 Subaru WRX STI - 2012 Subaru WRX STI Future Car First Look on RoadandTrack.com

    BRZ STI with anything close to this (as a turbo fb or fa) PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    127
    This might be what is coming. If STi can stuff this engine in BRZ, we get a winner.
    http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/contents/pdf_en_75418.pdf

  9. #39
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4
    Not too impressed with numbers announced..getting ready to order a '12 wrx or wait for this..hmmm..

    Sent from my ADR6325 using Tapatalk

  10. #40
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    Yes, but it would not fit the cross-member that the small boxer is practically sitting on. The bay just won't fit it.
    Bah! Cross members are meant to be modifed. Although I've no idea what RWD tranny would be used here. Maybe the 6spd from the IS250. Clearly it would be easier to get 300hp with an existing Suby flat four, but I'm partial to V6 sounds.

  11. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    STL
    Age
    27
    Posts
    514
    They are already using the same tranny as the 2grfse, supposedly. It's for sure an Aisin, which is usually Toyota style, not Subaru.
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  12. #42
    Cal
    Cal is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,755
    I am really wondering what the aftermarket has planned for this.
    Team Scoobie Member

    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    Naw, "bang for the buck" as in performance. I'd rather than and need a shot of penicillin.

  13. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    STL
    Age
    27
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Cal View Post
    I am really wondering what the aftermarket has planned for this.
    I don't think much yet, as they've been holding on to specs and what they were doing until now. I would bet though, Subaru or Toyota has leaked so parts/info to some major players to give them a head start. With the compression at 12.5:1, you will need new pistons to add boost. There goes your warranty!
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  14. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    63
    I think you need to add a 2.0T with c.300bhp to the options list as this is what Subaru will offer - if they can do it with the older 2.0 Imprezas, and if Mitsubishi UK can offer 2.0T 4 cylinders with 280, 300, FQ320 and FQ340 bhp on the EVO, the flat four will have to be in the same range.

  15. #45
    Модератор
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Springfield, MA
    Age
    22
    Posts
    1,400
    i was speaking with my friends shop about a custom fabricated turbo setup deal, be jealous
    05' STi
    Team Scoobie Member

  16. #46
    Cal
    Cal is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,755
    Quote Originally Posted by ej25ti View Post
    i was speaking with my friends shop about a custom fabricated turbo setup deal, be jealous
    <<<<<----Hater flame.
    Team Scoobie Member

    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    Naw, "bang for the buck" as in performance. I'd rather than and need a shot of penicillin.

  17. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    127
    Gentlemen,
    We been sand bagged. I spoke to a buddy who work on custom engine mod. Base on his calculation, FA engine should have another 10~15 ft-lb torq room from the 151 ft-lb we saw. So
    #1 Marketing dept is telling us the short # so the next year, they can increase the torq w/o doing any work.
    #2 Engineering dept has detuned it so the torq is little lower and increase the spec by tweaking ecm and show improvement.

    Either way, thanks to fracken Obama for fracking up the MPG mandate.
    Last edited by silentheart; 12-03-2011 at 10:32 AM.

  18. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    STL
    Age
    27
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    Gentlemen,
    We been sand bagged. I spoke to a buddy who work on custom engine mod. Base on his calculation, FA engine should have another 10~15 ft-lb torq room from the 151 ft-lb we saw. So
    #1 Marketing dept is telling us the short # so the next year, they can increase the torq w/o doing any work.
    #2 Engineering dept has detuned it so the torq is little lower and increase the spec by tweaking ecm and show improvement.

    Either way, thanks to fracken Obama for fracking up the MPG mandate.
    If it is a Subie ECU, a cobb tune away from more power. Add i/h/e and then tune for more bang. Still, nothing NEAR what a turbo car could do. So far, I see a FAIL boat! The genesis is going to get 270 hp in 2013 2.0T models and more with the v6's!
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  19. #49
    Cal
    Cal is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,755
    The genesis is also about to become uglier than a .50 cent hooker.
    Team Scoobie Member

    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    Naw, "bang for the buck" as in performance. I'd rather than and need a shot of penicillin.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0