[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/o/ - Auto

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 2022 brz.jpg (364 KB, 1920x1080)
364 KB
364 KB JPG
This is literally the closest modern car we have that's like a fun sporty affordable Jap car from the 90s/2000s.
>>
File: wide load.png (2.52 MB, 2400x1080)
2.52 MB
2.52 MB PNG
No this is
>>
>>24721767
Miat
>>
>>24721767
True but that doesn't change the fact that it's a bad daily driver.
>>
File: cc1[1].jpg (28 KB, 619x453)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
and i'll never afford one
>>
>>24721788
What do you need in a daily driver that the BRZ doesn't have?
>>
>>24721807
Proper back seats and a soft ride.
>>
>>24721807
To go fast
>>
>>24721807
Enough power to pass a minivan
>>
>>24721819
>Proper back seats
Small two door Japanese cars never had this.
>a soft ride.
The new BRZ is supposed to be more compliant than the original. In fact, they made the previous gen softer at least once; for the 2015 model year.
>>
>>24721807
The ability to take a truck or a crossover off the line. Also not having to shift 4 times to get across an intersection. I own ~2400lb cars so I appreciate light cars but 2800lbs isn't really light enough to justify the lack of performance.
>>
>>24721820
>>24721826
>>24721985
Well then you’re in luck, dipshits. The new one has more power and removed the torque chasm in the middle of the rev range.
>>
>>24721788
Huh? It’s the best DD because it gets good MPG, has a decent trunk, and is best suited to legal speeds you’ll encounter on your commute.
>>
>>24721819
\>soft ride

Fag.
>>
>>24721964
It's. A. Shit. Daily.
>>
>>24721985
>>24722016
neither of you fags have even driven one
>>
>>24722003
>Le torque chasm

Every fucking car and even motorcycle has that, it’s an emission/MPG thing. It’s also barely even noticeable. I want to slap the shit out of the journalist that started acting like the car screeches to a halt at 4k RPM when you wouldn’t even know where the dip was if I didn’t tell you. Fucking nonsense.
>>
File: 1315174367942.gif (430 KB, 398x400)
430 KB
430 KB GIF
>>24722016
what more do you need.

fucking cuck
>>
>>24722030
A Camaro and the Mustang don't have torque dips. My Saturn shitbox doesn't have a torque dip.
>>
>>24722049
you wouldnt know a torque dip if it stuck its tongue in your ass
>>
>>24722003
>20 more horsepower
Wow it's fucking nothing. Where's the turbo version that everyone said was totally coming 7 or 8 years ago?
>>
>>24721767
ahhah 90's Jap cars were still getting gapped by SUV's lmao. Not much has changed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqO6uZ0ZhX8
>>
>>24721819
How soft a ride do you need? It's a far cry from a cut springs 90s honda.
>>
>>24722058
not happening because that would make it too much more expensive, when affordable fun is the entire point of the car. if you want something similar with more power you already have options in the burger pony cars.
>>
>>24722030
>you wouldn’t even know where the dip was if I didn’t tell you
I was exaggerating. But my daily for the last six years has been a 2015 series.blue. If you’re not in the right gear and stab the throttle in the dip it’s definitely noticeable. It’s not crippling. But it’s something you have to be cognizant of.
>>
>>24722030
>every car has it
lolwut not even close
t. owned one and no normal car has a torque chasm jesus stop coping already
>>
>>24721767
>ike a fun sporty affordable Jap car from the 90s/2000s.
Why would you unironically buy a shitbox though
>>
>>24721767
>what is Z
>>
>>24722135
A huge pile of pigfat ass that handles like total garbage? Why do you people keep coming here to cope?
>>
>>24722135
I hope the Z's near BRZ/GR86 price range with LSD
>>
>>24722049
Prepare to get ass blasted, faggot

Pic related, 2015 Mustang
>>
File: 2015-mustang-3.7-v6.jpg (280 KB, 1679x969)
280 KB
280 KB JPG
>>24722197
fuck, pic didn't attach
>>
>>24722049
>>24722197
>>24722200
Camaro with "le torque dip"
>>
File: reallyy.png (50 KB, 184x184)
50 KB
50 KB PNG
>>24722058
>doesn't know that the peaks are at different RPMs
>doesn't know that the actual WHP has increased about an 35hp avg throughout the 2k-4k RPM range which is where the engine will be in the majority of drive
>will still complain about lack of turbo even though he can't afford it anyway
>>
>>24722049
>>24722197
>>24722200
>>24722205
S2000 has a torque dip so bad the first 6000 RPM are a fucking torque dip.
>>
>>24722143
got gapped by a Tomei'd 350z last night
>>
>>24722049
>>24722197
>>24722200
>>24722205
>>24722210
Even a god damn flagship supersport motorcycle has a fucking torque dip
>>
File: ahahahahahah.gif (1.9 MB, 320x200)
1.9 MB
1.9 MB GIF
>>24722152
anon.... the lowest trim for the new Z is rumored to start just below $40k... and it doesn't have an LSD
>>
>>24722213
base 350z was the same for some reason.
>>
>>24722211
Are there still 350zs on the road that aren't dented to hell and driven by stacies or her various baby daddies? I haven't seen one in at least two years. Is this what Niggersan quality is like?
>>
Adjust for Inflation. It's cheaper than a 240sx.
>>
Mustang embarrases this car in every way and i dont even like domestics.
DC2R owner.
>>
Le 2 series meme
>>
>>24721767
It is a fun cheap sports car. Why is it just close? Why are you talking about 90's jap cars. You're not one of those JayDeeEm faggots are you?
>>
>>24722759
If you don't mind the extra 700 lbs then sure.
>>
>>24722759
2big 2fat
>>
File: Deer vs G.jpg (86 KB, 1080x1080)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>24722554
I see a few from time to time. When I had my G35 I took pride in the fact that my car was maintained extremely well, compared to most of the 350s and Gs that I'd come across.
But that day came to an end (pic related).
3rd deer I hit in that car. First 2 were cosmetic and fixed under full coverage insurance... the final one however, could not be saved. 70mph+ vs deer = car is kill
>>
>>24721819
You have literally the entire rest of the market for those "needs"
>>
>>24722802
Are you chasing deers in the fields or something
>>
>>24722009
>Decent trunk
The only way you could possibly believe that would be if you had never seen another trunk in your life.
>>
>>24722802
Why not just throw a new hood on that bitch and keep driving it?
>>
>>24722843
Yes getting ready for hunting season
>>
>>24722003
It has no torque at all, and the peak torque is way to high up the band to ever be used in daily road use. It sucks, sorry to break it to you. If your car doesn't have a Fiesta ST like power band it's not even worth being called a sports car.
>>
>>24722003
Doesn't make much of a difference in DD when a 1.4TFSI has the same torque and will fuck you off the line.
>>
>>24722941
>small turbocharged engine has as much torque as a bigger na engine
wow thanks for your invaluable input. i didnt know that and i'm sure no one itt knew that either. do you have a quadruple phd in physics? or is your iq just that high? again thank you for blessing us with this knowledge.
>>
>>24722882
It fits 4 tires and a toolkit. Much more than Miata guys can say.
>>
>>24722210
It's like you've never seen VTEC plotted out on a dynograph before.
>>
>>24721819
i can tell you're fat
>>
>>24721786
a
>>
>>24721767
car for twink zoomers that's outclassed by hybrids and minivans. it shouldn't even exist. like israel.
>>
>>24722009
>good mpg

With premium gas. You're spending more money in the end than something with v6 on regular
>>
>>24723307
How much more expensive is premium fuel where you are? 20 or 30 cents per gallon isn't that big of a deal
>>
>>24723322
Try 65+ cent difference

Also you get almost 100 more hp and 2 more cylinders and spend less money on gas.

>hurrr b-b-but who cares about mpg

You still can't disprove you're spending more money on gas for a shitty 4 banger than a V6
>>
Why get this when the miata exists
>>
>>24723380
It's faster than a Miata.
>>
>>24723341
Where the fuck do you live dude?
>>
>>24722882
I can do a Costco run, so I consider that decent.

See: MR2, NSX, Miata, Z3, Z4, etc etc if you want to see what a shit trunk looks like.
>>
>>24722931
>sports cars are for lazy people that want all of the powerband on the low end where you'd never use it on a race track

Are you actually retarded, anon?

Stop being a bitch and rev your shit, if you just want to fart around in 6th gear all day and never shift then just come out of the closet and get an automatic.
>>
>>24723156
You say it as though I'm wrong.

Less torque is less torque, I don't give a fuck if it's because your variable valve timing sucks. So, respectively, the FR-S should be praised for only having a brief dip instead of falling on its face for the first 6k RPM and only then waking up and being worth a shit. Imagine having a car that's only good for highway pulls but then only has 240 HP.
>>
>>24723341
You need to shop around. Some stations rip off premium gas users by up to a dollar, but some differ as little as 20 cents or so, which is negligible.

Who cares if the Rustang has another 100hp if it weighs a pigfat amount more? Also: what is handling?

You buy an FR-S to handle better than anything else on the road, not to redlight race. And before you accuse me of cope, my GSXR 600 will toast anything you or anyone you know have in a drag race, so save it.
>>
>>24722058
if you're poor just say it
>>
>>24723574
Nigger I DD an MR2 Spyder and it's more than enough if you're a single loser, trust me.
>>
>>24722931
>gets sports car
>dosn't want to rev
??? the amount of retards in this thread
>>
>>24723603
But compared to an FR-S it's a thimble, which is my point.
>>
>>24722931
Fiesta ST has turbo lag, though. So, in the real world, almost the same situation: wait for the revvs to climb into power or wait for the turbo to spool up.
>>
File: chrome_9NMgm1Fo2w.png (62 KB, 630x408)
62 KB
62 KB PNG
Big think here bros:
Why the fuck does this thing have god awful mpgs? This is literally some 90s/early 2000s shit, what the fuck?
>>
>>24723647
The truth to these questions is because Subaru makes these engines.

Subarus boxers are not modern, fuel efficient, powerful, power efficent, or reliable.

Granted they're not as gas guzling or unreliable as they were in the 90's, but they're only say one generation better. Every other manufacture is 7-8 generations better, but Subaru just fucks around with their engines instead.
>>
>>24721767
gr corolla will be cooler
>>
File: 1622738852999.png (102 KB, 423x250)
102 KB
102 KB PNG
>>24723341
just don't be a poorfag
>>
>>24723647
You're comparing a 100hp/Liter performance engine to engines that were built solely for fuel economy.

And for the record, in my 2013 FR-S I get about 32-33 actual highway MPG and about 26 mpg city, so the estimates are bullshit.
>>
>>24723659
I hadnt considered that angle yet. Ive been considering one but this is unacceptable. Theres literally no reason to get one other than the "but it handles good" meme. In every other category it gets its ass beat no contest

>>24723341
>65+ cent difference
Same here. Generally the cheapest in town is sams club which is currently at 2.87 for 87 and 3.17 for 93. Most places are at like 3.50+ for 93 tho, right at 60c or so higher than 87. its fucking insane
>>
>>24721767
Not true. Clearly no one here has heard of the fusion sport, with AWD, 6 speed, 325hp and 385ft/lb, and much better reliability than that ricer car
>>
>>24722807
>ask what you need in a daily that a brz doesn't have
>say what the brz doesn't have
>there's other cars that do that!
Nah really?!
>>
it's already mid October and still no release date
>>
>>24723695
>I hadnt considered that angle yet. Ive been considering one but this is unacceptable. Theres literally no reason to get one other than the "but it handles good" meme. In every other category it gets its ass beat no contest

eat a bag of shit, faggot

The "muh handles good" isn't a meme, if you can't appreciate that then buy some lard fuck straightline vehicle.

BTW, if you actually use the power in a Rustang/Cum-hair-o you get like 5 MPG. I flog the shit out of my FR-S and still get upper 20's MPG.

Stupid retards don't understand the concept of power/weight and hp/L means you can't build an engine purely for fuel economy.
>>
>>24723683
>performance engine in the brz
Thats a bit of a stretch imo. Its literally just a slightly modified version of an econo suv/crossover engine. I was comparing it to engines of similar displacement in the 90s and current gens. The buick was an afterthought just to see how a 20 year old v6 compared to the brz's stats
>but i get better mpgs than what is listed
anyone can do that in almost any vehicle, this doesnt change it's shitty mpgs. Drive like a granny and youll get good mpgs, drive like you want to have fun and youll get lesser mpgs. This is true of pretty much anything. I could average around 25+ in the city in my v6 buick park ave. I managed 33 or so on the highway drive between states when I picked it up and drove it home because i drove it like a granny as I was a broke bitch and tried to save on gas money
>>
>>24723710
>pigfat family car
>a fucking Ford

son, are you retarded?

BRZ/FR-S was rated #2 most reliable of ALL CARS by Consumer Reports, literally all of the problems they have are user error like retards not knowing how to drive a manual and burning up the throwout bearing. I have 75k+ miles on mine and my throwout bearing is perfect.
>>
>>24723683
>i get good mpgs in my frs
>>24723731
>i get good mpgs in my frs, other cars are shitty and get bad mpgs
mans will die on this hill for his beloved brz. seethe harder lmao

i never said its handling wasnt a massive plus, but what else does it have? name one thing this car has other than a low COG + good handling and good mpgs. take any 4 cylinder thats like 2-4 years old and put aftermarket suspension parts on it and youll have a very similar experience for a decent bit less than the 32k or so for a loaded 2022 brz. so what other reason is there to go out and buy a new brz?
>>
>>24723733
>its literally just a slightly modified version of an econo suv/crossover engine.

Slightly modified my dick, there are almost no interchangeable parts between the FA20 in an 86 and any other engine Subaru makes, spare inconsequential shit like maybe a filter or something. It has a 12.5/1 compression ratio and is the only engine with Toyota's D4S injection system because of the partnership it was made under. It's made for power per weight/displacement, not fuel economy.

>I was comparing it to engines of similar displacement in the 90s and current gens.

Irrelevant, an eco-minded engine is always going to skew towards better fuel economy vs a performance-minded engine.

>Drive like a granny and youll get good mpgs, drive like you want to have fun and youll get lesser mpgs

The lowest I've ever had as an average was like 24 mpg and that's with traffic lights, stop signs, and pulls to 90+ mph getting onto the highway with tons of revving out to redline. Do the same in a faggot ass domestic car or turbo whatever and you'll get like 15 mpg if you're lucky.
>>
>>24723743
First of all, loading out an 86 is a stupid proposition, buy that shit as base as you can, all add ons are overpriced nonsense.

Second of all, slapping some suspension on a shitbox does not make it even close to an 86. You also get a massive tradeoff where that shitbox will now ride like a rock anywhere but perfect pavement whereas the 86 can still go back and forth between less than perfect roads. If you think just firm aftermarket suspension is all it takes to make a car handle well, you may as well buy that because you're retarded and don't have a clue.
>>
New BRZ should be in by the end of this month. I'm going to daily drive it and won't ever set foot on a track. Feels good that none of these arguments matter to me
>>
>>24721788
so buy a $4000 old civic or truck as a daily
>>
>>24723754
>aftermarket suspension bad, make car handle like shit
what are progressive springs
>dont buy all the options
i was referring to the premium trim or w/e the only option other than base model is, with like 2 addons (cargo mat and something else i think) as i was building one last night to compare prices.
>>24723745
>do the same in other cars and get 15 if youre lucky
based 1.4 tsi checking in at an easy 28+ mpg in city even when pushing it to 4-5k through first second and sometimes third. i used to regularly hit 90+ while getting on the highway to go to work because no one was ever on that road. i generally did 100-110 the whole 40 mile trip each way
>its been completely reworked from the ground up and is not similar to any of their other engines
It still ended up pretty similar to their surbo suv engine so i doubt an extreme amount of engineering and work went into it. They most likely went into the process with a few big changes in mind and then made the rest of the existing design work with that. Its a lot easier and faster to start from scratch and still keep the same idea as before while expanding upon it
>>
>>24723581
>VTEC is variable valve timing only
Nice try
>>
>>24723793
>what are progressive springs

Something that still won't equate to a car built from the ground up for handling. What is chassis flex? CG? core suspension geometry? How could they affect handling? Guess we'll never know...

>i was referring to the premium trim or w/e the only option other than base model is, with like 2 addons (cargo mat and something else i think) as i was building one last night to compare prices.

Yeah, so get the fucking base model, retard

>based 1.4 tsi checking in at an easy 28+ mpg in city even when pushing it to 4-5k through first second and sometimes third. i used to regularly hit 90+ while getting on the highway to go to work because no one was ever on that road. i generally did 100-110 the whole 40 mile trip each way

Why is a 122 hp engine in any way relevant?

>It still ended up pretty similar to their surbo suv engine so i doubt an extreme amount of engineering and work went into it. They most likely went into the process with a few big changes in mind and then made the rest of the existing design work with that. Its a lot easier and faster to start from scratch and still keep the same idea as before while expanding upon it

This is an incoherent stroke and I won't respond to it.
>>
>>24723799
What point are you making? The dyno is the dyno, I don't give a fuck if it it's VTEC, pixie dust, or what, the graph is the graph and the first 6K RPM are a torque dip, period.
>>
File: chrome_diC0v6ISwo.png (446 KB, 895x674)
446 KB
446 KB PNG
>>24723793
>premium with like 2 addons
This is what i was referring to. 2.5k more for bigger wheels, better tires, heated seats, and steering responsive headlights. Pretty worth it for that imo, new wheels + rubber for the base would be like 1.5k+. I added the cargo tray because i doubt any existing trays/mats would fit/work as well as the one designed by subaru for the car, same thing for floor mats. Would take a bit before companies like weathertech get their hands on one of these and start making products for it

>>24723833
>Why is a 122 hp engine in any way relevant?
try again. US version is like 155 and like 180 tork. a tune puts it at like 180 and 220 or something.
>why is this relevant
i dunno, maybe because its "any other faggot ass domestic car or turbo whatever"
>Talks shit, gets called out for being wrong, back pedals with "how is that relevant"
fuck off bud
>>
File: 1391281499224.gif (1.02 MB, 330x320)
1.02 MB
1.02 MB GIF
>>24723838
I'll help you out, since we're all learning about something new everyday :). VTEC has a point in the RPM band where it engages a completely separate cam profile. The engine essentially has two camshafts, one usually suited for efficiency at lower RPMs and another for performance at higher RPMs. Naturally, when the engine switches from one cam profile to the other, you'd see a corresponding change in the dynograph and some tuners move or smooth the 'switchover' point. In this case, you can see the switchover point at 6k rpm. Hope that helps!

If you're wringing out an S2000 like you're supposed to, especially the F20C you posted, when you shift at 8,000+ you're still in VTEC after dropping 1-1.5k revs on the next ratio. I don't give a fuck about your stupid torque dip conversation, and I like the GT86 and I'm glad it's around, but don't drag other vehicles into your conversation as data points if you can't mechanically understand what's happening there.
>>
>>24723842
>premium with like 2 addons

OK, well don't whine when you CHOSE to spend like $4k more on nonsense, the actual car price is $27,990

>try again. US version is like 155 and like 180 tork. a tune puts it at like 180 and 220 or something.

Still not comparable. You keep cherry picking the best trait of each engine and then unfairly comparing it to the 86.

"This econo shitbox gets better MPG"

"This giant honking V8 makes more power"

Ok, great, but neither do both, so acknowledge everything is a compromise.

>Talks shit, gets called out for being wrong, back pedals with "how is that relevant"

I didn't say anything wrong or backpedal anything. Once again, you cherry pick the best traits of other cars and somehow expect the 86 to have all of them at the same time. You get more power, you get worse fuel economy, you get less power, you get more fuel economy, simple as. Ragging out a 150 hp shitbox isn't a comparable experience to having 200+ hp and you can't expect the same fuel economy as a result. I don't even know what point you're making, it's like you're asking for a extra large pizza covered in Ranch but then requesting it be under 100 calories, like fucking what?
>>
>>24723867
Child, fetus, zygote, please sit down before I backhand you.

I've known about VTEC longer than your (likely) Zoomer ass has been alive. I know exactly what it is, what it does, and how it works. I'm a fucking mechanical engineer for fuck's sake, do you even know who you're talking to?

The point remains: because of the shitty way that VTEC works, the first 6K RPM fucking suck and mean it's a slow dog any time but doing flat out highway pulls or on a race track. If you're going to criticize an 86 for a minor torque dip that lasts all of 1000 RPM and is only significant for a couple hundred of those RPM, then let's discuss the massive chasm of torque dip that is the S2000 powerband (or all Hondas for that matter, NSX and Civic/Integra Type Rs have the same problem, excluding maybe the new turbo ones). Once again, all that matters is the end dyno, whatever tech involved to get it there is irrelevant.
>>
>>24723882
>300 confirmed kills
Sure

>If you're going to criticize an 86
Never did. I said I liked it in the post you replied to. Who is the child now? Calm yourself.
>>
File: BacktoReddit.jpg (131 KB, 717x880)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
>>24723888
So you admit you never had a point, but were just trying to act like you knew something when really you were the stupid one? Thanks for playing, now back to Red dit you go with all of the other retarded faggots that try to act smart.
>>
>>24723873
ok what else can we compare them on? we have discussed mpgs, handling, and power figures on 2 vehicles that are both somewhat cheap 4 cylinders.
>i didnt backpedal
you boldly claimed having fun while driving and doing pulls to 90+ still nets you good mpgs in your frs and that "anything else will get like 15 if you are lucky". i proved you wrong and you came back cherry picking a single thing about the 1.4tsi (the hp figure of the most economy minded version of that engine) and said "how is this relevant?". thats literally backpedaling dude. "anything else wont be as good" and then you took a step back with "well those arent similar so we shouldnt compare them" when i proved your BS statement wrong with 0 effort
>>
>>24723894
If that's what you need to tell yourself to make you feel better, hun.
>>
>>24723902
>you boldly claimed having fun while driving and doing pulls to 90+ still nets you good mpgs in your frs and that "anything else will get like 15 if you are lucky".

I meant cars more powerful than an 86 you colosssal fucking retard. People keep talking about Mustangs and Camaros, I don't give a fuck about your shtibox that takes two weeks to hit 90 you fucking absolute mongoloid.

How are you not getting this? Are you just trying to sour grapes yourself out of it? Don't fucking buy it then, they're in high demand from people that aren't retarded and unironically compare them to a fucking 1.4L shitbox.
>>
>>24723905
You couldn't have said anything more Redd it, what a fag.
>>
>>24723921
Just make sure not to accidentally use the napkin your mech degree is written on!
>>
>>24723918
>comparing mpgs of camaros and mustangs which weigh ~500+lbs more than a brz, and also have more cylinders than the brz
great comparison. i wonder why the brz has better mpgs even when redlining it? surely the extra weight doesnt factor in
>i wasnt talking about *every* other car, only these particular ones that the brz conveniently gaps in the mpg category
X to doubt. only an idiot would say "do this in some other car and it wont preform as well" instead of "do this in these specific cars and they wont preform as well"
>>
>>24723948
>great comparison. i wonder why the brz has better mpgs even when redlining it? surely the extra weight doesnt factor in

OK, great, now you're learning! Saving weight=improved MPG, in addition to not having so much reciprocating mass in the engine and driveline to move around.

>X to doubt. only an idiot would say "do this in some other car and it wont preform as well" instead of "do this in these specific cars and they wont preform as well"

FAGGOT, try to think logically.

I've said 1000x in here that it's a sliding scale: MPG or horsepower/weight, which is it gonna be?

Yes, you can floor it in a shitbox and get good MPG because you have 5 horsepower and your thimble sized engine has to be floored to even move. However, do the same in a big ass V8 and your fuel economy will be in gallons per mile.

I don't see what point you're trying to make, once again you keep cherry picking the best attribute of irrelevant things (economy-minded engines for MPG, but horsepower for bigger engines) and making unfair comparisons.

More power=worse MPG

Less power=better MPG

Driving smoothly in tall gears=better MPG

flogging it (esp. for a more powerful car)=worse MPG

Please tell me what you still don't understand here.
>>
>>24721767
I want one cause it looks cool
>>
>>24724064
>pretends to be a smart guy
>but he bought an frs
Lmao
>has given up defending his stupid phrasing that made it seem like ANY "domestic or turbo faggot shit" would preform far worse than his beloved brz/frs/86
>has no rebuttal to me calling him out on that bullshit so he cherry picks and resorts to "FAGGOT" in all caps to move the goal posts to something else he hopes he can argue better
>claims im cherry picking when he only mentions and argues against the single biggest negative aspect of anything opposing the brz/frs/86 and says the vehicle isnt as good because of that aspect
I never brought mustangs or camaros into this. I never even mentioned anything about power/torque in my initial post. I said it gets shit mpgs and you got mad that your baby was getting shit on and had to come to her rescue. You had to bring those other topics into this discussion to make the toyoborus seem less shitty by comparing them against those cars. Thats moving the goal posts bud.

It has shit mpgs considering its an NA 4 cylinder. Even among "performance engines" like you claim it is, it still gets shit mpgs. Wrx, type r, and veloster n all get basically the same mpgs and have vastly higher hp/torque numbers. They all probably cost more but thats because theyre actually "performance engines" the brz is between a basic bitch 4 clyinder like the 1.4tsi i mentioned and the "performance engines" like the civic and wrx and veloster. Its a compromise at best.
>inb4 another "yeah but floor it in those and your mpgs go to shit. I know what im talking about because i know how power and mpgs work"
Yeah no shit if you floor it your mpgs go to shit. No shit a weak POS without any power will generally end up using less gas than more powerful engines.

Quit solely defending the brz against v8s, camaros, and mustangs and accept that its got decent power but shit mpgs for a 4 cylinder, especially for "performance" 4 cylinders in its price range (30-40k).
>>
>>24723735
Lol. Fusion Sport is obviously a meme but I know someone who makes a living replacing BRZ/FRS engines. They are not reliable. It's really a shame that it has a Subaru engine, a Toyota v6 would've made it a genuinely incredible car.
>>
>>24724437
1. Wrong
2. No Toyota V6 would fit in there
>>
>>24724437
slam a porsche h6 in there
t. imaginary engine swap expert
>>
The marketing from (((youtubers))) seems like it’s entirely out of a press release. Many claim this is “the end of an era” vehicle. How likely is this? The fear mongering among these people over a 220hp manual car is nuts rn
>>
>>24724308
based
>>
>>24724647
A lot of major countries and manufacturers are calling for an end of ICE vehicle sales. Which company want's to spend R&D on a car that might be barred from major markets? What we get now might be it between here and EV sports cars.
>>
>>24724408
>I never brought mustangs or camaros into this.

Sorry, I confused you for every other faggot in every other thread that always says "but muh Mustang" every time the 86 gets brought up.

> I said it gets shit mpgs
>It has shit mpgs considering its an NA 4 cylinder

Which I will still continue to explain to you that it goes hand in hand with more power and a power focused engine. 12.5:1 compression ratio and 100 hp/L is very high strung for a street engine, so it's not going to sip fuel like your scooty puff junior. If you're so poor you can take the MPG of what is still one of the most economical cars on the road and probably the most economical in the sport segment, then stick with your gay shitbox.

>Wrx, type r, and veloster n all get basically the same mpgs and have vastly higher hp/torque numbers.

No they don't, not if you ever spool the turbo. Only if you drive like a complete grandma do they get even decent MPG, it's all a sham to game the MPG tests because by using a small engine with a turbo they score better in idling tests and low load cruising tests. Use the power like a sports car owner would and your MPG will plummet. You also then have to suffer turbo lag which is a whole other bag of suck in and of itself. Enjoy those extra maintenance costs, too, as turbos love to burn out long before an N/A engine and tend to cook oil and cause other heat related problems.

>the brz is between a basic bitch 4 clyinder like the 1.4tsi i mentioned

lol, no

>and the "performance engines" like the civic and wrx and veloster. Its a compromise at best.

Yes, there is a compromise like I've said 1000x and am still somehow fucking saying even though you refuse to listen. More power/weight=worse MPG. Making the 86 more powerful would also mean beefing up the drivetrain and everything else, which would not only make it more expensive but also make it heavier and lose the handling capabilities. There is nothing on the road that handles better than an 86.
>>
>>24724408
>accept that its got decent power but shit mpgs for a 4 cylinder

No it fucking doesn't, it has the exact MPG a reasonable person that understands what they're looking at would expect. 4 cylinder has nothing to do intrinsically with fuel economy. You could build an 8 cylinder that got amazing fuel economy, but nobody wants to spend a fortune to save money on gas. It all comes down to the fact that building power means building stronger parts like pistons, connecting rods, etc and using heavier valve springs and all of those things hurt MPG.

You're trying to demand things that physics won't allow, there isn't an N/A 4 cylinder that makes 100hp/L with better MPG than an FR-S. Hell, an S2000 got fucking 18 mpg city, that's like Mustang numbers, so lets be reasonable about what we're talking about here. Stop flip flopping between what can be done with an eco engine and pussy footing vs the economy flooring it all the time on a performance engine. Sliding scale, end of story, period. Not going to do another lap with your retarded ass, everything that needs to be said has been said and you're still a RETARDED FAGGOT that needs to go back to Redd it.
>>
>>24724437
>I know someone who makes a living replacing BRZ/FRS engines

yeah, because a lot of spoiled 16 year olds get them as baby's first manual and money shift it. I have not had a single issue of any kind on my 75k+ mile 2013 FR-S. The only semi-issue I had is that the dumbass tech did a shit job with the gaskets when doing the valve spring recall and they leaked a small amount of oil and had to re-do them, at which point it was fine. That's not the car's fault, though, that's shitty low-IQ bargain basement techs sucking at their job. It's like blaming Dell because the chucklefuck from Geek Squad broke a RAM module during an upgrade.
>>
>>24724640
ew porsche motors, an EZ30 would be better
>>
>>24724647
don't buy it then dumbfuck. It's not like world ends if you make the wrong vehicle purchase. just wait until it comes out, and if you like it then get one.

If you don't think this is the end of an era, then just wait for better cars to come out. The fact that you're bitching and moaning about (((them))) is because you're psychologically priming yourself to have a convenient theory ready when the ICE gets legislated away and the youtubers turn out to be correct about it being the end of an era
>>
>>24724756
>You could build an 8 cylinder that got amazing fuel economy, but nobody wants to spend a fortune to save money on gas.
Corvette says hello.
>>
>>24724846
Sup corvette. Enjoy being a corvette instead of something that was 2L so they could sell it in displacement tax countries as well as being categorically smaller and lighter.
>>
>>24724837
Your hostility is projected all over this thread. Is this what I’d be buying into by getting a starter manual sports car? I hate faggots that defend their point A to B fun vehicle like it’s their autistic son trying to get a prom date
>>
>>24724846
Another MPG cheating lie. Real Corvettes are lucky if they get above 20 mpg even on the highway.

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/corvette
>>
>>24722882
Yeah DD'd one for 4 years. Even moved twice. Really good amount of trunk space.
>>
>>24722843
>deers
anon, I...
>>
>>24722069
Nevermind that Typhoon had the cargo weight capacity of a Miata, it was basically an SUV shell slapped on a super basic frame. It had no actual utility, just a sleeper drag car, effectively a GNX with extra steps.
>>
>>24722115
It's called "not being in the peak of the powerband", dipshit. Put it in a higher gear at lower revs and it will accelerate even slower, that's how horsepower curves work.
>>
>>24721807
A good motor.
>>
>>24722128

see
>>24722200
>>24722205
>>24722210
>>24722212
>>
>>24722210
What fucking torque dip are you talking about?
>>
>>24726414
According to you, there are 5 cars in the universe. There's really no reason to make up absurd lies in order to justify the torque chasm. Everybody knows it really pours a bucket of lamesauce on the car even if you stay in the power band all day long once you don't have to drop below it in 1st.

Could it be the secret behind not getting awful fuel mileage? Maybe it is. It's not even terrible to be sitting in it on the highway because there's still enough torque to climb all but some seriously steep hills if you're just at a cruise. But I'm not going to go around and say I just love it because somebody can cherry pick some dyno charts and most likely from vehicles where nobody really complains much about it in the first place.
>>
>>24723882
>The point remains: because of the shitty way that VTEC works
that was literally by design. You don't know fuckall about VTEC or how Honda designed their variable timing systems. Japanese sports cars have always been low displacement and high revving due to displacement taxes. They've always prioritized power at high RPM's the opposite of the way americans loved low end torque.
>the first 6k suck
in what? first gear? it doesn't bog in any gear because the final drive is so stupidly short. Like you've never driven an S2000 when you talk about this shit nor how and why the S2000 even exists in the first place.
>NSX has the same problem
The NSX never had an aggressive cam rollover like the S2000 or Civic Type-R did.
>>
Seems like a lot of people here need to learn about pressure waves, especially constructive and destructive.
>>
>>24726483
I'm pretty sure even Subaru knows about resonant frequencies, so one is left to presume that they wanted the torque curve to do that. Who knows? Maybe they want the throttle open wider at cruising RPM to reduce pumping losses because that's better than a resonant boost when it comes to highway MPG? They figured it would be better for marketing to get an extra +5 peak HP to claim? Some funny thing to do with the D4S system, since the torque dip seems to largely overlap with running mostly off of DI? They had some other reason why it was a priority to have equal length headers, like maybe to do with wanting more even cylinder-to-cylinder outcomes?

The world might never know what their calculus was exactly. It does look as though they might have given up something to rejigger the torque curve with the 2.4.
>>
File: 1529317185442.jpg (71 KB, 740x740)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>24721790
have you tried not being poor?
>>
File: 571[1].png (64 KB, 658x901)
64 KB
64 KB PNG
>>24727018
Yes and I failed at it
>>
>>24726435
Look at the torque below 6000 RPM

What's worse: a momentary tiny dip or the first 6000 RPM to be massively down on torque/power so it's absolute trash during normal driving?
>>
>>24726439
Fucking shit dude, there are tons of others, I posted some of the most common shit and even a motorcycle for reference.

you people are fucking retarded, I don't know if you're just doing a shitty job of trolling or actually this stupid, but either way you need to commit gun mouth.
>>
just funny to think I stopped posting here when the frst gen FR-S/BR-Z/GT-86 appeared in 2012 and now we have the same shit in 2021 again
>>
>>24726443
>that was literally by design.

And? Doesn't change the fact that it sucks at low RPM and deserves much more criticism than a minor blip on the torque curve the 86 has. If anything, the 86 deserves praise for NOT sucking for most of the pre-peak powerband RPM.

>Japanese sports cars have always been low displacement and high revving due to displacement taxes.

No fucking shit, I've been explaining this to every "muh displacement" retard for decades now.

>They've always prioritized power at high RPM's the opposite of the way americans loved low end torque.

Because they have no choice due to low displacement fundamentally not producing a lot of torque at low RPM (or at all, really, unless you're talking turbos)

All irrelevant, the S2000 is still worse than the 86 regarding torque consistency through the rev range, so if you're going to bitch about a car having a torque problem, the S2000 is your guy.
>>
>>24723659
my outback gets about 35 mpg on the highway, seems pretty good to me for a non hybrid car that size
>>
>>24727892
The car has an entirely design philosophy around it especially from a Honda perspective see >>24726443
the S2000 has an incredibly flat torque curve along with a sudden jump in torque thanks to the cam rollover and it still remains flat for the rest of its segment.
The BRZ on the other hand has this flat torque line but it has this massive drop in torque from 3500rpm to 4500rpm Thats completely unlike the S2000 where its completely flat and has a sudden jump. The BRZ obviously doesn't have 90's nuances like VTEC but its torque curve is completely unappetizing. Thats why people give it such shit.

>so its absolutely trash for normal driving
1. you really aren't gonna be driving the S2000 normally at any rate, people who daily drive their s2000's are really misappropriating it
2. the gearing is so stupidly short in the s2000 that you can be in 5th gear at 30mph and 6th at 40mph and NOT lug the thing at all, you can't say the same about the brz. the s2000 gearing NEVER bogs because its so effortless purely because the gearing is SO stupidly short.
>>
File: Shawn91NSX-DynoGraph.jpg (158 KB, 800x600)
158 KB
158 KB JPG
>the first 6k suck
>in what? first gear? it doesn't bog in any gear because the final drive is so stupidly short. Like you've never driven an S2000 when you talk about this shit nor how and why the S2000 even exists in the first place.

A) the "muh first gear" is only if you're track driving/drag racing. In the real world you're not going to scream around at 6k RPM, so every time you want to accelerate even a little, you WILL need to downshift to outpace a mail truck. It gets tedious and also kicks your ass on track if you aren't in the perfect gear all of the time

B) yes, I sure as shit have driven an S2000 and yes the first 6K RPM are fucking embarrassingly cringingly slow. The ratios aren't all that low considering it revvs to 9K, either, the first 30mph or so are a crawl unless you like burning through clutches.

>The NSX never had an aggressive cam rollover like the S2000 or Civic Type-R did.

Pic related says otherwise, just as shitty and gay as an S2000.
>>
>>24726514
Based on the fact I've posted a similar torque dip from almost every other automaker, the stock tune is likely just designed to run lean/conservative because that's the RPM the MPG testers are running it at. Don't overthink it, everything about modern cars is about cheating the MPG tests because our retarded government(s) don't live in reality.
>>
>>24727913
>S2000 has an incredibly flat torque curve along with a sudden jump in torque thanks to the cam rollover and it still remains flat for the rest of its segment.

You keep repeating this like it fucking matters. The curve is not flat, end of story. I don't care how bad Honda is at their VTEC design, it has a shitty bottom end and that's all there is to it.

>The BRZ on the other hand has this flat torque line but it has this massive drop in torque from 3500rpm to 4500rpm

>EHRMEGHERD IT'S A MASSIVE DROP, A TOTAL CHASM, THE CAR BASICALLY SHIFTS INTO REVERSE THE WHOLE TIME BECAUSE IT JUST BECOMES SO SLOW

Faggot, the horsepower curve goes flat for a split second, it literally does not matter at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPCRakeRRZA

Do you see the tach needle freeze? No, it's a fucking smooth sweep because the microscope fluctuation in torque for a split second DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER

>its torque curve is completely unappetizing.

Eat a fucking bullet faggot, good, don't get one, you don't deserve, I'll be the guy passing your faggot shit on the outside because I'm not this fucking retarded.
>>
>>24727904
>Doesn't change the fact that it sucks at low RPM
You keep saying this but you've never driven an S2000. You wanna make it out like you're constantly in this 2-4k rpm range when in reality 80mph on the highway you're at 5000rpm all the time.
>Because they have no choice
Not really because many developers coped by going straight to forced induction. There were many turbo cars in the late 80's and 90's that made their torque and power without blowing over their displacement tax bracket. Thats why there are so many 2L v6's in old japanese cars. Notable ones are the Nissan VG motors. High revving motors came almost as a secondary purely because low displacement usually means low rotating mass. Honda never went for forced induction so they relied heavily on their VTEC. Thats why they were so famous. It has never been about being fast on paper it has ALWAYS been in the fun of rowing gears, staying in the 6000-9000rpm range which is easy
>>
File: 86 colors.png (256 KB, 1074x942)
256 KB
256 KB PNG
why does the toyota only come in NPC colors?
>>
>>24727935
so that they can sell the special colors for special editions like the Hakone Edition
>>
>>24727933
>The curve is not flat
It is flat, you posted the dyno, its flat from 1-6k, then theres a jump, then its flat from 6k to the end.
>it has a shitty bottom end and that's all there is to it.
Everytime you say this, you're just cementing your admission you've never driven one. You don't drive an S2000
>the horse power goes flat for a split second it doesn't matter
oh but apparently honda building power at every interval and never going flat is an issue because you have this conniption? Where are you even at?
>Eat a fucking bullet faggot, good, don't get one, you don't deserve, I'll be the guy passing your faggot shit on the outside because I'm not this fucking retarded.
You're getting so salty over the s2000 you could make an ocean look like fresh water.
>>
>>24727934
>You keep saying this but you've never driven an S2000. You wanna make it out like you're constantly in this 2-4k rpm range when in reality 80mph on the highway you're at 5000rpm all the time.
In fact you're never at the 2k range ever. You're always taking off at like 3k, you're shifting in the 3-5k range in casual driving. The car has no problem getting into the higher revs. Its an incredibly light weight motor with a light weight flywheel. Its practically a motorcycle engine.
>>
>>24727896
I'm sure you can cherry pick as many torque curves that are less than completely flat as you want. The fact is you were spouting utter ignorant poppycock about it somehow being inherent in all cars. Let it go already. It's not like it completely ruins the car or anything, and it's not terribly difficult to abate it to one degree or other aftermarket.
>>
>>24727920
>the first 30mph or so are a crawl unless you like burning through clutches.
You've never driven one. You claim you have but you clearly haven't. 1st gear literally tops out at 35mph in the AP2 and 32mph in the AP1. So at about 22mph you're hitting VTEC and you wanna pretend its a crawl with out burning the clutch? Its stupid shit you say like this that proves you've never driven one ever.
>>
>>24727934
>You keep saying this but you've never driven an S2000.

YOU keep saying this when I FUCKING HAVE.

The place you enjoy acceleration is from red lights and stop signs, so an S2000 destroys the enjoyment of where you actually accelerate. The only time you can enjoy the powerband is onramps and highway pulls, and that's only if you like 15 or less MPG and a short lived engine.

>Not really because many developers coped by going straight to forced induction. There were many turbo cars in the late 80's and 90's that made their torque and power without blowing over their displacement tax bracket. Thats why there are so many 2L v6's in old japanese cars. Notable ones are the Nissan VG motors. High revving motors came almost as a secondary purely because low displacement usually means low rotating mass. Honda never went for forced induction so they relied heavily on their VTEC. Thats why they were so famous. It has never been about being fast on paper it has ALWAYS been in the fun of rowing gears, staying in the 6000-9000rpm range which is easy

Gonna just keep it easy and say WRONG and leave it at that. Literally nothing you said is accurate at all.

Turbos were to skirt displacement taxes, rotaries were to skirt displacement taxes, VTEC was an attempt to skirt displacement taxes by putting a race cam profile for the higher revvs (but still sucks dick in the real world because you're never revving that high). Only a tremendous faggot is going to continue acting like 6k+ RPM is daily driving RPM.
>>
>>24727938
yeah that Hakone green is pretty slick. doesn't seem to be much different from the GT otherwise
>>
File: Ferrari-488.jpg (77 KB, 1100x740)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
>>24727942
> its flat from 1-6k, then theres a jump, then its flat from 6k to the end.

NIGGER, DO YOU KNOW WHAT FLAT MEANS?

Why is it acceptable for the Honduh to suck dick for the first 6k RPMs, but it's not acceptable for the 86 to dip for a couple hundred RPM? Think about that for one second. Stop the "muh VTEC" chant and look at the fucking god damn dyno, which is all that matters. The WHY is not important, it's the WHAT, and the WHAT is that the S2000 has less consistent torque over a much wider portion of the revv range.

PERIOD.

>you're just cementing your admission you've never driven one.

Fucker, I god damn have, why do you keep trying to insist I haven't? It's a god damn Civic at low RPM, it's a disgrace

>You're getting so salty over the s2000

No, I'm just pointing out what a huge hypocrisy it is to accuse the 86 of having something "wrong" with its powerband when nearly every modern car is guilty of this.

Pic related, Ferrari 488 with a big ass torque dip in the stock dyno.

IT'S A FUEL ECONOMY THING, ALMOST ALL NEW CARS HAVE IT.

Get over it, shut the fuck up, it's not an 86 problem it's an all-cars problem so stop acting like it's a unique thing.
>>
>>24727944
>Its an incredibly light weight motor with a light weight flywheel.

Great, that has nothing to do with horsepower. Lightweight free revving=/=acceleration capability.
>>
>>24727955
>YOU keep saying this when I FUCKING HAVE.
No you haven't. You've gone on this massive tirade about how you have but many times you've said stupid shit that isn't indicative of an S2000 at all
>The place you enjoy acceleration is from red lights and stop signs
Uhh no, there are many back country roads that are really fun to drive through. You're saying I can't enjoy the car for what it was made for I can only enjoy acceleration on onramps?
>so an S2000 destroys the enjoyment of where you actually accelerate.
No it doesn't.
>and that's only if you like 15 or less MPG and a short lived engine.
The car doesn't even get 18 in the city. I'm absolutely not getting anywhere near 5mpg if I'm banging it through the gears on backroads.
The engine was literally made to rev to the moon. I have 122k miles on my S2000 and I've been banging it off the red line for years now. Seriously you're just making shit up at this point. The F-series engines are incredibly reliable and specifically designed to run at the 8000-9000rpm mark.
>Gonna just keep it easy and say WRONG and leave it at that.
The Nissan VG is literally a turbo charged 2L v6 and thats entirely because of japanese displacement taxes. You're not even being coherent at this point.
>VTEC was an attempt to skirt displacement taxes by putting a race cam profile for the higher revvs
The cam profile in an F22c is definitely NOT a race cam by any means. You don't even know what a race cam is. There are tons of aftermarket F22c cams that are so much more aggressive its un fucking real the amount of lift and duration they have.
>>
>>24727977
>Great, that has nothing to do with horsepower. Lightweight free revving=/=acceleration capability.
Yes it does. The flywheel literally retains momentum for the engine. Having a light weight fly wheel lets you generate more flywheel torque more quickly. Heavy flywheels prevent an engine from spooling quickly. The F22c can go from 2 to 8k far quicker than the BRZ could go from 4-7k.
>>24727973
>Fucker, I god damn have, why do you keep trying to insist I haven't?
Its just the shit you say that isn't indicative or factual of an S2000. 1st gear apparently bogs despite it being so stupidly short you're hitting the VTEC incredibly early to thinking you're ever shifting at the 2-4k mark when in reality you're shifting in the 3-5k at the most conservative point and then saying other dumb shit like you can only enjoy acceleration on on-ramps. You're like the epitome of a benchracer and you're getting half your info from what you've watched in youtube videos.
>>
>>24727952
>You claim you have but you clearly haven't. 1st gear literally tops out at 35mph in the AP2 and 32mph in the AP1

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-talk-1/s2000-gear-max-speed-190679/

WRONG, LOOK WHO'S A FAGGOT AGAIN

BTW I did drive an AP1, which according to that is right at the VTEC changeover at 30 mph, making me correct, but holy shit how useless is the gearing in an AP2, who wants to be screaming at 9K RPM in 1st to go 35 mph? What a faggot cope to deceive people by just gearing it low as fuck to offset how shit the powerband is.

>>24727946
>I'm sure you can cherry pick as many torque curves that are less than completely flat as you want

There's no cherry picking, anything with performance chops I Google has it. Mustangs, Ferraris, even a fucking motorcycle all have it. There are fewer cars without a dip than ones with it.

Want another? pre-tune WRX STI in blue, look at that mother fuckin' torque dip.
>>
>>24727993
>Having a light weight fly wheel lets you generate more flywheel torque more quickly.

I can't continue reading this retardation, it's going to give me a fucking stroke.

Lightweight flywheels are used to make revv matching easier in high performance driving, the mass of the flywheel is negligible next to the mass of the car. Once the clutch is engage the flywheel weight doesn't matter, it's purely for rev matching.

You need to put the video game controller down and go outside more.

>The F22c can go from 2 to 8k far quicker than the BRZ could go from 4-7k.

When free revv'd, sure, but that doesn't matter. If it revvs faster in gear, it's only because the S2000 is geared low as shit so you also aren't going as fast at redline, making it moot and just meaning you have to shift more.
>>
>>24727993
Other dumb shit is like
>omg muh mpg
bitch its a 9k revving motor, no one has ever given a fuck about the S2000's mileage especially when it was EPA rated at 18-24 and thats being incredibly conservative. I don't think I've ever gotten more than 200 miles out of my s2000 purely because I'm getting like 10mpg with a 13 gallon tank bombing it through every gear.
>https://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-talk-1/s2000-gear-max-speed-190679/
this isn't correct and is likely a theoretical calculation based on final drive ratio and tire size or have an assumed raised rev limiter because the red line is at 8000 but fuel cuts between 8100 and 8300rpm. Many drivers switch their S2000 gears and thus, without speed calibration, the max speeds change drastically. Even something as simple as a tire profile change can yield 1-2mph difference.
>I did drive an AP1
when you're saying all this absolutely dumb shit
>making me correct
you're literally scouring the internet, frothing at the mouth because you're getting called out on your shit to the point that you gotta find some answer to make it look like you know anything.
>but holy shit how useless is the gearing in an AP2, who wants to be screaming at 9K RPM in 1st to go 35 mph?
This is the stupid shit you say, the AP2 doesn't rev to 9000
>>
>>24728013
>Lightweight flywheels are used to make revv matching easier in high performance driving,
uhh no thats not the only reason dude holy fuck you are clueless. The AP2 has a 22lb flywheel that was added to make shifting easier because the AP1 had an 11lb flywheel that would drop revs so quickly that it was hard to shift without being super quick about it. Many AP2 owners switch to AP1 flywheels because they want to rev faster.
>the mass of the car
the mass of the car has nothing to do with choosing a flywheel.
>Once the clutch is engage the flywheel weight doesn't matter, it's purely for rev matching.
I can tell again you've never driven an S2000 let alone back to back AP1 vs AP2. The speed at which the engine spools is amazingly different. The difference in mass between the F20 and F22 matters less but doubling flywheel weight absolutely does matter.
>>
>>24728015
>bitch its a 9k revving motor, no one has ever given a fuck about the S2000's mileage especially when it was EPA rated at 18-24 and thats being incredibly conservative. I don't think I've ever gotten more than 200 miles out of my s2000 purely because I'm getting like 10mpg with a 13 gallon tank bombing it through every gear.

Well that's pretty gay when you could be having a Corvette that's faster with better MPG for less money.

>this isn't correct and is likely a theoretical calculation based on final drive ratio and tire size or have an assumed raised rev limiter because the red line is at 8000 but fuel cuts between 8100 and 8300rpm. Many drivers switch their S2000 gears and thus, without speed calibration, the max speeds change drastically. Even something as simple as a tire profile change can yield 1-2mph difference.

Wew, that's a lot of cope when all you had to say was "fuck, I'm wrong and a gay faggot retard"

That's straight up what the stock gearing is and that's what I drove, so eat a bag of shit and suck my dick, faggot, I know what I'm fucking talking about.

>This is the stupid shit you say, the AP2 doesn't rev to 9000

"'What is hyperbole' for $500, Alex"
>>
>>24728013
>making it moot and just meaning you have to shift more.
THATS LITERALLY ALL THE FUN IN THE S2000. Its FUN to be rowing through all the gears. Going into 3rd and you just hit 90mph is FUN as fuck.
>>
>>24728000
Yeah and there's some porsche or other - maybe a boxter or a cayman - that has a tourqe dip that mirrors the toyobaru quite closely on a % basis. Big difference is that said porsche has enough torque on tap even in the dip that you're probably not be like
>wtf why did the engine just die
during normal driving.

I don't know why you're going to such lengths to say that all cars have an objectionable torque dip when most of them don't. You're blowing everything way out of proportion. I for one really enjoy rowing around gears and I'd much rather have a nice peak up near redline to enjoy than filling in the torque dip, but if you have to adjust your driving habits to anticipate and avoid the torque dip then that's not really living up to the marketing claims about imitating a traditional NA feel. They could probably get fewer complaints if they artificially limited the torque below the dip, but that'd be lame since having some guts way down low makes puttering around town or in traffic much more pleasant.
>>
>>24728030
>Well that's pretty gay when you could be having a Corvette that's faster with better MPG for less money.
I didn't buy an S2000 to save money you stupid fuck holy shit what is this level of seethe you're on? You think I care about the cost of fuel? it takes 91 octane and gets like 10mpg when I'm really getting into it. Now you're on corvettes after all the bitching about shifting too much you pick a corvette where 1st gear gets out at like 50mph.
>Wew, that's a lot of cope when all you had to say was "fuck, I'm wrong and a gay faggot retard"
More like "I swear I've driven an S2000 but I've NEVER heard of people switching final gears" people switch 4.08 to 4.55 purely because they want to get that much more out of it.
>That's straight up what the stock gearing is and that's what I drove
No thats just some dudes calculation on s2ki.
>"'What is hyperbole' for $500, Alex"
Thats not even a hyperbole, you're just being obtuse and now feigning ignorance when you realize you've been stupid for the 10th time today.
>>
>>24728025
> Many AP2 owners switch to AP1 flywheels because they want to rev faster.

FOR REV MATCHING

It does not significantly increase acceleration once the clutch is engaged beyond whatever you save from 11 lbs of rotating mass in the drivetrain, which is pretty minimal.

>the mass of the car has nothing to do with choosing a flywheel.

Bullshit it doesn't! You just contradicted this when you said:

>The AP2 has a 22lb flywheel that was added to make shifting easier because the AP1 had an 11lb flywheel that would drop revs so quickly that it was hard to shift without being super quick about it.

Flywheels are weighted according to what makes for smooth shifts in commute-minded or utility-minded vehicles and weighted for fast revv matching in sport minded vehicles. Weight is increased just to keep the revvs from dropping too fast and make it easier to drive. It does not significantly affect acceleration times in and of itself.

>>24728035
>THATS LITERALLY ALL THE FUN IN THE S2000. Its FUN to be rowing through all the gears. Going into 3rd and you just hit 90mph is FUN as fuck.

Ok, so shifting in the S2000 is fun, but when someone says to downshift in the 86 because "muh torque chasm", then it's wrong?

What is is this fucking hypocrisy that the S2000 gets a pass but the 86 is wrong for being far less offensive in terms of weak bottom end power?

>>24728046
>wtf why did the engine just die

Literally no one has ever said this.

Show me where the car pulls over into the breakdown lane because the torque is just so low: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPCRakeRRZA

>They could probably get fewer complaints if they artificially limited the torque below the dip

This is proof that everyone is completely fucking retarded and lacks anything resembling sense.
>>
>>24728057
You clearly don't understand the difference between torque and acceleration, and have never swapped in a lightweight flywheel. You're going to blow a gasket if you keep getting this mad.

I have long been of the opinion that the toryobaru would benefit substantially from a slightly more lightweight flywheel, although I don't know what implications that might have in stock form as far as idle stability, NHV, and whatever relatively unobtrusive amount of revhang they had to build in for emissions. It would even abate the torque dip in 1st gear where it's the most unavoidable!
>>
>>24728057
>>wtf why did the engine just die
>Literally no one has ever said this.
I just said it. It was one of the first things I noticed on the test drive a few hundred feet out of the parking lot because there was a gentle downhill to a corner and then a bit of an uphill and I not only wondered why the hell I had to suddenly leave it in 2nd for so long and then failed to anticipate that I had to leave it in 2nd even longer to avoid face planting on the shift to 3rd.

If you're unable to feel it then maybe you're lucky. I had only done background research to verify whether or not there were reliability problems or if it might suck balls in the snow, so I had no idea that the torque dip existed.
>>
>>24728057
>FOR REV MATCHING
No they fucking don't, rev matching is EASIER on the heavier flywheel because its smoother when you're off by a few hundred RPM's. Thats literally the point of a double mass flywheel dude.
>It does not significantly increase acceleration once the clutch is engaged beyond whatever you save from 11 lbs of rotating mass in the drivetrain, which is pretty minimal.
Thats a LOT of mass saved, its not just 11lbs saved its 11lbs of rotational mass removed. People swap their pistols and lifters/valves for titanium ones which saves a net like 5lbs internally but because all that shit is spinning it allows them to raise their rev limiter on an AP2 closer to 10000rpm.
>Flywheels are weighted according to what makes for smooth shifts in commute-minded or utility-minded vehicles and weighted for fast revv matching in sport minded vehicles. Weight is increased just to keep the revvs from dropping too fast and make it easier to drive. It does not significantly affect acceleration times in and of itself.
Yea and that has nothing to do with the overall weight of the car. the AP2 came with a heavier flywheel to make shifting smoother, people switch back to an AP1 when they want more aggressive engine response which allows it to rev better.
>Ok, so shifting in the S2000 is fun, but when someone says to downshift in the 86 because "muh torque chasm", then it's wrong?
Downshifting an AP2 from 6400rpm in 3rd to 8000rpm in 2nd, well above VTEC. kicking in whereas downshifting in a BRZ often lands you right into the torque dip. You're saying in torque and power with an S2000 you're constantly fighting the torque dip in a BRZ. BRZ gears are so stupidly long compared to S2000 gears. Like seriously being at 5000rpm at 80mph in an S2000 is like 3000rpm in a BRZ. Its night and day the transmission differences.
>>
>>24728053
>people switch 4.08 to 4.55 purely because they want to get that much more out of it.

OK, great, it's irrelevant because we're talking about the stock car.

If we're going to go down that road, the "header+tune" meme solves "le torque dip" in the 86 and is easier than swapping gears and doesn't make it heinously fuel thirsty in the process.

>No thats just some dudes calculation on s2ki.

So "I'm wrong, so I'm going to pretend that what's true isn't true"

Nigga...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvjHdaw2OpU

Watch after he shifts to 2nd but before the tach starts climbing up, it reads 74 kmh which is about 45 mph. The problem is the speedo is laggy as fuck so it's way behind the actual speed. The calculated mph stands and it's also what I personally experienced so fuck youself, faggot.
>>
>>24728057
You're just bad and wrong and have terrible takes on the S2000vsBRZ and you've never driven an S2000.

Post your car.
>>
>>24728081
>If we're going to go down that road, the "header+tune" meme solves "le torque dip" in the 86 and is easier than swapping gears and doesn't make it heinously fuel thirsty in the process.
swapping the final gear is like a 2 hour job. Stop coping like there's some dumb nuance with a time advantage here.
>I scour the internet, shopping for conclusions
>MUH EXPERIENCE
Nah you're gay and your shits all retarded.
>>
>>24728066
>You clearly don't understand the difference between torque and acceleration

You clearly don't because a flywheel has dick all to do with torque and horsepower is what determines acceleration. Torque is an instantaneous measurement, retard, horsepower the number that actually determines the acceleration capability. I can put 1000 ft lbs on a wrench and not be moving at all you colossal fuckfaggot.

>It would even abate the torque dip in 1st gear where it's the most unavoidable!

How many times do I need to post the vid showing there's no noticeable power difference anywhere in the rev range (other than a clear linear increase as it should be)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPCRakeRRZA
>>
>>24728074
>I just said it. It was one of the first things I noticed on the test drive a few hundred feet out of the parking lot because there was a gentle downhill to a corner and then a bit of an uphill and I not only wondered why the hell I had to suddenly leave it in 2nd for so long and then failed to anticipate that I had to leave it in 2nd even longer to avoid face planting on the shift to 3rd.

Because the gears are taller than your faggot hairdresser special S2000, Taller gears means you leave it in gear longer, retard. This has nothing to do with a torque dip and everything to do with you being absolutely fucking stupid
>>
>>24728089
>You clearly don't because a flywheel has dick all to do with torque and horsepower is what determines acceleration.
go put a 500lb flywheel into your car and see what happens to its acceleration.
>torque is an instantaneous measurement
and torque will drop if you have a lot of rotating mass, like a flywheel.
>other than a clear linear increase as it should be)
Its not linear, the S2000 has a linear power band, the BRZ doesn't.
>>
>>24728089
Oh my god you don't understand basic newtonian physics, and worse yet you obviously have never tried a different flywheel. You're subaru owners such a bad name.
>>
>>24728076
>No they fucking don't, rev matching is EASIER on the heavier flywheel because its smoother when you're off by a few hundred RPM's. Thats literally the point of a double mass flywheel dude.

Revv matching on fast downshifts on a track, retard, I'm not talking about Dudley Dipshit that upshifts too slow. Heavy flywheels increase the chance of momentarily locking the wheels because they resist large changes to RPM, however, heavier flywheels make it easier for pleb drivers that don't know wtf they're doing.

>People swap their pistols

I don't think we need to bring Glock into this

>and lifters/valves for titanium ones which saves a net like 5lbs internally but because all that shit is spinning it allows them to raise their rev limiter on an AP2 closer to 10000rpm.

Buddy, you do that because the valvetrain is moving fast as fuck and the mass of that valvetrain and spring force can affect things like valve float. You are so lost and confused I don't know how to even explain this shit to you anymore. You're comparing apples to airplanes here
>>
>>24728092
I don't have an S2K. Even if I did then it would have nothing to do with how obvious the torque dip is if you ever actually drive it. You don't even need to drive hard. It's smack-me-in-the-face obvious just around town, such as at the beginning of my test drive that I mentioned. I can only assume that if you have ever driven a toyobaru then it must have been an automatic where the torque converter and shifting logic most likely covers up the torque dip somewhat.
>>
>>24728095
>go put a 500lb flywheel into your car and see what happens to its acceleration.

OK, let's just go full retard because you know you're wrong and absolutely fucking clueless

>and torque will drop if you have a lot of rotating mass, like a flywheel.

Not over 11 lbs when you're pulling a 2500-3000 lb car plus your likely 500 lb ass.

>the S2000 has a linear power band

The s2000 has a gigantic chasm for the first 6k RPM

>>24728114
I've owned a manual FR-S since 2013 and I have had several people ride with me while I do a 2nd gear pull and nobody can guess where the torque dip is. Every single time it's "wtf, what are people even talking about? Where was it even supposed to be?"
>>
>>24728110
>Revv matching on fast downshifts on a track, retard
That doesn't change anything. Its smoother on a heavier flywheel because theres more inertia to overcome when matching them so they slip longer than a lighter fly wheel would. You use a lightweight flywheel to:
>save on weight because track/racecars what ever, weight is weight
>save on rotational mass which 11lbs of rotational mass is a LOT its probably the biggest weight savings you can have in an engine without swapping other aluminum parts for lighter materials.
>improves engine response significantly because there's less inertia to overcome, the engine spools faster.
>I don't think we need to bring Glock into this
Pistons but whatever, people swap pistons, rods, valves, lifters and cams for titanium ones which is extremely expensive but it reduces rotational mass enough that it allows you to raise the redline to near 10000rpm. With associated fueling, plugs, and other modifications you can build power to that level safely.
>Buddy, you do that because the valvetrain is moving fast as fuck and the mass of that valvetrain and spring force can affect things like valve float.
Yea I know, we're talking about rotational mass, more specifically momentum and inertia. Every pound you save on rotational mass you save in engine response. Again this is all extreme shit but just saving 5lbs allows you to raise the red line 25%. Saving 11lbs in a flywheel is a massive improvement for engine response.
>>
>>24728117
>Not over 11 lbs when you're pulling a 2500-3000 lb car plus your likely 500 lb ass.
Yea dude 11lbs 11lbs is a fucking LOT for a rotating piece of equipment. This isn't losing 11lbs in insulation or lighter materials this is a part of the car that is rotating and thats 11 less pounds you engine has to fight against.
>The s2000 has a gigantic chasm for the first 6k RPM
lmao you keep trying to spin it this way but no where in the S2000 torque curve does it actively LOSE torque with increasing engine speed. The BRZ starts off with it flat, loses torque, then gets it back like 1500rpm later wtf is that.
>>
>>24728131
Also this is why Honda went with a forged aluminum crank, rods, pistons, block and everything. You couldn't do a lot of this with steel because the rotational mass would be too great. All that reduction in rotating mass literally lets it generate the power it makes and allows it to rev as high as it does.
>>
>>24728126
>Its smoother on a heavier flywheel because theres more inertia to overcome when matching them so they slip longer than a lighter fly wheel would.

WhatTheFuckAmIReading.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXZKRc4UYLw 20 seconds in

See how he heel-toe revv matches when downshifting? With lighter flywheels you can make the revvs climb more quickly, which is important when dropping several gears in succession. If you have a heavy flywheel, it takes forever for the revvs to climb and makes it harder to match the revvs for each gear. The lighter flywheel also makes it less likely to chirp the drive wheels if you're a little off as the lower mass fights the discrepancy in RPM less.

>Pistons but whatever, people swap pistons, rods, valves, lifters and cams for titanium ones which is extremely expensive but it reduces rotational mass enough that it allows you to raise the redline to near 10000rpm.

Yes, that's because more mass in the engine itself means there's more momentum to change direction. This is completely different than talking about a couple pounds on a flywheel. Your flywheel doesn't change direction dozens of times a second. Apples to airplanes.

>Every pound you save on rotational mass you save in engine response.

Yes, for faster free revving for revv matching, not for outright acceleration

>Again this is all extreme shit but just saving 5lbs allows you to raise the red line 25%

Apples to airplanes again, reciprocating engine parts are not the same as a spinning flywheel by a long shot.
>>
>>24728131
>lmao you keep trying to spin it this way but no where in the S2000 torque curve does it actively LOSE torque with increasing engine speed. The BRZ starts off with it flat, loses torque, then gets it back like 1500rpm later wtf is that.

Ok, well let's spin it this way: The BRZ is like an S2000 with a boosted bottom end. Instead of just sucking for the first 6k, it boosts all but 1000 RPM (of really only like a couple hundred are the peak of the dip).

It's a fucking *improvement* to the bottom end, it's SUPERIOR to the S2000's powerband. Cry about it.
>>
>>24728192
That sounds remarkably like something I said earlier in this thread, and yet you still took issue with it simply because your passengers don't know where the torque dip is and apparently neither do you even though you're actually driving the thing.
>>
>>24728281
backpedal.

Fuckoff.
>>
>>24728395
If you think the mass of a flywheel doesn't have any effect or that acceleration is determined by horsepower then it comes as no surprise to me that you might view my consistent position as going backward.

At least argue with dumb meme artists with increasingly bizarre attempts at trolling.
>>
>>24721964
>What do you need in a daily driver
>Small two door Japanese cars never had this
Wow, it's almost like he was saying a small Japanese two door car makes a bad daily driver, huh retard
>>
>>24728455
Does a 240SX count? That had reasonably usable rear seats despite being a coupe. I forget the dimensions but it was reasonably small and light by today's standards at least. I might prefer a little smaller, but I found it quite amicable for the short amount of time I spent in it.
>>
>>24728455
Oh and by the way, staying on topic, you can say the 240SX had a truck engine if you want, but it had a very pleasant NA feel where you kept getting more and more torque coming on the further you revved it up. I don't know what the dyno graph shows, but that's much more what I associate with the NA feel. The toyobaru might also suffer from its electronic throttle tuning, but that's not something I ever tinkered with, so I can't say if that's at play beyond it having one foot in feeling fake and gay, and the other foot in feeling intuitive and true especially up in the power band.
>>
>>24721767
No retard - the miata has been in production since the 90s
>>
>>24722212
>flagship
>under 200hp
>>
File: KA24DE-Stock.jpg (92 KB, 1024x561)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>24728515
The KA's torque takes a nosedive halfway up the revv range.

You retards really don't know WTF you're even talking about. I can't even argue with you because you're so fucking stupid you don't even know the grass is green and the sky is blue.
>>
>>24728563
A 200 HP motorcycle will power wheelie at 80 mph in 2nd gear when 2nd gear goes to like 120 mph and 80 mph is just starting the powerband. A stretched and lowered with drag tires but otherwise stock R1 would probably beat an F1 car in the straight line.

Mid-post edit:

F1 car: 9.2 second
1/4 mile https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/carwow-quarter-mile-400-metre-1320-ft-time-drag-race-leaderboard

R1 stretched, lowered, with drag tires: 8.1 seconds
http://www.dragtimes.com/Yamaha-YZF-Timeslip-26331.html

That R1 has some mods, but that generation had way less stock power, so it just brings it back to 2020/2021 horsepower levels.
>>
>>24728711
That looks about right to me. I didn't really wind it out much but that's a pretty typical truck engine kind of torque curve. In use it feels natural, but it's also one of the reasons I don't get why people say a brz is supposed to feel like a 240. The brz is obviously a rev happy little engine where you need to keep it on the boil to get it to perform, and it has a stiff chassis with gearing that's track oriented. The 240 is a grunty engine noodle chassis that makes for more of a roadster feel, although the 2.4L truck feel makes that torque irregularity comparatively irrelevant.

Have you driven both or is this just more bench racing?
>>
torque dip is such a boring subject you're all fucking fags
>>
>>24728734
>I didn't really wind it out much
>I short shift engines and then complain there's no enough power

Everyone on the planet is a fucking retard. Every last fucking one of you.

The 240 was a turd no matter what you did, it was a hopeless, dull engine that felt like it was ready to take a nap at all times. My sister also had the same engine in an Altima (2000 model, before QR25DE) and it was dull as hell in that car too.

I just don't understand these weird comments where you praise dogshit cars like stock 240sxs and S2000s but then try to shit on all-around superior cars like the 86. Are you just poor and being sour grapes about it? That's the only explanation.
>>
>>24728748
Plot out the wheel torque curve in each gear on the same chart. The gradual decline at the top end means you tend to wind up with a similar wheel torque when shifting gears. Even the FA20D falls off during the last 200RPM or so because any sane person designs an NA car with standard transmission for a certain degree of smoothness.

What you seem to be missing is the difference in having a big torque dip in the middle, which makes the difference between the gradual and responsive power delivery vs. having to suffer through the torque dip in 1st gear and then having to work to stay out of it. I wasn't praising the 240SX. I even said I didn't understand why people think they're they same. I don't know what the hell is wrong with your reading comprehension, mathematical or linguistical.
>>
>>24722069
all the VQ cars are being driven by the broccoli haired kids now
>>
>>24722143
>literally better in all track metrics
>literally better in spec racing
>better car all around
LOL idiot.
>>
>>24728834
>literally worse in all bench racing metrics
>literally never spec race my daily
>worse car all around
The absolute state of niggersan copers
>>
>>24722554
the only 350z's I've seen lately are convertibles driven by boomers / staceys that don't wanna get a Miata for cruising, except one non-convertible one that was modded to shit but still seemed slower than my almost-stock 370.

Speaking of, I'm very thankful the G37 exists and is half the price of the 370, it keeps the ghetto people away from the better of the two.
>>
>>24728748
S2000 absolutely mogs shitty BRZs
>>
>>24721777
based veloster poster
>>
>>24726404
>Put it in a higher gear at lower revs and it will accelerate even slower
But there’s more power down below the dip, dipshit.
>>
>>24730311
No there isn’t, how can people be this clueless and so brazen about it?
>>
File: what the fuck (2).gif (664 KB, 253x200)
664 KB
664 KB GIF
The fuck is going on in this thread?
>>
>>24722003
does it still come with prius wheels and tyres stock?
its a fucking toyota shit box with a lesbians motor(subaru aint won shit since the last century)
>>
Can someone please post a pic of a black gr86? Or possibly photohshop one?
>>
>>24734441
you mean the honda civic/accord coupe?

that cars exterior is fucking soulless and it is disappointing.
>>
>>24721767
post its ugly ass rear designed by subaru tranny fags
>>
>>24734441
Zoinks! Looks like a Scion TC now.
>>
File: mustang drifting.gif (2.26 MB, 498x225)
2.26 MB
2.26 MB GIF
>>24734441
brain dead subaru aka subpar faggots designed this pile of dog shit. even fucking dog shitting mazda looks better now
>>
>>24728733
the only thing that can beat an f1 car in a straight line is an actual dragster.
>>
>>24721767
not buying a car with a PPF.
hopefully this brings the cost of the old models down though.

atm they start at £13k which is a lot when a MK7 FiST with the same power is £9k (with potential to make a lot more with minor mods).
>>
File: 221065-full.png (777 KB, 794x802)
777 KB
777 KB PNG
>>24734946
u poor nigger, with inventory all time low the price will keep going up. u will wait forever. own nothing and be happy.
>>
>>24735033
it's not worth 13k to me, so that's irrelevant.
>>
>>24723659
>power efficent
240hp out of 2.4L is pretty good though
>>
>>24727935
people who get the BRZ end up painting/wraping it themselves anyways, it's a tuner car

>>24728013
>the mass of the flywheel is negligible
not true btw
>>
>>24723882
>Anonymous 10/14/21(Thu)12:14:22
>for fuck's sake, do you even know who you're talking to?
calm down on the ego faggot, your argument and words should speak for themselves
>>
>>24735172
Dodge was getting more out of the Caliber SRT-4 15 years ago.
>>
>>24735768
>your argument and words should speak for themselves

They should, but fags gonna be fags, so sometimes I have to lay it on extra thick.
>>
>>24737711
with a fucking TURBO, retard. Do you really not understand the difference?
>>
>>24734678
I literally posted recorded drag times of an actual 2011 Red Bull F1 car and an R1 with only stretching, tires, and some minor mods that still don't give it as much power as a modern R1. Liter bikes are fucking stupid fast, they run 9 second quarters even without the stretch and drag tires. The only reason MotoGP bikes don't spank F1 is because of corners because even on really nice slicks motorcycles can only pull a little over 1 G laterally whereas F1 cars can reach momentary peaks of like 4-5G thanks to downforce and massive tires and the fact their steering isn't lean based.
>>
>>24737719
Where are you getting that 240hp from then? It only makes 228hp. GM was getting almost that from their NA 2.4 like 15 years ago.
>>
>>24737731
No they fucking weren't. The only GM motors that came close to that were their turbo ones.
>>
>>24737746
The 2.4 in the Saturn Sky made 177hp and 173 ft.lbs NA. I bet it's powerband was a lot less torque dippy.
>>
>>24737758
Thats no where near 228hp/184lbft
>>
>>24737763
It is once you factor in the compression loss from the blown head gaskets. I bet the i4 would be infinitely more fun to drive than a torque dip ass boxer.
>>
>>24737768
>FA series
>headgaskets
this isn't 2006 you turbo retard.
>>
>>24737731
Jap models are 240
>>
>>24737768
Why would an I4 be better? Just so it hang off the driveline for longer on a car that already should have the engine stuffed back further?

Or are you just a huge toyota retard who doesn't know anything about anything and probably thinks there was some absent chance of turning up the factories to make more supra boat anchors for entry level prices or any price at all?
>>
the only reason that /o/ will hate on this car is because they can't afford it

>we want RWD
here you go
>we want natural aspiration
here you go
>we want a coupe
here you go
>we want sporty suspension
here you go
>we want reliability
here you go
>we want a manual transmission
here you go
>we want....um...errr.....
>>
>>24737995
>Why would an I4 be better?
Well for one you wouldn't have to run shitbox/pickup truck tier McPherson front suspension. My $500 shitbox runs that shit. That shit is unacceptable in a performance vehicle. If manufacturers can fit a giant ass V8 almost completely behind the front axle line you sure as shit better be able to do the same with a i4. I'm just somebody who thinks Toyota partnered with the wrong brand.
>>
>>24738001
Why would you suggest that any of that is inherent to an I4? And you still haven't addressed the issue of how much it would ruin the car. You surely have to be an abo-australian to be this fucking stupid.
>>
>>24738004
There are a plethora of race cars that use i4's. A V8 doesn't ruin a 86 so a i4 sure as shit won't either. Nothing ruins a car worse than a Subaru engine.
>>
>>24737998
I really want to like it but the shitburu engine ruins it for me
>>
>>24738001
Now, for part 2, tell us how much you couldn't spend on dialing in the suspension (which by the way is not mcpheson but you're too stupid to know that)

And part 3 is when you're going to explain how you blew up 3 engines by not putting in an oil cooler even after trying to track them. Let's go.
>>
>>24738009
It's been like 10 years you're still salty about it. Do you really expect us to believe you're smart? It's obvious that you're a lebbo who broke his car with a lebbo tune.
>>
>>24738011
https://www.planetsubaru.com/2022-subaru-brz-changes.htm
>Front: MacPherson-type struts, lower L-arms, coil springs, stabilizer bar

>>24738016
wtf is a lebbo? Lebanese? Speak English, Bruce.
>>
>>24738010
look he's still at it he's even worse than a bmw badgewhore but he can't even afford to complain about the newpra
>>
>>24738024
nice job posting the same link for 10 years that proves you've never driven the fucking thing in your life.
>muh suspension
post a forum link about how bad the suspension is.
>>
>>24738029
lmao press the az-5 button. You don't need a forum link to know that the suspension is bad. Motorhomes and buses run MacPherson suspension now. It's not okay for a performance vehicle to be running that.
>>
>>24738024
>oh fuck I can't understand a single thing about engines so I just trust that one cylinder configuration is better than the other
>I obviously can't drive for shit because suspension type means everything to me
The only good thing about you is how you say the same thing every time when it's obvious you are completely incompetent.
>hurrrrr if only it had a "toyota" brand on the engine
PROTIP: it does but you've never lifted the hood
>>
>>24738037
You still don't know that macpherson suspension isn't used on the front end. Good job continuing to be retarded. Go buy a previa if you want a toyota I4 that's low to the ground. It's a minivan after all.
>>
>>24738037
I'm still waiting for you to google the suspension. In the meanwhile you can post your lap times so we can all laugh at you.
d
>>
File: mcqueerson.jpg (288 KB, 1920x986)
288 KB
288 KB JPG
>>24738042
>>24738047
Where is this illustrious non MacPherson suspension?
>>
>>24738057
wow took you long enough to google only to get it wrong. this is how we can tell you're a real driver.
>>
>>24738064
Right from Subaru's website... Lay off the fucking vape juice lmao.
>A popular choice for sports cars of all types, the MacPherson® strut front suspension system helps create superior driving dynamics. For the all-new BRZ, the system now features lighter-weight materials, revised spring rates and improved damping characteristics, all engineered to secure better steering response. A rebound spring is also placed inside the struts to reduce body roll and increase control.
>>
>>24738069
So I'm correct in asserting that your opinion is derived from a web site rather than having any complaint of your own about the front suspension?
>>
>>24738069
Because it's obvious you don't know what a macphearson suspension is, now it's your time to shine and tell us what toyota would have done in you imaginary world.
>>
>>24738077
I've owned and own several MacPherson vehicles. It's definitely a compromised solution that doesn't belong in a performance vehicle. tbf it's not just Subaru/Toyota that are retarded enough to use it. Porsche uses it too and that's why their $300k cars get gapped by a $60k Camaro.
>>
>>24738081
So you can't afford an entry level "performance vehicle" and you still can't explain what a macphearson suspension is or why that held you back.

Typical for somebody who somebody who says all subaru engines spit head gaskets like there's a spitoon next to the bar;
>>
>>24721819
>back seats
>daily driver
I’m not a taxi driver.
>>
>>24721767
Why did they make it ugly?
>>
>>24738081
still waiting if you can name the suspension or if you want to post lap times or whatever
>>
>>24738094
I think it looks rather nice, I prefer the gr86 face though.
>>
>>24732794
2-3 autismos with no job to keep em busy
I like the 86 btw, nice cah.
>>
why would you buy brz or gr86 if m2 exist?
>>
>>24738681
the only thing worse than a subaru pancake motor for reliability is a bmw engine
>>
>>24721767
No, it's still shit compared to the miata since they insist on keeping it slow.
>Hey guys we did it we added power are you happy now!
>Ends up being like 0.2 seconds faster than a miata still
>500lbs more

Straight to the trash
>>
>>24721777
Based trips and based filename
>>
>>24721819
but a grand marquis then faggot
>>
>>24739670
>>24723727
>>
>>24738081
So you still can't answer the question? Do you also think it has double wishbone rear suspension because some dipshit in a car magazine described it that way?

I want everybody to know how stupid you are. And I'm not going to stop until everybody knows it.
>>
>>24739771
What question? Subaru them-fucking-selves says it uses MacPherson front suspension. All the pictures on their website clearly show a MacPherson setup. What the fuck are they using then?
>>
>>24739778
Yes. We all know you only read car magazines and you've never driven a car in your life. But you could at least take the time to call the front suspension by its correct name. I'm not going to give you the cheat answer. You're just going to have to be the fat slob who only complains about the car from reading magazines on the bus.
>>
>>24739782
What's it called then?
>>
>>24739794
You tell me bro. You didn't even complain about the rear suspension yet because it's not dual wishbone. Are you having a giggle?
>>
What's the better option?

a) buy GR86 for commute and weekend. 120km 4 times a week.

b) buy GR86 as fun sunny weekend car and keep renting a new car every 6 months for commute (cost around 500€ everything included per month)

I kinda tend to b) because that means I can keep the 86 for a long long time without worries and bigger repairs. On the other hand I could safe around 500€ every month and buy another new car in 5 years with that money.
>>
>>24737758
>177hp
>close to 240hp
lel, the absolute state of goalposting and cope
>>
>>24738010
literally not an argument, the GT86 is realiable as fuck and the GR86 will be the same, keep coping, you can't even afford one.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.