Toyota FT-86/FR-S

Zaggeron

Your post I originally quoted stated the Genesis 2.0T was a better choice. My point was that with roughly the same horsepower (if the FT-86 stays true to the original concept horsepower of 200-210) and the Genesis being anywhere from 300-500 lbs heavier, I sincerely doubt that the 2.0T is quicker than the FT-86 will be.

As for tuning potential, I don't know if the Gen 2.0T is at the top of its tuning potential already -- I'm supposing you could add boost, but I'm not sure what a tune would for it. In any event, in general, given two similar motors -- which they really won't be that similar -- with similar HP one being turbo the other being NA, the turbo probably has an easier way to get a few extra HP by adding boost, but in general the NA motor has the higher potential for higher HP gains -- after all you could put a turbo on the FT-86.

__________________
2010 Platinum Graphite 370z Roadster:Touring/Sport
2013 Subaru BRZ Limited

Jeffblue

i mean, peopel are RAVING about how cool the juke is just because its turbo'd. i'm pretty sure there are a lot of 370z guys that are like 'zomg turboz!' but, like its still 1.8t. it's not a fast car. people with our engine shouldn't be envious of that motor. Obviously the 3.7L NA in our car is going to trump the 1.8T in that car 10 times out of 10. However, all things being equal, if the desplacement is the same, the engine with FI is definitely going to be more potent, and with 1000 dollars of mods in the car it will definitely have an edge.

flashburn

I don't think anyone sane is thinking to REPLACE a 370Z with a Juke. Just that it can be made a relatively quick, unique looking, and fun daily driver, for a pretty reasonable amount of money. The fact that it is turbo should mean it's potential compared to an N/A with the same HP/size should be higher.

__________________
Current Ride: 2012 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport Centennial Edition Carbon Flash 6M
Previous Ride: 2009 Nissan 370Z Sport Platinum Graphite 7AT

Jeffblue

exactly why i'm saying that i'd take a 2.0T genesis over the FT-86. Let's face it they are going to be similar in price.

Zaggeron

I really don't understand why you think that given 2 engines both of the same displacement and HP, the one with the turbo is better? If the HP and torque curves are similar and they have the same torque and HP, their performance will be similar. Turbo doesn't give one an edge above and beyond the torque and HP it adds and if two engines are already the same with respect to those figures, turbo don't mean squat. In addition, the 2.0T is almost 3300 lbs. Much heavier than the worst case scenario for the FT

Also, tuning potential is independent of turbo vs. NA -- a turbo motor doesn't intrinsically have a better tuning potential -- the turbo may be already be at its highest reliable boost, the NA may be detuned for economy reasons. There are lots of factors involved. That said, the NA has the advantage all other things being equal since you can always turbo it and pop it past the other turbo motor in terms of HP and torque.

__________________
2010 Platinum Graphite 370z Roadster:Touring/Sport
2013 Subaru BRZ Limited

kielbasa16

Turning up the boost aside, turbod cars stand to make much larger gains with simple bolt ons. Thats what Jeff is saying, that if you put $1000 into both the FT-86 and the Gen, the Gen would gain a significant advantage. Stock for stock you may be right that the performance would be very close.

__________________
Mag Black Kielbasa

Zaggeron

You may be right, but I still think it depends on the engine you start with. From what I've read about the 2.0T people are not getting significant performance increases with simple bolt-ons. Based on HP to power, the 2.0T would have to add anywhere from 50 to 30 HP if the final weight figures for the FT end up being 2800 to 3000 lbs

__________________
2010 Platinum Graphite 370z Roadster:Touring/Sport
2013 Subaru BRZ Limited

Jeffblue

I dont know of any factory car that is boosting near its maximum potential from the factory. And the argument that 'NA is better than turbo, because you can always turbo the NA car' is kind of an.... odd argument. It's kind of like saying 'i'd rather have a 4.2L v8 than a 5.0L v8 because i can always get a stroker kit and increase the displacement' If you turbo an NA car the right way, it isn't cheap.

and the weight thing is going to be pretty insignificant. so lets say best case scenario, you've got a 3000lb ft-86 and a 3300lb genesis 2.0t. Put a 150lb driver in one and a 250lb drive in the other, and then you've got 3250 and 3450 lbs. so with a drive you are talking about a 200lb difference between the cars. Throw lighter, smaller wheels on the heavier car with the lighter driver and it'll be faster.

yea, i mean if the power curves are the same, stock vs stock, then the two engines are making the same kind of power. There is a reason that an impreza wrx or sti costs way more than an impreza rs. They have similar or (i forget) maybe even the same displacement, yet the WRX is turbocharged and the RS is NA. The RS is slow as **** and you can't get any gains out of the car, and the STI can be a monster with some pretty simple modifications.

ok so we disagree, no harm done. in a year, when the 2.0t genesis is wiping the floor with the FT-86 (assuming it comes with a 2.0 NA i4) then we can see who was right

You know the saying 'there's no replacement for displacement.' The car with larger displacement is typically going to produce more power. You can get more power out of a smaller engine by turbocharging it. So it would stand to reason, that if two engines are the same size, the one that has forced induction is going to produce more power, regardless of how they are tuned from the factory. put 1k in each car, which i guarantee most people dont even bat an eye at (as far as car forum folks are concerned) and you will see the turbocharged engine make significantly more power.