Toyota FT-86/FR-S

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.