Toyota FT-86/FR-S

Zaggeron

The 2011 Genesis 2.0T has 210 HP and has a curb weight of 3294. If the FT-86 has around 200 HP even if it weights 3000lbs it should be quicker than the genesis -- The NA vs. turbo is a red herring. Just because a car has a turbo'd version of an engine with the same displacement doesn't mean it will be quicker. Also, the 2.0T is an inline 4, the FT-86 should be based on Subaru's new boxer engine. The boxer configuration allows for a lower center of gravity and hence better handling and also is distributes the operating forces better.

I'll be disappointed if it ends up weighing 3k, but should still be a decently quick and fun car @2800 lbs and 200HP. It will boil down to the price point. If we are talking 26-27K for a nicely optioned one, that's acceptable. But, on the other hand if it breaks 30k with a suite of popular options like navigation, the price may be too much what you get.

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

FL 4Motion

/\ that's funny, we've been thinking about a Juke possibly as well. GTM is developing turbo kits (stage 1-3) and other stuff for it incl a bbk. Like you said, lowered about 1 1/2 to 2" with a nice set of 18's and it'd be a fun little dd.

iff2mastamatt

It might use the 148hp motor, but it will have the D4-S (I think) injection which should add some hp. If this thing got 35mpg for 25K, I'd take it as if I had to sacrifice performance. Toyota never said this thing was a Genesis competitor (though I wish it will be), but one of the execs said that "it would be thousands less than the Z".

Isamu

the Juke is a sweet little car man!

OT: I really hope this doesn't dissapoint... it started out so cool.. and just seems to become less and less with the more time that passes

__________________

黒子 ('Kuroko')
Project: SuperNova Owner/Operator and Lead designer @BlackGuard Aeroworks

Jeffblue

why not 2?


intake/tune both of them and the genesis will run circles around the FT-86. there's little to no gains to be made an an NA car with a tiny motor.

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.

Zaggeron

@JeffBlue

"And the argument that 'NA is better than turbo, because you can always turbo the NA car' is kind of an.... odd argument. "

I don't think it's an odd argument. The main point is that if an engine has a maximum potential, the Turbo's car is already closer to that potential and if an NA and a Turbo engine are already producing the same power figures, then there is more room for improvement in the NA motor. Imagine two runners both putting in the same time for the 100 meters. One is taking a performance enhancing drug, the other not. The one not taking the drug has a higher potential since if he did take the drug, he would in fact perform better than the other.

"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."

I'm hoping 3000lbs is the worst case scenario and not the best case. If it ends up being more than 3k, then, frankly, I don't want it. Also, I'm not sure why the genesis gets the 150lb driver and the FT gets the 250lb driver .. lol. Why not just compare with same driver. Rule of thumb is for each 100lbs you need to add around 10HP. So at 3k vs. 3.3K the genesis 2.0T would have to add 30HP to make the same numbers -- Remember, that the original proposed HP figures for the FT were between 200-210. Again, if it makes much less than that, I'm not interested.

"two engines are the same size, the one that has forced induction is going to produce more power"

Obviously not correct right -- HP is not merely a function of displacement. The HP numbers for the 2.0T are after the turbo not before it ... (that's obvious but I had to get it out there because you seem to be suggesting that the turbo on the 2.0T adds something beyond its stated 210HP)

"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. "

That is more or less the point under contention. It's an empirical question not one answered by reflecting on the principles of Turbo vs. NA. In my research -- and granted I haven't researched the 2.0T that much, people are not getting significant gains out of exhausts and other bolt-ons with that particular motor.

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

Isamu

turbo vs na is dumb...
you both have valid points... but at the same time are both biased toward one or the other...
jeff is right in that a turbo car from the factory will be more or less better in that, it's engineered to be that way... you are right in that, you put a turbo on an NA car producing more power from the get go it will have more power, however, you are neglecting to mention that, a) reliabilty will not be the same, and b) your NA motor isn't built for boost so it may not hold the same potential without doing work on the motor itself. and by doing so, you are altering the original design, making your petty argument, moot..

now, just realize, this car probably won't live to its hype, and will need to be modified to play...

__________________

黒子 ('Kuroko')
Project: SuperNova Owner/Operator and Lead designer @BlackGuard Aeroworks