Toyota FT-86/FR-S

Jeffblue · 05-19-2011, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

There's very little headroom in small displacement NA cars. Big v8's make a lot of gains with bolt ons as to turbocharged cars. Small displacement v6's make small to moderate gains, NA i4's make very little with simple modifications like bolt ons and tune. that's just the truth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaggeron

"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.

That looks like some nice gains to me. Tune them both and you'll have more than enough of a power bump in the genesis to make up for the tentative weight difference between the two cars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaggeron

"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)

Same displacement motors NA vs Turbo

VG30DE:
222hp 195tq

VG30DETT:
300hp 283 tq

2jz-GE:
220hp 220tq

2jz-GTE:
321hp 333tq

Another good comparison is the KA vs Sr20

KA24DE (2.4L NA)
155hp, 160tq

SR 20DET (Single turbo 2.0L motor)
95 to 99 silvia 245hp 202tq

(notice the sr20DET making more power with LESS displacement, now imagine if it was an SR24det)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaggeron

"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.

see above

There is a reason that when people get a 240sx, and want to make a lot of power, they swap to an SR20 from the KA motor. The sr20 is designed to take boost from the factory and is an all around better motor. Are there people out there with Turbo'd KA motors? yea, there are, but the obvious choice is the factory turbocharged motor.

kielbasa16 · 05-19-2011, 12:15 PM

Hey Jeff, what were the mods before and after for that dyno?

Jeffblue · 05-19-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kielbasa16

Hey Jeff, what were the mods before and after for that dyno?

according to the site, an ECU tune.

kielbasa16 · 05-19-2011, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffblue

according to the site, an ECU tune.

Damn... I wish my UpRev tune net me +35 hp hahaha

Jeffblue · 05-19-2011, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kielbasa16

Damn... I wish my UpRev tune net me +35 hp hahaha

it would make more than that if our car was 3.7L turbo rated at 332hp from the factory. but its 332 NA. perfect point why turbo cars have more tuning potential and why a lightly modded genesis will run circles around this FT-86

Zaggeron · 05-19-2011, 12:34 PM

Jeff, obviously we are not communicating very well. The question is not whether two identical motors with the same displacement would be equal before and after turbo. Nobody claims that.

The point in contention is that given two motors both with the same HP and torque figures one being NA the other turbo, somehow -- magically -- the turbo'd engine is a better engine. My only claim is that is clearly not enough information.

Now there are some specific issues regarding the 2.0T which I would be willing to concede given evidence -- Can you spend under $1000 and get 30 to 50 more HP out of it? If not and if -- and these are big "ifs" I admit -- the FT weights in at 3k lbs or less (actually I probably wouldn't get it if it was much heavier than 2900lbs) and has more or less the concept HP -- around 200-210hp, then the 2.0T would be hard pressed to keep up given the 1K upgrade limit -- the FT would be faster out of the factory and the 2.0T would have to get a higher performance gain from the 1k than the FT would have to from its upgrades

Jeffblue · 05-19-2011, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaggeron

Jeff, obviously we are not communicating very well. The question is not whether two identical motors with the same displacement would be equal before and after turbo. Nobody claims that.

The point in contention is that given two motors both with the same HP and torque figures one being NA the other turbo, somehow -- magically -- the turbo'd engine is a better engine. My only claim is that is clearly not enough information.

Now there are some specific issues regarding the 2.0T which I would be willing to concede given evidence -- Can you spend under $1000 and get 30 to 50 more HP out of it? If not and if -- and these are big "ifs" I admit -- the FT weights in at 3k lbs or less (actually I probably wouldn't get it if it was much heavier than 2900lbs) and has more or less the concept HP -- around 200-210hp, then the 2.0T would be hard pressed to keep up given the 1K upgrade limit -- the FT would be faster out of the factory and the 2.0T would have to get a higher performance gain from the 1k than the FT would have to from its upgrades

Yea i think we are getting a little sidetracked. I guess my real point is that is if this car is supposed to be fast, its got to be really goddamn light. And we all know that isn't going to happen, so more than likely, it will just be slow. A lot of this super light weight hype is just because of the year we are in. case in point:

the z32 was often criticized as being a bloated fat pig of a car and strayed too far from the Z heritage by being SO big and heavy. This was in the 1990s. the Twin turbo 2 seater weight 3,373lb (per wikipedia)

come 2011, the 370z is praised for how light it is, weighing in at 3,232 lbs (Base). is 140lbs off what was criticized as a heavy fat pig of a car really that earth shattering? no, its because in 2011 we have so much extra safety equipment and regulations that what would have previously be considered a heavy car, is now considered a light car. So when it comes down to power to weight figures, these cars that are considered 'light', don't turn out to be that fast because they are actually quite heavy by 'light sports car' standards.

Zaggeron · 05-19-2011, 01:15 PM

@ Jeff

I think we can agree to agree here. That's what was so appealing about the FT concept. It is supposed to be a return to a light modestly powered sports coupe. If it can realize some decent portion of that vision in production, I think it will be a good car.

As I said, I probably wouldn't seriously consider it if it were much over 2900lbs and didn't have at least 200HP. Given that I am looking for a replacement for my DD and not my Z, those figures would be substantially better than my current DD. My Mazda 3 is a peppy little car at 157hp with 2960 lbs -- not fast, but not Versa slow. Still, it is fun to drive and I can image a car about the same weight with 50 or so more HP being even more fun -- especially if it is in a sporty coupe body ...

nuTinmuch · 05-19-2011, 04:38 PM

...Oh?

flashburn · 05-19-2011, 04:41 PM

Stupid ricer wings (yes I'm talking about the Celica too!).

nuTinmuch · 05-19-2011, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashburn

celica

ಠ_ಠ

Lug · 05-19-2011, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashburn

Stupid ricer wings (yes I'm talking about the Celica too!).

That's a Supra.

flashburn · 05-19-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lug

That's a Supra.

Yeah, that's what I meant, whatever.

Isamu · 05-19-2011, 05:49 PM

supra =/= celica... atleast not that gen LOL

Gunzero · 05-20-2011, 12:09 AM

How can you mistaken a Supra for a Celica?

05-19-2011, 12:15 PM	#212 (permalink)
kielbasa16 Track Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: NY Posts: 770 Drives: 09 Blk Z Spt Rep Power: 17	Hey Jeff, what were the mods before and after for that dyno? __________________ Mag Black Kielbasa

05-19-2011, 12:34 PM	#216 (permalink)
Zaggeron A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,951 Drives: '10 370ZR '13 BRZ Rep Power: 18	Jeff, obviously we are not communicating very well. The question is not whether two identical motors with the same displacement would be equal before and after turbo. Nobody claims that. The point in contention is that given two motors both with the same HP and torque figures one being NA the other turbo, somehow -- magically -- the turbo'd engine is a better engine. My only claim is that is clearly not enough information. Now there are some specific issues regarding the 2.0T which I would be willing to concede given evidence -- Can you spend under $1000 and get 30 to 50 more HP out of it? If not and if -- and these are big "ifs" I admit -- the FT weights in at 3k lbs or less (actually I probably wouldn't get it if it was much heavier than 2900lbs) and has more or less the concept HP -- around 200-210hp, then the 2.0T would be hard pressed to keep up given the 1K upgrade limit -- the FT would be faster out of the factory and the 2.0T would have to get a higher performance gain from the 1k than the FT would have to from its upgrades __________________ 2010 Platinum Graphite 370z Roadster:Touring/Sport 2013 Subaru BRZ Limited

05-19-2011, 01:15 PM	#218 (permalink)
Zaggeron A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,951 Drives: '10 370ZR '13 BRZ Rep Power: 18	@ Jeff I think we can agree to agree here. That's what was so appealing about the FT concept. It is supposed to be a return to a light modestly powered sports coupe. If it can realize some decent portion of that vision in production, I think it will be a good car. As I said, I probably wouldn't seriously consider it if it were much over 2900lbs and didn't have at least 200HP. Given that I am looking for a replacement for my DD and not my Z, those figures would be substantially better than my current DD. My Mazda 3 is a peppy little car at 157hp with 2960 lbs -- not fast, but not Versa slow. Still, it is fun to drive and I can image a car about the same weight with 50 or so more HP being even more fun -- especially if it is in a sporty coupe body ... __________________ 2010 Platinum Graphite 370z Roadster:Touring/Sport 2013 Subaru BRZ Limited

05-19-2011, 04:38 PM	#219 (permalink)
nuTinmuch A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,092 Drives: PG 7AT 370Z Rep Power: 17	...Oh? __________________ nuTinmuch! -- Platinum Graphite 370Z -- Check out my Gallery thread here!

05-19-2011, 04:41 PM	#220 (permalink)
flashburn A True Z Fanatic Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,884 Drives: '12 Corvette GS 6M Rep Power: 19	Stupid ricer wings (yes I'm talking about the Celica too!). __________________ Current Ride: 2012 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport Centennial Edition Carbon Flash 6M Previous Ride: 2009 Nissan 370Z Sport Platinum Graphite 7AT

05-20-2011, 12:09 AM	#225 (permalink)
Gunzero Track Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 889 Drives: Nissan 370z Rep Power: 259	How can you mistaken a Supra for a Celica? __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Toyota confirms Toyota FT-86 sports coupe coming to North America	1bad350z	Other Vehicles	81	05-12-2010 10:09 AM
Toyota FT-86 Pictures	bigu	Other Vehicles	16	02-28-2010 04:21 PM
Toyota gets serious	370Zsteve	The Lounge (Off Topic)	13	10-22-2009 07:35 PM
Huge new set of Toyota FT-86. Probably never seen before.	1bad350z	Other Vehicles	11	10-17-2009 09:23 AM