VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner
  • Mwerks and Fourtitude have rejoined VWVortex. For more info, see this thread.

41 - 60 of 135 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Not if they want to pass crash/pedestrian regulations.
.
Such regulations are bull**** coz an SUV is gonna do a lot more damage to a pedestrian yet they’re perfectly legal.



Ben
Now: ‘19 VW Golf R, ‘15 Polo GTI
Before: ‘06 RenaultSport Megane 225 Cup, ‘14 VW Polo GTI, ‘12 VW Golf GTI, ‘06 VW Golf GTI, ‘05 VW Golf Sportline, ‘01 Holden Astra SRi, ‘00 Nissan Pulsar SSS, ‘99 Holden Astra CD, ‘98 Nissan Pulsar SLX, ‘91 Nissan Pulsar GL with Q engine swap, ‘80 Subaru Leone
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,897 Posts
Such regulations are bull**** coz an SUV is gonna do a lot more damage to a pedestrian yet they’re perfectly legal.



Ben
Now: ‘19 VW Golf R, ‘15 Polo GTI
Before: ‘06 RenaultSport Megane 225 Cup, ‘14 VW Polo GTI, ‘12 VW Golf GTI, ‘06 VW Golf GTI, ‘05 VW Golf Sportline, ‘01 Holden Astra SRi, ‘00 Nissan Pulsar SSS, ‘99 Holden Astra CD, ‘98 Nissan Pulsar SLX, ‘91 Nissan Pulsar GL with Q engine swap, ‘80 Subaru Leone
There have always been BS regulations out there. Same nonsense with the PT Cruiser being a "light truck" for fuel economy classifications. But BS or not, that's the game manufacturers have to play.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,963 Posts
Such regulations are bull**** coz an SUV is gonna do a lot more damage to a pedestrian yet they’re perfectly legal.



Ben
Now: ‘19 VW Golf R, ‘15 Polo GTI
Before: ‘06 RenaultSport Megane 225 Cup, ‘14 VW Polo GTI, ‘12 VW Golf GTI, ‘06 VW Golf GTI, ‘05 VW Golf Sportline, ‘01 Holden Astra SRi, ‘00 Nissan Pulsar SSS, ‘99 Holden Astra CD, ‘98 Nissan Pulsar SLX, ‘91 Nissan Pulsar GL with Q engine swap, ‘80 Subaru Leone
I don't make the rules man. Plus even without pedestrian regs there are other reasons not to put an LS in a BRZ. Front end crash = that LS is in your lap
 

·
Registered
SC AW11, Mazda speed NB, 89 Skyline GTS-T 5M, 19 GLI 6M.
Joined
·
9,477 Posts
Why jump to the 2.4? Why not bump the hp numbers a few for the NA 2.0 and then add the 2.0 turbo as an option?
Because then people will complain if it has only 10 more hp than the old one. And 2 different engine options is tons of extra cost/complexity on the manufacturing end.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,963 Posts
Why jump to the 2.4? Why not bump the hp numbers a few for the NA 2.0 and then add the 2.0 turbo as an option?
The 2.4 has the same stroke as the 2.0 so I'd wager the engines are the same width. And like Saab dude said having 2 engine options for such a low volume low priced car doesn't make sense. Would be better to just have 1 engine option based on an existing high volume motor like before.
 

·
Registered
2020 Subaru Ascent & 2020 Subaru WRX
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
Because then people will complain if it has only 10 more hp than the old one. And 2 different engine options is tons of extra cost/complexity on the manufacturing end.
The 2.4 has the same stroke as the 2.0 so I'd wager the engines are the same width. And like Saab dude said having 2 engine options for such a low volume low priced car doesn't make sense. Would be better to just have 1 engine option based on an existing high volume motor like before.
I guess I was thinking the current WRX 2.0 would be perfect to drop in without making any changes. The 2.4 out of the Ascent will need changes before going into the twins. For those that still want the NA engine I would just make some minor power bumps like they typically do.

Adding more power seems as simple as adding the turbo 2.0 and an XT trim level.

I'm just throwing ideas out. If I was in charge I would just drop the WRX 2.0 in the twins and be done with it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,378 Posts
I am cautiously optimistic here as I would love to buy KBJr one for graduation. If I was made out of money, of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,275 Posts
The 1G Twins don't have the top end of your RX7 (I'd know, I had an FC) or an S2000, and also had a dip in the 5K RPM range that you had to get a tune to fix. The powertrain gripes were justified, and Subaru already produces the 2.4T in mass volume, so it's an ideal choice.


So, the Subaru platform isn't suited to RWD so they're using the...... Camry/Prius platform? Wut :confused:
I can't believe I'm saying this but the RX8 felt faster and torquier than the BRZ. Didn't think such a thing was possible. I got a header and tune and my BRZ really woke up but still never had that wind-it-out rush of the rotary.

At least my BRZ felt faster than my 79 RX-7...

Is there a RWD Lexus powertrain they could drop in? Like the IS250 V6? I'd dig that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,897 Posts
lol no thanks, id rather have the Camry engine
That would require some reworking if you are trying to keep it longitudinal RWD. If they are going through that trouble, they might as well hot it up a bit, which could be a pretty interesting proposition. Sincerely doubt hat would happen. The FA20 has its flaws, but at least its a well developed tuning platform at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
lol no thanks, id rather have the Camry engine
This. The new Camry 2.5L is an absolute beast. It makes 203 HP (more with the TRD exhaust) and 184 ft lbs on regular 87 octane. It's lighter than the FA20 and is one of the most efficient mass produced ICE's in history. Those cars see almost 40 mpg highway with like 500 extra lbs over the BRZ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,635 Posts
Because then people will complain if it has only 10 more hp than the old one. And 2 different engine options is tons of extra cost/complexity on the manufacturing end.
Yeah, this seems really unlikely unless they can find a way to justify including a second powertrain that is used elsewhere, or potentially going to be used elsewhere. To me, this would mean a hybrid to be shared with Lexus.

Such regulations are bull**** coz an SUV is gonna do a lot more damage to a pedestrian yet they’re perfectly legal.
Forgetting the regs and all of that for a minute, no mainstream automaker is going to put that much engine into a car this insubstantial and try to sell it. Sure, it appeals to the swap-friendly enthusiast crowd, but real car buyers don't want some unrefined, under-braked, sloppy mess of a car.

Adding power means adding mass in the form of beefier axles, bigger brakes, improved body rigidity, etc. Yeah, in a shadetree application, an LSX adds almost no weight, but in the real world, it's more than a matter of whether a bigger engine physically fits.
 

·
Registered
2020 Subaru Ascent & 2020 Subaru WRX
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
Because then people will complain if it has only 10 more hp than the old one. And 2 different engine options is tons of extra cost/complexity on the manufacturing end.
I personally wouldn't offer the NA version. I'm just saying if there is a demand for it then just leave what's there with a tiny bump and then offer the turbo version out of the WRX. All they would need to do is make small adjustments for clearance I assume. I'm looking at this from a realistic/manufacturing standpoint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,693 Posts
I would love to see a NA 2.4 in the twins but it's just not going to happen.....unless Subayota figures out where else to put it. Creating a bespoke engine solely for those cars isn't something the accounting division is gonna accept.

Oh and it's a lot more than just boring out the 2.0 and dropping it in. There would be durability, mileage, NVH, and power goals to achieve. That would mean potential combustion chamber mods, piston mods, counterweighting, etc. etc.

The twins are getting a 2.4T folks. Accept and enjoy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,881 Posts
Devils advocate: The powerband is already insanely un-optimized for a sportcar platform. Note the disgustingly large dip in the middle of the powerband.

Jeez, you own one and still beat this dead horse?

If you're driving the car like a normal responsible human being, it has plenty of power and torque. You don't need to go above 4k in normal driving, which is where the nice little low end torque bump is. The engineers did that on purpose--it even says that in the Edmunds article where you got that graph.

And then if you're driving the car the way it's meant to be driven, why would you go below 4500 RPM? The car has plenty of power from 5000-7500.

Directly contrary to what you mistakenly believe, the powerband is, in fact, optimized for a sports car ;)

We like to praise engines with character, engines that "come on cam", engines that rev strongly to redline. The 86 sounds good, makes good low end torque (for a 2.0 4 cylinder), and pulls in the top part of the rev range, making very good power (100hp/L). Yet, people hate it because....they expect it to drive like a Corvette or an STI?

.
.
.

I love my BRZ and loved the FR-S I had too. I think this car is damn near perfect as it is. I'm worried that the internet pundits will have infected Toyota/Subaru and the next car will be made with a design-by-committee approach that destroys the purity of the car.
 
Joined
·
601 Posts
You don't need to go above 4k in normal driving, which is where the nice little low end torque bump is.
According to the very graph you quoted the 'nice little low end torque bump' actually begins at 3200 RPM, bottoms out at 3800 RPM and doesnt achieve the same level or Torque until 4700 RPM.

So really you have to keep it below 3200 or above above 4700 to stay out of the power dip.
 
41 - 60 of 135 Posts
Top