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

61 - 80 of 135 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,881 Posts
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.
Well, the good news is that I don't drive on a piece of paper (or a computer screen). In reality, you only feel the dip around 4000-4500--which is a range I almost never use. Which is why I don't care :)

Here's a fake dyno chart that Subaru made. It's a representation of the changes for the 17+ model. It has a bit more low-end torque and they moved the low bump higher, so the dip is narrower on the newer cars.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,963 Posts
Jeez, you own one and still beat this dead horse?
You can't complain about dead horses and then pull the "if you need more power you're a bad person" card. Seems kind of silly to buy a car that revs to damn near 8K but never take it beyond 4K. For the people who do- for example, people who take their freeze breeze twins to the track- that dip is exactly where upshifts land in lower gears. It's a dumb mistake and a ding on an otherwise good car. Moving to the FA24 would fix it without ruining the rest of the car.
 

·
I’m not a loser. I’m a winnah!!
Joined
·
39,853 Posts
You can't complain about dead horses and then pull the "if you need more power you're a bad person" card. Seems kind of silly to buy a car that revs to damn near 8K but never take it beyond 4K. For the people who do- for example, people who take their freeze breeze twins to the track- that dip is exactly where upshifts land in lower gears. It's a dumb mistake and a ding on an otherwise good car. Moving to the FA24 would fix it without ruining the rest of the car.
Emotions running high in this thread. Wonder what that's about....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,378 Posts
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.
Well, that makes two of us.

This is in my "money where your mouth is" challenge bucket. If you want sportscars, buy the ones that exist and quit bitching. Those of us who sports our sportscars think they are pretty damn fine. A bit more power is welcome but not necessary. And **** the torque dip crap. Anyone who has ever driven a turbo I4 can handle it with ease. If you can't handle the torque dip, it says more about you as a driver than about the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
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



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
·
25 Posts
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.



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.
Which is probably why, in my opinion, that they won’t put a more powerful motor in the 86 as it will change the car. Look at the MX5 (Miata in the USA?). That’s always sold great without a powerful engine.


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
'12 Mustang GT | '86 RX-7 | '20 Ninja 400
Joined
·
9,590 Posts
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.
I would be totally okay with this. Would satisfy both the people like me who don't want a turbo and are okay with the current power and the others that want the extra power.

Offering two plants would probably be too expensive of a proposition though.
The twins are getting a 2.4T folks. Accept and enjoy.
Sigh. I guess as long as it is reliable, it could be worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,881 Posts
And **** the torque dip crap. Anyone who has ever driven a turbo I4 can handle it with ease. If you can't handle the torque dip, it says more about you as a driver than about the car.
Did you mean to write "can't handle"? ;)

I was slowing for a red light on an empty expressway earlier this evening. I was in third gear at about 3000 RPM and the light turned green. Normally at this point, I would throw it into 2nd at 5000 RPM, rip it to redline, get a good shift into 3rd with more full throttle, then settle down to cruising speed (it's a 50mph speed limit road in CA so use your imagination).

But, I suddenly remembered this thread, so I just left it in 3rd and floored it. The result was about as underwhelming as someone who drives a Corvette, GTI, XC90, or Model 3 might expect from a "sports car". Torque dip, then it came on cam(s), and then dammit slow down that was the speed limit oh well.

To your Turbo I4 point, if you floor a GTI at 3k in 3rd you get a pretty good wallop of torque. Same if you have a big V8 or a super-turbocharger 8 speed or electric motors. And you know what? I think all that is pretty damn cool too :cool:

Ultimately the 86 is a very niche car. I admire that focused approach, especially nowadays where everything has a turbo, everything is a gawdawn SUV, and it seems like the only new coupes are just four-door sedans with swoopy rooflines. I also appreciate this particular car because it's exactly what I want out of a sports car. Do I want more? That's like asking if you wish your spouse was better looking. Yeah, I love my car, but if you're asking me, I'll take an 8000 RPM redline, Recaro seats, better stereo, and a fully adjustable suspension, thank you :D

I'm very interested to see what they do with the new version, because if they give it more power they have to give it more grip, and it will likely weigh more. Honestly, I've always thought they should do a 330hp STI version with a turbo, a slightly fancier interior, and an adjustable suspension. Maybe a widebody. Maybe something sort of tangentially related to the GT300 car perhaps, which has an EJ20.





But sadly, all we got was a wing :(



They had a white tS in the showroom when I bought my BRZ. They had it marked up at $5k over, but my sales guy told me he could sell it to me at sticker :eek: :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,303 Posts
Did you mean to write "can't handle"? ;)

I was slowing for a red light on an empty expressway earlier this evening. I was in third gear at about 3000 RPM and the light turned green. Normally at this point, I would throw it into 2nd at 5000 RPM, rip it to redline, get a good shift into 3rd with more full throttle, then settle down to cruising speed (it's a 50mph speed limit road in CA so use your imagination).

But, I suddenly remembered this thread, so I just left it in 3rd and floored it. The result was about as underwhelming as someone who drives a Corvette, GTI, XC90, or Model 3 might expect from a "sports car". Torque dip, then it came on cam(s), and then dammit slow down that was the speed limit oh well.

To your Turbo I4 point, if you floor a GTI at 3k in 3rd you get a pretty good wallop of torque. Same if you have a big V8 or a super-turbocharger 8 speed or electric motors. And you know what? I think all that is pretty damn cool too :cool:

Ultimately the 86 is a very niche car. I admire that focused approach, especially nowadays where everything has a turbo, everything is a gawdawn SUV, and it seems like the only new coupes are just four-door sedans with swoopy rooflines. I also appreciate this particular car because it's exactly what I want out of a sports car. Do I want more? That's like asking if you wish your spouse was better looking. Yeah, I love my car, but if you're asking me, I'll take an 8000 RPM redline, Recaro seats, better stereo, and a fully adjustable suspension, thank you :D

I'm very interested to see what they do with the new version, because if they give it more power they have to give it more grip, and it will likely weigh more. Honestly, I've always thought they should do a 330hp STI version with a turbo, a slightly fancier interior, and an adjustable suspension. Maybe a widebody. Maybe something sort of tangentially related to the GT300 car perhaps, which has an EJ20.





But sadly, all we got was a wing :(



They had a white tS in the showroom when I bought my BRZ. They had it marked up at $5k over, but my sales guy told me he could sell it to me at sticker :eek: :rolleyes:
Header+tune with a light battery and some AP Racing front brakes are what I want to do on mine. Drop ~50 lbs off the front axle and gain some power and revs (and noise, EL headers for me). Add some super light summer wheels and I'm good to go, my SSR's weigh 13 lbs each.

No need for a turbo, just add lightness.
 

·
Planters (fasciitis) peanuts. Dang dogg
Joined
·
19,196 Posts
No need for a turbo, just add lightness.
Taking the Chapman approach, which is amusing to me since your BRZ weighs less than my Lotus. Seems like I’m stuck with the porkers.

I did have a total blast driving Hushy’s BRZ while chasing him in the Lotus. Having a target to follow and using the car made such a difference to me; driving them alone and not really hammering one left me kinda...meh. But jumping in and grabbing gears and going was fun.

I still think the chassis could use another 100hp, but I’m also used to cars that run mid 12’s so I’m a hair spoiled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,303 Posts
I'd love more power too if I had great weather and no cops. As-is I chirp 3rd on my car most of the time though. Good ole cold damp dirty roads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,821 Posts
Hmm.. Maybe its already been discussed.


This is aimed right at Mazda since they upped the power on the Miata, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,897 Posts
Taking the Chapman approach, which is amusing to me since your BRZ weighs less than my Lotus. Seems like I’m stuck with the porkers.

I did have a total blast driving Hushy’s BRZ while chasing him in the Lotus. Having a target to follow and using the car made such a difference to me; driving them alone and not really hammering one left me kinda...meh. But jumping in and grabbing gears and going was fun.

I still think the chassis could use another 100hp, but I’m also used to cars that run mid 12’s so I’m a hair spoiled.
I think the BRZ and the Chapman approach work great in a performance driving situation. It's counter-intuitive, but I care less about big power on the track than on the road. You are also usually at the top of the power band at the track. On the street, it's super annoying to have wring the car's neck out to keep up with the minivan next to you at a stop light. So I suppose it depends on your intended use.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,963 Posts
Kind of track dependent. The NASCAR track near my house actually favors cars that handle (especially with the new chicane), but the road course further away has a back straight that felt agonizingly long on my motorcycle. I really enjoyed the 86 around town... whipping it through roundabouts and back roads was fun, but that's a very small percentage of my driving.

I guess my point is this car is amazing if you can do the bulk of your driving on roads/tracks that complement its strengths. For most people I'd wager those opportunities are few and far between. But I don't think Toyobaru should kill what makes this car special to broaden its appeal. Literally all it needs is a couple hundred ccs more displacement and maybe some better NVH control.
 

·
Registered
'12 Mustang GT | '86 RX-7 | '20 Ninja 400
Joined
·
9,590 Posts
Hmm.. Maybe its already been discussed.


This is aimed right at Mazda since they upped the power on the Miata, right?
No. It is aimed at people with money. :laugh:

Seriously though, I don't think the Miata's power bump had much influence on this. If anything, it has been the consistent bickering on Internet forums about the lack of torque, mostly by armchair typists that wouldn't buy such a car new anyway. Those that did vote with their wallet are obviously fine with it.

IMO, the 86 stands in a class of one. The Miata is a 2-door convertible with pure focus. 86 is trying to be the best all-round sports car that is actually small and not just kind of small. Also cheap. The only reason we compare it to the Miata is because that is what it is closest to in most every regard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,943 Posts
put me down as another vote for "twins don't need anything" they are great cars the way they are. my only real gripe with them is they have a Subaru motor, and its gonna take me a solid 10+ years to trust Subaru motors, they are all, ALL of them (besides the 2.2), junk.

thats why id still go ND every time. the brilliance of the miata has always been a simple, mass produced engine that is cheap to run, and reliable.

bespoke things, esp engines, are expensive, unreliable, hard to find parts for, etc etc.

thats why an understessed 2.4 NA engine would actually be a great motor for the twins. 220-230hp, more torque, even revving to like 6500-7000 would be perfect. a turbo would just be a non-starter for me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,378 Posts
IMO, the 86 stands in a class of one. The Miata is a 2-door convertible with pure focus. 86 is trying to be the best all-round sports car that is actually small and not just kind of small. Also cheap. The only reason we compare it to the Miata is because that is what it is closest to in most every regard.
Yes. To all of this.

Did you mean to write "can't handle"? ;)
I should have been more clear. :laugh: A turbo I4 with a laggy tune on a too-big turbo that runs a blowoff valve instead of recirculation. You get NA power that runs out of breath, then finally you are moving enough air to spool the sucker, and you get some power. But that dead zone where there is no spool sucks horribly.

It's one of the reasons I've never worried about replacing the K03 on the nevArlose - because it doesn't lag and I can still get punted around 4500.

But back to the twins, I guess I just appreciate the purity of them. Absolutely a bit more power would be nice, and the torque dip should go away. But overall, my comment is please don't **** them up. They are so wonderful the way they are.

To the track comments, hell to the yes. The BRZ is a totally different car at Waterford (basically a glorified gokart track) and an GingerMan (a big, open track with decently long straights that you can actually pull your turns out on). At Waterford, it's all about third gear. At GingerMan, you have to shift up a lot and you can use all of the power. Feeling the body at GingerMan is wonderful, at Waterford, it's lost in the shuffle of just trying to get around the track.
 
61 - 80 of 135 Posts
Top