DCAWD.com

Stealing this from another car thread...




Posted originally by Tom F on guru3d.






That's what a NORMALLY ASPIRATED 2litre I4 can do if it doesn;t have a monkey working on it. Drivability? Look at that torque curve...of course that's a drivable engine.

Lightweight, NA engine in a lightweight car. Keep your Vipers and Mustangs

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kBhO92Lv_TY



No prizes for guessing which is cheaper, does more MPG, is more fun...








We are extremely pleased with the results especially considering the fact we are not using exotic componets to achieve this performance & we expect further development over the next season to improve the output further.

It includes the following parts; steel crank, steel rods & Omega high compression pistons, a dry sump system, high specification camshafts and an upper & lower injection system. The kit itself would also contain the necessary components to achieve this horsepower with a few extra safety features as standard e.g. up-rated flywheel bolts, main cap studs, head studs & up-rated bearings. A new exhaust manifold design has been made for the Westfield & the Escort.

On top of that, standard valves, a bit of headwork, 4x throttle bodies. It's still based around a 2 litre Ford Mondeo engine, but that's what happens when you start with an engine designed to be efficient. People are allegedly getting well over 45mpg with Duratec based engines in these cars.

What's going to last longer. The driveline on a 300hp engine with 500kg behind it, or a 250hp engine with 1500kg behind it.

You can say all you want about more powerful cars bigger engines being better...but for a long time a Caterham 7 JPE held the lap record on the ring...a car you could buy for less than the cost of an Audi A3. Powerred by...a normally aspirated 2 litre I4.

And that's on a track which has a 3 mile straight...







Lets set a benchmark. A normally aspirated Judd KV675 V8 displaces 3.4 litres and produces over 550hp, at speeds exceeding 10000rpm...stock.












Neat stuff eh?

-scheherazade

Those are some impressive numbers. I've seen (at Import vs. Domestic) NA 4cycl put out amazing power... but they also don't have to last very long

Ls6 (5.7L) ~350 to the wheels stock, 300lbs of torque starting at 2000rpms, climbing to ~350.

Modded ls6 (LG headers, 3" pipes, intake and tune) 400/400

oh, and it has pushrods!


thats all i have to offer at the moment, but I'll post some dyno plots when i get mine.

:boner:

Wait.... we don't have a smiley for that??!?!

?

I wonder why mitsu/subaru don't put more effort into the natural component of their engines, and use less turbo for the same power.

Just seems like the turbos are doing more than they would have to if the engine was better made to begin with.

There is some room for more pre-spool power it seems.

It doesn't look like the mods listed on that kit engine would be expensive if it was mass-produced that way. Maybe the dual-injectors would cost a lil extra.

-scheherazade

I've got dual injectors... on one of my bikes.

The reason the engines don't make much power is because the compression is so low in them. The Subaru engines (and the 4G63) are GREAT engines and designs, but they were built with turbo charging in mind. Most Vette motors (correct me if I'm wrong all!!!!) are 11:1+ compression where as the subi is 8.2:1. While upped compression would increase spool (I run 9.5:1), you are also more susceptible to knock and makes the engine easier to blow up at higher boost levels.

OK, I've got to chime in here and put this issue to rest:

steel crank, steel rods & Omega high compression pistons, a dry sump system, high specification camshafts and an upper & lower injection system. The kit itself would also contain the necessary components to achieve this horsepower with a few extra safety features as standard e.g. up-rated flywheel bolts, main cap studs, head studs & up-rated bearings. ...headwork, 4x throttle bodies.

Did you read all this? Do you not comprehend what all this amounts too? Do you have ANY idea what an engine like this would cost to produce? That is the reason large companies don't make engines like this! There just isn't a market for it. Would you pay $40,000+ for a 304 bhp 195lb/ft subaru (or any other) knowing that was it's absolute power limit and that any engine damage/failure would likely cost you a small fortune to repair?

I also wonder if that dyno number included the intake and exhaust restrictions that the new SAE standards now require? (The SAE power and torque numbers require the engine to have all intake and exhaust components in place and run on the factory ECU with manufactures recommended octane rating pump gas) Because if it does not, than the real numbers are likely to be somewhere around 260-270hp 155-165 lb/ft which isn't that much more impressive than the Honda S2000 motor that gets 240hp 160 lb/ft. as well as good gas mileage, an LEV-2 emissions rating, and a history of great quality as well as some room for power improvement without the break the bank cost.

drwrx wrote:OK, I've got to chime in here and put this issue to rest:

steel crank, steel rods & Omega high compression pistons, a dry sump system, high specification camshafts and an upper & lower injection system. The kit itself would also contain the necessary components to achieve this horsepower with a few extra safety features as standard e.g. up-rated flywheel bolts, main cap studs, head studs & up-rated bearings. ...headwork, 4x throttle bodies.

Did you read all this? Do you not comprehend what all this amounts too? Do you have ANY idea what an engine like this would cost to produce? That is the reason large companies don't make engines like this! There just isn't a market for it. Would you pay $40,000+ for a 304 bhp 195lb/ft subaru (or any other) knowing that was it's absolute power limit and that any engine damage/failure would likely cost you a small fortune to repair?

I also wonder if that dyno number included the intake and exhaust restrictions that the new SAE standards now require? (The SAE power and torque numbers require the engine to have all intake and exhaust components in place and run on the factory ECU with manufactures recommended octane rating pump gas) Because if it does not, than the real numbers are likely to be somewhere around 260-270hp 155-165 lb/ft which isn't that much more impressive than the Honda S2000 motor that gets 240hp 160 lb/ft. as well as good gas mileage, an LEV-2 emissions rating, and a history of great quality as well as some room for power improvement without the break the bank cost.

This is the kind of attention to the internals that makes H/O, N/A engines so expensive. FI is bolt-on power. This stuff is unbolt, balance, polish, rebuild, and pray you tightened everything to spec. Could they make the engine in the Porsche GT3 less expensive and maintain profit margin for the work that went into it? Probably not.
Its the type of work that makes Lambos and Ferraris 'high strung', i.e. powerful, yet fragile.

scheherazade wrote:I wonder why mitsu/subaru don't put more effort into the natural component of their engines, and use less turbo for the same power.

Just seems like the turbos are doing more than they would have to if the engine was better made to begin with.

There is some room for more pre-spool power it seems.

It doesn't look like the mods listed on that kit engine would be expensive if it was mass-produced that way. Maybe the dual-injectors would cost a lil extra.

-scheherazade

another thing you have to look at is the market. When was the last time you saw a big V8 in a sports car from japan? Was there ever one? thats right, japan is not a fan of displacement, because they get taxed on it. Thus more power out of a smaller package is just what the Dr. Ordered. That, and really that 4g63 has been around forever, i mean sheesh, i think drwrx was driving that motor while he was still in diapers

Now think american cars... uhh yea, the v8 is like the american flag, or the hamburger, its been around FOREVER! We are just getting into smaller 4 bangers, and this generation of motors are GREATLY improved over the last.

There is also the bottom line, build a motor thats just strong enough to last, but thats cheap enough consumers will actually buy it.

spazegun2213 wrote: There is also the bottom line, build a motor thats just strong enough to last, but thats cheap enough consumers will actually buy it.

I would agree totally with that statement.
Actually, I think that's prolly the major motivating factor for car makers.



Looking at that Judd, 550 HP NA, *3.4 L*.
It's V8, yes, but not a massive V8 like ford churns out. (It's closer in size to a 350z)
BUT, it's an F1 racing engine... I doubt any manufacturer would want to rise to that level of quality/performance/cost, when what matters to them is the bottom line.


That TPkit costs $10'000.
Factor in the cost of the original parts, that wouldn't be there (minus $1000? not sure.)
Factor in mass production versus machine-shop manufacturing. (at least cuts that cost in half)
We're talking maybe around the $5k mark? This is speculation of course...

If you're looking at a car that costs 35k, and it could cost 40k with a superior engine, that extra 5k isn't that much of a stretch. (opinion of course)

But, getting back to your point : "cheap enough consumers will actually buy it"
If they can make it not cost 5k more, and just put on a turbo(or larger turbo), the end consumer that just reads paper figures will be like 'Hp is the same, same thing right?', and all is well.

All in all, I don't see it as cost prohibitive. Just cost-dissuasive.

Some things could be done without much extra manufacturer costs. Like larger valves, better-shaped heads. Not sure how much people would care, guess it depends on how much airflow restriction there is elsewhere. Probably pointless to any stock configuration I guess.

drwrx wrote: I also wonder if that dyno number included the intake and exhaust restrictions that the new SAE standards now require?

Not sure. The car was apparently dyno'd in complete working order, as it is normally used. But this is in england, so I can't say they have the same restrictions we do.

drwrx wrote: Would you pay $40,000+ for a 304 bhp 195lb/ft subaru (or any other) knowing that was it's absolute power limit

Actually, I wasn't suggesting going with no turbo.
I was suggesting using less turbo, and having a stronger NA component to the engine. That way non-spooled turbo matters less.

Basically, take the same peak hp/tq, but just make the curves nicer by having a better pre-turbo engine.

I personally am agnostic about how the curves are improved. The mfg could just include nice anti-lag and I'd consider it as good.

-scheherazade

scheherazade wrote:

spazegun2213 wrote: There is also the bottom line, build a motor thats just strong enough to last, but thats cheap enough consumers will actually buy it.

I would agree totally with that statement.
Actually, I think that's prolly the major motivating factor for car makers.

Looking at that Judd, 550 HP NA, *3.4 L*.
It's V8, yes, but not a massive V8 like ford churns out.
BUT, it's an F1 racing engine... I doubt any manufacturer would want to rise to that level of quality/performance/cost, when what matters to them is the bottom line.

That TPkit costs $10'000.
Factor in the cost of the original parts, that wouldn't be there (minus $1000? not sure.)
Factor in mass production versus machine-shop manufacturing. (at least cuts that cost in half)
We're talking maybe around the $5k mark? This is speculation of course...

If you're looking at a car that costs 35k, and it could cost 40k with a superior engine, that extra 5k isn't that much of a stretch. (opinion of course)

But, getting back to your point : "cheap enough consumers will actually buy it"
If they can make it not cost 5k more, and just put on a turbo, the end consumer that just reads paper figures will be like 'Hp is the same, same thing right?', and all is well.

All in all, I don't see it as cost prohibitive. Just cost-dissuasive.

Some things could be done without much extra manufacturer costs. Like larger valves, better-shaped heads. Not sure how much people would care, guess it depends on how much airflow restriction there is elsewhere.

-scheherazade

You could get slightly better airflow in an N/A for each of those improvements, yes. But then, this is as far as you will ever get with that engine.

Sabre put it best: build your engine for a low compression ratio. Seal it up. Want more power? Slap a turbo on it. Want more power? Slap a bigger turbo on it. The tuning levels are more limitless that way.

Its why all the different levels of Porsche N/A tuning on similar engines have widely disparaging prices. It the labor that goes into completely reassembling an engine for a few more HP that raises the cost so much. And high-strung small N/A engines are usually hand-built to ensure quality.

And also, dumping fuel into a small N/A engine for more power is less efficient than boosting the mixture. There's really no upside to it.

I use Porsche as an example because they are the other major manufacturer of boxer engines. And they actually follow a manufacturing trend more similar to what you describe for some of their engines. They have an N/A flat-6 in many Boxter and 911 models. All with different levels of tuning.

Each engine of the same rough design has to come off of a different assembly line (or craftsman's shop) because each internal part is slightly different for each application. The heads, the pistons, the valves you say? All different? That takes huge overhead.

This would absolutely be cost-prohibitive for Subaru. Porsche is a luxury-performance niche and has a huge purist following. They will pay for that kind of attention to detail.

Subaru is trying to keep costs down so they can offer high-performance, AWD cars to the general public. They have roughly the same 2.5L boxer in USDM versions of the Forester NA/XT, Outback NA/XT, Impreza NA/WRX, Legacy NA/GT. Other manufacturers would have several I-4, V-6s, and V-8 for that same lineup.

Now you tell me which is cheaper? In reality, its not even a contest.

I have to believe, knowing how competitive the auto industry is, that if it was that easy to make a more powerful NA engine ... it would have been done already.

With the various competing factors (manufacturing ease/cost, fuel consumption, wear/longevity/reliability) there must be one, if not several, issues holding back high horsepower NA engines.

Yes, this 2.0L Duratec with dual injectors produces big numbers. But as sabre pointed out - how often does if have to be re-built? Can it start in 0 degree F weather? 110 degrees? High humidity? Will it pass emissions testing?

This seems to be a purpose-built engine and not something that would meet market expectations in a production car. As such I think it's a little unfair to use it as a benchmark for production engines. After all, there are a lot of possibilities if one decides to mess with the internals of any engine. Just be prepared to have a "project car" if you know what I mean.

--Alan

If your base engine line is already going to be down-tuned for the masses, then it definitely isn't worth customizing just for a cheap sports car.

I'm thinking that they could do some cost-effective improvements.
Not necessarily improvements that would help the normal cars, but could help sports cars without actually adding to line-up cost.

Specifically parts that are 'performance-bound only by shape' could be improved lineup-wide without being expensive custom jobs.
(Which is why I mentioned valves. Larger hole, smaller hole... it's still a hole)

It's likely just not done because most car engines will never be configured to give enough power to find themselves that flow constricted, and sports cars take a back seat to the market.

I don't personally know the magic that goes into better/worse fuel economy. It would seem logical that a better breathing engine would have less pneumatic resistance, and should gain in fuel economy as well as performance.

As far as wear and tear, the force exerted on the pistons should be proportional to the torque and hp of the engine output. So a 'high strung' NA with 300 hp should have similar stress as a turbo'd vanilla 300hp engine. I mean... conservation of energy.

There's probably a balance of expense in tuning NA. Some of the cost can be in exotic mods, but I bet much of the cost is in the mere volume of parts that have to be replaced in a stock NA engine due to 'performance-neglect by original design'. (change engine vs change turbo)

I would at least like to see more attention to stock anti-lag.
Not sure if you guys have gone over this idea, but using an electric motor to keep a turbo spooled seems nice. Shouldn't hurt emissions like a 5th injector or delayed timing. Anyone know stuff about this method?


Question about compression :
Compression in a turbo is lowered to make up for the increased air intake correct? So the final compression post-turbo-boost is just as high? Or is the post-turbo-boost compression also lower compared to NA?

legasleeper wrote:Subaru is trying to keep costs down so they can offer high-performance, AWD cars to the general public. They have roughly the same 2.5L boxer in USDM versions of the Forester NA/XT, Outback NA/XT, Impreza NA/WRX, Legacy NA/GT. Other manufacturers would have several I-4, V-6s, and V-8 for that same lineup.

I really like that about subaru. I think it's great that you can fit lots of STI upgrades on an LGT/FXT. It opens a lot of doors for folks who want something quick, but don't want a sports car.

WRXWagon2112 wrote:With the various competing factors (manufacturing ease/cost, fuel consumption, wear/longevity/reliability) there must be one, if not several, issues holding back high horsepower NA engines.

My suspicion is that it's environmental, and probably added complexity to the engine. Cut costs.

I read somewhere that a higher capacity NA engine uses more fuel than a lower capacity turbo engine, for the same power level. Which loosely should equate to more emissions.

That Duratec *supposedly* can get you 45mpg in that little roadster. That's pretty kick-ass, even if it is a bit short on torque.

It might even be somewhat desired nowadays. Imagine a hybrid version of that Duratec. You'd have plenty of power and could probably see some really nice mileage numbers.

Hybrids are already subsidized, they could probably absorb the cost of the more complex NA engine until it's mainstream.

Maybe there are some positive factors to offset whatever is intrinsically holding them back, who knows...

-scheherazade

scheherazade wrote:If your base engine line is already going to be down-tuned for the masses, then it definitely isn't worth customizing just for a cheap sports car.

I really like that about subaru. I think it's great that you can fit lots of STI upgrades on an LGT/FXT. It opens a lot of doors for folks who want something quick, but don't want a sports car.

There's probably a balance of expense in tuning NA. Some of the cost can be in exotic mods, but I bet much of the cost is in the mere volume of parts that have to be replaced in a stock NA engine due to 'performance-neglect by original design'.

It's likely just not done because most car engines will never be configured to give enough power to find themselves that flow constricted, and sports cars take a back seat to the market.

No. There is no performance-neglect in the original design, as these were originally designed to be turbocharged rally engines. They are detuned, as in turbo removed and ECU reprogrammed for compatibility, for the masses so they don't have to create separate engines for their low-hp applications which would drive up costs.

They were idealized for high flow, i.e. FI. That is one reason you get that 'boxer rumble'.

sheherazade wrote:I'm thinking that they could do some cost-effective improvements.
Not necessarily improvements that would help the normal cars, but could help sports cars without actually adding to line-up cost.

Specifically parts that are 'performance-bound only by shape' could be improved lineup-wide without being expensive custom jobs.
(Which is why I mentioned valves. Larger hole, smaller hole... it's still a hole)

Nothing you have described comes as 'cost-effective'. Subaru has recently implemented some design changes like variable valve timing, which helps with the economy and overall power output. But it costs money to do these things, and when they do them they want to make sure they do them across the entire engine range.

shceherazade wrote: I don't personally know the magic that goes into better/worse fuel economy. It would seem logical that a better breathing engine would have less pneumatic resistance, and should gain in fuel economy as well as performance.

To gain any HP in an N/A application, you would normally keep the rough air/fuel ratio idealized. Adding more ability for more air is not worthwhile if you aren't going to add more fuel. Then you run lean.

scheherazade wrote:As far as wear and tear, the force exerted on the pistons should be proportional to the torque and hp of the engine output. So a 'high strung' NA with 300 hp should have similar stress as a turbo'd vanilla 300hp engine. I mean... conservation of energy.

High strung is more the fact that the timing has to be dead-on. It has little to do with piston strength, as one piston can take the pressure.
Getting an unboosted engine to suck in and a perfectly known air consistency to enter the combustion chamber at the right time and get the right mixture and detonate on time is much more challenging in high-hp applications. Especially with high compression ratios.

scheherazade wrote:I would at least like to see more attention to stock anti-lag.

Even high-output N/A engines get their peak HP at high RPMs, sometimes higher than turbocharged ones.

They make twinscroll and variable inlet turbos to help with that problem. Neither of which are on USDM Subarus because the 2.5L engine was deemed big enough to spool the turbo.

scheherazade wrote:

WRXWagon2112 wrote:With the various competing factors (manufacturing ease/cost, fuel consumption, wear/longevity/reliability) there must be one, if not several, issues holding back high horsepower NA engines.

My suspicion is that it's environmental, and probably added complexity to the engine. Cut costs.

I read somewhere that a higher capacity NA engine uses more fuel than a lower capacity turbo engine, for the same power level. Which loosely should equate to more emissions.

That Duratec *supposedly* can get you 45mpg in that little roadster. That's pretty kick-ass, even if it is a bit short on torque.

It might even be somewhat desired nowadays. Imagine a hybrid version of that Duratec. You'd have plenty of power and could probably see some really nice mileage numbers.

Hybrids are already subsidized, they could probably absorb the cost of the more complex NA engine until it's mainstream.

Maybe there are some positive factors to offset whatever is intrinsically holding them back, who knows...

-scheherazade

It gets 45mpg because the roadster is little. Lighter car, better mileage. Probably 2x that of a Duratec in a whole car.

A hybrid version of that Duratec in a full size car would get no better mileage than a regular Duratec in a full size car. Plus, why would you build up a small NA to mate to a hybrid drive system, when a mildly boosted one gets better mileage? And has unlimited power potential?

Ford's answer to your suggestion is boost. The Ford Econoboost will replace the Duratec. Because with FI, you are likely to get a better air/fuel mixture than in an NA car at any RPMs, because its a dual sequential turbo.

Hybrid subsidies cover the cost of the hybrid powertrain over conventional. They can't subsidize the manufacturing cost of the entire engine.

There are no inherently positive factors to a high-strung NA engine. Compare with boosted, it gets worse maximum power, torque, economy, reliability, manufacturing costs.

scheherazade wrote:Hybrids are already subsidized, they could probably absorb the cost of the more complex NA engine until it's mainstream.

What leads you to believe that hybrids are subsidized? In fact, Toyota initially was losing money on the original Prius (not the current design) in a deliberate attempt to push adoption of the technology. They didn't get that money back. Not from the Japanese government. Not from the U.S. government. Not from nobody.

With the current model Prius (combined with the other hybrid models in the Toyota/Lexus lineup), they broke even in terms of development costs vs profit a year or so ago (can't remember exactly when). So now when you purchase a Toyota hybrid, the company is no longer taking a loss. No subsidies at all.

While it is true that there are some tax incentives for buying a hybrid, those incentives can only be claimed ONCE in the life of the vehicle. And those incentives were for something like $1K or $2K. Not enough to off-set the higher cost of the hybrid drivetrain versus the standard 4-cylinder of a similar compact car.

Not to mention the recent restrictions placed on this tax incentive (as posted by Matt here). Once a model sells 60,000 units, the rebate no longer applies. I would hardly call this a "subsidy".

So I have to ask: why do you say that hybrids are subsidized?

--Alan

WRXWagon2112 wrote:What leads you to believe that hybrids are subsidized? In fact, Toyota initially was losing money on the original Prius (not the current design) in a deliberate attempt to push adoption of the technology.

Sorry, should have been clearer.

Manufacturer subsidized (aka sold at a loss).

-scheherazade

As an aside, I would like you to know something.
After driving my evo, and loving that turbo punch at 4k, I started to think to myself : You know, if I start the car nicely, get it rolling first, floor it after the clutch is out, my *honda* pulls as-hard (maybe harder?) in the first second or two. So I started to consider, do I want to rev it higher and let the clutch wear to start quicker? Or do I want to be nice to it and just have weaksauce power at the start. I chose to be nice to it. I found that in most cases, while being nice to my car, I had the most use for torque below 30 or so miles an hour, and at those speeds I had crap torque. At that point, I was already thinking : man, I wish my car had all that power at low rpm, instead of at high. Then I had an epiphany. All of a sudden I have an appreciation for diesels. I had that in mind when I went into that diesel thread. My posts were not bashing, I was more lamenting. I'm just pessimistic about it. I'm not against it.

What I had on my mind was two things I heard.
1) You mentioning that after you made your car breathe better + a tune, your mileage went up.
2) The guy at the meet, with the fox mustang. He was talking about how some subaru (maybe his?) was upgraded well and needed head-work/larger-valves to get any better.
I just thought to myself : hey, the hole could just be bigger to start with, and it would be a help to these guys, and it wouldn't cost any more for a simple change like that.
Plus who knows, maybe fuel economy could go up too. Maybe it's not the bottleneck. I don't know, but it can't hurt right? In any case, that was my thought at the time.

*I didn't make the connection*

legasleeper wrote: Boosted air is free oxygen for the engine. The boost comes from the engine's waste product, i.e. free! It has been found to be the most cost effective solution. Make the turbos do MORE work. Use dual-sequential turbos to eliminate lag. A boosted mixture burns better, and gets better economy. Almost hybrid-like. Why would you take a flawed design and hybridize it, rather than use the best technology available?

I see. Makes perfect sense.

EXACTLY! I didn't get that until your last post.
"The premise of this whole thread is still faulty. No, our engines are optimised for turbocharging. Doing 'that' to them would not help. Mass producing a kit to no added value to the engine relates back to the moot point."
I really thought that there would be more synnergy between the two. I thought people were just saying that the NA mod kit that I showed was too expensive, and that I was some NA lover. I was pre-occupied with thinking "ugh, this is going in the wrong direction". Fancy timing, expensive custom parts, all things *I just didn't realize pertained to what I was saying*. I thought I was just getting ganged up on. Again, that made me defensive.

legasleeper wrote: jumping the extra distance and saying 'if you only want me to post with "hp +1 W00t' is pouting.

About the "+1 woot", I thought you were just being harsh, I thought you wanted me to just agree for the sake of agreeing with you.

legasleeper wrote:When I truly feel I've gone off on the wrong tangent, I still ask because I foresee that I might be about to get a definitive answer that proves me wrong. I got criticized on the Tsukaba post, and frankly I deserved it. I try not to do that every time.

Not throwing you a bone or anything, but I thought your later stuff about the best-lap-time made a lot of sense. I didn't say a word after that. I actually thought you sealed-the-deal.

While I am to some extent innately competitive, I don't compete where I know I'm beat.
When you told me that your LGT has more whp than an evo, I knew that it was over. After that I didn't have any competitive thoughts for you. That happened pretty early on.
Unfortunately, I tend to interrogate. I focus on all the drawbacks of anything and I expect someone to provide counter positives, or corresponding negatives. I think I gave you a bad taste with that (correct me if I'm presuming too much).

Truth is, I'm not jumping to upgrade my car. I just want it to be fast, fun, and last long. I want a car that I can use to its fullest without wearing it out.
I've gotten used to the acceleration of my evo, and it's not impressing me anymore. But know what? I'm not gonna go looking for more. If I do, I'll like it for a short while, then I'll get used to it, and I'll be unimpressed again.
Today, I actually envy you. I find the lack of low-rpm torque in my car to be a little depressing. The impreza automatic that I test drove with Becca had a significantly stronger lurch when you punched it at low rpm.

legasleeper wrote: Even in the posts, when I was trying to continue to be informative, you tackled each of MY experienced opinions to a greater extent than the other peoples'.

Yes, I did tackle your opinions more. One, I thought you had more to say. Two, some of them sounded condescending and I was being defensive.
It's obvious that reacting like that didn't help things.

Some things literally were mis-communication.
For example, when I said : "If your base engine line is already going to be down-tuned for the masses, then it definitely isn't worth customizing just for a cheap sports car. "
I was actually trying to agree with you on the point : "Want more power? Slap a turbo on it. Want more power? Slap a bigger turbo on it. The tuning levels are more limitless that way."
It made sense to me, and I could see the economics in upgrading the turbo versus upgrading engine. I didn't actually have subaru in mind, I was just thinking generally across all car makers as a general situation. Yah, it makes sense.
I was trying to show you that I agree, but it just led further down-hill.

If to summarize : I just didn't get it. I didn't react appropriately.

I apologize to everyone involved for my behavior.

As an aside, I would like you to know something.
After driving my evo, and loving that turbo punch at 4k, I started to think to myself : You know, if I start the car nicely, get it rolling first, floor it after the clutch is out, my *honda* pulls as-hard (maybe harder?) in the first second or two. So I started to consider, do I want to rev it higher and let the clutch wear to start quicker? Or do I want to be nice to it and just have weaksauce power at the start. I chose to be nice to it. I found that in most cases, while being nice to my car, I had the most use for torque below 30 or so miles an hour, and at those speeds I had crap torque. At that point, I was already thinking : man, I wish my car had all that power at low rpm, instead of at high. Then I had an epiphany. All of a sudden I have an appreciation for diesels. I had that in mind when I went into that diesel thread. My posts were not bashing, I was more lamenting. I'm just pessimistic about it. I'm not against it.

I can see the irony in that situation.

What I had on my mind was two things I heard.
1) You mentioning that after you made your car breathe better + a tune, your mileage went up.
2) The guy at the meet, with the fox mustang. He was talking about how some subaru (maybe his?) was upgraded well and needed head-work/larger-valves to get any better.
I just thought to myself : hey, the hole could just be bigger to start with, and it would be a help to these guys, and it wouldn't cost any more for a simple change like that.
Plus who knows, maybe fuel economy could go up too. Maybe it's not the bottleneck. I don't know, but it can't hurt right? In any case, that was my thought at the time.

*I didn't make the connection*

Doing those mods to a Suby is like a Stage 4 or 5. The internal flow is already ideal for the 200-400whp range. A little overkill for the 150-200 range, and a little underkill for the 400+ range. At that point, opening up more flow is so there is no limiting factor for the incoming 25 lbs of boost.

EXACTLY! I didn't get that until your last post.
I really thought that there would be more synnergy between the two. I thought people were just saying that the NA mod kit that I showed was too expensive, and that I was some NA lover. I was pre-occupied with thinking "ugh, this is going in the wrong direction". Fancy timing, expensive custom parts, all things *I just didn't realize pertained to what I was saying*. I thought I was just getting ganged up on. Again, that made me defensive.

Unfortunately, its 6 of one OR ½ dozen of the other. You can’t have both. If you open up massive flow on a smaller engine, the ability to suck air in at low RPMs diminishes. Pump more gas to get it churning and burning. The reason your Honda probably pulls better? Its easier to suck air through a straw than a sluice pipe. But on the turbo side, its easier to blow through a sluice pipe than a straw.

I thought you were just being harsh, I thought you wanted me to just agree for the sake of agreeing with you.

Funny, we both seemed to think that at the same time. I thought you just wanted me to say “yup, Subaru f-ed up, they shoulda built something more like that’. Ironic.

While I am to some extent innately competitive, I don't compete where I know I'm beat.
When you told me that your LGT has more whp than an evo, I knew that it was over. After that I didn't have any competitive thoughts for you. That happened pretty early on.
Unfortunately, I tend to interrogate. I focus on all the drawbacks of anything and I expect someone to provide counter positives, or corresponding negatives. I think I gave you a bad taste with that (correct me if I'm presuming too much).

Unfortunately I probably didn’t notice a transition and I just prepare myself for the next interrogation. Now I'm being defensive.

Truth is, I'm not jumping to upgrade my car. I just want it to be fast, fun, and last long. I want a car that I can use to its fullest without wearing it out.

Good philosophy, its what I was hoping for all the while.

I've gotten used to the acceleration of my evo, and it's not impressing me anymore. But know what? I'm not gonna go looking for more. If I do, I'll like it for a short while, then I'll get used to it, and I'll be unimpressed again.

That is the nature of the beast. There are days when my car just doesn’t seem fast anymore. But I’m not jumping for a new turbo, because its just more money for the same result after I’m done. You couldn’t have said it better.

Today, I actually envy you. I find the lack of low-rpm torque in my car to be a little depressing. The impreza automatic that I test drove with Becca had a significantly stronger lurch when you punched it at low rpm.

Automatics are a little different. They feel faster because the planetary gearing spins in a new orientation without having the pause associated with a clutch. They might run out of steam at high RPMs, because the gearing is not direct.

While mine might be in a ‘sweet spot’, that’s related to the size of the turbo vs. the size of the engine. If you had a much smaller turbo, like an Audi TT for example, lag would not exist, but there would be no top-end.

Yes, I did tackle your opinions more. One, I thought you had more to say. Two, some of them sounded condescending and I was being defensive.
It's obvious that reacting like that didn't help things.
I was trying to show you that I agree, but it just led further down-hill.

I was being more offensive when you were getting defensive, i.e. felt criticism of my replies.
If anything we should both be apologizing to the reading public.

I apologize to everyone involved for my behavior.

I second that as well.

Okay, maybe it's time this discussion was halted. Time for all to cool off a little.

--Alan

Agreed. Stick to the facts and have an intelligent conversation. When we unlock this thread, please be respectful.

in after the lock