Jump to content
Cheethers85

New owner questions

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Varelco said:

 

Superior? More like marginal. Unless you are chasing the ultimate peak figure there is not really anything in it, the choice is primarily preference on the sound.

There's not much in it I admit, but equal length is the obvious choice and I was chasing peak figures for sprinting. I didn't go for UEL as I didn't want my car to sound like it was broken.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you guys, yes Honda didn't have emissions to worry about back then. My point is the engine is dull, lacks character and tends not to make the quoted figures. In my opinion Toyota should have just followed the crowd and put a turbocharged lump in it which would have got around the emissions thing. I have driven modern turbocharged engines and they still redline at what the GT86 does anyway. 

I think even the most blinkered GT86 owner would admit that they would prefer if it if their car had come with a turbocharged lump as standard. Don't get me wrong, I love the GT86 and what is stands for, I might even get another one day, I just think the engine lets it down a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we continue your turbo for all theory, everyone who went aftermarket super charged should've gone for a turbo. Everyone who went NA manifold should've saved up for their turbo upgrade. 

On a different example, there are 2 forum members (alucardo and senna, i believe) who have gone for Cayman with the old school NA 981, not the new Turbo 718.

Turbo is not linear, with a bi turbo you can get close but still not the same as NA. The linearity of throttle response and no surprises as to when it gets on boost (and changes characteristic) and when its off, is what NA fans look for. Supercharger is close to NA response but a lot more power, so that is what factory could've put.  But these cars were built to a cost, and this is not the equation we want to go down.

The next GT could be Hybrid and NA is the right engine choice to go down hybridisation. So it is also future proof , leaving you with your aftermarket to choose turbo.

"Sorry, i am blinkered and will not trade the NA engine for a turbo"

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lauren said:

There's not much in it I admit, but equal length is the obvious choice and I was chasing peak figures for sprinting. I didn't go for UEL as I didn't want my car to sound like it was broken.  brilliant  :P

:)

1 hour ago, Nails said:

I don't disagree with you guys, yes Honda didn't have emissions to worry about back then. My point is the engine is dull, lacks character and tends not to make the quoted figures. In my opinion Toyota should have just followed the crowd and put a turbocharged lump in it which would have got around the emissions thing. I have driven modern turbocharged engines and they still redline at what the GT86 does anyway. 

I think even the most blinkered GT86 owner would admit that they would prefer if it if their car had come with a turbocharged lump as standard. Don't get me wrong, I love the GT86 and what is stands for, I might even get another one day, I just think the engine lets it down a bit. 

No I wouldn't say a turbo charged lump but a Toyota engine. I'm not a fan of the FA20, Toyota should of developed the engine for it not Subaru, they have produced some good engines over the years, I would of prefered they "sacrifice" some of the ultra low centre of gravity for an inline 4. Its not like you need a flat engine to achieve this seeing as Toyota have quite proudly stated the new Supras CoG is lower than the GT86 and that's got a hoofing big 3.0 straight 6 in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will pick a finely fettled NA engine over most turbos. The FA20 doesn't quite deliver the fizz from factory though :( . Thankfully the chassis, weight and driver feedback make it a hoot to drive anyway :) . There's room for improvement, and it does put out good oomph for its RPM. The S2000 and Celica 190 and RX8 all needed another 1500 rpm to make their numbers and have less low end on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BRZ-123 said:

If we continue your turbo for all theory, everyone who went aftermarket super charged should've gone for a turbo. Everyone who went NA manifold should've saved up for their turbo upgrade. 

On a different example, there are 2 forum members (alucardo and senna, i believe) who have gone for Cayman with the old school NA 981, not the new Turbo 718.

Turbo is not linear, with a bi turbo you can get close but still not the same as NA. The linearity of throttle response and no surprises as to when it gets on boost (and changes characteristic) and when its off, is what NA fans look for. Supercharger is close to NA response but a lot more power, so that is what factory could've put.  But these cars were built to a cost, and this is not the equation we want to go down.

The next GT could be Hybrid and NA is the right engine choice to go down hybridisation. So it is also future proof , leaving you with your aftermarket to choose turbo.

"Sorry, i am blinkered and will not trade the NA engine for a turbo"

 

 

What about the supercharged lump they put in the GRMN then? That develops around 210bhp, is linear, fun to rev and more powerful than the GT86 lump. I have gone back to a VTEC Honda now so you are preaching to the converted in terms of NA. I just stand by the fact that the GT86 engine is a bit dull, yes you can add aftermarket options but when you have spent £20k+ on a car you don't really want to have to spend another £5k getting it to perform as you would like, if they had put a better engine in it in the first place none of this would be required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Nails said:

What about the supercharged lump they put in the GRMN then? That develops around 210bhp, is linear, fun to rev and more powerful than the GT86 lump. I have gone back to a VTEC Honda now so you are preaching to the converted in terms of NA. I just stand by the fact that the GT86 engine is a bit dull, yes you can add aftermarket options but when you have spent £20k+ on a car you don't really want to have to spend another £5k getting it to perform as you would like, if they had put a better engine in it in the first place none of this would be required. 

I did say supercharged was a good option (para 3) but Cost is why they did not do it. Yaris GRMN is a commuter car platform fettled and sold for £26,295 while a regular Yaris is £12,995 i.e. 100% premium over a standard car. GT is a totally new non shared platform, so they have to make cost compromises and not throw in boost which is why an aftermarket super/turbo for 5K to 6K is a steal on a car worth 25K (20% premium). 

Doing the manifold and tune makes the GT good enough, at least for my liking but each to their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nails said:

My point is the engine is dull, lacks character

I couldn't agree more. Even with a "whiney" Supercharger, there is still something missing compared to my 9k B-Series

7 hours ago, nerdstrike said:

I will pick a finely fettled NA engine over most turbos.

 I keep thinking a VQ or K24 would be a great engine in this car. Or even one of the Yamaha Toyota engines.

9 hours ago, Varelco said:

I'm not a fan of the FA20, Toyota should of developed the engine for it not Subaru

Toyota did develop it, the D4S is a Toyota system and isn't plug and play as such. The D4S FA20 is different to the FA20DIT found in the WRX for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no. Except injection system there are other major, LOL, differences and contributions. - Different bumpers & audio HU :D

BTW, i'm not that sure it's worth to belittle injection system's importance. Imho lot of FA20D specific power output, high redline, good (for NA torque) while still passing strictest emission regs might be attributed to it too. Hard to compare apples to oranges with other Subaru engines like FB20(B|D|X) with own Subaru injection sys, but they mostly seem to have 40-50 less ponies & lower redline.

In general, in my eyes due most manufacturers replacing for easier emission pass their NA lineup with smaller displacement+turbo in all of their cars, including cheapest range, that extra FI torque everywhere spoiled those that cry twins egines being underpowered and twins themselves as slow. By rowing few gears down i can accelerate fast enough for my wishes to merge/accelerate/overtake, on track. Not that long ago it's 0-60 times were only for rather expensive cars. We just got spoiled and rised unreasonably high bar of "new norm"/expectations. Even while not wiilling to pay extra to have it pushed up to those expectations. I'm sure, that sold numbers of new supra will be way less then those of twins. It has all those goodies of powerful turbo engine, better more upmarket interior and such. And price way less people are willing to pay. I can only thank toyobaru for releasing car that i both like AND can afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm totally happy with mine too. Though possibly because previous car had 1/3rd of power, was much slower and FWD, lol :)

Then again, though not frequently and/or for long, i had drives in other, more powerful, cars, eg. WRX or Volvo S60. Yes, they had that push-in-seats acceleration .. but i felt delight when i sit back in mine. No more compromised ergonomics, no more mushy syrupy gear switches, much sharper steering, much better handling .. and yes, skids aswell :)

My current biggest non-likes in my gt86 are two. Engaging too soon and in too abrupt way VSC sport (improved for those with MY2017 track mode) and too shallow max steering angle (much harder to drift vs cars with higher steering angle still having more to countersteer till lock). Haven't yet heard, if it's possible to retrofit former, but am starting exploring available options for later. Happy about anything else in these cars. Including it's "weak/dull/torque-dipped" engine :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few like you Iain and Church. I am again one of them who is wholeheartedly happy with the car. Stunner to look at, drives exactly how I want it to (handling), just enough power to not lose your license pretty damn quick on public roads and the joy of downshifting to access power to overtake quickly. Without a loud exhaust, sound symposer is another thing that I love as it gives the in cabin noise when planting the throttle without letting the outside world know what hooliganism you are upto.

Sent from my FIG-LX1 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Church said:

 

My current biggest non-likes in my gt86 are two. Engaging too soon and in too abrupt way VSC sport (improved for those with MY2017 track mode) and too shallow max steering angle (much harder to drift vs cars with higher steering angle still having more to countersteer till lock). Haven't yet heard, if it's possible to retrofit former, but am starting exploring available options for later. Happy about anything else in these cars. Including it's "weak/dull/torque-dipped" engine :)

I don't like the interference of VSC either. I've just been turning mine off everytime I start the car for about the last three years. Seems to be a good solution. I think if you start extending how much steering lock, whilst good for drifting it may not be so good for when you're not drifting. I'm quite happy too with the power/handling balance. Helps me keep my licence. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lauren: vsc shouldn't be taken together with drifting. vsc was in context as that's 99% of mode i'm daily driving wiith on public roads or tracks i'm not familiiar with for first introductory times/laps when wet/rain. But as it's for me most used mileage-wise mode, i'd happy to be changed/iimproved like in MY2017 from how owners of those describe. Drifting (as i'm penny pincher) i'm doing only on ice tracks & in pedal dance of course (though am considering switching off abs fuse too). But still, it was so much easier in completely stock bmw of collegue, that still had loads of extra angle for countersteering. Big angles, flooring with ease .. while on my gt86 i had to baby throttle and steering to enter drifts only with shallow angle & little turning momentum .. slight killjoy i'd say. Clutchout saved only 3/4th of spinouts or sliding inside (due car keeping turning with front wheels countersteered to lock, with front wheels ending up pointing inside). Hence my wish for more steering angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/01/2019 at 6:45 PM, Lauren said:

There's not much in it I admit, but equal length is the obvious choice and I was chasing peak figures for sprinting.

That's fair enough, but I chose the UEL specifically for the better midrange torque, which I want for road use, not for the sound it makes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not purely UEL's feature. While yes, most UELs have good mid-torque and most ELs for twins keep torque-dip there .. but imho it's more attributable to runner lengths. After all, there are long tube 4-2-1 Ace EL headers, that eliminate dip and provide loads of extra torque mid rpms. Price and need to run well tailored just to them ecu tune might be turn-off for some though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MartinT said:

That's fair enough, but I chose the UEL specifically for the better midrange torque, which I want for road use, not for the sound it makes.

The mid-range torque isn't better on the UEL compared to the EL. It's about the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engine in the GT is definitely more usable than the 2zz in my old Celica 190 but has so much less character, everything else about the car runs rings around the Celica but I did enjoy the feeling of the variable valve lift coming on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/01/2019 at 11:35 AM, Varelco said:

@knightryder They didn't. The fuel injection system was their contribution that's it. Thats hardly a development. It is 99% Subaru and shares nothing else with Toyota manufactured engines.

You can't just bolt the D4S system into a different engine and expect it to work. There will have been some joint development on this platform, despite the obvious fact that it's a Subaru basic engine. Given that Subaru don't make other performance NA engines, there is undoubtedly more that Toyota did than just providing the D4S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't just bolt the D4S system into a different engine and expect it to work. There will have been some joint development on this platform, despite the obvious fact that it's a Subaru basic engine. Given that Subaru don't make other performance NA engines, there is undoubtedly more that Toyota did than just providing the D4S.
Ej20 2L NA, FB 2.5L NA, reasonably performant though you can always debate how performant. IIRC they also had old 6 cyl NA in legacy.The turbos in impreza/WRX STi do not mean Subaru have only made turbos chief. D4S is Toyotas contribution even as per their marketing schpiel and may be some know how to integrate it. Every manufacturer knows how to do direct injection or port injection. Combination is Toyotas patent. Subaru designed the new oil pan to lower CoG and front intake.


Sent from my FIG-LX1 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/01/2019 at 11:11 AM, Church said:

that still had loads of extra angle for countersteering. Big angles

Something had to give when they put a boxer under the bonnet. Sounds like the i6 of the A90 Supra might re-enable your desires...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BRZ-123 said:

Ej20 2L NA, FB 2.5L NA, reasonably performant though you can always debate how performant. IIRC they also had old 6 cyl NA in legacy.The turbos in impreza/WRX STi do not mean Subaru have only made turbos chief. 

 

I'm aware of this, but none of those rev as high or use dual injection. The EJ NA is only around 150bhp last time I checked and the FB/EZ engines use displacement to make torque. Notably none of the other engines have the same RPM range as the NA FA20, or the lightweight components that it uses. I'm not saying that Toyota did have a hand in making the engine, I'm just suggesting that it's more than likely they had more input than dropping a dual injection system on Subaru's doorstep like an abandoned baby. I mean the white papers on the D4S stuff are long and complex (and quite an interesting read if you're like me). Cylinder head design and piston design are among a few critical components for the system to work..... this is no FB with a different injection system fitted, no matter how similar they may look from the outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×