|
From a fun to drive point of view, keeping close to the existing power curve at 2000rpm and going hog wild above 5000rpm might be exactly what we crave.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
It seems like exactly the opposite is true to me... The smaller size of the centrifugals makes packaging easier in smaller engine bays, and small displacement short stroke engines can spin the compressor fast enough to make real power... I know that in the K series world, the roots types modules (usually the eaton MP62) that was used in earlier kits usually require a lot of aftercooling to get good power as there's just too much heat transfer at high compressor speeds, and the newer centrifugals have largely solved that problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:From a fun to drive point of view, keeping close to the existing power curve at 2000rpm and going hog wild above 5000rpm might be exactly what we crave. I don't know. I found it was most lacking off the line. After it makes it into the power band it's good, but the sluggishness at low RPMs was something that really turned me off, coming from the Mustang.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
welcome to small displacement engines and high powerbands?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
fag magnet posted:welcome to small displacement engines and high powerbands? Heh, this is a bullshit reason. my wife's v40 has the same displacement and a low pressure turbo (like seriously 5 psi) and it pulls off a line like the rear end is on fire. I still want a BRZ but come on, man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:Heh, this is a bullshit reason. my wife's v40 has the same displacement and a low pressure turbo (like seriously 5 psi) and it pulls off a line like the rear end is on fire. I still want a BRZ but come on, man. My mom has a 2002 S40, same engine I'm sure (1.9T) and it feels much, much quicker than an FRS. A good kick in the pants, whereas the FRS just feels gutless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
Voltage posted:My mom has a 2002 S40, same engine I'm sure (1.9T) and it feels much, much quicker than an FRS. A good kick in the pants, whereas the FRS just feels gutless. Anecdotes are great because I have a 2002 mustang gt with a 6psi 2.1 kenne bell setup and I have a brz on order. I didnt test drive a brz, i test drove a manual fr-s, and i shifted at 5k rpm while on the test drive and while it wasnt as powerful as my mustang it certainly put down the power in a more smooth manner. Having 380 ft lbs of torque at the crank in my car doesnt do me any good when it just shimmys the back end every. single. time. True the car has some stock probably 3.31 (or 3.11) rear end gear ratio which makes every gear tall and awful but whatever (like 2nd gear feels similar to first gear in a frs, while 1st gear will just rip tires up). coolskillrex remix fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
A centrifugal supercharger will magnify an already peaky powerband and won't solve the problems that everybody has with the engine. A twin-screw supercharger or a turbo will give it power at the RPMs you generally drive at. coolskillrex remix posted:Anecdotes are great because I have a 2002 mustang gt with a 6psi 2.1 kenne bell setup and I have a brz on order. I didnt test drive a brz, i test drove a manual fr-s, and i shifted at 5k rpm while on the test drive and while it wasnt as powerful as my mustang it certainly put down the power in a more smooth manner. Having 380 ft lbs of torque at the crank in my car doesnt do me any good when it just shimmys the back end every. single. time. True the car has some stock probably 3.31 (or 3.11) rear end gear ratio which makes every gear tall and awful but whatever (like 2nd gear feels similar to first gear in a frs, while 1st gear will just rip tires up). The live axle probably has something to do with that shimmying, or maybe your control arm bushings are shot. I've never noticed any issues in my SR20-powered 240SX, it makes less horsepower than this kit but has gobs of mid-range torque. I'd trade power under the curve for peak power all day long.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
So now that the BRZ has been out for a while, I went to check the Subaru VIP program and noticed that they removed all model restrictions that had been there previously (Impreza, Impreza WRX, BRZ). Are there dealerships out there willing to accept VIP customers for a BRZ or is it still too early? Anyone have any experience with this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
wallaka posted:A centrifugal supercharger will magnify an already peaky powerband and won't solve the problems that everybody has with the engine. Personally, the problem i have with the engine is that, for the money I either want more power (in this case more revs) or suspension/wheel/tires that aren't parts bin tuner special stuff. The chassis geometry is nice, but the rear end is basically a GR impreza rear with the cheapest of stamped steel everywhere; the front is similar, the wheels and tires are terrible parts bin crap, and the engine needs more peak power. For 4-5k (ie, the cost of replacing the cheap parts) more you can get a base 370Z with proper suspension geometry, a much better engine, etc. fag magnet fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Mar 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:Heh, this is a bullshit reason. my wife's v40 has the same displacement and a low pressure turbo (like seriously 5 psi) and it pulls off a line like the rear end is on fire. I still want a BRZ but come on, man. No, this is bullshit. Of course the small turbo is going to make the car feel like it's hauling rear end, that's how it's been designed and that's exactly what small turbos do. And you are seriously comparing it to a peaky NA 2 liter??? Come on, this really is just silly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:Heh, this is a bullshit reason. my wife's v40 has the same displacement and a low pressure turbo (like seriously 5 psi) and it pulls off a line like the rear end is on fire. I still want a BRZ but come on, man. Voltage posted:My mom has a 2002 S40, same engine I'm sure (1.9T) and it feels much, much quicker than an FRS. A good kick in the pants, whereas the FRS just feels gutless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
fag magnet posted:i don't understand what problem everyone has with the engine. it's a peaky high-rpm short-stroke engine tuned not tuned for low-end torque. yes, you can't drive it like a v8 but that's not an inherent design flaw. does everyone say "oh, the miata is crap because it doesn't have 250ftlb of torque at 2000rpm"? no. it's just the nature of the beast. I like the BR-S and what it represents, but for power adders basically anything would be better than a centrifugal blower. I dislike the Z. Heavy, expensive, harsh riding, hate the engine sound, just don't like it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
fag magnet posted:personally, the problem i have with the engine is that, for the money i either want more power (in this case more revs) or suspension/wheel/tires that aren't parts bin tuner special stuff. the chassis geometry is nice, but the rear end is basically a GR impreza rear with the cheapest of stamped steel everywhere, the front is similar, the wheels and tires are terrible parts bin crap, and the engine needs more peak power. for 4-5k (ie, the cost of replacing the cheap parts) more you can get a base 370Z with proper suspension geometry, a much better engine, etc. Does that include the price of fixing the brakes in the 370Z so they won't cook themselves on the track?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
fag magnet posted:personally, the problem i have with the engine is that, for the money i either want more power (in this case more revs) or suspension/wheel/tires that aren't parts bin tuner special stuff. the chassis geometry is nice, but the rear end is basically a GR impreza rear with the cheapest of stamped steel everywhere, the front is similar, the wheels and tires are terrible parts bin crap, and the engine needs more peak power. for 4-5k (ie, the cost of replacing the cheap parts) more you can get a base 370Z with proper suspension geometry, a much better engine, etc. You also get another 500 pounds of curb weight, and that 'better engine' is the VQ that nobody really likes. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
For 6k less you can get a
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
I see IOC has given this thread the title it deserves 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Does that include the price of fixing the brakes in the 370Z so they won't cook themselves on the track? All you need are a set of track pads and better fluid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
I'll give the Z haters the exhaust note though. It does actually sound like a nasally frenchman, to channel clarkson. Otherwise, it's a nice engine. It's reliable, makes good power, is well positioned in the chassis, etc. I think the Z is actually the fairest comparison to the BR-S because it's just not that much more expensive, and provides significantly more performance with a relatively peaky NA engine. Yes, 500 added lbs, but the larger displacement makes up for it when going straight, and the mechanical grip available makes up for the it when doing anything that's not going straight. Also, they are both effectively cheap, entry-level sports cars, just at slightly different price points. My point is that the BR-S price point is so high that it provides worse value for money than the base Z and the absolute difference in cost is pretty small, whereas the absolute difference in performance is quite large. To make the point more concrete, consider the NC Miata instead. It's, at worst, marginally slower than the BR-S when doing anything, including going straight, but starts at a significantly lower effective price point (base 2013s are going for about 23k OTD, and not to brag, but at one point I had a dealer down to 20,8 OTD on a 2012..), and has not been designed and built to immediately be rebuilt by Johnny Q Tuner. Anyway, the BR-S as a car is still quite enjoyable, and if I had exactly 27k and had to spend it all on a car, I would have just bought one. I test drove pretty much everything between 10k and 30k recently, and the Miata and BR-S were easily tied for most enjoyable. After I was scared straight by some crash test videos and nixed the miata, it was my first choice and I came pretty close to putting a deposit down on an FR-S in transit, but ultimately decided to sacrifice for the sake of liquidity instead. ps, The BR-S engine sounds, well, unexciting, especially if you plug the tube that channels intake noise into the cabin. My pet theory is that the FB will be the actually really exciting new Subaru engine, and this was a stopgap designed primarily to kickstart a DI tech exchange from Toyota to Subaru.. Ironically, I know a recent powertrain PM from Toyota Japan, so I should just ask him instead of coming up with pet theories, but alas.. pps, scared straight _literally_
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
fag magnet posted:I'll give the Z haters the exhaust note though. It does actually sound like a nasally frenchman, to channel clarkson. Otherwise, it's a nice engine. It's reliable, makes good power, is well positioned in the chassis, etc. $5000 is a pretty decent differential in price and if we're talking pure price per performance ignoring things like driving experience or looks, the comparably priced Mustang GT is the constant internet trump card. A dealer test drive and a short bit in a friend's 370Z (which he has since sold) has told me that it feels kind of fat, the engine sounds lame, and in my opinion it's sort of ugly. Dunno, you're entitled to your opinion, but given the choice I'd still take the BRZ and pocket the difference. The fairest direct comparison is still the Miata, in my view. Or, for my personal situation, I'd be cross-shopping with a Cadillac ATS if I needed a car right now (even though they're in different price ranges and market niches). That said, congrats on your responsible financial decision. I mean this with all sincerity - if you're at all in doubt about it, it's good not to get into debt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Still enjoying mine, still getting 27mpg average with just over 1.5k in mixed driving and not babying it at all. It's quite fun. I like it more than I ever liked my 08 STI (which I bought new). But I guess I'm not a racer like all of you dudes living your lives a quarter mile at a time  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
I cross shopped the 370z with the br-z because the 370z looks nice to me, seems to have nicer material in the interior, has more power, has a pretty nifty rev match feature, and is frankly a "faster" car, but i couldnt get over the fact that its fuel consumption was so meh. It was dangerously close to the 2013 mustang gt i drove and i rather have the v8 noise and the loving ridiculous power that car has if im going to get that kind of mileage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Mat_Drinks posted:Still enjoying mine, still getting 27mpg average with just over 1.5k in mixed driving and not babying it at all. I get 27 for about a minute before it shoots down to 26.9 on the highway  .Yeah the power is certainly fine for the car, if you're street racer McGee you probably are going to heavily mod any car you buy anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Anyone read  Super Street ? This latest issue had, aside from a few GT-Rs & a Supra, almost nothing but the BRZ/FR-S through the entire issue. Some interesting stuff coming out, plus quite a few 350-400+ hp FR-S's already. If these aftermarket folks (Blitz, HKS, Rocket Bunny, etc) get on the ball from their demo cars, the car could end up being quite the little red light surprise. That should be good for those of us who live 1/4 mile at a time 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
New to this thread so sorry if this has been talked about but this supercharger kit looks neat https://www.innovatemotorsports.com/products/supercharger-frs.php https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1J0gyIJ24M
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Motoiq mentioned an 88mph trap speed at the Modified Magazine shootout last weekend because they couldn't get it to run right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
Hopefully it's better than the Sprintex for the supercharged Mini S
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Mat_Drinks posted:But I guess I'm not a racer like all of you dudes living your lives a quarter mile at a time To be honest, I'd get a FR-S for track use before daily driving. Daily drivers benefit from low-end torque because you probably don't want to keep your car in the powerband during the course of normal, everyday driving. You can gun a Mustang V6 from a stop any time you don't have traffic in front of you, and have pretty much the best it has to offer (with additional legroom and comfort compared to the FR-S). If I were looking to get a car for track use, where I could keep it in the powerband after the initial start, you bet I'd pick an FR-S over the Mustang. It understeers like a pig if you try to corner at speed (by which I mean, well in excess of the speed limit on public roads). With the FR-S, you can maintain speed through corners better, and the power difference doesn't seem so pronounced once you get the RPMs high. As it is, I don't have a track nearby, nor any particularly comely sections of curvy highway, and I like not having to downshift every time I want to pass someone on a freeway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
My previous car had a Honda B18B, so the torque I find in 6th gear at highway speeds is more than satisfying when overtaking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:And you are seriously comparing it to a peaky NA 2 liter??? Nah, I was suggesting the addition of a small turbo instead of a peaky centrocharger might add some low-end oomph. My anecdotal engine's also a peaky 2-liter, thanks; peak power is at 5,500 rpm. I thought he was making out like small displacement = low power/no guts, that's what I was calling bullshit on. I want someone to offer a good-sized variable-displacement turbo, so you can get that hammer all the way up the powerband without the supercharger power loss (and honestly I don't like how they sound, supers always remind me of OTR trucks). With everyone's concern about how hard it is to fit any extra equipment in that engine bay, I'm a little surprised we haven't seen anything with a hood cutout or pod panel yet. Splizwarf fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Mar 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:To be honest, I'd get a FR-S for track use before daily driving. Daily drivers benefit from low-end torque because you probably don't want to keep your car in the powerband during the course of normal, everyday driving. You can gun a Mustang V6 from a stop any time you don't have traffic in front of you, and have pretty much the best it has to offer (with additional legroom and comfort compared to the FR-S). If I were looking to get a car for track use, where I could keep it in the powerband after the initial start, you bet I'd pick an FR-S over the Mustang. It understeers like a pig if you try to corner at speed (by which I mean, well in excess of the speed limit on public roads). With the FR-S, you can maintain speed through corners better, and the power difference doesn't seem so pronounced once you get the RPMs high. I've never driven any Mustang on a track or anywhere near its limits so this is total hearsay, but from what I've heard, with the most recent iterations of the sport suspension option, the chassis is really, really solid and fairly neutral even from the factory with just an alignment and tires. Instead, the biggest weakness I've heard is that the steering is kind of numb and not communicative, which makes it hard for an average person to really explore its limits on the track, but also makes it less fun to drive even on just your everyday winding road.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Mat_Drinks posted:Still enjoying mine, still getting 27mpg average with just over 1.5k in mixed driving and not babying it at all. I've got about 1200 miles on mine, but my fuel economy is just over 22 mpg. Granted, it's almost entirely city driving, so it's about where it should be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I've never driven any Mustang on a track or anywhere near its limits so this is total hearsay, but from what I've heard, with the most recent iterations of the sport suspension option, the chassis is really, really solid and fairly neutral even from the factory with just an alignment and tires. Instead, the biggest weakness I've heard is that the steering is kind of numb and not communicative, which makes it hard for an average person to really explore its limits on the track, but also makes it less fun to drive even on just your everyday winding road.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
I seem to recall a few motoring journo comparisons between the twins and the 370z in which the Nissan is humbled. Didn't Chris Harris sum up the two cars to the effect of "the Toybaru gets better the harder you drive it, the 370z gets worse"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
ROFLBOT posted:I seem to recall a few motoring journo comparisons between the twins and the 370z in which the Nissan is humbled. You recall correctly. That also tees up with what a few racers have commented to me, in that the 370/350Z needs plenty of work to be a good hard driving platform. I dont know, I've never driven one, I'm not interested in driving one. quote:totally off-topic, but what are traditionally thought of as poor suspension geometries in general have come a heck of a long way in the last 10 years. With some of the cheaper cars I've driven in the last few months I would disagree with that statement. No they havent. Plus there's the thing about get a car out of it's designed road set and they get shown up as.... well.... pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
ROFLBOT posted:Didn't Chris Harris sum up the two cars to the effect of "the Toybaru gets better the harder you drive it, the 370z gets worse"? He described the 370Z as an 8/10ths car wheras he felt more confident pushing with the GT86. But he concluded that we should buy a used cayman with aftermarket suspension instead so i'm not sure what to think of that, but he is a massive Porsche fanboy. To be fair though he was pretty complimentary about the GT86 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUhLXvxlQR4
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:With some of the cheaper cars I've driven in the last few months I would disagree with that statement. No they havent. Plus there's the thing about get a car out of it's designed road set and they get shown up as.... well.... pretty bad. i'm not sure what a "designed road set" is, but pushing a design out of its operating parameters is always going to produce unpredictable results. my point is that the operating envelopes of suspension designs have been increasing at a rather shocking rate in the last 10 years due to the advent of high precision whole-car (or nearly whole-car) computer simulation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
anime and cars posted:But he concluded that we should buy a used cayman with aftermarket suspension instead so i'm not sure what to think of that, but he is a massive Porsche fanboy. It's a much more affordable option in the UK. Heck, even in the US, you can find sub-30k Caymans. But of course with potentially expensive motor issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Daily drivers benefit from low-end torque because you probably don't want to keep your car in the powerband during the course of normal, everyday driving. You can gun a Mustang V6 from a stop any time you don't have traffic in front of you, and have pretty much the best it has to offer (with additional legroom and comfort compared to the FR-S). If I were looking to get a car for track use, where I could keep it in the powerband after the initial start, you bet I'd pick an FR-S over the Mustang. It understeers like a pig if you try to corner at speed (by which I mean, well in excess of the speed limit on public roads). With the FR-S, you can maintain speed through corners better, and the power difference doesn't seem so pronounced once you get the RPMs high. Don't get an FR-S/BRZ. It's not the car for you, but I'm glad you took the time to explain to us how it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
wallaka posted:Centrifugal superchargers are a horrible match for small displacement engines though. I bet the dyno chart looks like an exponent graph. Not really. http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30008 Blame Pyrrhus fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 03:26
|
|
