Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Subaru's new hot-rod engine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by aostling View Post

    No problems with the CVT in my Forester with 155,000 miles. I drive like I am eighty (which I am). I have not even had to add brake fluid!

    But you make a good point -- anything more than the 271 HP could strain a CVT. I think the WRX (and certainly the STI) will have a 6-speed manual.
    My comment of it just being a matter of time was referring to the Nissan CVT's - they are about the poorest example going, if you have one and make it past 100,000 miles consider yourself very fortunate and also time to think about dumping the vehicle...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by eKretz View Post
      So as the only guy here who has owned both the WRX STI and the S2000 I guess I'm the authority. I had the very first year of STI (2004, IIRC...I have had a lot of cars...) brought to the states and still have a 2001 S2000, (the higher revving one). They were both good cars in their own rights, neither was a piece of crap. Very different vehicles though. Completely different driving dynamics. The STI was super fun in the slippery stuff and did pretty good on pavement too but it didn't slice and dice corners and have the same sharp feel as the S2000, by a long shot. It had way more low end torque, obviously, but a lot less top end in stock form. AWD very much deadens the steering feel and feedback, which I don't much care for. I love the feel of connection to the front wheels that the S2000 offers, and it has a handling balance that I also like much better - which is to say very responsive and almost twitchy, trending way less toward understeer when pushed to the limit than the STI. The STI could pull its way around corners with the front wheels because of the AWD, but you had to grab it by the collar and make it. The S2000 in comparison would be more like a ballet dancer lithely slipping through the corners. At the limit with a steady speed through a corner, it is very easy to get into a 4 wheel slide with equal grip at all 4 corners with the S2000 rather than the STI's tendency to lose traction at the front and push.

      As far as the engines go, yeah the S2000 is pretty weak in the torque department. It was never meant to be otherwise. The car was supposed to emulate a racing car, akin to a Formula 1 car. That means high horsepower, light weight and revs to the moon - which it accomplished at 240 HP, ~2,800 pounds and a 9,000 RPM redline. If you work the clutch and revs like one of those cars (ever hear an F1 race car? They must idle at 3,500 or 4,000 RPM, at least! At their peak they were probably close to 20,000 RPM up top) the car is brilliant. If you try to run it around town just off idle, of course it's going to stumble and fall all over itself. This is not a fault of the car but the driver. The STI on the other hand developed boost quickly off idle and had all sorts of low end torque. It pulled hard up through the mid-range but fell way off on top where the S2000 was just coming on full steam. Both of my cars made trips to the 1/4 mile drag strip (13.4 was my best in the STI, 14.0 with the S2000 - totally expected given that one car is AWD and with a 60HP advantage...) and the road course (lap times much faster with the S2000 for me).

      Anyway, just wanted to set the record a little more inline with my own experience after seeing the mud slinging. Both cars are good, but in different ways.
      ‚Äč
      eKretz that's great perspective, thanks for all the details, I got to pop the hood on an S-2000 yesterday - might have picked up a customer, it was the 2.2 though :-( it does make me wonder if honda was trying to take the surprise factor of the 2 liters pipeyness away in the turns, I think these cars are rated honda's most dangerous vehicle ever built due to the rear wheel drive/weight distribution "end swapping" abilities,,, many of S-2000 has bit the dust because of this, including the one I checked out yesterday, pumped into a guardrail ass end first, meticulously repaired though,

      they sure could not have been going after more ponies with the 2.2 as it only created something like 12 more foot lbs of torque at the price of reducing the redline by over 1,000 rpm's, so robbing peter to pay paul but in the process creating a much flatter power band... id much rather have the 9,000 rpm redline,,,

      I really don't have all that much of a beef with subies it's just the title irked me because I really admire what honda has done in the past with the V-tec, technology,

      at least in the example given in the OP - If you matched the HP examples up and corrected for displacement and made the subie the same displacement as the normally aspirated honda it would fall short about 20 hp's even though it's turbo'ed --- or up the displacement of the honda to match the subie and its about 20 hp's over the subies numbers --- to me that's extremely impressive to this day, I know which engine took more refinement to build by a long shot...

      but in the end - turbo's will always win of course --- they have build capabilities far surpassing N/A so no argument there...

      I just really like what honda did in the past when turbos were not very practical/efficient due to having to de-tune the engines compression ratio because of it, but as soon as direct injection became a reality the company instantly jumped on board, it's exactly the way I would have dealt with creating powerplants....

      Comment


      • #33
        Here's even more perspective on this subject, the subie in the OP example is most likely packing in close to a half more atmosphere and still falling short of the honda, (per displacement)

        how is that even possible? most of it is due to the genius of honda and yeah it's V-tec system... they get away with extremely high compression ratio's because of it... sadly this is becoming a dying art,,,

        other perspective with turbocharging, packing in another half atmosphere is like increasing the engines displacement 50% (that's a rough draft and there are allot of things to consider) so that 2.4 liter subie should be running like it's a 3.6 liter normally aspirated - yet it's getting it's butt kicked by a little 2 liter normally aspirated engine,

        see why thing's look so unbalanced when you call the subies example a "hot rod"

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post

          see why thing's look so unbalanced when you call the subies example a "hot rod"
          After watching Willy's link on the Koenigsegg engine nothing seems like a hot rod now, unless it has those air-actuated valves with total flexibility on timing, lift, and duration.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3cFfM3r510

          Allan Ostling

          Phoenix, Arizona

          Comment


          • #35
            It's true, things are getting crazy and freevalve technology is extreme, but the complexities and expense abound,,, and with the pneumatic/electric/hydraulics involved and all it takes im wondering how often valves"skip a beat" and don't return home in time, has to be "all systems go" or else catastrophic failure,


            Freevalve would totally smoke the old V-tec technology in performance numbers,,, It was impressive listening to that guy talk about the compression ratio's that can be achieved with it - and on a turbo that's not direct injection gas - 14 : 1 !!!! that's unreal, and he's right - if it's capable of doing that there's really no need to direct inject it,,,

            but still - although the V-tec system would get smoked in that category it does shine for being practical - fairly uncomplicated - it's just a computer controlled solenoid hydraulically actuated rockers,
            the hydraulics are just conventional oil pressure from the engines own oil pump, the dependability is second to none, the machining is perfection - one rocker with a slide pin that engages into another rocker and then completes the connection -

            depending on the honda this could be at 4, 300rpm's - or 4,700 or 5,300 whatever --- if someone told me years ago about trying this at high rpm's id be thinking "good luck with getting that to hold up and taking on the load of another valve spring to boot,"
            yet iv done hundreds of valve adjustments on V-tec's - iv seen thousands of rockers - iv looked for wear patterns on the rockers and connecting pins - nothing - just clean area's where mild normal brown oil staining normally would be,,,

            im sure you could find failure examples from maybe sludged oil plugging the V-tec actuator screen and the pins being in "limbo" for too long, but from what iv seen they have been flawless --- iv never had a V-tec in my shop with a V-tec problem... and if they ever did have a "hiccup" it's not going to cause valves to get stuffed into the pistons... all valves still have their own springing and will return to base in time...
            Last edited by A.K. Boomer; 10-02-2021, 05:25 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Honda engines are pretty legendarily reliable. I have had at least 4 or 5 Honda cars over the years and not one has ever skipped a beat. The best thing for me about the Freevalve type stuff is the possibility for independent cylinder control, to ensure that every cylinder is running at peak capability. That's pretty darn slick. In addition, with full control over individual valve timing, lift, duration, etc. it ought to be very easy to have different modes that could have drastically different efficiency and power level. That would be pretty cool. Run around town getting 30 or something MPG, then flip a switch and get hundreds more HP. That would be really cool.

              Comment


              • #37
                Honda, haa.. You guys right.

                Go back to 1983. Honda was winning the race. No doubut. Fuel effencincy turned into HP. We learnded.

                Less fuel, lean burtn more HP. Who knew. Honda did.

                I had a few. My CRX HF was the best. Hauled ass and got 40mpg.. Honda. CRX-HF...

                I rebuilt a few, I like the honda engine. I have rebult (rod and mains bearing build) a few four cylinders. The Honda is no difff then the Italiain fiat once you get in her guts. JR

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JRouche View Post
                  I had a few. My CRX HF was the best. Hauled ass and got 40mpg..
                  I would not exactly describe the HF as "hauling ass" unless your N. oxiding it and carrying only butterfly wings,,, and you really needed to do a tune up cuz their rated 56 mpg's highway...

                  My SI did haul ass and got 40 mpg whilst doing it...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Back in the day I drove an english ford van with a four banger and all of 35 horse. Today I drive a Kia Rio with a four banger and 115 horse. The Kia will spin the tires easily on dry pavement- what more do I want? I don't know- I guess it's a man thing to want more than 270 horse in a Subi- but I suppose this discussion is more about being able to get 500 horse out of it, and less about actually wanting to. The fact that you can is impressive, I'll give that. Is the intent here to turn the subi into a sleeper?
                    I seldom do anything within the scope of logical reason and calculated cost/benefit, etc- I'm following my passion-

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by darryl View Post
                      I'll give that. Is the intent here to turn the subi into a sleeper?
                      Be kinda hard to turn a WRX into a sleeper, theyre pretty well-known sports sedans

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post

                        I would not exactly describe the HF as "hauling ass" unless your N. oxiding it and carrying only butterfly wings,,, and you really needed to do a tune up cuz their rated 56 mpg's highway...

                        My SI did haul ass and got 40 mpg whilst doing it...
                        No, I have never put the sqweeze on any of my engines. Nahh, rather not thanks... JR

                        My 78 year old uncle, my only uncle had a white Si.. Yes, much more snappy..

                        I like the Honda CRX..

                        I test drove one of the "new" ones. ( piece of crap)

                        I almost made the salesman puke. Haha.. I drove the tires off it like I do at ANY dealership. Drive it like you stole it...

                        And I did and all of the cars were crap. . Oh well Honda for now..

                        Oh, dealership try and drive freebies.. Take a new Vett out? An Italian Sports car?

                        This town is getting, unfotunatly, thick with people. I dont like it.

                        I am on the 101 fwy in Calif. The euro trash cars are uncorked?

                        What? I used to get ticketes for that.

                        I might unbutton my engine. Its got some growel is all I can say. Not powerful. ZDurable. Unbreakable, I built it. JR

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X