Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Keyword. Turbo. Do you know the price you pay for turbo provided torque than NA torque? Lag. I'm sorry 3 examples does nothing for your argument. Also the Forester doesn't produce that much torque that low. It maxes out at the number at around 4k RPM. Try again Subaru fanboy. 150 ft-lbs of torque is not much at all. That just tells me that it's slow.
Two out of those three are twin-scroll. Sorry, no lag. The GM motor, while not twin-scroll, is impressively non-laggy, and I don't even really like GM very much (unlike fanboys that don't like facts, I'm capable of being honest). And the Forester XT does in fact produce that much torque that low. That's their published specs. If you don't like them, well, too bad, I guess that makes you an anti-Subaru fanboy doesn't it? Anyway, that's your problem if you don't like facts.
Keyword is indeed turbo. That's the replacement for displacement. Also lets you be really REALLY flexible with the torque curve. Better than most big displacement engines, and lighter too. I guess you couldn't argue those points, since you decided to harp on the turbo. Thanks for playing.
Different strokes man. While you may not like Hondas you should at least respect them as an engineering company.
Food for thought:
1999 Mustang GT
260 hp/ 4.6L motor
56.5hp/L
1999 Honda Civic Si
160 hp/ 1.6L motor
100hp/L
Even the 2013 mustang GT is not up to that level of efficiency.
Lol! The last safety net of all import fans, comparing a car with horsepower per liter. Horsepower per liter doesn't mean anything on a race track or fuel efficiency, or reliability, etc. It's the most ridiculous argument people resort to.
Why don't you compare the torque per liter between an American V8 and a Japanese 4 cylinder?
American cars typically have larger displacement motors for greater torque, because torque is what gets you off the line, and torque is what helps with drag races. Horsepower is for top end pull or maximum speed. Muscle cars like taking off from a dead stop, not roll racing, but they're strong there too.
I hope you see how moot the point of comparing horsepower per liter is.
Two out of those three are twin-scroll. Sorry, no lag. The GM motor, while not twin-scroll, is impressively non-laggy, and I don't even really like GM very much (unlike fanboys that don't like facts, I'm capable of being honest). And the Forester XT does in fact produce that much torque that low. That's their published specs. If you don't like them, well, too bad, I guess that makes you an anti-Subaru fanboy doesn't it? Anyway, that's your problem if you don't like facts.
Keyword is indeed turbo. That's the replacement for displacement. Also lets you be really REALLY flexible with the torque curve. Better than most big displacement engines, and lighter too. I guess you couldn't argue those points, since you decided to harp on the turbo. Thanks for playing.
You're full of it. Twin scroll setups still have lag. It is not instant. You do know the FA20 powering the Forester has already been in the Legacy in Japan for about a year and lag was an issue which I drove. I've driven the JDM Subaru Impreza WRX STI (which is twin scroll and not single scroll) and the lag was evident and disappointing. You have to wait at around 3500 to 4000 rpm before the boost kicks in like a hammer. So no don't tell me that twin scroll has no lag because that's BS. It helps when the Japanese branch of your company uses Subarus for the majority of the company vehicle fleet.
The Forester doesn't produce that much torque that low. It's the starting point of the range from 2k to 4.8k. It doesn't max out that low but the majority of the torque can be at a similar point. Manufacturers lie all of the time. Hyundai anybody? I don't know where you read it from but I guess you believe everything you read. I'm not an anti-Subaru fanboy (nice oxymoron) but a realist. Hey kid, the car is a Chevy Cruze not a Cobalt. You don't even know what applications are used for your examples. So how can you say it's not laggy when you don't even know what car you're talking about? The Cruze 1.4T motor is laggy but not totally gutless if paired with the manual gearbox.
If turbocharging is that great then performance naturally aspirated engines would cease to exist. Not because of displacement standards but because they are outright better which they aren't. The benefit is in fuel economy not delivery of power. It's is not a replacement but an alternative focused on an extra benefit. There is no replacement for displacement. Your feeble mind can't wrap your head around the fact that no one saying it is better but it doesn't replace it as it can't deliver everything a naturally aspirated motor offers. You didn't post facts you posted whatever the hell you posted which quite frankly is definitely questionable. I like facts what I don't like is BS especially when it is hailed as facts which is what you are doing kid. So instead of saying Thanks for playing like this was a game (if it was to you then you have no life I guess). Go back and actually do some research on your favorite brand (and turbocharging as a whole).
Last edited by Yellow Jacket; 04-24-2013 at 08:21 PM..
Two out of those three are twin-scroll. Sorry, no lag. The GM motor, while not twin-scroll, is impressively non-laggy, and I don't even really like GM very much (unlike fanboys that don't like facts, I'm capable of being honest). And the Forester XT does in fact produce that much torque that low. That's their published specs. If you don't like them, well, too bad, I guess that makes you an anti-Subaru fanboy doesn't it? Anyway, that's your problem if you don't like facts.
Keyword is indeed turbo. That's the replacement for displacement. Also lets you be really REALLY flexible with the torque curve. Better than most big displacement engines, and lighter too. I guess you couldn't argue those points, since you decided to harp on the turbo. Thanks for playing.
THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT !!! That is a proven FACT!! Anything done with a little engine when done to a larger engine the results prove there is NO REPLACEMENT for Displacement ! Turbos, superchargers, Nitrous all help a too small of an engine, but they do not replace C.I.D !
P.S., I have built a few turbo cars, both single big turbo, little turbo, twin turbo combinations for other people and I have right now for me a 384" Pontiac engine on the stand with a twin turbo set up. We do have ways of shorting the lag time to what most people would not think there is any, but there is lag time with a turbo. That said, a screw style supercharger offers the best performance and is instant. Nitrous can be instant and depending how much used a big power producer if temp and pressure of bottle/bottles is right, but lots of issues like shortening the life of the engine ! For me I am doing twin turbos because they are easiest on the engine internally and can be tuned to be more streetable until the money's down then quickly the wick can be turned up
1.6L Gamma-turbo from Hyundai, 195 lb-ft at under 1500 RPM in the Veloster Turbo and Kia Forte5 SX (2014)
2.0L FA20 DI Turbo from Subaru, 258 lb-ft at 2000 RPM in the 2014 North American Forester XT, 295 lb-ft in the Japanese Domestic Market Legacy model at the same RPM (drool).
1.4L Ecotec turbo from GM, 150 lb-ft at 1750 RPM in the Chevy Sonic and Cobalt.
What was that you were saying about more low end torque?
All of the above are torque plateaus and not peaks. The plateaus end north of 4000 RPM
MY STOCK no compression no cam no breathing iron slug heads 76 455 makes almost 500 lbs of torque and it's not a built or race engine by any means! It's nice to see them making 4cylinders that might get away from a stop sign with out being a traffic stopper, but real worth having engines make at least 400lbs of torque.
....think more about nature. Why r u buying American cars with engine like 5.4 or more?? You can have better quality cars for example from Japan, Korea, or Europe.... What do u think about Smart cars in the US??? I think that it wont be sold much in the us, because u r habituated on ur ****ty cars. Thanks to all Americans who are buying or have bought economical Asian/ European cars. Please think about polar bears. Their ground is breaking... However, ground is breaking not only for them...
I have a smartCar, and I like it fine, but it is definitely not for everybody. And I really couldn't care less about the bloody polar bears. sorry.
So what are we arguing about here anyway? Quarter Mile, Auto-X, Nurburgring times, style, mullet factor, penis size?
My main point was that during the 90s and early 2000s most American cars were garbage (specifically in terms of reliability and engineering) compared to Japanese cars of that era. While American car companies have stepped up their game significantly (Especially Ford) that gap in quality over that time period is what allowed Japanese cars to gain such a foothold in this country. I wouldn't say either is "better" at this point but I would definitely put that argument in favor of Japanese cars 10 years ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
