RE: Another Subaru BRZ update!
Discussion
TartanPaint said:
Agreed, which is why I carefully said power, torque or mapping. I don't think it needs much more power, as such. 200bhp is fine for a headline figure. Many cars have much less power, and yet delivery it in a far less frustrating, sometimes even entertaining way. Anyway, it's been done to death. I just wanted to make it clear it's not just about the 200bhp figure.
A new set of cams, or some porting or airflow work, certainly some remapping (I know there have been a few tweaks to this over the years), maybe a lightened flywheel to make it feel more revvy?... who knows what the answer is... but I can't believe they haven't found it yet!
The biggest drawback of the engine I found was not the headline power figures, but the way it was delivered, with a big torque dip right around 3.5-5K RPM, meaning the car felt flat when accelerating through the midrange. Cause seems to be the restrictive stock exhaust manifold, which includes a cat. I had new exhaust manifold (Ace CS400) fitted, along with a higher flow CAT, and a remap by a competent tuner.A new set of cams, or some porting or airflow work, certainly some remapping (I know there have been a few tweaks to this over the years), maybe a lightened flywheel to make it feel more revvy?... who knows what the answer is... but I can't believe they haven't found it yet!
The result is a car which is still not massively powerful (roughly 10% increase on peak power figures), but the removal of the torque dip makes the engine much more flexible, as well as sounding better when revved out. It means the car retains it's character, of having a modest power output that can be worked to get the most out of it, without the frustrating lull which makes the car feel very under powered in the mid range.
The below is the before/after dyno graph...you can see that big hole and how the manifold and remap fixed it. I guess the reason they don't do something similar with the stock car must be emissions related, although mine still passed it's MOT tests fine.
Conscript said:
The biggest drawback of the engine I found was not the headline power figures, but the way it was delivered, with a big torque dip right around 3.5-5K RPM, meaning the car felt flat when accelerating through the midrange. Cause seems to be the restrictive stock exhaust manifold, which includes a cat. I had new exhaust manifold (Ace CS400) fitted, along with a higher flow CAT, and a remap by a competent tuner.
The result is a car which is still not massively powerful (roughly 10% increase on peak power figures), but the removal of the torque dip makes the engine much more flexible, as well as sounding better when revved out. It means the car retains it's character, of having a modest power output that can be worked to get the most out of it, without the frustrating lull which makes the car feel very under powered in the mid range.
The below is the before/after dyno graph...you can see that big hole and how the manifold and remap fixed it. I guess the reason they don't do something similar with the stock car must be emissions related, although mine still passed it's MOT tests fine.
thanks, as someone considering buying this is very informativeThe result is a car which is still not massively powerful (roughly 10% increase on peak power figures), but the removal of the torque dip makes the engine much more flexible, as well as sounding better when revved out. It means the car retains it's character, of having a modest power output that can be worked to get the most out of it, without the frustrating lull which makes the car feel very under powered in the mid range.
The below is the before/after dyno graph...you can see that big hole and how the manifold and remap fixed it. I guess the reason they don't do something similar with the stock car must be emissions related, although mine still passed it's MOT tests fine.
Chestrockwell said:
Surely anybody in the market for one of these should just save the money and buy S2000?
I haven’t driven either but judging by the comments on this car, surely the Honda s a much cheaper, quicker just as reliable alternative bar the rear seats?
The rear seats/space for things is not a small thing to be dismissed. Neither is having a solid roof for longer trips/multi use of the car.I haven’t driven either but judging by the comments on this car, surely the Honda s a much cheaper, quicker just as reliable alternative bar the rear seats?
Munter said:
Chestrockwell said:
Surely anybody in the market for one of these should just save the money and buy S2000?
I haven’t driven either but judging by the comments on this car, surely the Honda s a much cheaper, quicker just as reliable alternative bar the rear seats?
The rear seats/space for things is not a small thing to be dismissed. Neither is having a solid roof for longer trips/multi use of the car.I haven’t driven either but judging by the comments on this car, surely the Honda s a much cheaper, quicker just as reliable alternative bar the rear seats?
Conscript said:
The biggest drawback of the engine I found was not the headline power figures, but the way it was delivered, with a big torque dip right around 3.5-5K RPM, meaning the car felt flat when accelerating through the midrange. Cause seems to be the restrictive stock exhaust manifold, which includes a cat. I had new exhaust manifold (Ace CS400) fitted, along with a higher flow CAT, and a remap by a competent tuner.
The result is a car which is still not massively powerful (roughly 10% increase on peak power figures), but the removal of the torque dip makes the engine much more flexible, as well as sounding better when revved out. It means the car retains it's character, of having a modest power output that can be worked to get the most out of it, without the frustrating lull which makes the car feel very under powered in the mid range.
The below is the before/after dyno graph...you can see that big hole and how the manifold and remap fixed it. I guess the reason they don't do something similar with the stock car must be emissions related, although mine still passed it's MOT tests fine.
How much did this work cost?The result is a car which is still not massively powerful (roughly 10% increase on peak power figures), but the removal of the torque dip makes the engine much more flexible, as well as sounding better when revved out. It means the car retains it's character, of having a modest power output that can be worked to get the most out of it, without the frustrating lull which makes the car feel very under powered in the mid range.
The below is the before/after dyno graph...you can see that big hole and how the manifold and remap fixed it. I guess the reason they don't do something similar with the stock car must be emissions related, although mine still passed it's MOT tests fine.
Robmarriott said:
Munter said:
Chestrockwell said:
Surely anybody in the market for one of these should just save the money and buy S2000?
I haven’t driven either but judging by the comments on this car, surely the Honda s a much cheaper, quicker just as reliable alternative bar the rear seats?
The rear seats/space for things is not a small thing to be dismissed. Neither is having a solid roof for longer trips/multi use of the car.I haven’t driven either but judging by the comments on this car, surely the Honda s a much cheaper, quicker just as reliable alternative bar the rear seats?
ToothbrushMan said:
i think right from day 1 all real driving enthusiasts wanted to see was a 2 litre turbo from the impreza dropped in. Subaru just dont seem to want to go there and I know the drive is probably more predictable without turbo power but all the same.....if they sell they sell.
No, not at all, why do you want a turbo? Decent throttle response and delicate balance is much more desirable.Robmarriott said:
Conscript said:
The biggest drawback of the engine I found was not the headline power figures, but the way it was delivered, with a big torque dip right around 3.5-5K RPM, meaning the car felt flat when accelerating through the midrange. Cause seems to be the restrictive stock exhaust manifold, which includes a cat. I had new exhaust manifold (Ace CS400) fitted, along with a higher flow CAT, and a remap by a competent tuner.
The result is a car which is still not massively powerful (roughly 10% increase on peak power figures), but the removal of the torque dip makes the engine much more flexible, as well as sounding better when revved out. It means the car retains it's character, of having a modest power output that can be worked to get the most out of it, without the frustrating lull which makes the car feel very under powered in the mid range.
The below is the before/after dyno graph...you can see that big hole and how the manifold and remap fixed it. I guess the reason they don't do something similar with the stock car must be emissions related, although mine still passed it's MOT tests fine.
How much did this work cost?The result is a car which is still not massively powerful (roughly 10% increase on peak power figures), but the removal of the torque dip makes the engine much more flexible, as well as sounding better when revved out. It means the car retains it's character, of having a modest power output that can be worked to get the most out of it, without the frustrating lull which makes the car feel very under powered in the mid range.
The below is the before/after dyno graph...you can see that big hole and how the manifold and remap fixed it. I guess the reason they don't do something similar with the stock car must be emissions related, although mine still passed it's MOT tests fine.
There are other similar options available; Tuning Developments in Warrington do similar packages of new manifolds (both unequal and equal length options), cats and remaps for I think about £1500, which are very popular amongst owners, so I read.
Edited by Conscript on Thursday 13th September 16:47
Conscript said:
About £2K, and that included a ~30% discount on the parts, as I bought the manifold second hand off another GT86 owner. The Ace manifolds are very expensive when new, especially as they are imported from the US, but they are excellent quality and apparently yield the best results. The work was carried out at Abbey Motorsport. It's quite pricey, but I rationalised it because that torque dip was really my only problem with the car, and I honestly cant think of much I want to replace it with - so I decided to modify it. Should I decide to sell, I have the original parts so I can return the car to stock and sell on the manifold to make some return, but to be honest, I intend to keep the car for a while yet
There are other similar options available; Tuning Developments in Warrington do similar packages of new manifolds (both unequal and equal length options), cats and remaps for I think about £1500, which are very popular amongst owners, so I read.
Did you not consider any of the Cosworth tuning options at all and if not, why not?There are other similar options available; Tuning Developments in Warrington do similar packages of new manifolds (both unequal and equal length options), cats and remaps for I think about £1500, which are very popular amongst owners, so I read.
Edited by Conscript on Thursday 13th September 16:47
Guvernator said:
Conscript said:
About £2K, and that included a ~30% discount on the parts, as I bought the manifold second hand off another GT86 owner. The Ace manifolds are very expensive when new, especially as they are imported from the US, but they are excellent quality and apparently yield the best results. The work was carried out at Abbey Motorsport. It's quite pricey, but I rationalised it because that torque dip was really my only problem with the car, and I honestly cant think of much I want to replace it with - so I decided to modify it. Should I decide to sell, I have the original parts so I can return the car to stock and sell on the manifold to make some return, but to be honest, I intend to keep the car for a while yet
There are other similar options available; Tuning Developments in Warrington do similar packages of new manifolds (both unequal and equal length options), cats and remaps for I think about £1500, which are very popular amongst owners, so I read.
Did you not consider any of the Cosworth tuning options at all and if not, why not?There are other similar options available; Tuning Developments in Warrington do similar packages of new manifolds (both unequal and equal length options), cats and remaps for I think about £1500, which are very popular amongst owners, so I read.
Edited by Conscript on Thursday 13th September 16:47
Also, at the time, the car was a daily driver, and much as many will scoff, I was considering the ongoing costs - a supercharged car will be more costly to run, whereas with just the manifold and tuning, I haven't lost any any efficiency.
Chestrockwell said:
Surely anybody in the market for one of these should just save the money and buy S2000?
I haven’t driven either but judging by the comments on this car, surely the Honda s a much cheaper, quicker just as reliable alternative bar the rear seats?
Having owned both (roof and rear seats aside) the gt86 handling is far better than an s2000. You get much more feedback and it's easier to drive hard as a result. On track I could lap the same sort of times with less power in the gt86. They are just as fun as mx5s to drive and we all know how fun they are, shame for me they didn't make it a tiny bit longer so rear seats were more useful (like rx8 for example). I haven’t driven either but judging by the comments on this car, surely the Honda s a much cheaper, quicker just as reliable alternative bar the rear seats?
Fire99 said:
Strewth, the blue torque curve is horrible!! Glad you got that mess sorted out.
Makes you realise why the GT86 gets such a kicking for feeling slow and not like it has 200bhp. That midrange lull wasn't too noticeable once you got up past 5k RPM, but day to day it could be quite frustrating at times. It now has a much more linear powerband, even if its still not what you'd call "powerful". Sounds a bit nicer as well. Conscript said:
Fire99 said:
Strewth, the blue torque curve is horrible!! Glad you got that mess sorted out.
Makes you realise why the GT86 gets such a kicking for feeling slow and not like it has 200bhp. That midrange lull wasn't too noticeable once you got up past 5k RPM, but day to day it could be quite frustrating at times. It now has a much more linear powerband, even if its still not what you'd call "powerful". Sounds a bit nicer as well. Surely we as petrolheads should be happy that Subaru are persevering with sales in the UK/Europe as the moment this disappears then it's one less RWD COUPE in an already tiny marketplace.
I don't think I'm alone in monitoring GT86/BRZ prices from pretty much day one, even watching prices in Japan to as I am quite the fan of these. Whilst the engine is not my preferred option it's not a complete lemon and there are plenty of options available for those who crave more power.
A K24/K20 hybrid engine with close to 300hp N/A would be outstanding
I don't think I'm alone in monitoring GT86/BRZ prices from pretty much day one, even watching prices in Japan to as I am quite the fan of these. Whilst the engine is not my preferred option it's not a complete lemon and there are plenty of options available for those who crave more power.
Munter said:
Meh the engines fine in mine.
(Says man fantasising about taking the engine out of his Civic Type-R and putting it into the GT86...oh yeah...same power, more lovelyness...ahh dreams.)
A CTR engine is an interesting idea, I assume you mean a K20 N/A lump or do you mean the current Turbo'd one? (Says man fantasising about taking the engine out of his Civic Type-R and putting it into the GT86...oh yeah...same power, more lovelyness...ahh dreams.)
A K24/K20 hybrid engine with close to 300hp N/A would be outstanding
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff