Your post I originally quoted stated the Genesis 2.0T was a better choice. My point was that with roughly the same horsepower (if the FT-86 stays true to the original concept horsepower of 200-210) and the Genesis being anywhere from 300-500 lbs heavier, I sincerely doubt that the 2.0T is quicker than the FT-86 will be.

As for tuning potential, I don't know if the Gen 2.0T is at the top of its tuning potential already -- I'm supposing you could add boost, but I'm not sure what a tune would for it. In any event, in general, given two similar motors -- which they really won't be that similar -- with similar HP one being turbo the other being NA, the turbo probably has an easier way to get a few extra HP by adding boost, but in general the NA motor has the higher potential for higher HP gains -- after all you could put a turbo on the FT-86.

i mean, peopel are RAVING about how cool the juke is just because its turbo'd. i'm pretty sure there are a lot of 370z guys that are like 'zomg turboz!' but, like its still 1.8t. it's not a fast car. people with our engine shouldn't be envious of that motor. Obviously the 3.7L NA in our car is going to trump the 1.8T in that car 10 times out of 10. However, all things being equal, if the desplacement is the same, the engine with FI is definitely going to be more potent, and with 1000 dollars of mods in the car it will definitely have an edge.

I don't think anyone sane is thinking to REPLACE a 370Z with a Juke. Just that it can be made a relatively quick, unique looking, and fun daily driver, for a pretty reasonable amount of money. The fact that it is turbo should mean it's potential compared to an N/A with the same HP/size should be higher.

exactly why i'm saying that i'd take a 2.0T genesis over the FT-86. Let's face it they are going to be similar in price.

I really don't understand why you think that given 2 engines both of the same displacement and HP, the one with the turbo is better? If the HP and torque curves are similar and they have the same torque and HP, their performance will be similar. Turbo doesn't give one an edge above and beyond the torque and HP it adds and if two engines are already the same with respect to those figures, turbo don't mean squat. In addition, the 2.0T is almost 3300 lbs. Much heavier than the worst case scenario for the FT

Also, tuning potential is independent of turbo vs. NA -- a turbo motor doesn't intrinsically have a better tuning potential -- the turbo may be already be at its highest reliable boost, the NA may be detuned for economy reasons. There are lots of factors involved. That said, the NA has the advantage all other things being equal since you can always turbo it and pop it past the other turbo motor in terms of HP and torque.

Turning up the boost aside, turbod cars stand to make much larger gains with simple bolt ons. Thats what Jeff is saying, that if you put $1000 into both the FT-86 and the Gen, the Gen would gain a significant advantage. Stock for stock you may be right that the performance would be very close.

You may be right, but I still think it depends on the engine you start with. From what I've read about the 2.0T people are not getting significant performance increases with simple bolt-ons. Based on HP to power, the 2.0T would have to add anywhere from 50 to 30 HP if the final weight figures for the FT end up being 2800 to 3000 lbs

I dont know of any factory car that is boosting near its maximum potential from the factory. And the argument that 'NA is better than turbo, because you can always turbo the NA car' is kind of an.... odd argument. It's kind of like saying 'i'd rather have a 4.2L v8 than a 5.0L v8 because i can always get a stroker kit and increase the displacement' If you turbo an NA car the right way, it isn't cheap.

and the weight thing is going to be pretty insignificant. so lets say best case scenario, you've got a 3000lb ft-86 and a 3300lb genesis 2.0t. Put a 150lb driver in one and a 250lb drive in the other, and then you've got 3250 and 3450 lbs. so with a drive you are talking about a 200lb difference between the cars. Throw lighter, smaller wheels on the heavier car with the lighter driver and it'll be faster.

yea, i mean if the power curves are the same, stock vs stock, then the two engines are making the same kind of power. There is a reason that an impreza wrx or sti costs way more than an impreza rs. They have similar or (i forget) maybe even the same displacement, yet the WRX is turbocharged and the RS is NA. The RS is slow as **** and you can't get any gains out of the car, and the STI can be a monster with some pretty simple modifications.

ok so we disagree, no harm done. in a year, when the 2.0t genesis is wiping the floor with the FT-86 (assuming it comes with a 2.0 NA i4) then we can see who was right :p

You know the saying 'there's no replacement for displacement.' The car with larger displacement is typically going to produce more power. You can get more power out of a smaller engine by turbocharging it. So it would stand to reason, that if two engines are the same size, the one that has forced induction is going to produce more power, regardless of how they are tuned from the factory. put 1k in each car, which i guarantee most people dont even bat an eye at (as far as car forum folks are concerned) and you will see the turbocharged engine make significantly more power.

@JeffBlue

"And the argument that 'NA is better than turbo, because you can always turbo the NA car' is kind of an.... odd argument. "

I don't think it's an odd argument. The main point is that if an engine has a maximum potential, the Turbo's car is already closer to that potential and if an NA and a Turbo engine are already producing the same power figures, then there is more room for improvement in the NA motor. Imagine two runners both putting in the same time for the 100 meters. One is taking a performance enhancing drug, the other not. The one not taking the drug has a higher potential since if he did take the drug, he would in fact perform better than the other.

"so lets say best case scenario, you've got a 3000lb ft-86 and a 3300lb genesis 2.0t. Put a 150lb driver in one and a 250lb drive in the other, and then you've got 3250 and 3450 lbs. so with a drive you are talking about a 200lb difference between the cars."

I'm hoping 3000lbs is the worst case scenario and not the best case. If it ends up being more than 3k, then, frankly, I don't want it. Also, I'm not sure why the genesis gets the 150lb driver and the FT gets the 250lb driver .. lol. Why not just compare with same driver. Rule of thumb is for each 100lbs you need to add around 10HP. So at 3k vs. 3.3K the genesis 2.0T would have to add 30HP to make the same numbers -- Remember, that the original proposed HP figures for the FT were between 200-210. Again, if it makes much less than that, I'm not interested.

"two engines are the same size, the one that has forced induction is going to produce more power"

Obviously not correct right -- HP is not merely a function of displacement. The HP numbers for the 2.0T are after the turbo not before it ... (that's obvious but I had to get it out there because you seem to be suggesting that the turbo on the 2.0T adds something beyond its stated 210HP)

"put 1k in each car, which i guarantee most people dont even bat an eye at (as far as car forum folks are concerned) and you will see the turbocharged engine make significantly more power. "

That is more or less the point under contention. It's an empirical question not one answered by reflecting on the principles of Turbo vs. NA. In my research -- and granted I haven't researched the 2.0T that much, people are not getting significant gains out of exhausts and other bolt-ons with that particular motor.

turbo vs na is dumb...
you both have valid points... but at the same time are both biased toward one or the other...
jeff is right in that a turbo car from the factory will be more or less better in that, it's engineered to be that way... you are right in that, you put a turbo on an NA car producing more power from the get go it will have more power, however, you are neglecting to mention that, a) reliabilty will not be the same, and b) your NA motor isn't built for boost so it may not hold the same potential without doing work on the motor itself. and by doing so, you are altering the original design, making your petty argument, moot..

now, just realize, this car probably won't live to its hype, and will need to be modified to play...

There's very little headroom in small displacement NA cars. Big v8's make a lot of gains with bolt ons as to turbocharged cars. Small displacement v6's make small to moderate gains, NA i4's make very little with simple modifications like bolt ons and tune. that's just the truth

http://bkmania.com/bbs/data/tuning/BK20_Turbo.jpg


That looks like some nice gains to me. Tune them both and you'll have more than enough of a power bump in the genesis to make up for the tentative weight difference between the two cars.

Same displacement motors NA vs Turbo

VG30DE:
222hp 195tq

VG30DETT:
300hp 283 tq

2jz-GE:
220hp 220tq

2jz-GTE:
321hp 333tq


Another good comparison is the KA vs Sr20

KA24DE (2.4L NA)
155hp, 160tq


SR 20DET (Single turbo 2.0L motor)
95 to 99 silvia 245hp 202tq

(notice the sr20DET making more power with LESS displacement, now imagine if it was an SR24det)

see above


There is a reason that when people get a 240sx, and want to make a lot of power, they swap to an SR20 from the KA motor. The sr20 is designed to take boost from the factory and is an all around better motor. Are there people out there with Turbo'd KA motors? yea, there are, but the obvious choice is the factory turbocharged motor.

Hey Jeff, what were the mods before and after for that dyno?

according to the site, an ECU tune.

Damn... I wish my UpRev tune net me +35 hp hahaha

it would make more than that if our car was 3.7L turbo rated at 332hp from the factory. but its 332 NA. perfect point why turbo cars have more tuning potential and why a lightly modded genesis will run circles around this FT-86

Jeff, obviously we are not communicating very well. The question is not whether two identical motors with the same displacement would be equal before and after turbo. Nobody claims that.

The point in contention is that given two motors both with the same HP and torque figures one being NA the other turbo, somehow -- magically -- the turbo'd engine is a better engine. My only claim is that is clearly not enough information.

Now there are some specific issues regarding the 2.0T which I would be willing to concede given evidence -- Can you spend under $1000 and get 30 to 50 more HP out of it? If not and if -- and these are big "ifs" I admit -- the FT weights in at 3k lbs or less (actually I probably wouldn't get it if it was much heavier than 2900lbs) and has more or less the concept HP -- around 200-210hp, then the 2.0T would be hard pressed to keep up given the 1K upgrade limit -- the FT would be faster out of the factory and the 2.0T would have to get a higher performance gain from the 1k than the FT would have to from its upgrades

Yea i think we are getting a little sidetracked. I guess my real point is that is if this car is supposed to be fast, its got to be really goddamn light. And we all know that isn't going to happen, so more than likely, it will just be slow. A lot of this super light weight hype is just because of the year we are in. case in point:

the z32 was often criticized as being a bloated fat pig of a car and strayed too far from the Z heritage by being SO big and heavy. This was in the 1990s. the Twin turbo 2 seater weight 3,373lb (per wikipedia)

come 2011, the 370z is praised for how light it is, weighing in at 3,232 lbs (Base). is 140lbs off what was criticized as a heavy fat pig of a car really that earth shattering? no, its because in 2011 we have so much extra safety equipment and regulations that what would have previously be considered a heavy car, is now considered a light car. So when it comes down to power to weight figures, these cars that are considered 'light', don't turn out to be that fast because they are actually quite heavy by 'light sports car' standards.

@ Jeff

I think we can agree to agree here. That's what was so appealing about the FT concept. It is supposed to be a return to a light modestly powered sports coupe. If it can realize some decent portion of that vision in production, I think it will be a good car.

As I said, I probably wouldn't seriously consider it if it were much over 2900lbs and didn't have at least 200HP. Given that I am looking for a replacement for my DD and not my Z, those figures would be substantially better than my current DD. My Mazda 3 is a peppy little car at 157hp with 2960 lbs -- not fast, but not Versa slow. Still, it is fun to drive and I can image a car about the same weight with 50 or so more HP being even more fun -- especially if it is in a sporty coupe body ...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zvlWGN3VSp...-FT-86-131.jpg

...Oh?

Stupid ricer wings (yes I'm talking about the Celica too!).

ಠ_ಠ

That's a Supra.

Yeah, that's what I meant, whatever.

supra =/= celica... atleast not that gen LOL

How can you mistaken a Supra for a Celica?

This is pretty awesome. I want one :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmUK...layer_embedded

Some video footage!

Liking the TRD/Sti kit.

Can somebody explain to me the rationale in branding this car as Scion? I and I bet many others are immediately turned off because of the image Scion has come to portray. I mean yes, ultimately it comes down to how the car performs but I feel like Toyota is immediately cutting down the market size by doing so. In my opinion, branding it as Toyota wouldn't have the reverse effect of cutting out young drivers as long as it remained affordable. Apologize if this was addressed earlier in the thread.

to much reefer? :bowrofl:

wait... are there going to be three versions? Toyota, Scion and Suburu?

The supra wasn't a separate model until the third gen.

Yeah I get that they are based off the same chassis, but I was referring to that guy's comment about "ricer wing on the celica" when clearly in the picture it's a Supra. :/

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zvlWGN3VSp...-FT-86-131.jpg

:rofl2: you guys don't quit, do you? All your ragging on me still doesn't stop that wing from being lame (and unnecessary) as hell.

it's necesary son! this **** is gonna do 12.5 in qtr mile STOCK...

The wing on the Supra is the stock wing, and if Im not mistaken the only one that generation ever came available with. It may be unnecessarily large but its not like some ricer slapped it on. The wing on the FT looks like a cross between that and the new Subaru wing.

And I thought there are only going to be 2 versions of the FT, a Scion and a Subaru. It will not be badged as a Toyota.

It's not lame if you live your life a 1/4 mile at a time. .....shaves head :mad:

It's that big so it doesn't obstruct the rear view.

It's part of their add campaign, scions are selling like crazy, so they're trying to infuse that market with a 'sportier' rear wheel drive car to offset the tC and xD. To fight the Genesis really... To badge it as a Toyota might have hindered it's selling due to the fact they can't do the same price range as they can with a Scion due to Scions really all being < $20k. As a Toyota they wouldn't be able to market it like that. Plus with everyone hating on Toyota it would have drawn unnecessary negative attention with the recall 2 years ago..

No, the original car was the FT-86, branded as a Toyota. And there was going to be a Subaru version still yet named/depicted/unveiled. The FT-86 has since been rebranded as a Scion under the name FR-S. So as it stands right now, expect 2 versions unless Toyota still keeps a few frames for their own brand...

You have to live it 1/4 mile at a time cause you're always importing parts from Japan... ...if you have to.