Advancement amuses me - Initial D edition

"themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles" (themanwithsauce) 02/23/2014 at 02:07 • Filed to: None

0

18

In season 2 of initial D, everyone busts a nut over the AE86 star car having a 1.6L racing engine that makes 240hp in race trim but was DETUNED for the street. It amuses me that 1.6L turbo motors are simply "hot economy hatch" motors today. Where they make 200hp normally and 220+ with a simple engine tune. So basically the Fiesta ST has a motor roughly as capable as the racing series specific engine in the AE86 that stars in the show. Technology is a wonderful thing.

HammerheadFistpunch > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 02:14

1

To be fair, it was pretty easy to get 240 hp from 1600 cc with a turbo back then too. 240 na hp....thats still impressive

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 02:22

0

Okay, but there's quite a difference when you're talking about 150hp/l performance in a N/A and a forced induction engine. It's phenomenal in a N/A motor that is good for street use, and it's sort of okay-ish in a turbocharged one, regardless of the year it was made in.

Boxer_4 > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 02:23

0

I'm reminded of an exchange between Itsuki and Kenji in episode 6 of the first stage. It was in regards to the Blue Top 4A-GEU, but holds true for the 4A-GE Group A 20V:

"It sounds great!" - Itsuki

"It's the best!" "A turbo can never sound like that!" - Kenji

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > HammerheadFistpunch 02/23/2014 at 02:27

0

Ummm....no it wasn't simply because 1.6L street motors didn;t exist for tuners. In the early 2000s, the SR20 was the turbo standard and the VTEC 1.X motors were the NA kings. But even then, the 1.6L ecoboost from Ford stomps the VTECs as well as some stock SR20 tunes.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 02/23/2014 at 02:29

0

Well they say the motor was detuned for street use. I don't remember if they say how much, but I would assume it was reduced to around 200 for street use to make sure it could keep cool in low speed situations. For a modern equivalent, the renault clio cup uses a 2.0L NA motor that does almost 200hp in pure street form. With a bit of work, 220 or more is possible. So I think mypoint stands, with just a few years' development we now have 1.6L notors that are great on gas and have power/torque figures that could power some pretty strong street demons.

feather-throttle-not-hair > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 02:35

0

As others have noted, i think the big deal was that it was N/A.

I had a stock Cecelia from the late 80's that made nearly 100 hp/L. I think the 1.6 Turbo from the 323 GTX is probably capable of about 200 hp without a whole ton of work and that also came out in the late 80's.

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 02:47

0

I still can't see how the two could compare.

Yes, engines are getting better in general - not just turbo, naturally aspirated engines, too - but they are simply just not the same ball game.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > feather-throttle-not-hair 02/23/2014 at 02:48

0

It's not just that it is NA. It's that the "racing motor" which is specifically designed with peak performance in mind and very little towards long term reliability and fuel economy is not that much better than 1.6L engines that are specifically meant to balance performance and economy today. I understand that 10 years ago, that was cutting edge tech. Now? It is a bit old. But that is expected. This post was more or less amusement over how a production, basic engine (the lowest "performance" engine on Ford's totem pole) is pushing out similar if not greater numbers than this hallowed "racing" engine.

Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 02:53

0

Also, turbo engines have great mileage - in fact, much better than their N/A counterparts - as long as you're keeping egg shells under the accelerator. When beeing lead-footed, the table is pretty much turned.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 02/23/2014 at 03:16

0

I do. The NA motor is going to be very high strung and peaky for any use - street or track. That's the nature of a NA racing motor. But the peak performance it gives, even in a "race" tune, isn't that much better than a stock turbo 1.6L motor. If I recall, the 240 HP output was a crank output, not a bhp output. So the 1.6L turbo motors in the subcompact hot hatches that have dynped at over 200hp at the wheels? They may be just as powerful ,if not moreso, than a race-prepped 1.6L NA motor.

Again - not at all saying that's bad, just saying the progression and advancement of the industry amuses me.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Gabor Vajda (@Gabor_V) 02/23/2014 at 03:17

0

But for a car you drive at 2/10ths daily, which are you more likely to use? You can't possibly go 10/10th your entire drive into work without a horrible accident happening. So guess what? The turbo motos would have the same or better top end performance whilebeing more efficient and easier to use at the lower end.

jayemwhy > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 03:41

0

Don't forget the race motor revs up to 13k and probably has near instant throttle response.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > jayemwhy 02/23/2014 at 03:58

0

You're right - the turbo 1.6L produces similar power at half the revs and certainly has more torque.

6cyl > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 05:28

0

Sorry but comparing NA and boosted motors on power is apples and oranges. Getting 240hp NA from 1.6l is quite a difficult task. You need to get very light weight internals (crank shaft, connecting rods, flywheel, pistons) that are carefully balanced so that it can take high rpm speed without damaging itself. You need a carefully tuned intake and exhaust with extensive head work and a massive cam. And probably a standalone ECU.

With a turbo motor all you need is strong enough connecting rods to handle 240hp, boost and a tune.

6cyl > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 05:41

0

Umm VW had a 1.6l in the Rabbit in the late 70's-early 80's and there was a VW tuner scene for ages even before that. Also Calloway was boosting 1.8L VW rabbit motors to 200hp back in the early 80's.

Dirty Harry Callahan > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 07:48

0

Horsepower Measurement

You know that means that 240 HP figure would be greater as BHP?

Fuel_of_Satan > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 10:13

0

Technology has come a long way, but this particular example is comparing apples and watermelons.

feather-throttle-not-hair > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/23/2014 at 13:59

1

Well, i do think you have a point: Modern engines are amazing.

I agree with you on that point. They really are.

However if the logic you're using to illustrate the point is that "specific output (hp/L) is now to the point where modern economy car engines match the racecar engines of old," i'd say you're looking at a poor set of examples, simply because you're ignoring the effects of forced induction.

Yes 200hp from a 1.6L seems pedestrian now. But as someone who was around in the 80's i can tell you with absolutely certainty that it was far from crazy back then as well as long as we're talking about an engine with forced induction.

For instance in roadgoing trim the Ford RS200 made 250 hp from a 1.8L 4-cylinder when it was introduced in 1984. In race trim, the same engine made 450hp. Hell, later rallycross versions of the car were powered by a 2.1L engine making over 800hp. Back in 1991.

And yet, i'm sure none of the people involved in pushing 800 hp from a 2.1L in the early 90's would've been anything but impressed if confronted with Takumi's engine. They'd recognize that 200 plus horsepower from a 1.6L naturally aspirated engine is quite a feat. As it remains today. In other words, Takumi's engine, were it real, would still be really damn impressive right now.