New RWD Subaru Sports Coupe (FT-86 equivalent) Coming in March!

[ArkySS]

Can't imagine Subaru having much success with this thing without AWD so I bet you guys are right when they go STI on it.

[Apex Motorsports]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

This is what I have heard. There are rumors that this will have an sti trim level with awd and a turbo 2.5. . .

300+hp in a light weight low center of gravity chassis with AWD will make for a lot of fun.

[PeeBee]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I see two problems with that explanation. Anyone that I've talked to what likes a high hp/L has been living in either the US or Canada. Last time I checked, neither country has a displacement tax. Second, regardless of why a manufacturer does it, its not a positive attribute and if anything, its a negative. More power is good. More torque is good. But high hp/L ... so what? I'd much rather have an LS7 than the 4.3L from the F430 Scuderia. The proponents of hp/L would have you believe that the Ferrari engine is superior, since it makes more than 50% more hp/L. But in just about any measurable way its inferior to the big pushrod mill of the Z06: it makes less torque, burns more fuel, and costs more (and presumably, weighs more and is bigger overall though I can't find much info on that stuff)

Oh my... I think you should keep in mind that most countries ooutside of America DO have displacement taxes. I live in Belgium, and the magic "border" is indeed around 2 liter, everything above there, they tax you for the extra displacement you have, or if the hp is too high, on the hp.

To give you an idea: somewhere in some dark ministery some people decided we would all be better of if we would drive small displacement, high output engines.

I drive a 2.7 TVD6 Range Sport as daily driver. Compared to someone driving a < 2 liter diesel, I pay about 800 EUR a year "volumetric tax". Which in itself is a joke as they base the tax on the hp the car has (190 "official" hp is way too high for those same people, so they decide I should pay taxes for a 3 liter diesel instead of a 2.7, based on the hp).

You can see this also reflected in the company cars that are offered over here. Few years ago, when I wasn't running my own company yet, I had as a "standard car" the choice between the "big" 3 Germans (Merc, Audi, BMW), all of them were around 2 liters, with a few exceptions where I was allowed a 3 liter diesel (330d and X5).

If I look now at the customer I'm working for, the people there get offered a 1.3 or 1.4 diesel as company car, and they have to pay a contribution about the same as I did about 7 years ago.

Coming back to your example, LS7 vs 4.3: both would cost you 5k EUR "inscription tax" in Belgium, yearly tax would be about 1900 for the LS7, 1400 for the 4.3. So yes, I can see the reason why people want low displacement, high hp engines: to avoid some taxes, and still have some fun while driving.

[shevyman]

i have been waiting for the ft-86 from totyota. it will be cheaper and just about the same as the subaru. but i liked the camaro and jumped on board.

but will say if things stay the way they are now with me not having my car, well once i get it the ft-86 will be out and i will just trade a brand new camaro with like 2000miles in for the toyota.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by PeeBee

Oh my... I think you should keep in mind that most countries ooutside of America DO have displacement taxes. I live in Belgium, and the magic "border" is indeed around 2 liter, everything above there, they tax you for the extra displacement you have, or if the hp is too high, on the hp.

To give you an idea: somewhere in some dark ministery some people decided we would all be better of if we would drive small displacement, high output engines.

I drive a 2.7 TVD6 Range Sport as daily driver. Compared to someone driving a < 2 liter diesel, I pay about 800 EUR a year "volumetric tax". Which in itself is a joke as they base the tax on the hp the car has (190 "official" hp is way too high for those same people, so they decide I should pay taxes for a 3 liter diesel instead of a 2.7, based on the hp).

You can see this also reflected in the company cars that are offered over here. Few years ago, when I wasn't running my own company yet, I had as a "standard car" the choice between the "big" 3 Germans (Merc, Audi, BMW), all of them were around 2 liters, with a few exceptions where I was allowed a 3 liter diesel (330d and X5).

If I look now at the customer I'm working for, the people there get offered a 1.3 or 1.4 diesel as company car, and they have to pay a contribution about the same as I did about 7 years ago.

Coming back to your example, LS7 vs 4.3: both would cost you 5k EUR "inscription tax" in Belgium, yearly tax would be about 1900 for the LS7, 1400 for the 4.3. So yes, I can see the reason why people want low displacement, high hp engines: to avoid some taxes, and still have some fun while driving.

That's great and all, but I too see no relevance of HP/L in performance (which is really what DG is referring to).

[Russo]

Originally Posted by a_Username

That's great and all, but I too see no relevance of HP/L in performance (which is really what DG is referring to).

for example, in rally there are 2.0 liter displacement requirements to compete... i dont think Mitsu is gonna make two different engines for the same rally car..

having a high hp/liter shows efficiency, its why you see Ford finally going to mass produce dohc 4v engines because its more efficient than a sohc 2-3v engine and has potentially greater top end power... there is a larger market when it comes to small engine performance numbers because those engines tend to be more affordable than larger displacement engines....

you dont think the v6 Camaro would be as popular if they had the old 3800 series engine in it do you?

[LOWDOWN]

Chev was very proud of their "1st to do it in a production car" 1 hp/cu" 283/283 in '57...and their 1.15 hp/cu" 327/375 followed in the '60s. Neither was a torque monster compared to then-era Cad/Olds/Buick engines, but in lighter cars they ruled the streets...

Think "home markets" for imports and, as explained, smaller efficient engines in smaller lighter packages are simply historic responses to what Chev has already done and will be doing...which is what Ferrari's entire existance is predicated on.

"Efficency"...with CAFE 2016 looming, expect more from less...

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Russo

for example, in rally there are 2.0 liter displacement requirements to compete... i dont think Mitsu is gonna make two different engines for the same rally car..

having a high hp/liter shows efficiency, its why you see Ford finally going to mass produce dohc 4v engines because its more efficient than a sohc 2-3v engine and has potentially greater top end power... there is a larger market when it comes to small engine performance numbers because those engines tend to be more affordable than larger displacement engines....

you dont think the v6 Camaro would be as popular if they had the old 3800 series engine in it do you?

Again, that's great and all, but I would simply call it a different route to achieve a certain level of performance that reflects its own limitations. However, I have not seen anyone argue how this has any relevance to performance. All other things being the same, there would be no difference in performance between two cars with one having a 2.0L engine producing 426 and another having a 6.2L producing 426.

[Russo]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Again, that's great and all, but I would simply call it a different route to achieve a certain level of performance that reflects its own limitations. However, I have not seen anyone argue how this has any relevance to performance. All other things being the same, there would be no difference in performance between two cars with one having a 2.0L engine producing 426 and another having a 6.2L producing 426.

sure there would be! engine weight, torque, and stress level (longitivity)... some people prefer sushi to hamburgers... both are great foods, neither could you sustain life on 3 times a day, 7 days a week, etc..

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Russo

sure there would be! engine weight, torque, and stress level (longitivity)... some people prefer sushi to hamburgers... both are great foods, neither could you sustain life on 3 times a day, 7 days a week, etc..

Unequal torque is pretty much unavoidable in this case yes, but I was thinking more along the lines of total car weight. Stress is an aspect that isn't that important anymore; there are S2000s running 700rwhp on supposedly stock blocks. Regardless, HP/L is still a worthless statistic for performance.

[Russo]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Unequal torque is pretty much unavoidable in this case yes, but I was thinking more along the lines of total car weight. Stress is an aspect that isn't that important anymore; there are S2000s running 700rwhp on supposedly stock blocks.

for how many seconds? 8-9 through the 1/4 mile?

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Russo

for how many seconds? 8-9 through the 1/4 mile?

The one I was thinking is supposedly daily driven.

[Russo]

so what youre saying is that it's more exciting to hear about a 700hp 2.0-2.2 s2k than a 700hp LS3... because its not every day that a s2k is making that kind of power? but in a Camaro its expected?

i know a couple 800+ hp Evos in Florida, but they arent daily driven... way too much money involved to risk blowing it up or wrecking..

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Russo

so what youre saying is that it's more exciting to hear about a 700hp 2.0-2.2 s2k than a 700hp LS3... because its not every day that a s2k is making that kind of power? but in a Camaro its expected?

i know a couple 800+ hp Evos in Florida, but they arent daily driven... way too much money involved to risk blowing it up or wrecking..

Lol wut? What I was saying is that "longevity" isn't such an issue anymore, and to support this I just gave an example.