[HypoxicWaiter]

Reminds me of the civic..not a bad thing?

[ntg44]

Originally Posted by RM7

Depends? Is it because it's a tiny turbo that spins up fast that would run out of breath if you turned up the PSI? I've ran into that situation before...

Exactly. Many people don't understand that usually the tradeoff for a turbo with a flat torque curve across nearly the entire RPM range is that it has no top end when boost is cranked up. Whatever top end there is, is optimized for and makes sense for the stock power level/psi. And after a tune, you end up getting a bunch of midrange which makes the car quicker in 1 gear but in reality is not much quicker than a stock tune car on a highway pull. Short shifting does not remedy this either because your gearing is not as optimized.

The one thing the new WRX has going for it though is that the redline is so low, it may actually work in the car's favor in terms of a pleasing torque and power curve after a tune. Even if the peak HP ends up in the low 5000s RPM, it'll still probably be high enough for the car not to feel significantly slower at a 6000 RPM redline. I still wish they spaced the gearing better though. The 09-14 WRX gearing was perfect for its engine, that's why it was so darn quick stock. Yeah it had no balls below 3500, but the top end was great. Such a quick car for the ~$23k I paid for mine way back when.

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by ntg44

Exactly. Many people don't understand that usually the tradeoff for a turbo with a flat torque curve across nearly the entire RPM range is that it has no top end when boost is cranked up. Whatever top end there is, is optimized for and makes sense for the stock power level/psi. And after a tune, you end up getting a bunch of midrange which makes the car quicker in 1 gear but in reality is not much quicker than a stock tune car on a highway pull. Short shifting does not remedy this either because your gearing is not as optimized.

The one thing the new WRX has going for it though is that the redline is so low, it may actually work in the car's favor in terms of a pleasing torque and power curve after a tune. Even if the peak HP ends up in the low 5000s RPM, it'll still probably be high enough for the car not to feel significantly slower at a 6000 RPM redline. I still wish they spaced the gearing better though. The 09-14 WRX gearing was perfect for its engine, that's why it was so darn quick stock. Yeah it had no balls below 3500, but the top end was great. Such a quick car for the ~$23k I paid for mine way back when.

Mitsu was able to make a responsive turbo 4 back in 2006 with the last and best iteration of the 4G63 in the EVO 9 MR
gearing was on point, low end was good, mid range was better and with a tune and some bolt ons and a bit of boost, top end was great
that was 15 yrs ago

[damnitBobby]

I actually don't mind design and the bigger displacement engine is nice. The foolish person commenting about only +4 from a bigger motor must not know of engine power/torque curves.

[ntg44]

Originally Posted by damnitBobby

I actually don't mind design and the bigger displacement engine is nice. The foolish person commenting about only +4 from a bigger motor must not know of engine power/torque curves.

Normally that would be foolish, but according to Subaru's own posted numbers, the peak torque range and peak HP RPM are exactly the same between the previous 2.0 and new 2.4: 258 lb ft from 2000-5200 and peak hp at 5600 (268 in 2.0 and 271 in the 2.4). So essentially nothing gained where it matters. If the HP peak is 5600, the best we can hope for is a flat HP power curve to redline, which still means descending torque.

The bigger difference is that the 2.0 revs to 6700 RPM while the 2.4 revs to 6000 or 6100 (reviews have had conflicting statements). Considering the large torque dip after 5500 in the 2.0, it's likely that Subaru saw no point in raising the rev limiter in the 2.4 because it made much less up there too. According to Engineering Explained's video, the extra displacement came from boring out the cylinders, not a longer stroke, so the rev limiter could have been the same or close to the 2.0. But the fact that it isn't tells me everything I need to know. The turbo is probably sized for the same RPM range as the 2.0, so it would make no sense increasing the revs because it's probably the same result.

Unless this new 2.4L has meaningfully more HP from 5600-6100 RPM than the 2.0L, and it very well could, it's not going to be that much quicker. And the close gearing certainly isn't doing the lower redline any favors.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by ntg44

Normally that would be foolish, but according to Subaru's own posted numbers, the peak torque range and peak HP RPM are exactly the same between the previous 2.0 and new 2.4: 258 lb ft from 2000-5200 and peak hp at 5600 (268 in 2.0 and 271 in the 2.4). So essentially nothing gained where it matters. If the HP peak is 5600, the best we can hope for is a flat HP power curve to redline, which still means descending torque.

The bigger difference is that the 2.0 revs to 6700 RPM while the 2.4 revs to 6000 or 6100 (reviews have had conflicting statements). Considering the large torque dip after 5500 in the 2.0, it's likely that Subaru saw no point in raising the rev limiter in the 2.4 because it made much less up there too. According to Engineering Explained's video, the extra displacement came from boring out the cylinders, not a longer stroke, so the rev limiter could have been the same or close to the 2.0. But the fact that it isn't tells me everything I need to know. The turbo is probably sized for the same RPM range as the 2.0, so it would make no sense increasing the revs because it's probably the same result.

Unless this new 2.4L has meaningfully more HP from 5600-6100 RPM than the 2.0L, and it very well could, it's not going to be that much quicker. And the close gearing certainly isn't doing the lower redline any favors.

Kia/Genesis went from a ~250hp turbo 2.0 to a 2.5 with 300hp/311tq with a good torque range. Subaru may have trouble going to higher HP numbers without giant lag, because they are routing 1/2 the exhaust all the way around the engine, a larger turbo will do it, but will be harder to spin up and push the torque range further up the RPM range. I wonder if this is significantly related to the exhaust/turbo location.

[x622]

Originally Posted by ntg44

Normally that would be foolish, but according to Subaru's own posted numbers, the peak torque range and peak HP RPM are exactly the same between the previous 2.0 and new 2.4: 258 lb ft from 2000-5200 and peak hp at 5600 (268 in 2.0 and 271 in the 2.4). So essentially nothing gained where it matters. If the HP peak is 5600, the best we can hope for is a flat HP power curve to redline, which still means descending torque.

The bigger difference is that the 2.0 revs to 6700 RPM while the 2.4 revs to 6000 or 6100 (reviews have had conflicting statements). Considering the large torque dip after 5500 in the 2.0, it's likely that Subaru saw no point in raising the rev limiter in the 2.4 because it made much less up there too. According to Engineering Explained's video, the extra displacement came from boring out the cylinders, not a longer stroke, so the rev limiter could have been the same or close to the 2.0. But the fact that it isn't tells me everything I need to know. The turbo is probably sized for the same RPM range as the 2.0, so it would make no sense increasing the revs because it's probably the same result.

Unless this new 2.4L has meaningfully more HP from 5600-6100 RPM than the 2.0L, and it very well could, it's not going to be that much quicker. And the close gearing certainly isn't doing the lower redline any favors.

My experience with subaru engines tells me that this is likely because of the absolutely garbage flow characteristics of the heads. I look at all the EJ257 builds I've been apart of over the past decade and change and one of the huge issues with Subaru designs is the heads.

You have to really WORK to get past 300 cfm a runner, and there isn't a ton of material to remove before you hit a water jacket or something else in the heads. Oversized valves (which affect the velocity and gas reversion), extremely aggressive camshaft profiles (read about them cracking) combined with very aggressive springs are par for the course just to get those hunks of garbage to 300cfm, and just like you'd expect you're really shifting the curve to the right side of the graph which means that the bottom is only worse. Compare and contrast this to a K F or practically any other engine from any other manufacturer, there's a reason why they are more responsive to playing with forced induction.

Next as you mention, they just bored out the block, it was an 86 x 86 setup (1998.23cc) and now it's a 94mm bore.



Here's a pic of what 86mm pistons look like in a FA20 block. What do you think a FA24 looks like with 4mm less sleeve on all sides? I bet they're gonna have a ton of fun trying to get these POS engines not to pop head gaskets just like the EJ even with o-rings and a closed deck and all the other tricks thrown at it.

TL;DR

Subaru is dead to me. I see threads like this, and I don't know why I click them but I do and it just fills me with sadness and anger. Another Japanese manufacturer that just shit on the enthusiasts.

[AlexFL]

Why do we get that crazy looking WRX in NA but not this gorgeous Levorg STI? Can Suby fans explain?

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by x622

My experience with subaru engines tells me that this is likely because of the absolutely garbage flow characteristics of the heads. I look at all the EJ257 builds I've been apart of over the past decade and change and one of the huge issues with Subaru designs is the heads.

You have to really WORK to get past 300 cfm a runner, and there isn't a ton of material to remove before you hit a water jacket or something else in the heads. Oversized valves (which affect the velocity and gas reversion), extremely aggressive camshaft profiles (read about them cracking) combined with very aggressive springs are par for the course just to get those hunks of garbage to 300cfm, and just like you'd expect you're really shifting the curve to the right side of the graph which means that the bottom is only worse. Compare and contrast this to a K F or practically any other engine from any other manufacturer, there's a reason why they are more responsive to playing with forced induction.

Next as you mention, they just bored out the block, it was an 86 x 86 setup (1998.23cc) and now it's a 94mm bore.



Here's a pic of what 86mm pistons look like in a FA20 block. What do you think a FA24 looks like with 4mm less sleeve on all sides? I bet they're gonna have a ton of fun trying to get these POS engines not to pop head gaskets just like the EJ even with o-rings and a closed deck and all the other tricks thrown at it.

TL;DR

Subaru is dead to me. I see threads like this, and I don't know why I click them but I do and it just fills me with sadness and anger. Another Japanese manufacturer that just shit on the enthusiasts.

Not a very robust looking open deck block. Looks like it won't be able to withstand a lot of boost and abuse.

[kennethrmahoney]

It looks great, I do not understand why someone says it is boring

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by vt100

Is it 9th gen Civic?!

I was thinking a Lancer.

[eluded]

Motor still gonna blow up if you even modify it or look at it wrong

[tigermack]

Finally saw one in the wild today, the look seems to be a downgrade from previous gens.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by tigermack

Finally saw one in the wild today, the look seems to be a downgrade from previous gens.

Past WRX's kind of had enough styling cues to stand out a little. If it wasn't for the hood scoop you would mistake this new one for a regular Impreza or Crosstrek. The black plastic bits give it a look of a base car or CUV.

[x622]

I too saw the new subarus and thought what the hell happened. The plastic fenders are atrocious. Rear end looks just like an Accord. Oh well.

[10"]

I've seen a few of these now and think they look great! Much better than the dumpy looking last generation car

[RM7]

Every time I see an 04 or 05 STI sitting in someone's driveway I weep for what has been lost...

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by RM7

Every time I see an 04 or 05 STI sitting in someone's driveway I weep for what has been lost...

Pinnacle no doubt of Subaru when they were the only player in that field, i personally preferred the 06-07 eagle eye.

How the titan has fallen

[m3fuz]

Did Subaru hire all the BMW design team interns that didn’t get full time offers?

[G30M]

i was driving around like a maniac in a new subaru 300hp car thinking it was pretty tight (this is my 3rd Subaru!)

then i bought a 10 year old audi S4 and the audi took corners like it was on rails compared to the Subaru

when i went back into the Subaru i realised that it does not rotate, only wants to go straight

that day i knew what understeer was

before i knew it the very next week i bought a BMW and i thank god for saving me because now i know what oversteer is

no more Subarus for me

true story

[AlexFL]

Subaru shachou: How can we make the WRX attractive to the US market? What do Americans like these days?

Subaru design team (in unison): claddingee!!

[G30M]

i've owned a subaru STI v1, Subaru STI bugeye, subaru STI bugeye wagon (to my horror when i sold it the new owner told me he was a welder and my ex car was a frankenstein - front subaru sti rear a donor hatchback!), and a subaru legacy 2.0 DIT 300hp

i don't think looks is a subaru strong point.

this release is one of the better looking ones but i don't think it looks good.

(I do not think any of the current BMW G series look good either! other than the 8 series)