Cal Club Autocross Forums

Craig Naylor wrote:

Mako Koiwai wrote:dealer info:

http://brzpost.com/threads/dealer-info- ... 3-feb.147/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The idea is to keep it rare and keep the demand high"

My eye stuck on the "93 octane required". Guess they won't be selling any in CA. That ought to limit their sales too.

Octane is calculated in different states , different ways. Other states' 93 can be California's 91. You have to look how they calculate it on the pump.

There are a number of cars that "require" 93, GT3 for instance. Hi Ly I believe has never tried a 100/91 octane = 93 octane mix. Modern cars often have knock sensors that adjust timing just below det

Kurt Rahn wrote: Octane is calculated in different states , different ways. Other states' 93 can be California's 91. You have to look how they calculate it on the pump.

That is incorrect. 91 octane is 91 octane and has less knock resistance than 93 octane sold else where.

it is true that 91 is the best we got, and I suspect that the car's knock correction will handle 91 octane just fine. It just won't make as much power.

most manufactures are smarter than that and just put "premium fuel required".

Craig Naylor wrote:

Mako Koiwai wrote:dealer info:

http://brzpost.com/threads/dealer-info- ... 3-feb.147/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The idea is to keep it rare and keep the demand high"

My eye stuck on the "93 octane required". Guess they won't be selling any in CA. That ought to limit their sales too.

My SUV says that. It gets 91 sometimes.

Marshall Grice wrote:

Kurt Rahn wrote: Octane is calculated in different states , different ways. Other states' 93 can be California's 91. You have to look how they calculate it on the pump.

That is incorrect. 91 octane is 91 octane and has less knock resistance than 93 octane sold else where.

it is true that 91 is the best we got, and I suspect that the car's knock correction will handle 91 octane just fine. It just won't make as much power.

most manufactures are smarter than that and just put "premium fuel required".

Damn. Shot down by the engineer.

Kurt Rahn wrote:

Marshall Grice wrote:

Kurt Rahn wrote: Octane is calculated in different states , different ways. Other states' 93 can be California's 91. You have to look how they calculate it on the pump.

That is incorrect. 91 octane is 91 octane and has less knock resistance than 93 octane sold else where.

it is true that 91 is the best we got, and I suspect that the car's knock correction will handle 91 octane just fine. It just won't make as much power.

most manufactures are smarter than that and just put "premium fuel required".

Damn. Shot down by the engineer.

Maybe not the best turn of phrase, Kurt, to use w/an aerospace eng. Just sayin'.

The most disappointing stat I've seen so far: 59.2 mph in 2nd gear. Might work out well for ST(X?)... wonder how high the redline can be bumped?

Steve Lepper wrote:The most disappointing stat I've seen so far: 59.2 mph in 2nd gear. Might work out well for ST(X?)... wonder how high the redline can be bumped?

Some 225/45-17 Direzza Star Specs would help on the gearing side...not to mention grip.
Although the Primacy "Prius" stock tires, BTW, aren't all that bad. Treadwear is 240.

If someone is interested in corner weights:

Limited BRZ

Total weight 2686

LF – 749 RF – 769
LR – 598 RR – 570

Front – 1518 – 56.5%
Rear – 1168 – 43.5%

Left – 1347 – 50.1%
Right – 1339 – 49.9%

RR X LF – 49.1%
LR X RF – 50.9%

Notes:
Pre-production car
Half a tank of gas
The junk in the trunk weighed 35 pounds

Julian Manolov wrote:If someone is interested in corner weights:

Total weight 2686

LF – 749 RF – 769
LR – 598 RR – 570

Front – 1518 – 56.5%
Rear – 1168 – 43.5%

Left – 1347 – 50.1%
Right – 1339 – 49.9%

RR X LF – 49.1%
LR X RF – 50.9%

Notes:
Pre-production car
Half a tank of gas
The junk in the trunk weighed 35 pounds.

If I read this correctly, I see that the front to rear weight distribution is about 56%/44%. If BMW's can get close to 50/50 with a long 6-cylinder inline, why is it that Subaru/Toyota can achieve only 56/44 given the short boxer engine, which was supposedly pushed as far back as possible?!

Mihail Milkov wrote:If I read this correctly, I see that the front to rear weight distribution is about 56%/44%. If BMW's can get close to 50/50 with a long 6-cylinder inline, why is it that Subaru/Toyota can achieve only 56/44 given the short boxer engine, which was supposedly pushed as far back as possible?!

I have not had the privileged of seeing it in person, I've only seen photographs. It looks as though the occupants weight may be rear biased based upon their seating location. For those who saw it in person, could forward thought of occupants be considered in the car's weight bias, expecting the occupants bringing it closer to a "balanced car"?

Julian Manolov wrote:The junk in the trunk weighed 35 pounds

To each their own.... but I can't recall anyone ever mentioning weighing it. ...Well there was that story of the cement lady in Florida.

Mihail Milkov wrote:If I read this correctly, I see that the front to rear weight distribution is about 56%/44%. If BMW's can get close to 50/50 with a long 6-cylinder inline, why is it that Subaru/Toyota can achieve only 56/44 given the short boxer engine, which was supposedly pushed as far back as possible?!

You mean to add extra 300 lb of sheet metal in the rear so it becomes 50/50 and reaches whopping 3000 lb curb weight?
IMHO in a car the lower curb weight is much more important than such a small shift in weight distribution

P.S. At 2700 lbs the BRZ/FRS is still a porker ;)

Julian, I was never suggesting adding weight to the car to balance the weight distribution. I also agree with you that keeping the weight low is generally more important than weight distribution. I just have a genuine engineering question how it is that such a short engine does not seem to get you closer to 50/50, or for that matter slightly rear-biased, say 47/53. Maybe the engine is short, but not that light?

Mihail Milkov wrote: I just have a genuine engineering question how it is that such a short engine does not seem to get you closer to 50/50, or for that matter slightly rear-biased, say 47/53. Maybe the engine is short, but not that light?

the shorter engine means the CG of the engine is closer to the front axle if you line the front edge of the engine up with the front axle line, thus more front weight bias. The BMW has a longer wheelbase, with the length added to the front axle, given the same engine layout constraint.

if they pushed the front wheels of the brz forward by 6" to equal the wheelbase of a bmw, it would be 53% front heavy but still 600lbs lighter. You'd only need to add 80lbs to the rear at that point to be 50/50 so you'd have a 2760 ish pound car with 50/50 weigh split vs the 3200+lbs bmw.

so engineering wise i think they still came out ahead of the bmw's.

Marshall Grice wrote:

Mihail Milkov wrote: I just have a genuine engineering question how it is that such a short engine does not seem to get you closer to 50/50, or for that matter slightly rear-biased, say 47/53. Maybe the engine is short, but not that light?

the shorter engine means the CG of the engine is closer to the front axle if you line the front edge of the engine up with the front axle line, thus more front weight bias. The BMW has a longer wheelbase, with the length added to the front axle, given the same engine layout constraint.

if they pushed the front wheels of the brz forward by 6" to equal the wheelbase of a bmw, it would be 53% front heavy but still 600lbs lighter. You'd only need to add 80lbs to the rear at that point to be 50/50 so you'd have a 2760 ish pound car with 50/50 weigh split vs the 3200+lbs bmw.

so engineering wise i think they still came out ahead of the bmw's.

Or they could move the 40 lbs. battery back behind the rear axle line...
But as it sits, it's probably much closer to the car's CG.

Marshall Grice wrote: the shorter engine means the CG of the engine is closer to the front axle if you line the front edge of the engine up with the front axle line

Why not line the back of the engine with the firewall? Wouldn't that make more sense? There is no power transmitted to the front wheels so I don't see why it has to be lined up with the front axle.

Mihail Milkov wrote:

Marshall Grice wrote: the shorter engine means the CG of the engine is closer to the front axle if you line the front edge of the engine up with the front axle line

Why not line the back of the engine with the firewall? Wouldn't that make more sense? There is no power transmitted to the front wheels so I don't see why it has to be lined up with the front axle.

Probably other considerations, like front end crash protection, etc.

Mihail Milkov wrote: Why not line the back of the engine with the firewall? Wouldn't that make more sense?

i'm sure both engines line up with the firewall, the BRZ just ends up with a smaller engine bay.

Mihail Milkov wrote: There is no power transmitted to the front wheels so I don't see why it has to be lined up with the front axle.

looks, weight, cost, safety, etc. Why put a small engine in a big car? if the engine is smaller...make the car smaller. There are more important things than weight split for a mass produced car.

There are some nice triangular openings between the rearmost cylinders and the firewall that'll be ideal for routing turbo plumbing. Transmission is quite visible from the engine compartment...a fair bit of space around it. Can't think of another modern front-engine/rear-drive car where that's the case.

Sparkplug change could be quite problematical...a good thing that the change interval is likely 100K miles.

Supposedly Subaru said there is no room for a front mounted IC ... thus no plans for Turbo'ing.

Supposedly the STI version is suppose to have 19" wheels ! How do we tell Subaru that would be a no go for SCCA Solo Stock classes?!

BRZ Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/groups/138747792898961/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mako Koiwai wrote:Supposedly Subaru said there is no room for a front mounted IC ... thus no plans for Turbo'ing.

I've heard differently. And who says it has to be front-mounted?

Doug Kott wrote: I've heard differently. And who says it has to be front-mounted?

All the Subaru's Ive seen are top-mounted from the factory, and there's plenty of room on top of this engine.

Mako Koiwai wrote:Supposedly Subaru said there is no room for a front mounted IC ... thus no plans for Turbo'ing.

I don't believe that's the entire truth. Maybe no turboing this year, but if you look at the exhaust routing - the pipes from the driver side manifold go across the front of the engine to the passenger side (just like in a typical Subaru turbo setup). Why design and do all that turbo style exhaust routing if there is no upcoming turbo in the picture? They could've done much simpler and lighter routing if the car was going to stay N/A for good.

Here is a picture:



Why not go straight back with the headers and avoid the extra complexity and weight if a typical right side Subaru-style turbo is not in the future plans?

Sounds good for the real world ... which one to get?!

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/suba ... eo-review/