Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Tuesday May 24, 2016
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-07-2011, 12:53 PM   #101
unclemat
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 114530
Join Date: May 2006
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: MA
Vehicle:
2005 LGT 6MT wagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanathanq83 View Post
what is the purpose of being able to unbolt the ~3inch section between the oilpan and block???? is this so you can remove and install pistons and rods with out the need to split the block?
EDIT: never mind, the seam is there.

(I thought the block is perhaps one piece now)
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
unclemat is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 12-07-2011, 06:39 PM   #102
moonrider_99
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 258628
Join Date: Sep 2010
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2009 WRX stg2-SOLD
2012 MS3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnix
I doubt Subaru is still trying to make a decision to turbo either the FA or FB. If they want to introduce that engine for MY14 or even 15 reliability testing should already have commenced. I doubt they will only run both engines on the the bench to define which one meets requirements best.
The issue with the FA is probably that some parts (such as DI) are sourced from toyota so it may be more difficult to change things or adopt for FI (legal, logistical and technical). Most likely much easier with a 100% in house produced engine (FB).
moonrider_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 03:20 PM   #103
Turn 14
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 303084
Join Date: Dec 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonrider_99 View Post
The issue with the FA is probably that some parts (such as DI) are sourced from toyota so it may be more difficult to change things or adopt for FI (legal, logistical and technical). Most likely much easier with a 100% in house produced engine (FB).
Very true!
Turn 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 05:48 PM   #104
GuyLR
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 21811
Join Date: Jul 2002
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Atlanta, GA
Vehicle:
2003 WRX Wag/01 OBS
WRB and SM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turn 14 View Post
Very true!
Not. The DI parts are typically sorced from Denso or Bosch. What Toyota suppplied was the engineering and licences for their patents. The FA is probably a close relative of the EE diesel with the same bore and stroke and semi closed block.
GuyLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 06:14 PM   #105
wrxsubaru
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 65133
Join Date: Jun 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nil5 View Post
Don't the port injectors help clean the intake valves? I've heard of bad carbon buildup on DI VW/Audi ports/valves.
Yeah there was an article I read a while back written about it. Pretty much as long as the car has a good recirculation system and times the ignition right there is no significant problem with carbon build up on the intake valves. The VW, Audi, and Mazda problem came from having a ****ty recirculation system allowing too much carbon and oil back into the intake track or a miss timed system that had the ignition and valves timed so there was a back draft of burnt fuel into the intake track.
wrxsubaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 06:45 PM   #106
2005wrxowner1
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 291158
Join Date: Aug 2011
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: raleigh nc
Vehicle:
2005 wrx
wrb

Default

the way i see it. the 1600cc subaru engine can only mean one thing.. wrc entry.. awd 1600cc turbo powerplant. that is how it looks to me.. a boxer is back in wrc.
2005wrxowner1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 05:38 AM   #107
Goempie
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 166202
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2005wrxowner1 View Post
the way i see it. the 1600cc subaru engine can only mean one thing.. wrc entry.. awd 1600cc turbo powerplant. that is how it looks to me.. a boxer is back in wrc.
+1. Hope so!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Goempie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:01 AM   #108
moonrider_99
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 258628
Join Date: Sep 2010
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2009 WRX stg2-SOLD
2012 MS3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyLR

Not. The DI parts are typically sorced from Denso or Bosch. What Toyota suppplied was the engineering and licences for their patents. The FA is probably a close relative of the EE diesel with the same bore and stroke and semi closed block.
So that would go under logistical issues as I would forsee intellectual property problems since toyota designed it.
moonrider_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:04 AM   #109
moonrider_99
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 258628
Join Date: Sep 2010
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2009 WRX stg2-SOLD
2012 MS3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goempie

+1. Hope so!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Definitely 1.6L for wrc but there s no way they can make a reliable 300 hp 1.6L engine with a 60000 miles warranty. Look at mini s or the fiat 500 (the high performance edition)- they are far away from a per L output that would allow 300 hp from a 1.6L.

should also mention: cost of components/manufacturing, octane and emissions requirements

Last edited by moonrider_99; 12-09-2011 at 09:42 PM.
moonrider_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 11:11 AM   #110
subyski
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202642
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Centennial, Colorado
Vehicle:
08 Impreza,80Vette
68 Impala, 15 SantaFe

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonrider_99 View Post
Definitely 1.6L for wrc but there s no way they can make a reliable 300 hp 1.6L engine with a 60000 miles warranty. Look at mini s or the fiat 500 (the high performance edition)- they are far away from a per L output that would allow 300 hp from a 1.6L.
I wouldn't put money on that. Subaru already makes a 2.0L 300hp engine based on the "old" EJ engines (sure it's a JDM model), I would not bet against them making a 1.6L turbo engine 270-300 hp engine based on the FA engines with DI. Now weather they will actually make it and even bring to the U.S., we'll see.
subyski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 09:41 PM   #111
moonrider_99
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 258628
Join Date: Sep 2010
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2009 WRX stg2-SOLD
2012 MS3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subyski View Post
I wouldn't put money on that. Subaru already makes a 2.0L 300hp engine based on the "old" EJ engines (sure it's a JDM model), I would not bet against them making a 1.6L turbo engine 270-300 hp engine based on the FA engines with DI. Now weather they will actually make it and even bring to the U.S., we'll see.
I don't think engine displacement and output are necessary a linear relationship. Everyone knows about past and current 300ish hp 2L FI engines on the market, but I don't see any smaller FI engine approaching the same power output per liter today or in the past. There's probably a limitation in terms of what a small displacement egine can spool while maintaining a daily driver character.

Last edited by moonrider_99; 01-16-2012 at 04:23 PM.
moonrider_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 10:47 PM   #112
keepclam
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 120244
Join Date: Jul 2006
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Everett, WA
Vehicle:
2006 Legacy SE Sedan
2006 Pilot EX-L 4WD

Default

This 1.6L turbo debuted with the new Advanced Tourer Concept hybrid, no? Perhaps Subaru only intends to use this engine in its mild hybrids, sticking with 2.0L in other turbo applications.
keepclam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 01:57 AM   #113
manticus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 162857
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Calgary, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonrider_99 View Post
I don't think engine displacement and output are necessary a linear relationship. Everyone knows about past and current 300ish hp 2L FI engines on the market, but I don't see any smaller FI engine approaching the same displacement per liter today or in the past. There's probably a limitation in terms of what a small displacement egine can spool while maintaining a daily driver character.
The other thing to remember - they don't need a high-power 1.6L engine to homologate to WRC, they just need a regular 1.6L engine somewhere...

Like the Fiesta and Citroen.
manticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 03:44 PM   #114
subyski
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202642
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Centennial, Colorado
Vehicle:
08 Impreza,80Vette
68 Impala, 15 SantaFe

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonrider_99 View Post
I don't think engine displacement and output are necessary a linear relationship. Everyone knows about past and current 300ish hp 2L FI engines on the market, but I don't see any smaller FI engine approaching the same displacement per liter today or in the past. There's probably a limitation in terms of what a small displacement egine can spool while maintaining a daily driver character.
I agree, engine displacement and output are not linear. But a reason why we haven't seen high power small engines is there was no real demand for it. Sure there were/are a couple small displacement performers but the old/current philosophy of bigger engines for bigger power never leaded to high development of small displacement engines. Those engines were typically reserved for eco/basic transportation uses. However, there is a new increasing demand for high output, small displacement, low weight, high mpg engines. The use of DI, FI, and even hybrid tech is still relatively new compared to the large displacement port injection systems.

Since new WRC regulations limit to 1.6L engines, this can lead to better, more reliable, cheaper engines. This is why I think motorsports are important for manufacturers as it pushes the current limits and hopefully open up the tech to trickle down to production/mass market vehicles.

Will we see a 1.6L 300hp production engine for this next generation of engines, probably not. But I would not completely rule it out for the future generations of engines.
subyski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 04:13 PM   #115
EtoS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 102238
Join Date: Dec 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: I'm lost in Trenton
Vehicle:
08 DGM STi
*RIP* 06 WRX TR

Default

I could see the BRZ getting the 1.6T for an STi version.

Impreza is too heavy and AWD drivetrain lose is too high for a 1.6T.
EtoS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 04:19 PM   #116
fourmicah
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 128760
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Over there>
Vehicle:
2015 STI
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakubgt View Post
Unless it has a boosted H6 making 400+hp, I'm buying a new 5.0


And my guess is that the 5.0 while more powerful would probably not outperform this in the twisties. If my former experience with them is any indicated of their future they will not be as reliable either.
fourmicah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 08:09 PM   #117
neg_matnik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 132389
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2006 WRX Wagon SGM
2003 SV1000S, 2014 DL650

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unclemat View Post
Interesting that the turbo motor only has direct injection. The FA has combo of direct and port injectors.[...]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RallyColtTurbo View Post
I was wondering if Toyota was going to let Subaru use it's dual injector DI tech outside of the BRZ/86 twins. This might be part of that answer.
A while back I read a short article describing the Toyota/Lexus D4-S system and the article was saying that the ECU is using direct fuel injection at light and medium engine loads (when power demand is low/moderate) and is only switching to port fuel injection at high engine loads.
Presumably, it's easier to provide fuel at high RPM with a low pressure port injection system rather than a high pressure direct injection system.

However, on a turbo engine, direct injection would be especially advantageous and beneficial at high engine loads under boost. Switching to port fuel injection at high engine load would bring no benefit over the current EJ20/EJ25 turbo engines IMO.
neg_matnik is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 08:53 PM   #118
Godmal
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4934
Join Date: Mar 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: LITH, IL
Vehicle:
2007 White STI LTD
Grey Mazda 5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neg_matnik

A while back I read a short article describing the Toyota/Lexus D4-S system and the article was saying that the ECU is using direct fuel injection at light and medium engine loads (when power demand is low/moderate) and is only switching to port fuel injection at high engine loads.
Presumably, it's easier to provide fuel at high RPM with a low pressure port injection system rather than a high pressure direct injection system.

However, on a turbo engine, direct injection would be especially advantageous and beneficial at high engine loads under boost. Switching to port fuel injection at high engine load would bring no benefit over the current EJ20/EJ25 turbo engines IMO.
My assertion is that, in typical Japanese fashion, they have perfected the technology; they added port injectors to eliminate the carbon clogging inlet ports that plagues everyone else's direct injection systems. I'm sure there are other benefits as well!
Godmal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 12:14 AM   #119
PHATsuby
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 13617
Join Date: Dec 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: MN
Vehicle:
2001 Legacy GT back
to stock is a project too

Default

This is interesting, I guess I should have kept making 2010+ LGT downpipes... at least I still have the jigs to modify.

Ben
PHATsuby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 12:14 AM   #120
Omophorus
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 165892
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Collegeville, PA
Vehicle:
2011 Mazdaspeed 3
Celestial Blue

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrxsubaru View Post
Yeah there was an article I read a while back written about it. Pretty much as long as the car has a good recirculation system and times the ignition right there is no significant problem with carbon build up on the intake valves. The VW, Audi, and Mazda problem came from having a ****ty recirculation system allowing too much carbon and oil back into the intake track or a miss timed system that had the ignition and valves timed so there was a back draft of burnt fuel into the intake track.
My understanding is that everyone's DI systems have had some issues with carbon buildup but VW Group's and Mazda's have gotten the most press.

The central issue is actually related to PCV rather than EGR. It's at its worst in turbo motors because cylinder pressures are higher. The simplest fix on the MS3 for coking of the intake valves is to simply block off the PCV valve completely, or vent it to the atmosphere. The smarter way to fix it is to install an oil catch can between the PCV valve and the intake manifold.

No matter how good the piston ring seal is, there is going to be blow-by that the PCV valve shunts back to the intake tract, and it's going to take oil residue and whatnot with it. One way or another, you need to have some sort of crankcase ventilation, and the easiest way for an OEM to keep the EPA and other tree huggers happy is to make it a closed loop back to the intake with a PCV valve.

Slapping in an aftermarket catch can to separate out the particulate matter from the vented air might cost a couple hundred bucks, but it'll save that amount of money over the life of the car easily. The main reason I don't have one installed yet is the several thousand dollars in home repairs I've just had to deal with which have significantly limited my ability to justify additional spending on the car.
Omophorus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 01:29 PM   #121
Snow Drift
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 75071
Join Date: Nov 2004
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NYC
Vehicle:
4 Train - Subway
Past: 05, 08, 11 Red WRXs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omophorus View Post
My understanding is that everyone's DI systems have had some issues with carbon buildup but VW Group's and Mazda's have gotten the most press.

The central issue is actually related to PCV rather than EGR. It's at its worst in turbo motors because cylinder pressures are higher. The simplest fix on the MS3 for coking of the intake valves is to simply block off the PCV valve completely, or vent it to the atmosphere. The smarter way to fix it is to install an oil catch can between the PCV valve and the intake manifold.

No matter how good the piston ring seal is, there is going to be blow-by that the PCV valve shunts back to the intake tract, and it's going to take oil residue and whatnot with it. One way or another, you need to have some sort of crankcase ventilation, and the easiest way for an OEM to keep the EPA and other tree huggers happy is to make it a closed loop back to the intake with a PCV valve.

Slapping in an aftermarket catch can to separate out the particulate matter from the vented air might cost a couple hundred bucks, but it'll save that amount of money over the life of the car easily. The main reason I don't have one installed yet is the several thousand dollars in home repairs I've just had to deal with which have significantly limited my ability to justify additional spending on the car.
So we are going to have more ringland failures like the 08 STI!? Blow by is the cause of the failures.
Snow Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 04:24 PM   #122
nil5
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 146791
Join Date: Apr 2007
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: ATX
Vehicle:
08 STI
Rd

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neg_matnik View Post
A while back I read a short article describing the Toyota/Lexus D4-S system and the article was saying that the ECU is using direct fuel injection at light and medium engine loads (when power demand is low/moderate) and is only switching to port fuel injection at high engine loads.
Presumably, it's easier to provide fuel at high RPM with a low pressure port injection system rather than a high pressure direct injection system.

However, on a turbo engine, direct injection would be especially advantageous and beneficial at high engine loads under boost. Switching to port fuel injection at high engine load would bring no benefit over the current EJ20/EJ25 turbo engines IMO.
In a system like D4-S with hybrid direct and port injection, the port injectors would clean the valves and that's great. But there are other cool reasons to use dual-stage injection, even if both stages are port injection.

I'm not sure if you're aware that numerous other vehicles (I'm surely not aware of all) employ dual stage fuel injectors. So there is a fuel injector near the port, and one a little farther back.

One example of this is my Yamaha R6 (I think most other modern supersport's are the same). For each intake runner, there is a primary fuel injector near the intake port by the head and secondary injector in the airbox by the velocity stack (if memory serves).

They use such an arrangement due to the tremendous power output for such a small displacement. The problem is the paradox of good performance at both high and low loads. The primary injectors are used at low loads and low RPM's, and the fuel mixture is supplemented by the secondary injectors at high loads.

Why is that useful? It allows the use of smaller primary injectors which are easier to modulate/control at low loads/rpm.

Another interesting thing to note (similar to our TGV's) is the use of dual throttle butterflies, which helps solve the same problem of idle vs. high power.

Anyway, maybe that is interesting.
nil5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 04:49 PM   #123
Calamity Jesus
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 44501
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: in a minefield of caddishness.
Vehicle:
1984 That's *Sir*
Weinerlicks of Douche 2u.

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow Drift View Post
So we are going to have more ringland failures like the 08 STI!? Blow by is the cause of the failures.
Blow-by is a symtom of broken ringlands, not a cause. Detonation is the cause of broken ringlands.
Calamity Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 05:03 PM   #124
nil5
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 146791
Join Date: Apr 2007
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: ATX
Vehicle:
08 STI
Rd

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calamity Jesus View Post
Blow-by is a symtom of broken ringlands, not a cause. Detonation is the cause of broken ringlands.
To which Snow Drift will reply, "Blow-by causes detonation b/c of reduced effective octane level".

To which I would then reply, you're both right, but there is no single root cause, blow-by, bad tune, bad gas. In most cases we don't even know that something is wrong until it's too late. Anyway...
nil5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 07:44 PM   #125
neg_matnik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 132389
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2006 WRX Wagon SGM
2003 SV1000S, 2014 DL650

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nil5 View Post
In a system like D4-S with hybrid direct and port injection, the port injectors would clean the valves and that's great. But there are other cool reasons to use dual-stage injection, even if both stages are port injection.

I'm not sure if you're aware that numerous other vehicles (I'm surely not aware of all) employ dual stage fuel injectors. So there is a fuel injector near the port, and one a little farther back.

One example of this is my Yamaha R6 (I think most other modern supersport's are the same). For each intake runner, there is a primary fuel injector near the intake port by the head and secondary injector in the airbox by the velocity stack (if memory serves).

They use such an arrangement due to the tremendous power output for such a small displacement. The problem is the paradox of good performance at both high and low loads. The primary injectors are used at low loads and low RPM's, and the fuel mixture is supplemented by the secondary injectors at high loads.

Why is that useful? It allows the use of smaller primary injectors which are easier to modulate/control at low loads/rpm.

Another interesting thing to note (similar to our TGV's) is the use of dual throttle butterflies, which helps solve the same problem of idle vs. high power.

Anyway, maybe that is interesting.
That's very interesting indeed and I do recognize the benefits of a multiple-stage injection system the applications you've mentioned as example.
Anyways, I just realized that I was mistaken on how the D4-S system works (I remembered the whole thing ass-backward .):
- port and direct injection are used *simultaneously* at low and medium engine loads.
- direct injection is used on its own at high engine load for maximum power.
So, this would work quite well for a turbo application (providing that the direct injection system can deliver enough fuel at high load and at high RPM...).
neg_matnik is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
C&D examines new FB engine rsholland News & Rumors 109 05-02-2011 03:42 PM
FS in FL Brand new in box Cobb AP v2 for 2.5L Turbo motors sonic03rex Engine/Power/Exhaust 9 10-12-2007 12:17 AM
Need to buy a new 2.2L Turbo Motor Killion22 Pre-2002 Factory Turbo Powertrain 5 07-01-2007 10:13 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2016 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2016, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.