Subaru WRX Forum banner

Cars we'd like to see an FA20 turbo engine in...

3K views 36 replies 11 participants last post by  Doctor Jeff 
#1 ·
The BRZ, of course...though reportedly adding the turbo would increase weight and change the driving dynamics, which is why Subaru has decided against adding the turbo.

The Baja--I have always wanted one of these and came *this* close to trading in my CRV for one about 10 years ago. A Baja with a turbo would be a wicked ride, IMO.

A convertible, maybe based on the BRZ. Would love a Subie droptop. I'd consider one even without the turbo.

The Outback--I loved my Outback, even with the 2.5-L NA engine. An Outback with a turbo would be awesome--a 3.6-L turbo would be even more awesome!

Any other nominations?
 
#3 ·
LOL--in the 90's I used to share a Dixon ZR mower with my FIL--it was an awesome machine. I had close to an acre to mow, and frankly that 1 and 1/2 hours I spent mowing was the most fun I had the entire week. I looked forward to mowing.

It was pretty darn fast even without a turbo, but the key was the ZR turning and the arm controls. It was like driving a tank in a video game. Miss it...
 
#4 ·
Yeah I've got a garden tractor, my yard isn't flat enough for a zero turn.

In reality I imagine these are going to start popping up in smaller rock buggies. I have seen several over the years run ej engines. I would guess the broader flatter curve would be more ideal for that job than the ej engines were.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
#6 ·
All the cars mentioned are poorly designed. The engine is placed in a way that is fundamentally flawed. Subaru has not, to my knowledge, made any mass-produced car correctly designed (the one car I can think of was actually a European chassis with an engine designed by an Italian-Subaru collaboration, and it was an unmitigated disaster anyway).

Toyota has designed cars correctly though, as have Peugeot, Lancia, Panther, and many others.

If the FA engine is a good engine, it belongs in a correct chassis: mid-engined. Ideally, mid-engined AWD. Anything else, the rest is a compromise.
 
#7 ·
BRZ . . . honestly I loved driving this car, but for me it came down to a) the AWD of the WRX made it the more practical choice and b) I fell in love with the zippier WRX. That said . . . I still love the BRZ (just gotta hit it right with the Powerball :) )

CrossTrek . . . I think this could be a fun car to drop the FA20 in . . . with a few suspension modifications though.
 
#8 ·
IDK, most cars are compromises of one sort or the other. Subaru makes cars people want to drive, so they must be doing something right. Peugeot...eh...not a fan of non-German European car manufacturers, with the possible exception of the Fiat Spyder (based on Mazda Miata of course).

I'm pretty ignorant of weight balance and chassis issues, just fantasizing about adding some power to common rides.

Another cool car I think would be a WRX/Crosstrek crossover, more of a real rally car with a raised suspension that is more capable off paved roads. I realize the aerodynamics would suffer, but if BMW and Mercedes can sell those horrible crossover vehicles like the X4, surely Subaru can come up with something with some power.

Somewhat OT, but the old Legacy sedan was the model for a lot of these crossovers. The best one right now especially in looks IMO is the Volvo S60 Cross Country, which has 250 HP.
 
#9 ·
So I've had my BRZ for 4 years, come June. You'll find multiple occasions where I defend the N/A FA20 engine in the car, which, though only 200hp, has run flawlessly, is easy to maintain, and actually sounds quite good through my Nameless exhaust. For folks looking for an actual "sports car", the chassis and combination of components on this 2700lb car are just stellar, and work very well. I still love driving it, and look for curvy road options to go mundane places.

<sigh>
All that said, I miss the raw thrust of 320ft-lbs to the wheels that my bugeye provided. I'm 12 years old at heart, and there are just these rare occasions where I loved to safely romp on it. I also had to recalibrate my ideas about "when it is safe to pass", at times.
So if Subaru came out with an FA20T version of this car..I'd probably start scheming a way to get one, if it was reasonable.

Or I'd start down that road, and then it would occur to me that I may as well just get a 6th-gen Camaro and be done with it, lol.
 
#26 ·
So I've had my BRZ for 4 years, come June. You'll find multiple occasions where I defend the N/A FA20 engine in the car, which, though only 200hp, has run flawlessly, is easy to maintain, and actually sounds quite good through my Nameless exhaust. For folks looking for an actual "sports car", the chassis and combination of components on this 2700lb car are just stellar, and work very well. I still love driving it, and look for curvy road options to go mundane places.
Every review I've read about this car has been favorable. It's a real looker and supposed to be fun to drive, like the Miata. It's just not practical for my needs. Plus, if I wanted a 2-seater RWD car it would likely have a cloth top on it...
 
#10 ·
I wouldn't mind a Porsche 914 with an ej257.. not sure I would want anything with the fa20 turbo (aside from a commuter car that comes with it from the factory).

My Outback could certainly use a little more umph, but I would MUCH rather have the OEM 3.6L six cylinder than any of the turbo engines.. we just couldn't swing the extra $7,500 at the time of purchase.
 
#27 · (Edited)
I agree there are better engines, just using the existing Subaru WRX engine as a theoretical platform for more power.

I'd like a Porsche too, just not the monthly payments and insurance.

Like I said, I loved my 2.5L Outback. I actually thought it was fun to drive with a MT and had enough power, except maybe for passing on the highway. I'd probably still have it except my ex-wife insisted on it for some reason when we divorced, and promptly burned out the clutch. (I got the CRV.) I've not driven a 3.6L--I imagine it would have enough HP, and the 0-60 time is not too bad for a vehicle of that type; however, the price is quite a bit more than the WRX, without offering a whole lot more practicality for me.
 
#11 ·
The 914, especially when fitted with a 901 gearbox, was a decent platform considering the era. The MR2 (any year) is a better car (I've had 2 MR2s, 1 914). It's not just the 10 years difference in build date from the youngest 914 to the oldest MR2, it's the implementation of engine technology that the 914 simply lacked and it's also Toyota reliability vs. Porsche's lack thereof.

How Porsche's sales went up when their quality is still miserable is a bit of a puzzle to me -- but then again, people buy all sorts of bad stuff routinely (that's why cigarettes are on the market etc.).

Nonetheless, Porsche would not make another car correctly until the Boxter, decades later. I don't think they're driving all four wheels on those (yet?) though?

Toyota made the Celica GT4 but not a mid-engine AWD MR2 -- so they too sailed away on the failboat.

Of the Japanese companies, Nissan came the closest! They made the Mid-4 that was a correct car. Then they shelved it and made a bloated Z instead, with the engine in the wrong location.

The Peugeot 205 T16 was arguably the best car of the correct design.

The FA20 would be nice -- if it's as good as everyone says -- in a AWD MR2, or an AWD MG F, or an AWD Panther Solo. That sort of thing. I like the looks of the Panther most and trust the Ford engine in it least even though (or especially since) it's a Cosworth.
 
#12 ·
How Porsche's sales went up when their quality is still miserable is a bit of a puzzle to me -- but then again, people buy all sorts of bad stuff routinely (that's why cigarettes are on the market etc.).

Nonetheless, Porsche would not make another car correctly until the Boxter, decades later. I don't think they're driving all four wheels on those (yet?) though?

Agreed.. the new Boxter looks pretty good on paper too, and the Cayman has been a big step in the right direction IMO. Although I've never looked into the reliability of either one.
 
#13 ·
Spiros, you know that I'm a big fan of the MR2; owned a '91 turbo and loved it..but let's make sure to caveat the mid-engine idea with "properly implemented". My car had, in spades, the "snap oversteer" issue. Holy crap, about made me wet myself, the first time it happened, lol. Toyota fixed it a year or 2 later, if memory serves.

Would I trade my BRZ for a newer-incarnation MR2? I don't know...front engine or not, this car has lovely manners. The engine is extremely low in the car, and as far back as they could possibly get it, it's 500 lbs lighter than my WRX was, and has a combination of the Toyota and Subaru parts bins that's a winner.
 
#15 ·
The Baja--I have always wanted one of these and came *this* close to trading in my CRV for one about 10 years ago. A Baja with a turbo would be a wicked ride, IMO.
You actually could buy a Baja Turbo. It borrowed the FXT engine and transmissions, although the 4EAT in the Baja had a manual shift mode that the FXT didn't get. Apparently, you could also get it with a 5-speed manual, but they're very hard to come by.

A convertible, maybe based on the BRZ. Would love a Subie droptop. I'd consider one even without the turbo.
I wouldn't hold your breath on this one.

The Outback--I loved my Outback, even with the 2.5-L NA engine. An Outback with a turbo would be awesome--a 3.6-L turbo would be even more awesome!
Well, you could buy an Outback XT, which is just a lifted Legacy GT. The OBXT was available in the US through 2009, although Subaru did keep selling the newer version in other market for a few more years. Outside of the US, you can get a 2.0L turbo diesel Outback with 147hp/258tq.

Any other nominations?
To be honest, I couldn't care less about the FA20. Subaru really needs to expand their hybrid/electric offerings. Gas prices won't remain cheap forever, and while I love a good turbo engine, Subaru's turbo engines don't exactly have class-leading efficiency, although they aren't as terrible as they used to be. I would buy an EV Forester in a heartbeat.

The 3.6L six doesn't need a turbo, it just needs direct injection and an efficiency overhaul. The 3.5L Honda V6 in the Acura TLX makes more power with slightly less displacement and greater fuel efficiency (it has AWD as well). The EZ-series engines remain Subaru's most reliable engine so far as I'm aware, but Subaru has neglected its flat six for years now (the current 3.6L was first offered in 2010, and was just an evolution of the 3.0L before it), and it probably won't survive the next major overhaul for the Legacy/Outback.
 
#16 ·
Oh, and the Subaru flat six has been converted for aircraft use, which is sort of neat. However, the complexity and tremendous expense of converting automotive engines for aircraft use has relegated it to experimental aircraft only.
 
#24 ·
To combat it the engine would have to sit on top of the transfer case thus killing all point of the flat engine. The only time you want weight far out front is rock crawling, it keeps the weight ideal for steep climbs.

Honestly this is all nitpicking as the average owner will never take the vehicle to a track nor have enough experience to be able to notice the lower center of gravity.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
#25 ·
In the S4, the gearbox and diff are in front of the engine, near the backs of the seats behind the passengers. It is said one of the few noises audible above the Volumex is the gearing just behind the passengers. The S4 had a more balanced chassis than the Peugeot, albeit without the latter's better torque split. The Pug used a transverse AWD layout instead but at the cost of mass optimization and complexity.
 
#33 ·
I always forget how tiny those cars really were. They're all rust-buckets, around here.
I wasn't into the 914 at all, back in the day. Now, for some goofy reason, I'd really love to have one.
 
#34 ·
They're all rust-buckets

That's the major problem you'd run in to. There are plenty of well restored examples on the market, but they go for closer to $30k. To take an inexpensive rolling chassis and turn it into a well done Subaru swap would almost certainly involve a massive rust repair project before you could start working on anything else. If you're doing it for a track car you'd be stripping everything down anyways, welding a cage/roll bar, etc. You would need someone with excellent metal working skills.. take it down to a bare chassis, media blast, cut out all rust, replace body panels, seam weld, etc, etc. It would be nice if you could galvanize the whole thing once you're done with the body work, but that's easier said than done.

Still though, it wouldn't need much power at all to be a really fun ride. 250whp would almost be too much for it. One of the many projects that I would love to do, but will likely never have the time to do it..... if only I hadn't had kids, lol.
 
#35 ·
I find myself often pining for the good-old-days. I guess I'm just starting to come of that age.

Modern turbocharged engines, while undeniably fast and torque-filled, just seem less exciting to drive. Part of the reason I loved turbocharged engines in the 90s and naughties was due to the manic power delivery -- put your foot down and *wait for it* *wait for it* HOLD ONTO YOUR SHORTS!! Consequently, the NA screamers were also great fun when you'd wind them out. Big honkin' V8? That low-down torque and low gearing combined with the sound introduced some drama. But modern turbo four-pots just seem to make power and not much else. No drama, no excitement, just speed. I recognize that this is a personal preference...
 
#37 ·
I agree the modern turbos are more...civilized...but at my age, sometimes you want something that your girlfriend won't complain about when she rides with you and which won't scare the small children in the neighborhood...

True story...when I had my previous 2012 WRX, everytime I'd drive slowly through the neighborhood and parents were out with their kids they'd give me the stink eye, like I was gonna suddenly slide into their front lawn and mow down their kids. I admit to a certain perverse pleasure at the time...

The reason I used the FA20 turbo as a starting point for a new Subaru vehicle was that it is currently available and could be added to an existing vehicle or prototype without much fettling. I realize there are some theoretical issues with adding a turbo on, but I don't think these arguments hold a lot of water. After all, BMW has used their 2.0L turbo in *just about* every model they have without any problems. The Z4 for instance has had a 2.5 and 3L NA engine, as well as a 2 and 3L twin-scroll turbo. The Germans didn't have any problem with "upsetting the weight balance" or "giving such a small car too much power."

Also, I think realistically Subaru going forward is never going to put anything larger than a 2L turbo in their smaller vehicles.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top