Topic: Test Drive: 2019 Toyota 86 GT Manual

[dkaz]

Instant torque and boost lag seems to contradict each other, which is it?

[dirtyjeffer]

Instant torque and boost lag seems to contradict each other, which is it?

yea, today's modern turbochargers are not your 90s Mitsubishi sourced units...they spool up fast and provide a nice wide flat torque curve...the "lag" you get is simply what a normal non-turbocharged car feels like all the time...so, for one second you get a regular car, then the rest of the time, a barn burner.

[Arthur Dent]

I wonder what the actual selling prices are for these. If they offered a cut rate price version like Nissan does with their Z I could see it being really tempting in the "a lotta performance for little dollar" category.

[ArticSteve]

Toyota Canada would have to first make a deal with Subaru Canada.  Currently both distributors are running neck and neck on all cash deals.  Volume is so low on these units I don't think they are moving them at all costs unless at the end of the model year.

Nissan has a Heritage Edition 370 in yellow with various trim upgrades that looks pretty awesome for $31K.

[rrocket]

Instant torque and boost lag seems to contradict each other, which is it?

Go drive a GTI and report back.  Virtually no lag and immediate response at low rpm.

That wasn't my experience.

[Jaeger]

N/A engines can have their own kind of lag - like not making peak torque below 5k rpm - I call it rev lag.  The turbo lag in a most contemporary turbo motors is nothing at all in comparison.

I still prefer a good n/a 6 to a turbo 4 and a good n/a v8 to a turbo 6.  But nobody is really making awesome n/a 4-pots anymore.  The S2k is ancient freaking history.  In any kind of performance oriented vehicle, give me a turbo 4 over a n/a 4 any freaking day of the week.  Lone exception maybe the Miata? 

[mlin32]

Can't recall seeing recent model year N/A motorised car here in Europe.

From a practical standpoint, turbos make sense. They're good in urban driving and for passing when you don't want/need to shift down multiple gears. For loafing around the B-roads and puttering around traffic, they don't consume much fuel. I hardly get past 2500 r/min when I drive in the city and yet because peak torque occurs below 2k, I still move around briskly. Plus, my road tax is low cuz it's just a 1.6 

Yes, the naturally aspirated motors were great but in today's world of stringent emissions, CO², and fuel consumption standards we have to move on. The I-6s I had previously in the BMWs were a jewel, sounded great, ultra smooth, but they guzzled fuel in the daily grind and I had to rev the guts out of them to get punch out of them for passing. And the 2.5 Skyactiv I had in the Mazda wasn't all that great. Flat spot right between 2-3k plus a tall final drive meant some frustrating merging experiences. 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Instant torque and boost lag seems to contradict each other, which is it?

yea, today's modern turbochargers are not your 90s Mitsubishi sourced units...they spool up fast and provide a nice wide flat torque curve...the "lag" you get is simply what a normal non-turbocharged car feels like all the time...so, for one second you get a regular car, then the rest of the time, a barn burner.

Except that's not true.  The turbo-charged engines that are being put in modern cars are drastically undersized, but the addition of a turbo negates that.  Naturally Aspirated engines have significantly more displacement than their turbo counterparts, therefore a turbo engine that is lagging is not what the NA version of a car would feel like.  Take your Sorento, for example.  When it's 'off-boost', or 'lagging', the Sorento is being hauled around by a 2.0L 4-cylinder, and would be pretty craptastic, while the NA version is a bigger V6 with much more down low torque and hp than a NA 2.0L. 

So, what you said is, quite simply, BS. 

[Jaeger]

Instant torque and boost lag seems to contradict each other, which is it?

Go drive a GTI and report back.  Virtually no lag and immediate response at low rpm.

That wasn't my experience.

Your experience goes against reality.  258 ft lb of torque at 1500 rpm will do that.

GTI laggy?         Yeah, that sure wasn't my experience, either.

[OliverD]

I'll third that. I always found my GTI to be quite responsive. My only issue with the drivetrain was how long second gear was.

[HeliDriver]

Instant torque and boost lag seems to contradict each other, which is it?

Go drive a GTI and report back.  Virtually no lag and immediate response at low rpm.

That wasn't my experience.

Your experience goes against reality.  258 ft lb of torque at 1500 rpm will do that.

That’s the reality on a dyno, but good luck getting that much torque at that rpm in real-world driving. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15348405/turbo-vs-non-turbo-putting-throttle-response-to-the-test/

I feel turbo lag in the GTI. It’s not horrible, like in the old days, but it’s there.

[dirtyjeffer]

Except that's not true.  The turbo-charged engines that are being put in modern cars are drastically undersized, but the addition of a turbo negates that.  Naturally Aspirated engines have significantly more displacement than their turbo counterparts, therefore a turbo engine that is lagging is not what the NA version of a car would feel like.  Take your Sorento, for example.  When it's 'off-boost', or 'lagging', the Sorento is being hauled around by a 2.0L 4-cylinder, and would be pretty craptastic, while the NA version is a bigger V6 with much more down low torque and hp than a NA 2.0L. 

So, what you said is, quite simply, BS.

not at all, and it may depend on the vehicle...the base engine the Sorento is the 2.4L NA I4...and it's a dog.

in some vehicles, there's likely not too much of a difference...for example, the Hyundai Kona's base engine is 147 HP 2.0L NA I4...the uplevel engine is the 1.6T...while that engine is smaller, and obviously more powerful (forced induction), i have the non-turbo version in my car, which is 138 HP, so it's only down 9 HP...the difference for that 1 second off the line is not noticeable...the rest of driving experience for the other 99% is noticeable.

[quadzilla]

I feel turbo lag in the GTI. It’s not horrible, like in the old days, but it’s there.

+1 and if you get a tune it gives you even more lag.

[dirtyjeffer]

You drive a 2010.  The 2015+ version is significantly more responsive.

yea, modern turbos are very impressive.

see the new 911 (992) as an example.

Some of these gains come from a new manifold and injectors, but mostly new turbos that have larger turbine and compressor wheels. The turbos now mirror each like a right and left hand to maximize air flow. There’s only the slightest bit of turbo whiss when hard on the throttle, and no noticeable lag. Larger intercoolers have been moved above the mufflers to better inhale and optimize fresh air.

https://driving.ca/porsche/911/reviews/first-drive/first-drive-2020-porsche-911

[Jaeger]

Jeebus, my 2011 Sonata barely had any turbo lag. Peak torque came on so low I don't know when I would have time to notice lag. How long does it take your car to reach 1700 rpm? Seriously do not know what people are talking about. Drove a new Civic with the turbo and it felt a lot more responsive than the n/a version.

[HeliDriver]

Instant torque and boost lag seems to contradict each other, which is it?

Go drive a GTI and report back.  Virtually no lag and immediate response at low rpm.

That wasn't my experience.

Your experience goes against reality.  258 ft lb of torque at 1500 rpm will do that.

That’s the reality on a dyno, but good luck getting that much torque at that rpm in real-world driving. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15348405/turbo-vs-non-turbo-putting-throttle-response-to-the-test/

I feel turbo lag in the GTI. It’s not horrible, like in the old days, but it’s there.

You drive a 2010.  The 2015+ version is significantly more responsive.

Guess I’ll have to pull a quote from that article I linked to earlier:

“The peak engine output that automakers advertise and owners brag about is measured in laboratories where engines are held at a constant rpm with the throttle wide open and the turbo can take its sweet time spooling. That time is a key characteristic, rarely reported but highly telling, of a boosted engine’s responsiveness. Porsche engineers acknowledge that the newly turbocharged 911 Carrera needs a full three seconds at wide-open throttle to achieve its maximum torque at 1800 rpm.”

If it takes 3 seconds in a new 911, I doubt it’s any better in a new GTI.

[dirtyjeffer]

Jeebus, my 2011 Sonata barely had any turbo lag. Peak torque came on so low I don't know when I would have time to notice lag. How long does it take your car to reach 1700 rpm? Seriously do not know what people are talking about. Drove a new Civic with the turbo and it felt a lot more responsive than the n/a version.

yea, same engine in our Sorento...while i'm sure there's a bit of lag, it's tiny...my old Mazda MX-6 GT Turbo on the other hand...it had what we would call turbo lag...regular 2.0L I4 NA engine below about 3700 RPM, then all hell broke loose above that...it was fun when i was younger, but today's turbos are worlds better in terms of driveability...power right away and pretty flat throughout the power band.

[dirtyjeffer]

Guess I’ll have to pull a quote from that article I linked to earlier:

“The peak engine output that automakers advertise and owners brag about is measured in laboratories where engines are held at a constant rpm with the throttle wide open and the turbo can take its sweet time spooling. That time is a key characteristic, rarely reported but highly telling, of a boosted engine’s responsiveness. Porsche engineers acknowledge that the newly turbocharged 911 Carrera needs a full three seconds at wide-open throttle to achieve its maximum torque at 1800 rpm.”

If it takes 3 seconds in a new 911, I doubt it’s any better in a new GTI.

that makes no sense though...if you have a new 911, and give it WOT for 3 seconds, it would redline...in fact, the article i linked a few posts above shows it gets to 60mph in about 3.5 seconds...it also states "no noticeable lag".

[quadzilla]

Guess I’ll have to pull a quote from that article I linked to earlier:

“The peak engine output that automakers advertise and owners brag about is measured in laboratories where engines are held at a constant rpm with the throttle wide open and the turbo can take its sweet time spooling. That time is a key characteristic, rarely reported but highly telling, of a boosted engine’s responsiveness. Porsche engineers acknowledge that the newly turbocharged 911 Carrera needs a full three seconds at wide-open throttle to achieve its maximum torque at 1800 rpm.”

If it takes 3 seconds in a new 911, I doubt it’s any better in a new GTI.

that makes no sense though...if you have a new 911, and give it WOT for 3 seconds, it would redline...in fact, the article i linked a few posts above shows it gets to 60mph in about 3.5 seconds...it also states "no noticeable lag".

FFS IT SAYS MAXIMUM TORQUE.  It doesn't say zero torque.

[rrocket]

Guess I’ll have to pull a quote from that article I linked to earlier:

“The peak engine output that automakers advertise and owners brag about is measured in laboratories where engines are held at a constant rpm with the throttle wide open and the turbo can take its sweet time spooling. That time is a key characteristic, rarely reported but highly telling, of a boosted engine’s responsiveness. Porsche engineers acknowledge that the newly turbocharged 911 Carrera needs a full three seconds at wide-open throttle to achieve its maximum torque at 1800 rpm.”

If it takes 3 seconds in a new 911, I doubt it’s any better in a new GTI.

that makes no sense though...if you have a new 911, and give it WOT for 3 seconds, it would redline...in fact, the article i linked a few posts above shows it gets to 60mph in about 3.5 seconds...it also states "no noticeable lag".

It makes perfect sense...if you know how dyno/engine lab testing testing works.