Originally Posted by silver04rollas
Yes, it is a high performance engine from relatively small displacement that will rev high so it will perform best when it is revved out and downshifted to the right gear for maximum torque multiplication.
For people who prefer "lazy shifting" in city driving where they want to lug around at 40 mph in 4th or 5h gear at 3000 - 3500 rpm, definitely it will be no bottom end torque monster.
My main concern would be an even power band. One of the gripes I've seen with performance minded Honda's is that the engines have a very narrow power band without a lot at the low or even mid range. In other words, on highway passing without downshifting or more normal driving it could lack that good "umph" that torque gets you while a lack of mid range power could make it feel lethargic until it really gets turning. that said who is going to drive one of these normally
That said, even if the engines are tuned a bit differently, 175 @ 4000 is pretty good for the midrange with horsepower maxing out at 6500 if those are indeed the specs, while the short gears should get it going quick enough that the lack of really low end torque that band is suggesting won't be missed.
The dual clutch won't happen the chief engineer already looked into that, the intention of this car was to support the manual and having DCT won't add any real benefits to a car that's not about 0-60.
As for the engine, there are a few good reasons to go with a flat instead of inline and they're all performance oriented. A big one is lowering the center of gravity, I notice this on my Subaru especially in the corners, far less roll and lean than many cars and I don't even have a WRX let alone the Sti. Due to this car being RWD, the engine is going to be mounted even lower and further in than in my car since there isn't a front diff to get in the way.
For mechanics I don't think many automakers put as much concern here otherwise we'd have less FWD cars, less V6s and more traditional cars. My Cressida is probably the easiest of the 4 cars in my household to work on having a long I6 and RWD giving the engine bay lots of open space, my sister's Civic being the worst...yes worse than the Subie because its so cramped and Honda just stuffed things in their location as an afterthought(alternator for instance often needs removal).
Oh I agree. If the S2000 is the gold standard for handing in a RWD four cylinder then it should best it despite probably weighing more (relatively speaking; the weights will be about the same if it is 2800-2900 pounds, but keep in mind the Honda was a convertible, requiring more strengthening for the chassis and thus a car that was heavier relative to it's size) due to the engine mounting.
And I will conede that automakers probably view joe blow not being able to work on a car as a benefit. My old 4AFE is so easy, whereas our Outlander's engine has more hoses and covers running around than the engine on the Space shuttle.
Now, about that price... that said, hasn't a lot of speculation been that the Subbie will be a bit more "premium" than the Toyota? If so I'm not too concerned. Just a shame I just bought a truck, otherwise by about the time I'm done college I would be looking at one of these in the driveway instead...