When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I think it's pretty obvious that he was making a direct comparison between the NA & the T4 engines with that, as he immediately stated that you need to work harder to get the torque out of the 4.0. That isn't sour-grapes rationalization, it's a direct statement that indicates that he prefers the low end torque of the T4. His logic is his own, as is every reviewer out there. My take on his commentary about the chassis not being matched to the engine is that he thinks the chassis is tuned for the low rpm torque band of the T4 rather than the high rpm torque of the F6. Is he right? I have no idea and have no way to confirm it, as others have pointed out about themselves. Regarding the objective reviewer, I will say that the only reviewer who I have seen who I think comes across as objective and fair is Matt Farah. I haven't seen all his reviews but the ones I've seen have been good. Harry Metcalfe, the god of reviewers, did not even drive the T4 because he heard "it didn't sound good" - note: probably not a direct quote. That's not objective but I'm hoping that will be rectified some day. Chris Harris - I think he's horrible. Of course, we're all entitled to our own opinions.
Regarding another comment, review consensus does not a definitive answer make. It may only confirm group bias.
Back to my original commentary: "He probably prefers the 2.5T because it's actually a really good engine in a really good car. It may not sound like a F6 but it punches way above its weight. With it's low RPM torque production, it lives very well in the real world." Whether you like the T4 or prefer the F6, this is still true.
MOO & FWIW
Regarding the statement in bold. If you’re fortunate enough to be able to get rid of the GPFs, you will get a tangible increase in low-end torque. It really transforms the car driving around town. If you can do that, I’d argue that 4.0L NA engine will be superior to T4 in this regard; Plenty of low-end torque and zero lag.
I think it's pretty obvious that he was making a direct comparison between the NA & the T4 engines with that, as he immediately stated that you need to work harder to get the torque out of the 4.0. That isn't sour-grapes rationalization, it's a direct statement that indicates that he prefers the low end torque of the T4. His logic is his own, as is every reviewer out there. My take on his commentary about the chassis not being matched to the engine is that he thinks the chassis is tuned for the low rpm torque band of the T4 rather than the high rpm torque of the F6. Is he right? I have no idea and have no way to confirm it, as others have pointed out about themselves. Regarding the objective reviewer, I will say that the only reviewer who I have seen who I think comes across as objective and fair is Matt Farah. I haven't seen all his reviews but the ones I've seen have been good. Harry Metcalfe, the god of reviewers, did not even drive the T4 because he heard "it didn't sound good" - note: probably not a direct quote. That's not objective but I'm hoping that will be rectified some day. Chris Harris - I think he's horrible. Of course, we're all entitled to our own opinions.
Regarding another comment, review consensus does not a definitive answer make. It may only confirm group bias.
Back to my original commentary: "He probably prefers the 2.5T because it's actually a really good engine in a really good car. It may not sound like a F6 but it punches way above its weight. With it's low RPM torque production, it lives very well in the real world." Whether you like the T4 or prefer the F6, this is still true.
MOO & FWIW
He doesn't get to make up his own logic, he and others can try.......................He also said quite a bit more than just what you are talking about in this post. If he is spinning his tires AT high RPM, he is either doing it at the wrong time due to conditions, technique or where he is in a corner. I'd imagine if you mashed the throttle in 2.5T in similar conditions etc the same would happen and it doesn't mean the chassis isn't tuned for the 2.5T. It either means you aren't a competent driver or you are trying to make things up to "prove" the point you want to make.
Farah is ok, he said one of the dumbest/non objective things I've heard on a review while his actions/facial expressions clearly were contradicting his words. Everybody has bad days and their own opinions, but this one I haven't been able to let go of and it colors my perception of all of his videos now. I also think he could edit down a lot of us content as they seem to drag on with him rambling too much.
The 2.5T is a great engine in a great car as is the 4.0. I really don't get the "war" especially from the 2.5 guys. Reading other forums and threads they seem to be a very fired up group. Unfortunately, the markets that have a choice not based on tax reasons spoke and it didn't sell well. If it had, there would not be a GTS 4.0 version. That is the metric that car companies care about the most.
As for sound, I didn't think it was that important until my experience with my past M3/4s. I realized how important it is for me and my driving enjoyment. I went through multiple combinations of systems on that car and it never got better. It wasn't a good enough car to overcome that. If the 2.5 T is for those that own it, more power to them. The 4.0 doesn't knock it out of the park either in the sound department, but it isn't an annoying/must change item for me anyway. The 2.5T would of been for me.
It is a very slow day at work so I read all of the comments on this video. When people ask him direct questions about his controversial opinions, he either ignored them or gives vague answers as to what he means by not tuned for the chassis. He also admits many times he just doesn't like the 4.0 in the Cayman period and prefers the T4 for history sake or something along those lines. He also backtracks on the T4 is "faster" and basically admits it only is in very limited circumstances.
So while I do find him somewhat entertaining, I agree with others that I wouldn't put too much stock in his opinions about the 4.0 cars.
I didn't realize it was faster under any circumstance.
We have a very tight "track" here that a lot of use for events just because it is local. I use quotes because it really isn't one and is a training center for truck drivers and emergency responders. But, it can be configured many different ways and for the most part works. I could see a 2.5T being quicker around such a place, autocross or a very tight road. Also around town with a lot of stop and go etc.
I didn't realize it was faster under any circumstance.
The 2.5T has around 10-20% more torque in the 2000-4000 RPM range. If you floor a car with either engine at 2000 RPM in fourth gear, both will be very slow, and the turbo will be even slower initially because it takes a second for the turbos to spool up at low RPM. In the suitable gear, the 4.0 is always equal or faster because of more high end torque and instant response.
In autocross though, sometimes it’s a bit awkward to downshift to first (say you’re at 45 km/h entering a straight), and second gear at 2650 RPM on the 4.0L is a bit weak, so the 2.5T would pull 15% harder after the turbos spool up.
The 2.5T has around 10-15% more torque in the 2000-4000 RPM range. If you floor a car with either engine at 2000 RPM in fourth gear, both will be very slow, and the turbo will be even slower initially because it takes a second for the turbos to spool up at low RPM. In the suitable gear, the 4.0 is always equal or faster because of more high end torque and instant response.
Very good points as well. So maybe feeeeels faster under certain circumstances is a better way to say it?
Very good points as well. So maybe feeeeels faster under certain circumstances is a better way to say it?
Feel (and be) faster for sure at low RPM once the turbos are spooled up. If you do a roll race starting at 2000 RPM where turbo spool up is part of the measured time, it’s less clear if the turbo engine will be any quicker. At 3000 or 4000 RPM, the turbos will spool up more quickly, but the naturally aspirated engine will have more torque too. Above 5000 RPM, the 4.0L engine always wins.
Regarding the statement in bold. If you’re fortunate enough to be able to get rid of the GPFs, you will get a tangible increase in low-end torque. It really transforms the car driving around town. If you can do that, I’d argue that 4.0L NA engine will be superior to T4 in this regard; Plenty of low-end torque and zero lag.
There's no way the 4.0L is going to have the same low end torque of the 2.5T, but it has enough to get the job done and besides, that's not what these cars are designed for anyway. They're designed for higher RPM sport driving. IMO, there is no advantage to the 2.5L from a driving dynamics perspective. Janko's an overly dramatic moron; perfect example of how YouTube has given voices to a lot of people that really don't deserve them. Only a fool would put much stake in anything that comes out of his mouth.
There's no way the 4.0L is going to have the same low end torque of the 2.5T, but it has enough to get the job done and besides, that's not what these cars are designed for anyway. They're designed for higher RPM sport driving. IMO, there is no advantage to the 2.5L from a driving dynamics perspective. Janko's an overly dramatic moron; perfect example of how YouTube has given voices to a lot of people that really don't deserve them. Only a fool would put much stake in anything that comes out of his mouth.
Correct. It’s not the same low-end torque, however, the increase from GPF delete is tangible and makes it feel faster to the point that *I* wouldn’t miss the low-end torque of T4. Agreed with your comments regarding Janko.
Please link to independent dyno runs pre and post delete.
Akrapovic is attached PDF, shows huge torque gains in the 2000-4000 RPM range with OPF delete. I had seen other similar dyno plots previously showing similar low end torque gains with OPF delete, still looking for them.
For Fabspeed, they got 32 lb.ft gain at 2500 RPM, and around 20 lb.ft gain through most of the 2000-3000 RPM range, for combined exhaust and OPF delete, as shown in the graph below:
12-28-2020 | 11:18 AM
