Not even in the slightest. You couldn't be more wrong.
108.5 horsepower per liter, engineered in the mid 90's. some of you were barely born when this engine was in production. A nearly perfect rod:stroke ratio, fine tuned with an 8500 RPM fuel cut off redline. Fitted with a limited slip differential. Also remember that FWD cars only lose about 15% to the drivetrain versus RWD cars.
Uhh no.
HP/L and redline are poor ways to measure how good an engine is. Rod to stroke ratio is nearly as irrelevant. Here's a great quote from a race-engine builder:
"If I had to make a list of the ten most important specifications in a racing engine, connecting rod length would rank about fiftieth. Back in the days when Buddy Morrison and I built dozens of small-block Modified motors, we earnestly believed that an engine needed a 1.9:1 rod/stroke ratio. Today every Pro Stock team uses blocks with super-short deck heights, and we couldn't care less about the rod ratio. A short deck height improves the alignment between the intake manifold runners and the cylinder head intake ports, and helps to stabilize the valvetrain. These are much more important considerations than the rod-to-stroke ratio." -David Reher
Also being able to rev high is just a means to making power, not the goal itself. Do you really believe the B18C5 is better than an LSX engine because it has more HP/L, higher redline, or R-S ratio? Ricers in the 90's made those kind of arguments...
For most enthusiasts comparing small engines like this, you're better off looking at which engine makes more horsepower stock (FA20), which engine makes more torque across the board stock (FA20), which engine makes more power with basic bolt-ons (FA20), and which engine makes more power reliably with boost (FA20). Because at the end of the day, what matters is how much power you're making and how reliably.
Limited slip differential (which the FR-S also comes with) and drivetrain losses are completely irrelevant here. When I say the FA20 is making more hp and torque, I'm talking about on the dyno.
Lastly I don't even know what to say about your insanely stupid straw man arguments. If you want to argue against yourself like some crazy homeless guy fine but don't pretend to speak for me. Not to mention how wrong you are about the RE010's on the ITR.
And before you say "The BRZ will dust it on a track." You'd be wrong about that too. The Integra Type R DC2 ran an 8:43 on the Nurburgring versus an 8:44 from the FT86 with RE050's (and that's in BRZ trim, no less). Oh and better tires makes it non stock/stock comparison. Meaning you need a full set of tires just to compete with the Type R as it left the lot 18 years ago. Without those tires the FT86 ran a 9:09.
Also keep in mind that the RE010's were great "at the time" but would be significantly disadvantaged versus even a Conti DWS in grip. Throw a set of RE050's on the ITR and 8:43 turns to 8:3x or even better.
