Probably the dumbest argument against a boxer engine in this car I've heard so far.
 

So I was listening to Neutral FM, their newest release that you can listen to here. One of the commenters said this little golden nugget.

Starts around 8:20. He compares the boxer to the wankel, and says that if boxers were so good why don't more people use them? I just thought this comment was so stupid I had to post it here and get some opinions as well.

I mean there is a reason why subaru only uses boxer engines, and then there is porsche.

hmm... after reading that i'm starting to think about the same thing... WHY DON'T all cars use boxer(or any Horizontal-Opposed) engines?

And don't forget the motorcycle manufacturers over the years, most notably BMW. The R 1150 RT was one of the best I ever owned.:)

It might have a lot to do with the cost of re-tooling manufacturing lines, refitting or restructuring engine bays and platforms as well as maintenance aspects.

I realize that most manufacturers redesign their products every 5+ years but I bet they save a lot of money by not reinventing the wheel. Basically, if what they have works then why change?

And in regards to the noises... Has the guy ever hear the rumble associated with a boxer engine?!? Pure Sex. :)

All preference. Some folks love the noise from a boxer motor...some don't. I wouldn't take it personally.

This is the first car I've owned that I don't play the radio. I just love listening to it. It's like holding a fine wrist watch up to your ear. :)

manufacturing cost and cost associated with pattents. If you want to use a flat engine, you either have to completely re-design your own or.. you have to pay someone to use their design. Automakers dont want to do that so the one's that pioneered (Porsche) and the one's that struck out with their own (subaru) are the one's that still use them in cars. The corvair had a air cooled Flat engine as well. VW used lots of flat engines in the past.

I'm sure there are engineering deterrence but those usually dont weigh in as hard as cost does. Remember guys the bean counters run everything.

As for the guy's comment. He's obviously entitled to his opinion regardless of how stupid it actually is. I've spent the better part of my recreational life playing with engines.. all kinds, and I love the flat engine layouts the most. Noise is relative. I can build an exhaust that makes a flat engine sound like an inline version (given that cyl counts are same) .. so that line is total bullshit.

Also, something to note.. that subaru only uses boxer engines exclusively in the US market. They use inline engines in other markets in models that we dont get or dont get anymore. Remember the Justy? It had a I3 engine. ;)

Interesting argument. I dont think there is any licensing for the flat engine itself unlike Wankel. Even with Wankel, pardon my ignorance, but isn't licensing enforced by patents that expire after 25 years or something?

There must be some drawbacks to the flat engine, perhaps related to servicability (good luck finding the spark plugs and the valve heads arent exactly up front and centre). May also cost more to produce/assemble. And nobobdy is going to drop everything they have done in the past for financial reasons.

If there were no drawbacks I'd think the advantages would make it a prevalent design for many more cars. Lower CoG, no harmonic balancer req'd, etc. So it's likely a cost/benefits decision. Fortunately Subaru went this route many years ago and have a sort of cult following as a result.

I knew a guy who had an '07 STI that put out ~ 500 HP. To me it still sounded like a 4cyl engine no matter what. I didnt like the sound at idle at all. On the other hand my FR-S with the Magnaflow sounds awesome at low RPMs.

All Oem's have pattents on their proprietary designs. It would be financially destructive not to. If a oem were to release a flat engine layout it would have to be completely different than other flat engines out there OR to avoid possible lawsuits they'd have to license the design that theirs is a copy or near copy of.

I'm not a lawyer.. and I'm sure one could explain it better.. but when it comes to the secret squirrel stuff that oem's do in lab's behind closed doors, they pattent anything they believe can make money.

It is an interesting concept though, and you're right wbradley there has to be some sort of caveat aside of financials that limits the "boxer spread" lol.

I know from an engine building standpoint, deck height (or ability to increase it) is very important. This allows more stroke without changing bore size. In a chassis fitted with a boxer engine, the engine width (deck height) is restricted by the with of the chassis rails that it mounts to/between. This limits the ability to upgrade and update a older engine design in a chassis that may not be changing with it. Also as you mention, serviceability becomes an issue.. though I've always wondered why Subaru hasn't devised a opening through the frame rails accessible from the fender wells to get at the spark plugs. cover it with a nifty plastic flap to keep splash water from getting through.. and plug changes would be effortless.

Of course, then the dealers wouldn't be able to charge $250+ just to change spark plugs... but I'm digressing.

flat four does take up alot of space in the bay, horozontaly anyways

It's cheaper to manufacture a straight 4. 1 piece engine block, 1 head, 1 set of valve timing control, 1 header, 1 timing chain, smaller size. And easier to work on.

Wow can't believe nobody mentioned it before.

The biggest drawback to the flat engine is the volume it occupies. It is very very wide compared to engines of equal displacement and power and just as long. This makes it harder to package than the majority of V or Inline engines usually involving a sacrifice of interior cabin space, read not practical for most consumers. When the average joe is looking at a car two things come to mind: performance and experience. In short "will this car do what I need it to do" and "is the car comfortable, enjoyable, reliable, cheap (etc. etc.) for me to use". To some the boxer ticks box number one perfectly, low c.o.g., smooth, and performance equal to other comparable motors. But any boxer should impact #2 by taking away cabin space, requiring more maintenance in the early days (I'll get back to this one), "noises" are different, lots of little impacts and trade offs that occur in any engineering solution.

Early boxers consumed oil, it was hard to get lubrication and cooling to all the important parts, ever see the brass tubes on the bottom of older boxers? Those were oil returns and if not replaced every time taken apart (they crushed into place) they would leak oil like a sieve. Warped heads were common, it was a pain to replace spark plugs and lots of other things I don't know about because I haven't bought my vintage 911 yet.

For all these little disadvantages what would you get? A slightly smoother engine that performs basically the same and makes noises that *some* enjoyed. There really wasn't a tangible benefit over Inlines and V's which is why VW doesn't really use them anymore (except in Porsche's). Certainly the guy on the show was talking out his ass based on the quotes posted here but personal preference is personal preference.

Joop above said something more meaningful in much less space that I overlooked, props to him.

all engine layouts have advantages and disadvantages, the I4 seems to provide the most advantages to FWD applications (weight, packaging, cost, # of parts) at the cost of being a "tall" engine.

Both Porsche and Subaru have to use boxster engines to compensate for their drivetrain layouts as the relatively short engine helps when it comes to weight distribution when hanging an engine in front of (or behind) an axle. While the engine is wide, its not vert long.

it's got to be packaging, imagine how big a 5.0L flat 8 would be?