What makes the Boxer engine so special

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by DEnd

The 2AR-FE could easily work for this car. Granted the car would probably look different and it wouldn't have the cool engine tie in to the 86 nomenclature.

Actually it wouldn't. Mounting it in the engine bay would be a big problem, with it being an engine meant for a layout where it rests on top of the transaxle, which wouldn't be the case with the FR-S/BRZ.

It's for that reason why Toyota's 2ZZ-GE engine from the Celica GT-S worked for the Lotus Elise and also why Toyota's 2GR-FE engine from the Toyota Camry worked for the Lotus Evora. Didn't you ever wonder why they used the 276 hp Camry V-6 instead of the 306 hp 2GR-FSE in the IS350? It's that same reason... the more powerful version was set up for an FR layout and wouldn't fit right.

Originally Posted by DEnd

The 1AZ-FSE has the same bore and stroke as the boxer used in the 86 line, as well as the D-4 injection system, and should be able to reach the same hp levels, though it might need a head revision to do so.

To take a 2.0-liter that's only putting out ~155 hp and increase its output by 30% is completely possible but it takes a bit more effort. If it didn't, then you'd see tons K20A3-powered Civic Si hatchbacks and base RSXs running neck-and-neck with K20Z3-powered Civic Si coupes/sedans and K20A2/K20Z1-powered RSX-S.

Originally Posted by DEnd

I am sure there are plenty of other options as well, as I am not familiar with Toyota's engine line up really. Toyota is not lacking in 4 cylinder engines than can be sporty

But none really deserve to be in the engine bay of the FR-S/BRZ. MAYBE the 2ZZ, but that engine is getting phased out and certainly doesn't have good enough torque for it, as it's already a good 300 pounds heavier than the Celica GT-S was.

[DEnd]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

Actually it wouldn't. Mounting it in the engine bay would be a big problem, with it being an engine meant for a layout where it rests on top of the transaxle, which wouldn't be the case with the FR-S/BRZ.

But none really deserve to be in the engine bay of the FR-S/BRZ. MAYBE the 2ZZ, but that engine is getting phased out and certainly doesn't have good enough torque for it, as it's already a good 300 pounds heavier than the Celica GT-S was.

Which FWD cars do you look at that have the engine on top of the transaxle?

The only "weird" thing about the 2AR-FE is how the engine mounts, which could easily be overcome by using a front and mid plate mounting (which is basically what it uses in the FWD application).

Other than the inherent packaging the boxer has (mainly lower COG), there really isn't any other reason an I-4 (or even V-6) could not be used. In fact the I-4 could be placed so as to give a better F/R weight balance.

I don't know what you mean by an engine deserving to be in the car. There are plenty of simple changes that could easily be made to any number of Toyota engines that aside from the COG of the engine itself, that would make them meet or exceed the performance on the boxer it has now. Those Changes would also be cheaper to implement than designing a whole new engine, which is what Subaru and Toyota did for this car.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by DEnd

Which FWD cars do you look at that have the engine on top of the transaxle?

It wasn't meant to be taken that literally, though I did mix up my wording a bit. What I should have said was that they are on the same side of the car. That being said, the engine still wouldn't make a good candidate for the car without serious modification.

Originally Posted by DEnd

Other than the inherent packaging the boxer has (mainly lower COG), there really isn't any other reason an I-4 (or even V-6) could not be used. In fact the I-4 could be placed so as to give a better F/R weight balance.

I don't think that anyone was saying that an I-4 can't be used. It's just that Toyota didn't have a sporty one available with the character that would suit a car like this one.

Originally Posted by DEnd

I don't know what you mean by an engine deserving to be in the car.

A car with a sporty chassis deserves a sporty engine. Remember the Shelby Cobra? That car (as the AC Cobra) would never have become the classic it is today if Carroll Shelby didn't drop Ford V-8s into them. Those 85 hp 2.0-liter sixes originally resting in their engine bays weren't cutting it and certainly not granting it any "legendary" status at the time.

Originally Posted by DEnd

There are plenty of simple changes that could easily be made to any number of Toyota engines that aside from the COG of the engine itself, that would make them meet or exceed the performance on the boxer it has now. Those Changes would also be cheaper to implement than designing a whole new engine, which is what Subaru and Toyota did for this car.

And that's also what happened. It was cheaper for them to go with an existing engine design of Subaru's than any other options, which include making a new motor or modifying any existing Toyota motor.

Toyota definitely has the know-how to make a good engine, but they just haven't had one for this purpose. The LFA motor rocks but doesn't have technology that will trickle down into a mass-production four-cylinder that easily, and even their 2ZZ-GE was still co-developed by Yamaha. Subaru, on the other hand, has been really competitive in the four-cylinder performance market, as seen with the WRX and STI.

[SubieNate]

From what I've heard they still called in Yamaha for the head work. The FA20 does not share all that much with the FB20.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Does it? I don't remember reading that (about Yamaha being invovled with the FA), but I could be wrong.

[RyleyMA61]

look up engine balance/firing order through the first, second, third and fourth harmonics.

then look up the porsche flat 6.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

this isn't a court of law?! SHOCKING! we know that, i only made my comment about "so says the guy with the inline engine" because we know you're trying to debunk the hype around the 86, we get it, you think it's not that special, but the rave reviews of it have people thinking it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and you want people to know, "hey there are other cars out there are just as good!" we get it.

but you do realize that you're on the ft86 website, and it you're gonna hear a lot about the 86 on this website, so bashing it or telling people it's not that great isn't really productive right?

i'm a fan of the miata/mx-5, have been since i first saw one in 95 when i started getting into cars. saying that your car is better because it has a lower cog and then not bringing facts to back it up doesn't make any sense right? how can anyone take anything seriously if they don't have sources for their info? this is a discussion board, not a fox news where facts and sources go the way of the doo doo bird. thanks to dimman for the links btw.

however you can imagine how annoying it would be for people at the mx-5 message boards, if a bunch of scion tards were to go over there and post about how much better the FR-S is than the mx-5, right?

you're a reasonable guy fatoni, i've said my peace. props to fun vehicle lovers.

thats not what at all what i was saying. i never once said anything bad about the frs in this post. i just said that a boxer engine does not mean lower cog for the car. then you called me out for having an inline motor (in a car which happens to have a lower cog than the frs). i guess my point is that other than aesthetics, which are subjective, there really isnt anything special about boxers. they have pros and cons just like every other configuration we know of.

[DEnd]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

That being said, the engine still wouldn't make a good candidate for the car without serious modification.

And that's also what happened. It was cheaper for them to go with an existing engine design of Subaru's than any other options, which include making a new motor or modifying any existing Toyota motor.

Toyota definitely has the know-how to make a good engine, but they just haven't had one for this purpose. The LFA motor rocks but doesn't have technology that will trickle down into a mass-production four-cylinder that easily, and even their 2ZZ-GE was still co-developed by Yamaha. Subaru, on the other hand, has been really competitive in the four-cylinder performance market, as seen with the WRX and STI.

:facepalm:

Whatever.

[DEnd]

Originally Posted by fatoni

thats not what at all what i was saying. i never once said anything bad about the frs in this post. i just said that a boxer engine does not mean lower cog for the car.

there really isnt anything special about boxers. they have pros and cons just like every other configuration we know of.

The boxer does allow for a lower COG design compared to a inline, slant or v-type engine. That's not to say you can't build a car with one of those engines that has a lower COG, but it's not as "easy." Part of what allowed the first gen Miata to have such a low COG is that it's a soft top, adding a steel roof and its associated glass would have raised the COG by quite a bit.

X2 about the pros and cons. Utilizing those to their fullest is what makes vehicle design and improvement so much darn fun.

[SkullWorks]

Originally Posted by BuBlake

Anyone else notice how much the car shakes at the rev limiter while in neutral? My guess is it's because the timing is cut off and effectively makes it seem unbalanced.

nope can't say i noticed that...but i try not to rev my motor to redline in neutral so...


why were you doing this exactly?

my motor see's redline (even now at 8k) often enough, and im not scared of it by anymeans...but why would you do that in neutral???

please don't do it again

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Problem is they're wide and can't be pushed back as far for balance when front mounted and interfere with more advanced suspension options in the front because of it.

Which is a large part of why we don't have a wishbone type front setup. The other being cost. A LOT of sacrifices were made to get the car where it is...

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by DEnd

The boxer does allow for a lower COG design compared to a inline, slant or v-type engine. That's not to say you can't build a car with one of those engines that has a lower COG, but it's not as "easy." Part of what allowed the first gen Miata to have such a low COG is that it's a soft top, adding a steel roof and its associated glass would have raised the COG by quite a bit.

X2 about the pros and cons. Utilizing those to their fullest is what makes vehicle design and improvement so much darn fun.

im not really sold on that. i guess well see if they make a frs vert if they are still flaunting the cog. convertibles are usually heavier and all that weight is still well above the cog. if you put a steel roof on the frs the cog would go up quite a bit too.

[AL008]

Originally Posted by SubieNate

From what I've heard they still called in Yamaha for the head work. The FA20 does not share all that much with the FB20.

Here you go.

Tokyo – Manufacturer Yamaha motorcycle was involved in the design of Toyota‘s sports car. Concept car Toyota FT-86 newly showcased the latest last month. This car will soon go into production.
Sources within Toyota as reported by Autocar, Thursday (15/04/2011) states that the FT-86 second generation is a manifestation of the FT-86 production version. 95 percent will look like that without 20 inches rim.
Car body is built from a monocoque chassis is designed with a steel body with dimensions of 4.235 x2, 570×1, 270 mm (LongxWidthxHeight).
This engine is powered by 2.0 liter engine with 16 valves from Subaru that has been specially modified combined with a six-speed manual gearbox.
Yamaha helped Toyota and Subaru, in designing the cylinder head to the machine which in turn can generate power to 200 bhp. Not explained again what Yamaha’s involvement in this project.

http://www.automotiveheadlines.com/t...amaha-944.html

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Also the 86 would lose a little bit of structural rigidity. It'll still handle well but remember that it's not a car that was designed as a convertible (or with that being a distinct possibility without question) from day one.