What makes the Boxer engine so special

[Delirium]

I heard something about the oil not draining down from the cylinders since they're aligned horizontally, which would help longevity?

[ZakD]

Originally Posted by mattles

Having owned one of the lowest stock Miata's ever produced ..
EDIT: found some data finally

Wow awesome graphic! Thanks

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

[einzlr]

Great info, @mattles, thanks!

"...maximizing the joy out of a corner" - gotta love it

[F1point4]

It's great but not all magic. Wait until you have to change the spark plugs on a boxer!

[mkiisupra]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Then why does it only have the same F:R balance as an iron-block, long inline-6 powered Supra?

Marketing hyperbole. Try again.

Edit: According to Keith Tanner (look him up), first gen Miatas' cogs was ~17" stock.

F:R balance is only one axis of design/measure in the entire 'balance equation.' The CoG becomes a factor in other considerations, like side to side dynamics as well as corner balancing.

Eric G

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by Celicadude

Also less vibrations since horizontally opposed pistons cancel the vibrations out, or so subaru says. Blah Blah Blah sciencey stuff Boxer Hooray!!!!!

correct,however nothing special,as this type of engine has been around
for a long,long,time! of note: (b.m.w.)motorcycles. (o.m.c.) snowmobiles
all horizontally opposed designs,and of course the "german" flat six,which is
the original "boxer" design.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by mkiisupra

F:R balance is only one axis of design/measure in the entire 'balance equation.' The CoG becomes a factor in other considerations, like side to side dynamics as well as corner balancing.

Eric G

The balance example was to demonstrate how flowery the marketing guys get about this car. They say they chose the boxer so they could move it back to optimally balance the car. But it ends up with the same balance as the Supra. Look at the shock/strut towers relative to the front of the motor of both cars. Also the 53:47 on the FT86 is with 2 passengers (as seen in the above specs), whereas the Supra's is with 1.

The other thing is all these noobs throwing around COG like it's the Holy Grail of handling never thought twice about it until they encountered the hype machine.

The reality is the Subaru cooperation allowed the access to a north-south engine without having to spend a fortune on a new motor. That's it.

If the boxer was so great and COGs the be all and end all of handling , the cost is no object LFA would have had a flat 8.

[Cade01]

Originally Posted by jmaryt

correct,however nothing special,as this type of engine has been around
for a long,long,time! of note: (b.m.w.)motorcycles. (o.m.c.) snowmobiles
all horizontally opposed designs,and of course the "german" flat six,which is
the original "boxer" design.

Don't forget Volkswagen has been making them (flat 4 engines) since the late 30s (1938 I believe)

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by Dimman

The balance example was to demonstrate how flowery the marketing guys get about this car. They say they chose the boxer so they could move it back to optimally balance the car. But it ends up with the same balance as the Supra. Look at the shock/strut towers relative to the front of the motor of both cars. Also the 53:47 on the FT86 is with 2 passengers (as seen in the above specs), whereas the Supra's is with 1.

The other thing is all these noobs throwing around COG like it's the Holy Grail of handling never thought twice about it until they encountered the hype machine.

The reality is the Subaru cooperation allowed the access to a north-south engine without having to spend a fortune on a new motor. That's it.

If the boxer was so great and COGs the be all and end all of handling , the cost is no object LFA would have had a flat 8.

I don't disagree with you re: hyping up a car (that's what marketing is for), but I don't recall them saying they chose the boxer because of weight distribution - I thought the reason for choosing the boxer was always to lower CoG (rather than for weight distribution)?

[Mr 286]

Originally Posted by Dimman

The balance example was to demonstrate how flowery the marketing guys get about this car. They say they chose the boxer so they could move it back to optimally balance the car. But it ends up with the same balance as the Supra. Look at the shock/strut towers relative to the front of the motor of both cars. Also the 53:47 on the FT86 is with 2 passengers (as seen in the above specs), whereas the Supra's is with 1.

The other thing is all these noobs throwing around COG like it's the Holy Grail of handling never thought twice about it until they encountered the hype machine.

The reality is the Subaru cooperation allowed the access to a north-south engine without having to spend a fortune on a new motor. That's it.

If the boxer was so great and COGs the be all and end all of handling , the cost is no object LFA would have had a flat 8.

Flat 10?

If all these guys are noobs, I guess that makes you an expert? Good, because I've been looking for an expert to ask why most of the JGTC Supra's swapped out the inline 6 for a 3S-GTE with the exception of the V8's used later.

[DEnd]

Originally Posted by Dimman

The balance example was to demonstrate how flowery the marketing guys get about this car. They say they chose the boxer so they could move it back to optimally balance the car. But it ends up with the same balance as the Supra. Look at the shock/strut towers relative to the front of the motor of both cars. Also the 53:47 on the FT86 is with 2 passengers (as seen in the above specs), whereas the Supra's is with 1.


If the boxer was so great and COGs the be all and end all of handling , the cost is no object LFA would have had a flat 8.

Who cares about what gets the marketing guys all gushy over, as long as it sells more of these.

And the LFA was far from a cost is no object car. I can just about guarantee you that it's engine was designed to be built within Toyota's existing engine manufacturing facilities.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

I don't disagree with you re: hyping up a car (that's what marketing is for), but I don't recall them saying they chose the boxer because of weight distribution - I thought the reason for choosing the boxer was always to lower CoG (rather than for weight distribution)?

It had everything to do with money. Toyota had nothing close to longitudinal motor that was suitable. Subaru did. Subaru had pretty much the whole suspension and brakes too. As well allowing the Toyota board to see the project as 'safer' and cheaper by splitting the risk. Seeing the mounting differences between the L6s and this H4 show that the platform may not be as 'purpose built' as people seem to think.

However they did a fantastic job on the car. This is neither 'because of' nor 'in spite of' the boxer motor. It was the most cost effective solution, but also much more identifiable as a Subaru engine, so they are hyping the shit out of its properties to make it look like Toyota was a bit more in control (however they did do some behind the scenes un-fucking of the motor, beyond just the D4-S).

That's it. Toyota hasn't made a flat motor in what, 50 or 60 years?

@Mr 286 Displacement rules probably played a role, but as you are probably alluding to it, balance and reducing the polar moment of inertia played a big role. See if you can dig up an engine bay shot of those JGTC Supras and compare with the FT86. Then consider that the 3S is 4 cylinders long with the same bore as the FA20 which is 2 cylinders long (plus all the other stuff, it's obviously not twice as long but I hope you see what I'm getting at).

However if you think I will be butt hurt about the mighty 2JZ being replaced with a lowly 3S (though I'm pretty sure it was a 4T race relative, but I'll have to research more on that...), realize that you're talking to a guy that has fantasies about putting a turbo 2AZ (Camry motor) into a Supra to knock 2-300lbs off the nose and achieve a 50:50-49:51 balance.

Cliffs:

Toyota got a good deal on the cost of the boxer.

[DEnd]

Toyota had plenty of engines that would be suitable for a small rwd sports car. There are only two reasons to go with Subaru, the boxer engine, and a partner to split development cost with.

It's not that the boxer is the end all be all of engines, but it's the right engine for this application.

[RedRocket]

It's different to look at under the hood. People love to see it