Thank you :D!

With the D4-s developed in the 90's why haven't they got it right for the FA20 ?

Omg thank you !!!!:cheers:

Good info, thanks!

Thanks! Good read!

This is an extremely narrow minded statement that pays no attention to how much fuel is being burnt to produce those numbers. Try again.

On another note, according to that article everyone should have a longtube catless header and TRD intake, lol.

Haven't got it right? How so? I havent heard of anyone having problems with the port/direct injectors so far, only a chirping high pressure fuel pump which can be found on other direct injection cars and which causes no loss in performance or lack of durability/longevity (at least none which has been found to date). And the D4-S wasnt developed in the 90's, the D4 system was. D4-S appears to have been developed and first used in 2006 or so, if my google-fu is halfway decent. /rant off

Great article, thank you for sharing it, OP

I think he's referring to the DI seals problems.

So a performance car built fifty years ago burned a little more gas than the ones built today so that invalidates their importance in automotive history? I found a Car and Driver test drive review, 14-18 mpg, not bad for something with a better power to weight ratio than what we bought. Interesting read, they used to be so much more technical.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

I don't know, guess I gotta bite my tongue and not feed the troll.
:bonk:

Boxer engine article for Newbies
 

Now we're getting somewhere. It makes "only" 20hp more, while carrying 500 more pounds and getting double or more MPG. Not to mention the price of the technology at both points in time.

I think you're misunderstanding me. This is the statement that prompted my post:

I find it absurd that Subaru is more "notable" for using a boxer engine compared to VW who produced the beetle for 65 years and 21.5 million units or Porsche who is one of the winningest auto makers ever at pretty much every level of racing with some of the most highly regarded sports cars ever made.

I doubt Subaru would be half as successful without drawing on the technology VW and Porsche developed decades before Subaru got a boxer engine to a consumer's hands, much less a successful one. I don't mean to downplay Subaru's accomplishments and I'm sure you'll rattle them off (just like the "20 more hp and double the mpg while only being a bit slower").

:cheers:

I guess that statement is referring to the current state of the car industry. Subaru is the only one with a 100% boxer engine lineup. While VW and Porsche have some, they're not as head-over-heels for the engine configuration. They use inlines and V-types as well.

VW has zero boxers to my knowledge today in their commercial automobile lineup.

Porsche has 3 of their 7 models with boxers: Boxster, Cayman, 993 vs. Panamera, Cayenne, Macan and 918 Spyder. All their sports cars stay true to the boxer layout.

The sentence is pretty clear in it's intention that Subaru is the most prolific builder of boxer engines in automotive applications since Mr. Benz patented it 70 years before Subaru sold a car with one.

To be fair though, all of Porsche's mainstay sports cars use boxers (911, Boxster, Cayman). Only their price-is-no-object halo cars (Carrera GT, 918) and their sedans/suvs (Macan, Cayenne, Panamera) stray from this layout. I think the fact that they keep it in the cars that they are best known for says that they're pretty into the boxer layout. I agree though that Subaru is certainly the most prolific manufacturer of boxers at the moment (and likely will be for a long time).