I think anybody who says this engine is perfect is an idiot, it has drawbacks but nearly every time it gets discussed the only realistic solution proposed is some mythical I4 that simply doesn't exist, there isn't a real alternative to the FA20 being built right now to my knowledge. To me that makes the FA20 the best engine for the car. If you've got an alternative 2.0L (or less) NA engine that makes 100hp/L with a low c.g. that gets good gas mileage I'm all ears. All those factors have played a part into making this car as good as it is, sacrificing one of them could have big ramifications to the bottom line price, it's sales figures, and performance.

Points to @rice_classic for pointing out that the macpherson struts could have been ditched with an inline layout, but then again how many Toyota sports cars don't have Macphersons? Certainly Subaru has been relying on them for decades so that would be a non-Subaru component of the design? IMO drivers have been working around subpar suspensions for decades (cough mustang cough), I'll take the lower c.g.

If I had any complaint about a flat four it'd be how silly it is for a 2.0L four cylinder to have two timing chains, two heads, and four camshafts. Much heavier than a mythical I4.

There is a lot of immaturity on this board, for sure. But to be honest, your dislike of all boxer engines seem to stem from superficial reasons, hearsay, and paranoia. Anyone with a logical head on their shoulders will consider this approach irrational.

Of course a message board full of people who actually own the car will have more positive things to say about it than another board full of enthusiasts of a different platform. People gravitate to what they like and that's fine, but don't hate on others opinions.

The engine isn't perfect, no engine is apparently, but it's pretty damn good at what it does. Throw a catback on it and the sound gives it a whole new character. Subaru are just as reliable as any other engine maker, and plenty of Subarus go well into the 200k+ mile range. The flat layout does introduce some issues, but they're minor, and far from catastrophic flaws.

Instead of plain hating boxers altogether because they don't have the same appeal as some sexy V8 with sculpted intakes and flowing headers, why not look for things to appreciate?

I should also point out that boxer engines are the preferred engine for small aircraft up to ~400 hp.
That is due in large part to it's inherent reliability.
Anyone who has been to a aircraft museum would know that the boxer layout has been used in more IC vehicles than almost any other.

Especially the naturally aspirated ones...

I like the engine itself.... I just want more power, lol.

Not odd that people counter opinions with opinions. Where things fall apart is when opinions are presented as fact and shoved down others throat. Nohome could maybe have worded his original post better but I for one understood he was presenting an opinion and not stating as hard fact.
Also not odd that many of the guys responding that the engine is no good have usernames or past vehicles that reflect where their bias originates. The number of "well my xxx car with it's yyy engine was perfect" almost always include some legendary set up that frequently are not any better than 100 others out there but are high profile. Many of those cars could in reality have been pieces of crap but they were first or favourites so now the owners remember them as great. If I started ranting about my big block 70s v8s like some on here do about their old Supras or Civics I would be laughed off the forum.
Beyond this forum my knowledge of the tuner scene extends as far as the F and F movies and I see a distinct correlation between the cars from that series and what the younger crowd on here seem to think are the great cars. There were and are better cars then those and there always will be.
As I have already stated I don't love or hate this engine. It suits the car and whatever issues it may have are no better or worse that any other engine, just different.
It is the nature of car guys to second guess the engineers that design any car and sometimes that is warranted due to how the car is used but we don't all use them the same so they have to be designed to the closest common denominator.
I must say I do enjoy all the "I have this issue so everybody does" and "all these engines are going to blow up because I know a guy who said his did" comments though since they can be very entertaining in their intensity.
So I end this rant with this pearl of wisdom:
If you don't like it than fix it, change it or sell it but don't try to tell the rest of us why we shouldn't like it or what problems we should be having just because you are. (This was not directed at you @NOHOME but at the guys in general)

The Koolaide is strong in this thread...

How about we head over to the Civic forum and say "wow these cars would be great if it weren't for that damned VTEC" or the Mustang one and say "these would be so much better if they just made them in only v6 autos.

Grab a cup and pull up a seat.

I agree. I'm just amused at how so many people think a rather generic motor is such a triumph of design and technology. It moves the car adequately; no more, no less.

Yep! And the same applies to every other engine that is being thrown up as "better". Every single one of them has their good and bad points. No matter what they put in it somebody would say it is no good and they should have used their personal favourite.

I wonder who's idea this was

THIS GUY...

http://images.thecarconnection.com/h...00436601_h.jpg

You mean the guy who designed the car to be a "blank canvis" for people to easily mod to whatever level suited their desires? That guy?

The car could've been designed by Stephen Hawking; it still wouldn't change any of the realities of what it is, and what it's powered by: a warmed over version of what powers the Subaru Crosstrek and a few other models. As I said before, it's adequate at performing it's job. Luckily the rest of the platform picks up the slack.

I love the boxer engine power plant that in these car!! If someone don't like it, go buy a something else!! Its enough for what brz/frs was built for.

i don't understand what people are bitching about. the way this car comes out of the factory is great. for what i bought this car for I'm more than happy with the engine, suspension , interior,...etc. honestly i understand that this car lacks power but its got enough to stay nose to nose with a 14 wrx sti on the free way.

"Real engine" huh... :rolleyes:

This is just yet another re-hash of the "The 86 needs more power" argument. Flat 4 vs inline 4 is meaningless.

Hang on...you're saying that the '86 is going to hang right with a WRX STi, a car with over 100 horsepower more than us and DOUBLE the torque, in a roll on at legal highway speeds? Are you sure the other guy knew he was in a race? lol


Edit: If that's the case, I should be able to walk away from a standard WRX, which a friend of mine has. This will be a pretty easy test...

I don't care who designs/builds it. All internal combustion engines are generic. Period. Changes are incremental. There is nothing mysterious about any of it.

Yup. I'll go one better. This car does not lack power. Like the rest of the car which is "just right," so is the engine. I don't know about the WRX but, then again, IDGAF.

Here's a dyno of a ferrari lampredi 3l v12 from the golden age of sports cars:



Notice any similarities?
http://www.carobu.com/Dyno%20Testing...di%20Graph.gif

I for one like the engine choice and it's low center of gravity. The Subaru Boxer fits in with what Tada wanted and to keep the spirit of fun. Just enjoy the car!!

It doesn't lack peak power, but it sure could use some help in the midrange. Whoever signed off on that torque dip as acceptable in a sports car should be fired. I realize the dip can be driven around on a track, but as this is a street car, it's in just about the worst spot possible. Luckily it seems a header is all that's needed to fix the issue, but it's a little disappointing that it's needed in the first place. Having to keep the motor under 3500rpm, or over 5000 is kind of a PITA on public roads.



I still do. It's just a shame that the car seems so well designed everywhere else right out of the box, but the motor is rather... "meh".

I really don't see that many people calling it a "triumph of design and technology." That doesn't mean it's not a real engine, and calling bullshit on someone who thinks it's not a real engine doesn't automatically mean we worship it.

It's funny you mention that. Last night I had ready to post a bunch of photos of flat Continentals, Rotaxes, and Subie engines mounted in aircraft. Last minute I said to myself, "No, I'm not gonna get sucked into another one of these threads." :cheers:

Understandable. I will be happy as is. To each their own :thumbup:

Underwhelming performance, which is why they ditched them in favor of continuing development of the older Colombo motors?

Realistic expectations are needed in these instances. If one wants a feat of mechanical engineering propelling the car, then the car will be twice as much. They make those--Porsches and Vettes. The old engines people wax about wouldn't fly by today's standards. Besides, the potentials of those were often found when their value had dropped and they could be built and modified economically.

Honest question: are there any other modern engines out there that could have been put into this vehicle which are superior and would not have changed the price? Maybe the Ford ecoboost? SI engine?

It is what it is, and it does just fine, in my opinion. Best part about this car and drivetrain--it is begging to be modified, and I purchased it knowing I eventually will.

The passive aggressive thread title was what did you in, no doubt.

Oh, come on. It's a fucking go kart. In the middle of the dreaded torque dip it's still better than any perfectly functional econobox.

It boils down to acoustics, the layout of the engine, and economics. Instead of whining about the torque dip (not just you) why not consider the engine has been tuned to make use of VVT to give us 2 sweet spots and learn to use them both. It has a 6-speed gearbox FFS.

~2800 pounds isn't a go kart, by any stretch, no matter what motor is powering it. Maybe if compared to most of the generic drivel being churned out today, it's far better, but let's not get carried away...


I understand what causes the dip. Apparently so do many other people who make headers designed to cure it. I just find is a little disappointing that a redesigned exhaust is needed not to boost peak numbers, which is what people usually shoot for, but rather to prevent falling into a hole right when you'd normally expect a motor to wake up. Not so disappointing that the rest of the car's positives didn't outweigh this one negative, but to me it's a pretty significant faux pas for a sports car.

I get a strange sense of pleasure knowing that about one quarter of the FR-S/BRZ's is see are being driving by people who would rather be driving something else. Those people are, as far as I can tell, retarded. Yeah, it has limitations in the engine room. If you cant learn to drive around them and have massive fun despite those limitations, either sell the car or do something about it.

That would require "driver involvement" and some effort. Ain't nobody got time for dat. These clowns would be complaining if it had 300 hp.

Headers are only part of it and don't forget emissions. Please don't mistake my realistic expectations and understanding for exuberance. And yes, it is a go kart just like @stugray's Porsche. The flat 4 is a good chunk of it.

How much did we pay for these little machines?

no joke it was today. i was just going on the high way when out of no where a wild wrx sti shows up with its mean exhaust rolling on high rpms next to me, looks at me with the :thumbup: lets go face. i was thinking :iono: y not i probably lose anyway. so i drop in to 4th and 3 honks go. i stayed with him till we hit about 120ish mph when he started pulling ahead a few feet.

We are lucky to have this car at all, Tada and his crew put one over on the suits. The complainers are just, at this point in the run of the car, 'tards.

Amen. I will say with exuberance this little car is a stroke of genius pushed through by some great guys with healthy sacks.

random off topic ignorant thoughts. If you turned an inline 4 or 6 sideways (as in cylinders parallel to the ground) and modified the oil pan to hang at a right angle to the block, wouldn't it end up providing just as low of a center of gravity as a flat layout? Also from my lack of understanding I thought that the flat 4 engine was naturally balanced because the diagonally opposite pistons fired at the same time giving equal force on both sides of the crank at the same time, but if that was true, there would only be 2 power strokes for every cycle. That doesn't sound right, but it would explain why this engine has such weak low end torque. /thinking out loud

I got shit before for saying it was a taste of a "supercar" that normal humans can afford. Shame it's what cars used to be as well. Whatever, every time I hop in mine I smile, pat the dash, and we both have a blast. Sucks to be those who cant.

From all of the background information I have seen regarding the development of this car, this engine (and its specs) were a very deliberate choice. Compromises had to be made, and they were made by gearheads, not corporate. The story of how this car came to be would make a fine book some day, as it is a miracle it even made out of a design studio to start with.

ETA: Tada is a stellar vehicle designer. He must also be regarded as a stellar bullshitter as well to have sold this car into production.

Almost all the previous NA Subaru engines were primarily known for low end torque. This engine was designed to be the opposite.