Subaru debuts 3rd gen Boxer
 

Link

Will this be the engine that Toyota/Yamaha reworks to put into the FT-86?

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....3rd-genbox.jpg

prob. one thing for sure is, subaru's engine design is gettin closer & closer to Porsche. which I'm not saying that's bad, just nightmare to work on.

I wonder if Toyota/Yamaha are going to tweak the engine because if they do, you might not want a Porsche anymore. Anyone ever heard of Yamaha's cross plane crankshaft? you guys wouldn't want to hear the sound.

If Yamaha helps developing head cylinder, it would be good enough for the engine.

Edit: Cross Plane Crankshaft is in Yamaha R1's I4 engine.

I like the "The bore and stroke have been increased, The intake ports have been redesigned, lighter pistons and connecting rods, separate cooling circuitry for the block and the head" I smiled when i was reading that hope its going to be lighter than the Current H4, no explaination on their version of the direct injection yet so ill wait and see.

Right. and I really want DI in this engine. If they build a new gen engine, they should use DI tech to improve both performance and fuel consumption. light overall weight is the strong point of building a future engine.

I hope that though the internals and block are lighter, they are still strong.

@Dark, I'm not sure how feasible a flat plane crank would be in a boxer engine....

**runs off to do research**

This

Why wouldn't you want to hear the sound? It'll sound a hell lot better than the "gurgling" sound on the current boxer motor. Those things sound like the engine is bogging out while submerged in water. :bellyroll:

Coming from a I4 to a current L-Twin, the R1 sounds insane with that slight twin rumble. It definitely makes riders do a double take b/c they are expecting to hear a Tiller, RC51, Duc or SV and they see an R1 pull up.

I rode the 09 R1 @ Willow and you can feel the difference; a lot less engine breaking yet very smooth while on the throttle.

Here is a vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_e_g...eature=related

Music to my ears!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHBmV...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_imX...eature=related

@ RRnold: R1 would be the best literbike under 1000cc out there, except the weight and that huge body that I can barely ride on one.(I'm 5ft7") sigh...
Yamaha really knows how to make an engine sounds right because the company produces world's best musical instrumental. You don't want to hear the engine's sound because you will definitely fall in love. I'm kinda a bit off topic here.

Back to the topic. I read the article about 3rd gen boxer on MT, the new engine is not equipped DI, so it's possible to gain more power and fuel consumption when it is.
Link: http://wot.motortrend.com/6687430/te...ine/index.html

Didn't know you had an R1! :thumbsup: It was the top until the S1000RR came out.


Back to the 3rd gen motor, this doesn't sound too appealing. :(

Despite all the changes and the claimed improvements to fuel economy and mid-range torque, actual output of the 2.0-liter engine is nearly identical to its predecessor. That means 146 horsepower and 145 pound-feet of torque, an improvement of four pound-feet.

Should the same hold true for the 2.5-liter version, we'd expect the next Forester and its ilk to come with roughly the same 170 horsepower and 170 pound-feet of torque.

No, I don't have one yet, but I rode my friend's. I'm still deciding which one I should go with. Easy-to-live-with Honda CBR1000RR or Cross plane crankshaft monster Yamaha R1. For a kind of small guy like me, Ducati is also a good choice, but it's not as balanced as R1, right?

back to the topic. 3rd gen boxer doesn't sound so impressive at all, but don't forget, it's not a DI equipped engine yet. We might easily get over 200 hp from 2.5L boxer if it's DI'ed.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i1...rus/249397.jpg

Heres the older rendering of the same motor.

If this is the engine toyota is trying to put into the ft86 it seems like they would have to do some serious tweaking to get to their goal of 200hp out of the 2.0L. The lowly forester only gets 146. The stats don't exactly wow anybody based on the comments on that website.

Very exciting stuff, Im cant wait to see how it will handle modification. One thing I do not really favor is the plastic intake manifolds they have been using recently, I just dont like seeing part such as that being made of plastic I guess?

I prefer alloy too and I like to polished and shiney lol.
But the plastic is lighter and is completely smooth on the inside so It has an advantage.
Mind you I wonder how it will age under all the heat and etc.

Apparently economy in both displacements is improved by 10 per cent.

Is this an aluminum block?

MajorMing, This is the torque spec for the base Subaru engine, without VVT or DI.

The FT-86 engine is getting DI, VVT, and is going to be "Free Revving."


MatadorRacing_F1, I believe Ichitaka has already said that Subaru's Boxers have been all Aluminum for 30+ years :thumbsup:

I'm sorry, let me clarify, Aluminum Metal Matrix like the ZZ, GR & UZ ect. The SR20 was Aluminum too, and almost as heavy as the 3S.

I can't see how that's hard to work on.

Subaru engines are lovely for accessing accessories, and again, the PS pump (why not electric?), AC and alternator are all easy to get to in classic subaru fashion. Even the water pump, is easy to get to from the bottom.

Also, I spy with my little eye, a top mounted filter cartridge, which is always better than a spin-on surrounded by a burning hot manifold.

The rest of the engine looks pretty straight forward.

^ Think he might mean a nightmare to work on in regards to changing spark plugs and the like - things that are down in the sides of the engine bay.

Even those are not as hard as anyone who has done them a couple of times could attest to. An engine is rarely difficult to work on, it is more often the lack of space in a given chassis that makes things intensive. I really hope the combination of this small chassis and the engine are as user friendly as imprezas have been.

The problem would be the mounting of the engine in this particular application, and I would like to believe the poster was referring to difficulty to maneuver in limited space, rather than a knock against the engine itself, no need to get your panties in a bunch.

Am I the only one that noticed this? Amazing engineering going on there...





(Unless its like the difference between Honda's B18B and B18C, both 1.8L but slightly different cc numbers...)

I too went wtf when I posted the article, but I passed it off as a brain fart by the editor :iono:

http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/contents/pdf_en_60853.pdf

apparently these engines are going to be called the fb series. compared to the ej20 which is very over bore (92mm x 75mm) the fb20 is gonna be long stroke (84mm x 90mm). fb25 is gonna be slightly over bore (94mm x 90mm). valve angle has been narrowed from 41 degrees to 27 degrees. seems like they are going for midrange torque and dd usability as opposed to rev happy and sports oriented. the fb has a lot of other advantages over the ej like variable valve timing on both in and ex, lighter internals and lower friction everywhere, but i wonder if some enthusiasts might actually prefer the ej over the fb for performance applications? i guess we'll only know the answer once cars with the engine actually start hitting the streets.

Oversquare is generally thought to be better for high-revving motors, but I'm not sure if that's high by production standards or by race motor standards. If they want it to rev I don't think it will be that big of an issue.

For example look at the Honda B series (VTEC ones). All known to rev like crazy (8000rpm-ish redlines) but the B16 is slightly oversquare and the B18 is undersquare. In these cases it is probably airflow and valvetrain stability that has a greater significance than loads on the rods.

The narrower valve angle (if the ports are shaped to take advantage of it) is the 'new' performance direction (bikes have been going that way for a while). It allows bigger valves and more lift/overlap with less risk of smacking into pistons, as well as a straighter, smoother path for airflow.

Lighter internals are generally better for stock cars (less rotational mass/inertia), worse for high performance as there is generally a strength loss. I'm pretty sure the days of over-built rods are long-gone...

Edit: Just read through more thoroughly. Max output for the 2.0L will be 109kW which is 146 bhp if I converted properly. Apparently this is the same as other markets EJ20 NA, and they went for emissions and economy gains. If this is going to be the base engine for this car it better weigh in at no more than 2300 lbs.

Let's hope Toyota/Yamaha can spice this up. A lot.

the fb series is said to eventually replace all ej series motors in subaru's lineup, so it's a given that aside from the 140hp version, there will be other higher output versions as well. we already know that toyota is designing the heads, so i think it's safe to assume that if the ft-86 comes with the fb20, it will not be the base 140hp version. as far as how much performance potential is in this engine? i think that's anybody's guess at this point. the n/a ej20 was also 140hp but i think there was a n/a version in japan that did 190hp..

here's an interesting blog post about the engine if you can read japanese.

http://golf4.blog65.fc2.com/blog-entry-201.html

based on the pics it does look like the intake port has a less straight, more curved path due to the narrow angle, but i'm no airflow dynamics expert so what do i know?

the engine's gonna be a lot wider than the ej so the engine bay's gonna have to be pretty wide to fit d-4s and anything else toyota builds into the heads. the plus side will be that while the engine is wider it will be shorter front to back, so it will possible to place it even further behind the front wheels.

Had to stick with only the pics. Damn it!

I was most interested in this one:

http://i821.photobucket.com/albums/z...ff/chamber.jpg

Like you said, the new motor's intake ports look more curved than the old EJ. Especially where I marked it with 'C'. This is not what I think of when I think of performance ports. Air doesn't like to make sudden volume or direction changes, and compared to the old one (The section 'A') the EJ's intake looks much better. But I'm not an engineer either.

One issue that confuses me is the step right before the valve ('B'). I don't know what this is. I though it was maybe where the valve seat is supposed to go but all the other components are there, so maybe not. It could be there to introduce more turbulence as the air enters the chamber. A reason for this could be the EJ's larger than usual bore. This leads to a big flat pancake-shaped combustion chamber which means the burning fuel has farther to travel. This can make for less efficient combustion but having the intake charge swirling around more can help improve that.

It also shows that they went from buckets and shims to finger-followers which are lighter and have less friction.

Nice find. Now to wait for Ichitaka to maybe, perhaps, do some translating...?

nah that bum is in Japan enjoying himself, he won't be doing much translation work till he gets back I betcha. Which sucks. Great diagram though, I am learning!

hi dimman i think that the recess B is for valve seats, since they arent actually shown anywhere.. this looks like a solidworks model.. SOMEONE GET ME A FUCKIGN COPY PLEASE :D

Taa DAa!

I really like the oil filter location, but the 10.5 compression ratio. Thats good for N/A power, but not if you're planning on adding a turbo.

i can translate but i'm also very busy and that's a lot of text. maybe if you can pick a paragraph or two that you're especially interested in and i can translate it for you. it includes a lot of stuff about TGVs and EGR valves. i'm not too familiar with subaru so it's kind of over my head, especially the stuff about the egr valve. both tgv and egr seem completely unnecessary to me.

I just translated the whole article above. It's a little rough but it gets the point across.

looks like you ran it through Google Translate. I mean as far as free translators go its sufficient but I hate how literal they are. They just translate word for word. Guess I shouldn't expect so much lol

Yeah you caught me lol. I figured I'd give some of the guys on here a break from translating everything for us.

That's what I thought at first, and would make the most sense. But I then thought it was weird that they wouldn't put them in the model when they did the whole rest of the valvetrain.

I'm picking up a couple EJ22T heads sometime this week and will see for myself then. I do think you're right though.

And what exactly could you do with a Solidworks model of it? Get one CNC machined out of billet?:)

Of the new one?? Find a whole bunch of flow related shit for it, from that find (theoretical) maximum power, find what the extremities would be for boring out (subsequent power increase etc)

the latest best car (japanese car mag) had a comparison between the ej20 and fb20 and review, but the reviews were mixed at best. one reviewer was impressed with the improvement in low and mid-range torque and smoothness, while the other complained of valvetrain noise after 2000 rpm and poorer engine feeling at wide open throttle than the ej20. this is in stark contrast to the absolute rave reviews the mazda sky-g engine got a page later.