V6 vs. Flat 4 Boxer

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Captain Insano

Exactly. Why isn't that on the list of options to vote for???




I would take them in this order...

• flat6
• flat4
• V6

OP, do you know how unique the boxer engine is? Only Porsche and Subaru make them anymore. I love flat engines for alot of reasons. I would LOVE if Subaru put a high revving flat6 in the BRZ. That would be totally badazz.

unique isnt quite as important as any other aspect of a motor. why not rotary? they are more unique than boxers. or jet engines...

Originally Posted by Laika

With all due respect, may I ask why? I never got the point of a V6 for anything but economy ($$...fwd..etc). A straight 6 would appear to be a much better design in almost every regard. I always thought V6's were just the cheap boring way to make a 6 cylinder engine. I was disappointed about the GTR being a V6 and the G35/37 + 370Z could have been a lot sportier with an I6.

Not trollin, really curious, for all I know I was brought up viewing this incorrectly...

inline sixes are way heavier and not a great shape for cars. those extra two cylinders have to sit in the very front of a car. not a good place to be adding that kind of weight. i know there were plenty of legendary i6 motors but those days are gone. a v6 can be made lighter and smaller while losing almost nothing.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Laika

With all due respect, may I ask why? I never got the point of a V6 for anything but economy ($$...fwd..etc). A straight 6 would appear to be a much better design in almost every regard. I always thought V6's were just the cheap boring way to make a 6 cylinder engine. I was disappointed about the GTR being a V6 and the G35/37 + 370Z could have been a lot sportier with an I6.

Not trollin, really curious, for all I know I was brought up viewing this incorrectly...

Well personally I feel the same way you feel about the V6 towards all N/A 4 cylinder engines. The reason I love V6 is because I find them smoother, throatier sounding and way more powerful and TORQUEY than a N/A 4 banger. When I first drove a G35/350Z I thought I was driving a V8 vehicle and it put a huge grin on my face from low rpms to high rpms. There was never a dull moment in the powerband unlike a N/A 4 cylinder which only makes good power way up top. I have also driven a BMW 328i coupe with the 3.0L I6 and the difference in smoothness isn't recognizable until you high rev the VQ35(above 5500 rpms) and as a matter of fact the VQ30 was just as smooth as the I6. The urgency of torque in these cars I never felt in any 4 banger period. The only thing I like about 4 bangers is gas mileage. But they don't produce enough power and torque for the typical weight they carry IMHO. Lotus cars have the right weight for 4 cylinder cars.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Thunderchicken

The reason why the 2.5 can't be rev'd very high is because of piston speeds and not allowing the motor to breath enough so you have to lower the rpm rev's. The best motor size for a 4 cylinder is 1.6-2.0 it allows for enough revving, throttle response, and plenty of hp/tq that is use able on the street.

If that's the case then it further reassures me why I hate 4 bangers and I don't agree that 2.0L engines make plenty of torque either. It seems like F/I is the most respectable way to go to make good hp/tq out of these engines only which is sad cause I like N/A.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by dori.

no, the FB20 is 84 bore x 90 stroke

That was my mistake reading your post... but FR-S has FA, so FB is kinda out of topic here

[MattQ-WP]

Originally Posted by cgrey

Dud3, ur ganna h4t3 da B0x3r it d0 not haf a v6 in it lik da max has s0 it sux vry sl0 u kn0? i wuld pik 25 v6s in ma frs iffa had da option den it be m4d f4st n i wuldnt h4f 2 lern 2 driv3 n culd sw3rv r43l f4st 4 ma ex1t l1k a R-tard

um...er....

I really don't know what to say.. is this guy the latest victim of "bath salts"?

Sorry to be off topic..

On topic... BMW is moving most of their smaller cars (320, 323 etc) onto turbo'ed 4 cyclinders... so it's the way of the future peeps.. you can't beat lightness!!

[artizhay]

Gosh people just don't know how to interpret sarcasm and ridicule, even after providing my lovely translation.

[Captain Insano]

Originally Posted by fatoni

unique isnt quite as important as any other aspect of a motor. why not rotary? they are more unique than boxers. or jet engines...


inline sixes are way heavier and not a great shape for cars. those extra two cylinders have to sit in the very front of a car. not a good place to be adding that kind of weight. i know there were plenty of legendary i6 motors but those days are gone. a v6 can be made lighter and smaller while losing almost nothing.

Agree, the wankel is unique too and if I had a track only car would love to rev that high into the power band, but I don't like that as much as the gas mileage is no good and I daily drive my BRZ. Also, wankel was not in hte original post either (like the flat6 I requested and compared to V6 and flat4).

If I had to pick between flat engine and wankel, the flat engine also seems more "exclusive" to me as porsche uses besides subaru. Wankel is only used in mazda cars. Plus the technical reasons of the boxer (better weight distribution options)

Anyway, we are way off topic now (both engines (flat6 & wankel) were not in original voting options.

[dori.]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

That was my mistake reading your post... but FR-S has FA, so FB is kinda out of topic here

but YOU mentioned the FB:

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

If we put new modded FB/FA25 engine in FR-S, prob will be lucky if we can get 6,500rpm redline

hence my statement...

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by dori.

but YOU mentioned the FB:

hence my statement...

Lol touché

[Thunderchicken]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

If that's the case then it further reassures me why I hate 4 bangers and I don't agree that 2.0L engines make plenty of torque either. It seems like F/I is the most respectable way to go to make good hp/tq out of these engines only which is sad cause I like N/A.

The thing is how much tq do you really need? 150ft/tq is plenty to move a car of this size. The closest car to this one is the E30 M3, but it had a 2.3 liter with 200hp and 170tq.

To each there own... But F/I is very peaky and doesn't allow power to come on in a linear fashion to redline. N/A motors have a very flat tq curve which allows you to have less understeer dialed in to the chassis which is why this car is so great and willing.

If you are looking for a smooth motor look at any I-6 they are perfectly balanced and follow Newtons laws without having to add shit to them that's why BMW has used them for so long, power is so smooth and very linear.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Thunderchicken

The thing is how much tq do you really need? 150ft/tq is plenty to move a car of this size. The closest car to this one is the E30 M3, but it had a 2.3 liter with 200hp and 170tq.

To each there own... But F/I is very peaky and doesn't allow power to come on in a linear fashion to redline. N/A motors have a very flat tq curve which allows you to have less understeer dialed in to the chassis which is why this car is so great and willing.

If you are looking for a smooth motor look at any I-6 they are perfectly balanced and follow Newtons laws without having to add shit to them that's why BMW has used them for so long, power is so smooth and very linear.

I think 180tq is great with no torque dip and the same gearing. The one thing I like about the M3 was that it was bigger than 2.0L. I also like how you say the 150 is good enough for a car of the FRS size. That's true but the FRS looks like it should weigh 2400 lbs though.

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by Thunderchicken

To each there own... But F/I is very peaky and doesn't allow power to come on in a linear fashion to redline. N/A motors have a very flat tq curve which allows you to have less understeer dialed in to the chassis which is why this car is so great and willing.

This is just on top of .

I can show you turbo graphs way smoother than this engine.

And did you just say the flatter the tq curve the more balance can be 'dialed' in to the chassis?

Oh and ask some people if they would want an extra 100tq, many would graciously accept.

[Thunderchicken]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I think 180tq is great with no torque dip and the same gearing. The one thing I like about the M3 was that it was bigger than 2.0L. I also like how you say the 150 is good enough for a car of the FRS size. That's true but the FRS looks like it should weigh 2400 lbs though.

BMW designed the motor with help from there F1 designers so lots of money was involved.

I personally think 151 torque is great from a 2.0 no other 2.0 that is N/A has more, Honda had 143 from the KA20A2.

I don't know why I waste my breath with people who don't drive, never driven and probably with never own this car and just don't understand that a car doesn't need to have gobs and gobs of power to be fun to drive, so just go back to playing your GT5 or Forsa.

[Thunderchicken]

Originally Posted by chulooz

This is just on top of .

I can show you turbo graphs way smoother than this engine.

And did you just say the flatter the tq curve the more balance can be 'dialed' in to the chassis?

Oh and ask some people if they would want an extra 100tq, many would graciously accept.

Well I didn't say more balance can be dialed in I said less understeer would have to be dialed in on the chassis to keep the car from going in to a snap oversteer situations. Sometimes less is more and cars like this one don't come very often.

Scream to your heart to content about I want more power, give me more power, I won't buy this car till it has 300+ hp, cause to me it sounds like a 2 year old having a temper tantrum.