Probably the dumbest argument against a boxer engine in this car I've heard so far.

[ZC6BRZ]

A lot of pros and cons have been mentioned in this thread. One con about the flat engine is that in a front end collision, you often lose then engine because the timing belt gets jacked and the valves bend.

Another one (IMHO) is that it's such an ugly engine.

[cwb48]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

That engine never performed well, unfortunately.

Don't forget Ferrari ran a flat 12 engine back in the day.

And let's not forget the BRM H-16, which was two flat 8s geared together. The H configuration was also used for quite a few aircraft engines.

[NOHOME]

Originally Posted by FirestormFRS

Well no NOHOME it's not hard with the center of gravity thing. The vast majority of the weight involved with a Boxer is along the same plane as the heavy crankshaft. L4's have the majority of the weight 80mm+ above the heavy crankshaft. Simple man explanation

I am glad that you think it is so simple. Nearly as glad as the admen who have used a 3 inch difference in engine CG to sell you a car.

Individual components are irrelevant. You need to look at the complete system. With all other considerations, packaging and added weight of flat 4, does the resultant center of gravity FOR THE CAR end up any lower with the Scoobie-do engine?

And even if it did add up to a measurable improvement in the CG, what are the practical implications for the average driver of this car?

One advantage the flat 4 might have is that it works with the new pedestrian safety guidelines. These guidelines stipulate that there has to be room under the bonnet for the pedestrian to crush when they and there after a mishap. The result of this legislation is more bulbous front ends in order to achieve the dead space under the hood. Flat engines might give the designers some room to play with the cars style.

[mrlewistan]

I have a works dual tip muffler delete with resonator . I'm willing to bet the sound is on par with any v8. May not be as loud but it has a smooth deep rumble. I love it

[whaap]

Originally Posted by mrlewistan

I have a works dual tip muffler delete with resonator . I'm willing to bet the sound is on par with any v8 in terms of how it sounds. I love it

I have the stock exhaust system and this is the first car I've ever owned that I don't play the radio because I'd rather listen to the car.

[mrlewistan]

Personally I really like inline6 engines. Not the most powerful or efficient but my god they are pretty to look at. As for sound, my fave type is turbo diesel (edit v8 turbo diesel like in massive trucks). Love hearing those wind up

[Gearhd79]

one thing I do not hear anyone mention is that one advantage (at the time in the 70's) of the boxer engine, was that all the subarus had the spare tire right on top of the engine and still under the hood. This was sold as a space saving way of storing the spare. One problem was that said tire would dry rot from all the engine heat and then be junk when actually needed.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by chenshuo

hmm... after reading that i'm starting to think about the same thing... WHY DON'T all cars use boxer(or any Horizontal-Opposed) engines?

Originally Posted by joop1987

It's cheaper to manufacture a straight 4. 1 piece engine block, 1 head, 1 set of valve timing control, 1 header, 1 timing chain, smaller size. And easier to work on.

It all comes down to cost and packaging IMHO. Subaru mounts all of their engines longitudinal to deal with the extra width, even their 80's and early 90's FWD cars were setup this way. Anyone else could start building flat engines but since their use precludes transverse FWD, the only other use would have to be AWD/RWD cars which have a very limited market.

@fatoni makes a good point about mounting the engine higher. But even then flat-4s are much shorter than straight-4s. I have my doubts that an I-4 could attain a lower CoG with the same cost and packaging restraints.

I didn't see anyone mention maintenance but I'm sure the difficulty in changing plugs and wires was at least on peoples' minds. Then again V engines aren't easy to work on either. Nowadays transverse straight-4s are a PITA due to how cramped their engine bays are. Despite how simple the engine design might be.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

Don't forget Ferrari ran a flat 12 engine back in the day.

Yup, in the Testarossa, 512 TR, and 512 M produced from 1984-1996. Quantities produced were among the highest for Ferraris. If you watch as it goes around corners, you'll notice the tail end which cradles that flat-12 beast is frickin' wide.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd4Wnmju1AI"]Italian Red Horse Ferrari 512 TR - YouTube[/ame]


Edit: The 512 before those years also had a flat-12.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

It all comes down to cost and packaging IMHO. Subaru mounts all of their engines longitudinal to deal with the extra width, even their 80's and early 90's FWD cars were setup this way. Anyone else could start building flat engines but since their use precludes transverse FWD, the only other use would have to be AWD/RWD cars which have a very limited market.

@fatoni makes a good point about mounting the engine higher. But even then flat-4s are much shorter than straight-4s. I have my doubts that an I-4 could attain a lower CoG with the same cost and packaging restraints.

I didn't see anyone mention maintenance but I'm sure the difficulty in changing plugs and wires was at least on peoples' minds. Then again V engines aren't easy to work on either. Nowadays transverse straight-4s are a PITA due to how cramped their engine bays are. Despite how simple the engine design might be.

it is cool how short they are. however, i was shocked to find how far forward the weight is on the frs. i have a hunch that its the width of the boxer yet again. its like they are two pistons shorter but they cut off the two most rearward pistons.

[Porsche]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

Sorry, maybe I am old school, but I like the car DESPITE the Scoobie-doo engine.
Is there some advantage to the boxer layout that I should know about? I know the admen tout "Lower centre of gravity" but I would have to have a numerical comparison between a boxer and a L4 to convince me it is significant.


The flat four does sound different and sound is subjective. Not my cup of tea and the sound tube makes it worse because I think of it as juvenile; its the equivalent of flipping the lid on the air filter on Dads wagon back in the 70's, or sticking baseball cards in the bicycle spokes when we were kids.The boxer engine gives the underhood a cluttered look that only gets worse if you peek below.

The front and centre oil filter is good. I'll keep that bit.

Have you looked into what's necessary to replace the four spark plugs?

If not, you're in for a treat.

Heh.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by fatoni

it is cool how short they are. however, i was shocked to find how far forward the weight is on the frs. i have a hunch that its the width of the boxer yet again. its like they are two pistons shorter but they cut off the two most rearward pistons.

I haven't looked at it for awhile so maybe I'll dig up some old engine bay shots to refresh my memory. It seems to me, just off memory, that there was plenty of room to scoot the engine back.

[mangostick]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Wow can't believe nobody mentioned it before.

The biggest drawback to the flat engine is the volume it occupies. It is very very wide compared to engines

I did.. even mentioned chassis limitations relating to engine width.

Originally Posted by dem00n

Everyone here makes the boxer rumble in the shower...

HAHAHAHA!! Only after fast food or Bud.. Neither of which in any sizeable quantity are good for you

Originally Posted by ZC6BRZ

A lot of pros and cons have been mentioned in this thread. One con about the flat engine is that in a front end collision, you often lose then engine because the timing belt gets jacked and the valves bend.

Uh.. all engines have timing components up front. All belt driven OHC engines have the same issue.

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

It all comes down to cost and packaging IMHO.

Very true and probably the largest factor to consider, next after that being how complicated the engine design is compared to a simple I4.

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

I didn't see anyone mention maintenance but I'm sure the difficulty in changing plugs and wires was at least on peoples' minds. Then again V engines aren't easy to work on either. Nowadays transverse straight-4s are a PITA due to how cramped their engine bays are. Despite how simple the engine design might be.

I mentioned plugs and access, there are no wires or distributor on our cars. I've found transverse I4's to be the easiest to do plugs on but the worst for changing simple accessory drive belts or accessories like PS pump or Alternators. V8's w shorty headers are a pita too.. but still not as tough as our cars will be.

Every engine design has its ups and downs. The boxer isn't perfect by any means but neither are the others. Personally, its the engine layout I have grown to love as I started out as a kid working on air cooled VW's. The design makes sense to me. I4, I6, V6, V8, H6, H4.. they all burn fuel and they all do mechanical work.

As for why boxer in this car.. cuz toyoBARU.

[Dake]

Maybe it's because of my job, but I like having an airplane engine in my car.