Subaru... what's so good about them?

[CoupedUpSubie]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Wait, LSX is great? The only reason ppl use that motor was cuz they can find it anywhere for dirt cheap

/sarcasm

Sorry, I had to do it

No problem. Dirt cheap and possible to make 600+ hp with ease.

Originally Posted by rice_classic

I can dig it.

I wonder to what degree the turbo performance cars brought enough youth/enthusiasts into the showrooms who then aged, and bought a second subaru for the wife or the kid? There's been some talk about why it's important to have sports car or an affordable sporty car to create "brand enthusiasm" so that those people promote the brand via enthusiasm and return to the dealership for 2nd and 3rd car purchases.

I don't know how to find that data and I wouldn't even know how to go about measuring any outcomes of that theory anyway.

Coming from the New England area I can say it happens quite often. Especially where Subaru offers the XT version of the forester and outback. I've seen many WRX, RS2.5(90's style), STi owners go to a more family oriented car.

[dem00n]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Know why a flat-ANYTHING is a bad design for racing? Because it's a really REALLY shitty engine to create a platform around, for packaging reasons.

Subaru runs a flat 4 in their WRC efforts mostly because that's their corporate niche, similar to what Mazda has with a rotary. But beyond that, in top-level racing it's really about the shittiest engine design to race with.

-alex

Oh shit, did he really just say that?

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by hmong337

But low COG?!?!? And racecar???

Originally Posted by DoctorNick

Porsche?

Re-read my statement.

My response was in the context of all this talk about "top level motorsports".

If the class rules stipulate a production car, then a flat 4/6/8 will make sense because the manufacturer is trying to sell the car.

But move that discussion to prototype or F1, and .... when was the last time you saw a prototype powered by a flat engine?

-alex

[hmong337]

But but...

@mav1178

Yea... That was like 40 years ago. But who says you can't come back and go against the grain? "Proud of Boxer", no?

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by dem00n

Oh shit, did he really just say that?

Yes, I did say that.

What year was that 917?

And if one is going to argue Porsche, my counterpoint is this:

1) their road cars are all flat-6 based. The race version of a production car will reflect this.
2) the GT1 was a purpose-built racing prototype, but to fit into FIA GT1 rules in the 1990s they had to make a road car
3) See: newer RS Spyder and 919 Hybrid for "current" engine configurations based on existing class rules.

-alex

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by hmong337

But low COG?!?!? And racecar???

Nope, V engine can do better.

NEXT

[CoupedUpSubie]

Originally Posted by hmong337

...now all fan boys are all fired up lol.

Sounds like someone can't handle the truth. I'm not fired up, I'm enjoying myself while helping to make you see that you brought it all on yourself at the beginning. Especially with saying, not trolling.

I like my Subaru's because they hold up well for me, take more of a beating then other similar classed cars, and handle really good in the snow. I do not own an AWD Subaru so that is obviously not why I like them. I'm also a GM and Mopar fan.

[DoctorNick]

I guess in the 70s. But your also talking about insane budgets. Not really something porsche has had a ton of till their acquisition by VAG.

[dem00n]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Yes, I did say that.

What year was that 917?

And if one is going to argue Porsche, my counterpoint is this:

1) their road cars are all flat-6 based. The race version of a production car will reflect this.
2) the GT1 was a purpose-built racing prototype, but to fit into FIA GT1 rules in the 1990s they had to make a road car
3) See: newer RS Spyder and 919 Hybrid for "current" engine configurations based on existing class rules.

-alex

You do know that 3.99 L Flat-6 is an officially approved Daytona prototype racing engine right?

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by hmong337

But but...

@mav1178

Yea... That was like 40 years ago. But who says you can't come back and go against the grain? "Proud of Boxer", no?

Yes, proud of boxer...

Oh wait, a V-4?

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept13.html

So the Porsche engine will most likely be small capacity, and the suggested 2.0 liters passes the sniff-test.

But what about cylinder configuration? Does a flat-4 make sense? Are there CG benefits? Turns out the answer really is no. You've got some difficult packaging issues to deal with, namely exhaust and engine intake routing, that compromise CG desires compared to a conventional 'V' (for example) configuration. Given the small diameter of today's racing clutches, you actually would have to raise the crank height (and ancillaries) in order to provide clearance for the exhaust relative to the underfloor, or be forced to do something awkward with the engine intakes (recall the Mercedes C291 engine, image).

I'm told that in the end, the flat-4 configuration is simply a non-starter for a serious LMP concern.

In any case, we can spend all day talking about motorsports. In modern day racing, the engine configuration will be 1) something that is found in a road car because the race car is based on the road car, or 2) something unique/one-off to showcase manufacturer branding and technology.

-alex

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by CoupedUpSubie

No problem. Dirt cheap and possible to make 600+ hp with ease.

I would of expected JZ, but prob you're right

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by hmong337

Aggressive? Sorry, I'm just blunt like that. No sugar coating with me sweetheart.

In retrospect, I should've went with the BRZ. The head lights and HID's are worth the extra $1000 in hindsight.

But still, the question remains... Subaru? FIA? F1? Guess no... Sad because they obviously have the engine layout for something mean.

They don't compete in high level motorsports because Toyota doesn't let them.

Toyota funds a lot of their R&D (compare new FA/B advances over old EJ to the Toyota GR motors valvetrain) and probably extracurricular activities as well.

That being said, they are a niche brand with populist aspirations. Which is sad, because they used to be a little weird/cool, but now they are moving towards being 'normal' (boring) with AWD.

We'll see in the future how Toyota will move to differentiate their brands, pending Scion's stay of execution thanks to the FR-S.

[hmong337]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Nope, V engine can do better.

NEXT

Scrap the fa20 for a 2gr?

[dem00n]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Yes, proud of boxer...

Oh wait, a V-4?

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept13.html



In any case, we can spend all day talking about motorsports. In modern day racing, the engine configuration will be 1) something that is found in a road car because the race car is based on the road car, or 2) something unique/one-off to showcase manufacturer branding and technology.

-alex

I don't give a shit about that.

I'm pointing at this. Know why a flat-ANYTHING is a bad design for racing? Because it's a really REALLY shitty engine to create a platform around, for packaging reasons.

I could write you a book on how many cars have won races with flat engines, a V8 might be superior but there is no denying that the flat engine has had its place in history.

Something better always comes, but i won't deny history.