So what's so good about a boxer engine compared to an inline or v configuration?

So what's so good about a boxer engine compared to an inline or v configuration?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ELJj8X-jclA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Very low center of gravity.

>God-tier balance
Straight-6
>Good but not perfect balance
Boxer/Flat-6
>What the fuck are you doing burgerstan
V6

It blows head gaskets easier :)

Subaru bro here, its easier to install direct vape injection.

it's the automotive fedora

More like flat bill, bruh.

There's nothing good about boxer engines, why do you think Subaru is below average on reliability every year?

They have a unique sound i guess

That's essentially just because of the UEL headers, you can make a honda 4 banger sound similar if you wanted to.

I'm anything but impressed with my ej207. Wasn't impressed when the ej255 developed a knock either.

The only good thing I can say about the Subaru boxer is it's easy to work on.

They make internet virgins sperg.

The only good boxer engines are Porsche engines. Prove me wrong.

The opposed pistons help to reduce vibrations/ excess shaking making them ideal for use in aircraft. I have no idea why you would want this in a car though.

What if mount inline 4 horizontally tho.

Think about that really hard.

Don't you mean boxster engines?

Unfortunately, no boxer manufacturers actually makes a car light enough or mount the engine low enough to make a low CoG matter.

Only on smaller single-prop planes. By the end of WW2, the aeronautics industry had stopped using boxer engines in everything but small private aircraft.

I've been noticing them a lot more in original and replica kitcars in the past few years. They have a very short longitudinal dimension which allows it to fit in places that an I4 can't because they are too long.

Marginal gains in balance and CoG that really only matter in smaller vehicles like racecars and motorcycles and are nearly unnoticeable in your 3,000lb express edition grocery getter.

I'm pretty sure they'd make a flat four sportbike if revving at 17,000 all day wouldn't destroy it.

Easy to work on, better cooling.

But BMW bikes use boxers and their engines are the one reliable part about them, the engine is almost never the problem after 200k km.

It sucks

BMW bikes use less than half the displacement and significantly less reciprocating mass with 8k redlines, that riders never approach anyways, and no forced induction. Those engines aren't under a lot of stress.

Subaru engines are huge, get revved to death for their size, and have turbos more often than not.

But the subaru 2.0L boxer has smaller cylinders than a BMW 1130-1170cc twin. Only the 2.5L ones are bigger, but just.

>8k redlines, that riders never approach
What? I bounce the rev limiter regularly.

Yes, they are not stressed, as shown in the power output (I have 1130cc and 80hp), but they aren't small.

>easier to work on
>Flat engine
>car
>easier to work on

Boy can't wait to do a crank seal/timing belt change.

Who said anything about a car?

My dick.

There's a lot more boxer engines in cars versus motorbikes or otherwise, it's only fair to assume as much.

In my post I was already talking about bikes, so no it wasn't fair to assume anymore.

>boxer engine bike
>oh boy time to do the clutch!
>fuck
Not even going to go into driveshaft problems.

>inline engine bike
>lift up tank
>pop the fuel lines and maybe the sole vacuum line for the petcock
>oh, there's the cyllinder heads, carbs, and airbox, all nice and neat in a row
>look over to the side
>yep, that's the clutch
>look over to the other side
>hmm yeah that's the stator
And then you have casette gearboxes that you don't even have to take the engine out to work on but those are only on sportbikes so
>lift the fucking plastic tank cover
>the actual tank is wrapped around the airbox
>a-at least i have horsepower
>remove the tank, airbox, and throttle bodies
>not mentioned: horrible mess of wires and tubes

Sad but true

>boxer
>easy to work on
Found the bus rider brainlet nowrench virgin

Implying I'm going to open a thread and take a good look at all 20 other posts and acclimatize with the current topic.

Excuse me sir, do you know how half you were traveling?

At least it takes you five less minutes to change spark plugs and adjust valves every 25,000 miles.

>Opening a cylinder must be so hard.

They let you have a lower hood line, they have less vibration making the drive nicer, they have a very low CoG, look at the GT86 for these.

I love naked bikes.
Flats, (not V's), inlines, singles. Plugs take like 2 seconds and sometimes a uni joint. Piece of piss.

Pity that high goes away once you hit 100mph.

>why do you think Subaru is below average on reliability every year?

They aren't. And what is the most reliable Toyota on sale powered by? Yep a Flat 4.

Cool, now what about the cons?
>No space for even a turbo

My naked bike is not quite a piece of piss.

I should have bought the honda 599 instead but

>muh frame rigidity

>time to do the clutch
Said nobody ever on a normal BMW. 150k on the current original one.
It took a shop 5 hours in total to replace the drive shaft.

I was talking about the post you were replying on. That's the post I started about bikes.

Maybe I should have mentioned 600cc and below early 90's naked bikes lol.
Modern nakeds have just as much bloody chaff in the way as fullies do when it comes to maintenance. What the fullies hide, the nakeds show up with a bunch of pizzaz.

It took me 1 hour total to replace my chain after about four years of riding in the rain and 20,000 miles.

The drivechain or the camchain?

I must have it made, takes me 10 minutes on my dirtbike with it balancing on a beer crate.

Drive shaft swap was after 120,000km (75,000 miles). Most likely because the PO forgot to do proper maintenance and didn't replace the oil every 20k km, which is a 5 minute job. My family have been riding BMW for 40+ years, this was the first time a drive shaft had to be replaced, even though several times a bike had reached 200,000km.

Also, replacing the driveshaft/end drive is like replacing the chain and both sprockets. It also costs just €550 at a shop, so it's not like you're breaking the bank.

That included sprockets, beer breaks, and cleaning the shit out of the countershaft area

Just threading the new chain through and putting on the master link works too

I'll allow considerations where due when it comes to beerstorming and cleaning.

They have nothing to do with this thread, read OP's post.

Well, they make idiots sperge.

youtube.com/watch?v=ELJj8X-jclA

...

>durr Suburu
Meanwhile in Stuttgart...

It would be longer, and much harder to package. Front suspension would have to be some sort of a design compromise, or the car would need to be longer.

You can have a turbo charged 2 wheeled death machine.

Forgot pic
>Pic related

also they are air cooled so having the heads sticking out is an advantage

pro
>decent ballance
>low center of gravity
>short engine
con
>2 cylinder heads
>not narrow
>complex crankshaft compared to 180° V-engine
>no apfelbeck heads

If you need a low center of gravity and a short engine, take the boxer, if you need a narrow engine, take a inline or VR engine.

As far as I'm aware Porsche uses a 180 degree V6 not a boxer.
Pistons share crank pins versus every piston having its own.

No, you mixed up their flat 12 racing engine (porsche 917) with the boxer 6 cylinder (several 911s)
They had to do this since the crankshaft would have lacked the rigidity for later turbo versions, also since it has 6 cylinder inline it is naturaly pretty balanced.

Here the naturaly aspirated version.

Here the turbo version:

All I see is lag

It is a early 70s turbocharged engine with over 200 hp/l, of course there is some lag...

>lag
>still does 0-100 in 2,1 seconds
>still does 0-200 in 5,3 seconds
Wich cornering focused car that exceeds that even today?

Huehuehuehue

>those distributors
>that mechanical fuel injection

HOW THE FUCK has nobody mentioned LENGTH yet? THAT is the hugest advantage of a boxer 4 compared to an I4. V4s tend not to be a thing, but a boxer? A boxer works.

That was state of the art in the late 60s/early 70s

They also made a flat 16 prototype later...

look at

Sweet Jesus

Did I mention these where air cooled?

please, this is a SFW board!

>260 Ps
>2L I4
>in 1966

>1400 PS
>1,5L I4
>in 1983

...

They were really pushing the technology they had to its limits.
It looks so retro nowadays

Fiberglass isn´t exactly retro and the intake system is basicly the same as in any modern NA racing engine.

Boxer 6 actually has even better balance than an I6, but it's even harder to package unless you're going mid-engined.

>but it's even harder to package unless you're going mid-engined.
That depends on your car and engine, it is only about half as long as the i6 and pretty low in height.
Also it is verry popular in RR drivetrains, not only in MR ones...

It's why the Cayman and Boxster are so good

True, but especially in front-engined applications it starts really messing with the suspension geometry because of its width. Generally FR cars are better off with an I6 (which gives that long hooded profile as a nice bonus) but as soon as you're putting the engine behind the cabin, a boxer 6 has more advantages.

You can put a 6 (or better4) cylinder boxer between front suspenstion and cabin, giving you a good mass centralisation.
Combined with a transaxle gearbox you get a long hood and verry good ballance.

The disowned, retarded, European cousins who's mechanical problems include low mileage casual self-destruct. Not to mention you can just grab another engine when a Subaru goes.

>oil filter on underside of boxer engine

That's a car

So what, just get under the car and uscrew it.
You have to get under it anyway to reach the drainplug...

>subaru in charge of oil filter placement

I'm curious as to why more people haven't done this.

That doesn´t even look bad, if you are clums use a oil flister socket.

Isn´t that basicly what subaru does?

Yeah, just mind the hot exhaust headers

Only the Toyobaru afaik, all their other cars have the engine ahead of the front axle because of their AWD system (which is very similar to Audi's).

It would be intersting to see a Porsche 924 with a turbocharged boxer engine, a tilted intercooler in front of the engine, hood vents releasing the air and larger rear than front tires.
That would give it a rear heavy center of gravity, compensated by larger rear tires and a low polar momentum of inertia.

Not sure. Seems like gravity would wear on the bottom of the cylinder heads more while simultaneously getting less benefit from the actual burn phase. Not to mention the extra space and weight needed for the intake and exhaust manifolds. Yes, you get a lower center of gravity but overall I can't imagine why you'd want one.

>Toyobaru Oil Filter on the top of the engine, easily accessible

Best boxer engine.

>180° V engine

>low cg
>Only put the engine in econoboxes
Subaru the absolute madmen

What engine is that, I know it's an EJ, but which one?

>Lower hood
>Lower cg
>sound fucking cool when you romp on them.

BRZ/FRS/86
Older legacy GT
Older foresters
Older Imprezas

The engines in 911s sit pretty damn low, the heads are right between the wheels.