What is happening with SVXWN?

[SVXyGirl]

Originally Posted by Tim

...It was the most BORING ride ever. But it did exactly the Point A to point B, and it did it well

Until it took you past point B and into a wall?

Just kidding.

My best friend has a Corolla and I always ask to take that on any of our road trips rather than one of my SVXs (better MPGs).

[immortal_suby]

Originally Posted by Ownbot

1. If a boxer engine is such a good design then why doesn't any other cars currently use them? Don't even mention Porsche because that is comparing apples to oranges. And airplanes? Once again apples to oranges. Airplanes are meticulously maintained and are checked before and after every flight. Whats the big advantage in a boxer engine? Lower weight distribution, that's it. Wow that's impressive.

There are so many reasons that a flat 4 or 6 or an inline 6 are better design than any others. It is puzzling why more carmakers don't adopt them but it could be explained in that they would have to redesign many other parts of the engine compartment and components just to make them fit. They are wider and shorter and sit lower - all things that might interfere with the layout of the suspension, steering column, steering rack, etc.

Here's a short excerpt I just dug up that is not any part of a subaru advertisement.

There are four different forces and moments of vibration that can occur in an engine design: free forces of the first order, free forces of the second order, free moments of the first order, and free moments of the second order. The straight-6, flat-6, and V12 designs have none of these forces or moments of vibration, and hence are the naturally smoothest engine designs. (See the Bosch Automotive Handbook, Sixth Edition, pages 459-463 for details.)

Engines with particular balance advantages include:

* Straight-6
* Flat-4 with two geared crankshafts
* Flat-6
* Flat-12
* V12

Engines with characteristic problems include:

* Straight-4 using a single crankshaft have no better kinetic energy balance than a single, and require a relatively large flywheel.
* Crossplane V8, which requires a very heavily weighted crankshaft, and has unbalanced firing between the cylinder banks (producing the distinctive and much-loved V8 "burble").
* Flatplane (180° offset crankshaft) V8.

In modern multi-cylinder engines, many inherent balance problems are addressed by use of balance shafts. Wear-and-tear is reduced only when the crankshaft is partly balanced before it touches any bearing as it is done in the flat and the V-engines. A balancer shaft transfers its force via bearings onto the crankshaft and rather increases wear-and-tear.

[LetItSnow]

My guess? The first thing that nukes mainstream use of the boxer engine is that it won't fit well in a transverse-mount, FWD platform. There are so many ways that it would be a revolutionary format change that the potential improvements would take a good while to have returns, and right now, a lot of companies simply aren't in a position for massive retooling.

IIRC, GM was at one point flashing around a somethin'-or-other with a Subaru boxer pushing it around...

...and not for nothin', but I think taking the boxer away would significantly hurt Subaru's fanbase. Transverse engines, to me, are simply unnatural. Ease of assembly and cost cutting are fantastic on the other side of the dealership, but I'm not interested in that kind of sacrifice. Whether it's that the horizontal format is uncommon, sensible, peculiar, or just appeals to my engineering side, it's a big part of the soul of the cars. I'm surely not the only person to feel this way.

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by immortal_suby

There are so many reasons that a flat 4 or 6 or an inline 6 are better design than any others. It is puzzling why more carmakers don't adopt them but it could be explained in that they would have to redesign many other parts of the engine compartment and components just to make them fit. They are wider and shorter and sit lower - all things that might interfere with the layout of the suspension, steering column, steering rack, etc.

Here's a short excerpt I just dug up that is not any part of a subaru advertisement.

All good stuff Matt.

It's probably worth noting that many of the characteristics that appeal to engineers, such as the lack of harmonics or vibration free running may not necessarily be of economic benefit in a common or garden shopping vehicle engine.

The ability to rev safely beyond 7000 rpm is imperative in a motorcycle engine or in a race engine. Your average family four cylinder engine will yield all the power and smoothness required for the shopping wagon way before this rev limit is reached.

The other stated benefit of our flat fours and flat sixes of keeping the CoG low down in the chassis is also a benefit that works better for rally or race cars than it does for ordinary road cars.

There is no way that other manufacturers are going to follow Subaru down this path. The benefits of the flat engines are demonstrably positive and work particularly well for the Forester, for instance, giving car-like handling to a wagon like vehicle. On the other hand if this configuration was an order of magnitude better than everything else out there, then Subaru WRC cars should still be at the peak of the rallying world. But as we know upright straight four engines in the likes of Mitsubishis and Fords and Citroens don't seem to yield much to our "superior" configuration.

I had a Camry myself once and I would not allow anything bad said about it, it was a very good and reliable car. We should just enjoy the superior engineering of our cars without thinking they are orders of magnitude better than anything else out there. Car technology improves approx every five years, and the bar just keeps getting raised all the time.

Joe

[Ownbot]

Let me make this clear what we have established.

The boxer design is more balanced that say an in-line 4.
I completely agree.

It would cost way too much for other car makers to implement the boxer design even if they wanted.
I completely agree.

The ability to rev safely beyond 7000RPMs? last time I checked the EG33 redlines just before 7000RPMs. The engine Honda currently uses in the Si Civic redlines at 8000 and it's an inline 4. An 89 Prelude would redline at 7000 RPMs Honda has always made high revving efficient engines. Remember, they started out making motorcycles.

In 1992 Subaru created a 3.3 liter engine that produced only 230 HP and got 17/24 MPG. That cannot possibly be considered superior engineering. For me the look of the car is the only thing that is superior, and it is far superior than almost anything out there

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Ownbot

.

The ability to rev safely beyond 7000RPMs? last time I checked the EG33 redlines just before 7000RPMs. The engine Honda currently uses in the Si Civic redlines at 8000 and it's an inline 4. An 89 Prelude would redline at 7000 RPMs Honda has always made high revving efficient engines. Remember, they started out making motorcycles.

As I seem to recall the Prelude engine produced around 150HP and redlined at around 6000RPM.

Name me an engine prior to the EG33 that had a coil on each spark plug?

Lee

[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by Ownbot

In 1992 Subaru created a 3.3 liter engine that produced only 230 HP and got 17/24 MPG. That cannot possibly be considered superior engineering. For me the look of the car is the only thing that is superior, and it is far superior than almost anything out there

Also in 1992:

Ford Mustang 5.0L V8 245hp 17/24MPG
Chevy Camero IROC Z 5.7L V8 245hp 16/24MPG

I think getting comparable performance to the big V8s of the day can be considered "superior engineering". Yet Fox bodied Mustangs and, IROC Cameros still have the reputation of being fast cars. It's all a matter of perspective, but consider that today's Toyota Camry makes 169hp to haul around a 3,307lb curb weight. I'll stick with the boxer 6, thanks.

Also, remember that the "look" that you're referring to is yet another component to the "superior engineering" that this car embodies. Wikipedia Our car has the same drag as a Toyota Prius which only has 98hp to haul 3,042lbs around. The SVX was engineered above and beyond the standards of it's time and even many standards today. Yes it does incur a cost of ownership due to it's age and rarity, but as ever "you get what you pay for." I just can't think of another kind of car that would cost me the same and deliver more.

[subbieatnz]

Originally Posted by Ownbot

If a boxer engine is such a good design then why doesn't any other cars currently use them? Don't even mention Porsche because that is comparing apples to oranges. And airplanes? Once again apples to oranges. Airplanes are meticulously maintained and are checked before and after every flight. Whats the big advantage in a boxer engine? Lower weight distribution, that's it. Wow that's impressive.

One of the reasons boxer motors arnt used as much by car makers is because they tend to be more expensive to produce compaired to a inline equivalent.
Also the modern boxer engine is also a bit wider with DOHC etc so needs wider engine bay.
There are alot of advantages with a boxer compaired to inlines and Vs.

Also remember the New Toyota FT-86 was going to use a subaru block when it goes into production in late 2011/2012

[Ownbot]

My mistake, the Prelude was around 7200 I guess.

[Ownbot]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Name me an engine prior to the EG33 that had a coil on each spark plug?

Lee

1990 Acura NSX

[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by Ownbot

1990 Acura NSX

So now we're comparing apples to apples. How much is a 92 NSX gonna cost up front, and how expensive would the repairs be over the course of ownership? I figure the SVX is still a pretty good bargain, then and now, although an NSX would be nice.

[lhopp77]

Just to correct the gas mileage for the 92 SVX. It was 17 and 25 with indications that it would get 21-29 on the highway.


Lee

[LetItSnow]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Name me an engine prior to the EG33 that had a coil on each spark plug?

1988-95 2.3L Quad 4, found in assorted GMs

[Ownbot]

Originally Posted by K_Dub

So now we're comparing apples to apples. How much is a 92 NSX gonna cost up front, and how expensive would the repairs be over the course of ownership? I figure the SVX is still a pretty good bargain, then and now, although an NSX would be nice.

This is one of the very few cars that to me look better than the SVX. And I guess comparing it to the SVX is not really fair. I was just responding to the question asked

[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by Ownbot

This is one of the very few cars that to me look better than the SVX. And I guess comparing it to the SVX is not really fair. I was just responding to the question asked

On the contrary, I think the comparison is quite appropriate. My point is that for that level of engineering the SVX was and still is the cheapest option on an exclusive list of vehicles that deliver at this level.

Thanks Green1995SVX for the exact pic I needed.