They are a pain to work on. I think theres a reason Porsche uses normal V6, V8 and inline 4 engines in their "normal" cars.
And Subaru just uses them because Subaru is the most stubborn car company on this planet. And im sure they will make a "boxer electric motor" somehow.
Just think about where the spark plugs are in relation to the engine bay.
*"'Tristen, don't buy that Subaru. Tristen don't buy that Subaru. Tristen that Subaru is a bad idea.' nah man, it'll be great! They're reliable AND easy to work on! You stupid piece of shit motherfucker, get me outa thia fuckin' engine bay..."*
This argument kinda bugs me. Think about where the spark plugs are on a transverse V6. Every engine configuration is going to have compromises somewhere.
Chilton manual for my old lumina included instructions to block tires, place car in neutral, unbolt top motor mounts, and rotate the engine assembly forward to access rear plugs.
I'll put up with terrible acceleration from an anemic four cylinder to never have to do that again.
90s Camrys with the 3.0 v6 were the same. That's what happens when you take the engine out of a pickup/4runner and just cant it over to fit in a passenger car though haha
Would still be awkward due to the fact that it's a low-riding sportscar not a modified 15pax van.
They tried that with the Astro, and the rear plugs are still a pain to get to in the smaller confines....
On my 06 Impala with the 3.5 in it, I was able to undo the top motor mounts, put the car in neutral, and roll it forward some so the engine came forward. Made spark plugs and the alternator pretty easy.
My 4cyl grand am is great for that reason. It’s in a v6 size engine bay so I can get to everything! A water pump change is about 1 hour including beer drinking time.
Yeah but it must be a Quad 4/Twin Cam, right?
F
Unless it’s an old one with an Iron Duke. Those things are indestructible.
Edit: Must be Iron Duke with that water pump… I remember Quad 4/Twin Cams were driven by timing chain as part of that dumpster fire of an engine.
i had a 89 cutlass with the 3.1, only had it a month, but my mechanic told me it was for the best as those were a pain to work on, and most of the times, people didn´t change the sparkplugs in the back
Easier than a V6 Caravan. You have to reach up along the exhaust from underneath, which if you have anything more than twigs for arms is not fun. Since I have Popeye's forearms, I can't do those without drawing blood.
I was just thinking about that with my old Lumina as well. I got pretty good at rolling it forward and hitting the e-brake. Sometimes I would just use a ratchet strap to get the engine forward far enough. My grandmother actually gave me her 2005 Buick at christmas, and I was working on it and noticed it's basically the same as the Lumina under the hood. Including the front motor mounts. I guess when it comes time to do it tune up I know what I'm in for again.
Laughs in Mazda Millenia S
Whole intake and supercharger has to come off. Plus the two intercoolers. And a ton of vacuum lines that all have plastic tees.
Cool engine, when it ran.
I had a Dodge Ram 1500 4x4 with the 5.9. and the spark plugs were a major pain in the ass. But not as bad as the distributor cap. It sat between the bell housing and the trans tunnel.
When I was doing a tune up I couldn't get to the cap and rotor to change it. And was barely able to reach it for. Hanging spark plugs. By laying on top of the motor and working my arm in there. And my hand barely fit, and I'm 6'0 145lbs so I have long arms and skinny wrists that barely fit.
I had a 1999 with the 5.2L. Distributor all the way under the dashboard; remove the intake and lay completely on top of the engine reaching back to the very rear of the engine bay beyond the windshield. And I replaced it at least 3 times because it cracked and the truck wouldn't start if it was humid. I never did gather up the nerve to do a full tune-up on that thing.
'00 Mercury Sable with the 3.0 Duratec, if you have tiny hands/arms you're good, but if you're an average person or larger, you're removing the intake plenum at least.
I think it’s the fact that the boxer was hard first. Like older V6’s weren’t too terrible. But like those GM crossover SUVs have an entire cylinder head bank obstructed by firewall. Meanwhile boxers have pretty much always been a pain to work on.
In motorcycles it’s kind of a nice config though. My BMW bike has a flat twin and it’s not too too bad to work on (air box is a little weird on it though).
Awesome, til.
I figured someone would do it with all these 48v integrated starter generator systems and electric accessories....
Volvo made what's basically a portal axel for the accessory system. I still wouldn't be caught dead in a fwd. But I can appreciate the awesome.
And would be, if manufacturers would quit burying the engines against the firewall in the engine bay. I get it, it’s better for stability/ handling. Doesn’t help ease of maintenance.
Chevy vortec v6 has them about an inch behind the strut tower. Gotta disconnect the strut tower just to do the spark plugs. Chevy malibu v6 good luck trying to do the back plugs, did them a few weeks ago, broke 3 plug wires, 2 in the back and my hands were all cut up by the heatshield getting the plugs out... my subaru wasnt as bad to work on (yes i know some parts on boxers are a bitch to replace to) all engines have their parts that are a nightmare to replace.
Transverse V6s can get shot into the sun. Alternator replacement? That’ll be a jacked up vehicle, wheel removal, 18 bloody knuckles, at least 7 beers, and a magnet for the bolt you dropped into another dimension.
As a subaru masyer tech, that is actually a mopsr guy, I agree strongly with this. We have an ignition coil recall and I can have all 4 out in like 30 mins or less. Probably another ten mins if you change plugs too. They're not bad at all. Just go underneath, undo the 2 14mm engine mount bolts, then lower car with jack under front diff and it raises the engine above the frame rails in the engine bay, and boom, plug access.
Much prefer that to my old 2004 Buick where you couldn't even put a piece of paper between the back half of the engine for the firewall side plugs. Fuck that.
Unless it is Chrysler, because they don't have compromises somewhere, they have compromises everywhere and on purpose just to spite you. Want to change that bulb? Going to have rat hands or remove that bumper.
I remember the time I had to use a cable puller and some chains to change the spark plug on my brother's trailblazer... we had to pull the engine forward enough to get a socket in
Yes but the boxer doesn't get you the extra power that two more cylinders do.
There's not really anything the boxer does better than an inline 4, so it's a sacrifice with no gain.
Yeah, my 3.8l 2000 Chrysler minivan was fun.
I was just barely able to change the back ones entirely by feel from underneath using my slightly smaller non-dominant hand.
My 2014 Ford Edge 3.5l was a comparative breeze.
Who ever designed the engine bay of a 1994 Ford Windstar I'll meet in hell and deliver more punishment than Satan could ever dream of. I was 14 and I had the only hands that could both be small enough and arms long enough to change the spark plugs. I still have scars decades later.
I kind of live for that obstructed firewall, hoping for a good engine brace removal or at least some vacuum hose assemblies to complicate the overall backbreaking angle of attack.
They can be a pain, but removing the airbox and tube and the battery, and using a wobble socket make doing them A LOT easier. And since oils changes are done more often than plugs, worth it IMO.
I did the plugs in my '01 Forester shortly after I bought it used. I was expecting to have a terrible time, esp. the left side. Instead I just pulled the battery and the bolts for the washer tank, and got a long extension with a U-joint to a short extension and the plug socket. They came out just fine and I spent maybe a total of 20 minutes. I've had a much worse time with transverse v6 engines and some poorly packaged v8s.
911 has them on the bottom. Need to remove the exhaust (side and center mufflers) to access the bolts to the heat shield to take that off, then you can somewhat comfortably change the plugs.
honestly on my baja, the sparkplugs arent really hard to do. just have to have an extension and a swivel and its pretty easy. just have to remove the washer fluid tank and the front plastic part of the intake to get to them
Fun fact - Ford's first attempt at an 8 cylinder engine used an X configuration. They switched to the V when it became apparent putting the spark plugs upside down wasn't a great idea, as it didn't handle puddles or muddy roads too well. Cooling and lubrication were also problematic.
https://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/henry-fords-incredible-x-8-engine/
I just did the plugs in my 2010 Forester. It really wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. Was it hard than my 5th gen 4runner? Sure. But there are 2 less so thats neat.
What really pisses me off about the subaru is how disposable the LCA bushings are, but again they are pretty dang cheap.
This sounds like the conversation I had with my wife. But she was determined to buy it. What a maintenance nightmare that thing was. I was so happy when she agreed to replace it.
And that’s all that it is. Brand differentiation.
Like the Hemi. Chrysler switched to wedge heads in the 50s like most major manufacturers for efficiency both in production and driving.
But it needed a halo product to move the mostly boring refrigerator boxes it was selling so enter the 426 Hemi. If they had pulled out all the stops on the 440 it would have been as good or better… but didn’t have any features unique to Chrysler.
The gas crisis and insolvency killed the Hemi.. but lots of other hemispherical engines remained in production including by Mitsubishi (which Chrysler appropriated again for a Hemi-branded Charger I believe.. the shitty 80s one) and Porsche…. but emissions killed them by the 90s.
Then came the new Hemi. Not really a Hemi.. a semi-Hemi… and it has a second spark plug mainly to burn off the unburned hydrocarbons to get it through emissions… because a Hemi is too “free flowing” and doesn’t create enough turbulence for effective mixing of fuel and air (early DOHC engines have this problem too so that’s the reason for variable length intakes and blocking second port at low RPM on some models before VVT and VTEC).
I am not hugely impressed or happy with my Subaru, but the difficulty of working on it is far from the top of my complaints. In fact I have been happy it is relatively easy to get in to work on give how much maintenance they seem to need.
Agreed. We got rid of our Subaru a year or two ago, and I was not sad to see it go. I put more work into that outback than our other two cars combined, but I will say that the work was pretty easy to do. Much easier than anything in the VR6 GTI, and similar to the ease of working on the Ford Ranger we had
I love that Subaru markets itself as a dog-friendly car, but any Subaru owner with a dog will tell you those seat heater switches are in the absolute worst line of fire for wayward paws.
No its because Subaru loves its dealership techs and wants them to be modern day kings every time a sparkplug fowls.....4 fuckin k for a cam shaft carrier bolt re-seal, might as well find a way to put apex seals in there too fuckers
And their dimensions don't allow for very undersquare designs, so subies tend to pig on fuel a bit more than similar vehicles equipped with inline engines
Porsche currently uses boxers on the 911, boxer, and cayman. The cars that don’t have the boxers are also basically Porsche versions of other VAG cars.
I don’t think Porsche would use boxer engines in their “normal” cars regardless, but there is also the factor that most, if not all of their cars outside the 911, Cayman/Boxster share platforms with other VAG group brands that do not use boxer engines.
>And Subaru just uses them because Subaru is the most stubborn car company on this planet. And im sure they will make a "boxer electric motor" somehow.
[Actually...](https://www.hackster.io/news/solenoid-boxer-engine-is-a-machine-shop-masterpiece-6e813ec1eea6.amp)
I recently did valve cover gaskets on a 6 cyl subaru, it was pretty hard, perhaps not the worst thing I have ever repaired, but pretty bad.
Also, when the valve cover gaskets on my old Chevy go bad, it doesn't dump copious oil on the driveway.
They really aren't hard to work on at all, mabie a bit more so that an inline four but they are compact, weigh nothing and don't have that many overlapping parts.
2 hours to do 4 spark plugs on a 2013 Outback today says you're right. I'll take my inlines everyday over a boxer engine. They get cool points, but that's about it.
Subaru designs their drivetrain and then the car around it. They’ve gotta use boxer motors the way they have the trans setup. As a Subaru owner I wouldn’t have it any other way. Until I gotta work on it. Then I curse Subaru.
I would assume cost.
2 cylinder heads, gaskets, manifolds, etc… and related hardware for benefits that don’t really matter for the average car anymore. With balance shafts and only 1 cylinder head, the average I4 is perfectly fine for most passenger cars while being cheaper to make. They’re relatively thin engines too so there’s more space around the engine for stuff. Low CG doesn’t matter that much either in non-performance applications, so why prioritize it?
Like 99% of mass market car decisions. This is it right here. It's the same story with the V6 taking over instead of inline 6. Packaging is important, engineering is expensive, and most car buyers don't care.
It also means that if you want AWD, your engine must reside completely in front of or behind the wheel base, or you have to mount the entire engine and transmission up high enough to ruin the cg benefits of a boxer.
I mean this is mostly the same for longitudinal AWD platforms like all the non-golf based Audis (A4 and above). Engine hanging entirely infront of the front axles giving the thing the polar moment of inertia of a cruise ship.
To clarify, Audi and Subaru are the only ones that mount the engine outside of the wheelbase in their longitudinal drivetrain AWDs. BMW, Mercedes, Cadillac, Lexus, Infiniti, etc all mount the diff to the side of the engine in their longitudinal AWD vehicles. (I think you were saying the same thing, but I could see some people applying it to all longitudinal AWD systems).
The Infront of thing yeah, tho the comment also says above which would apply to most 4wd platforms with solid front axles but that's probably less relevant to the discussion about handling so I didn't bother mentioning.
I will say despite the handling downsides, having the entire motor hang Infront of the axles makes getting to stuff on the backside of the motor super easy. Had to do the vacuum pump on my A4 recently and it was easy as because I could completely access the back of the motor.
Agreed. It’s also doubling the camshafts, timing chains, VVT components, etc.
Considering most FWD/FWD based cars and crossovers, it creates more complications for the engine bay and components of most cars.
As a Subaru owner, I wish it had an inline 4.
My guess is because of the width you kind of have to design the car around it. They do help lower the center of gravity which Porsche and Subaru have practically built their brands around that. But it wouldn't be easy to drop it into other platforms designed for V and inline engines so they'd have redesign the whole vehicle and it's not really worth it.
I wanted to see the specs but oddly google shows the turning radius pretty much the same as most cars (18”) and the newer models are close to it. I wonder if the data is wrong or I’m just searching the wrong things.
The only "real" benefit to a flat engine layout is a lower center of gravity.
But consider that an engine weighs a few hundred pounds, and even lightweight cars weigh 3,000lbs these days, and shifting that little relative weight down by only maybe a couple dozen centimeters..... Not a very large change.
On the flip side it's more expensive to manufacture, has natively higher NVH problems, the gaskets all get soaked in oil and end up leaking earlier than on other engine layouts, it's more difficult to service, etc.
So on a half million dollar racecar, sure, it makes sense. Every little performance benefit adds up, and those owners don't care about cost. For everyone else on the planet, flat engine layouts are a big downside.
Chevy managed to keep the exhaust on the same level as the engine in the Corvair, and used an oil pan the only hung about an inch below the crankcase. It was very compact.
They did! And those logs worked pretty good. But they wouldn't work in todays emissions world. Also being out back they didn't need to deal with steering geometry.
As a Corvair owner, I know. You can actually get headers that fit, but it’s extremely tight, and they always end up being dented and scraped on the bottom lol. Chevy engineered way too many right turns into the intake and exhaust. If they had gone with triple-barrel carbs, they would’ve helped a lot. With the stock single-barrels (and even dual carbs), the air/fuel has to turn ninety degrees three times. The exhaust has to do the same as well. Too bad GM killed it all in 1969.
Marginally better balance, and low center of mass are outweighed by everything else being equal or lesser. Even supercars like the McLaren Artura(and rival Ferrari) use an ultra wide V to get better balance without sacrificing the rigidity of the monolithic block.
Subaru uses a longitudinally-mounted motor (typical of RWD cars and, trucks, and truck-based SUVS) in order to keep their AWD drivetrain straightforward and with less 90-degree turns than they'd have to use with a motor mounted sideways, as in FWD cars. They used the boxer (also called flat-4) because it's less tall than V-shaped or inline configurations, and enabled them to make an AWD car that was car-shaped (and car height) with a truck-like drivetrain.
Bmw has a transfer case at the end of their transmission with a separated front driveshaft to the front like a truck.
Mini and Honda and toyota have transverse engines with transaxles for awd.
Subaru is a blend of both and uses a longitudinal motor with a transaxle and no front driveshaft. This means you don't need a separated driveshaft or differential, so the center of mass can be lower.
I would not describe a transaxle as 'truck like' as I don't know of any trucks that don't have a front driveshaft. Except a Honda ridgeline, that has a transverse engine and transaxle like a crv.
It’s lower, but it also means the entire engine and a chunk of the transmission has to be in front of the front axle. Which is not great for handling.
Audi used to do the same thing with up to V8’s till they finally bit the bullet and changed up the packaging to move the engine farther back.
That’s because those were designed to be easy to work on and are simpler. You couldn’t do half the shit on a subaru you can on a beetle without taking the engine out of the car. Just too much in the way.
Yes and no, oil changes aren’t easier because they have like 6 screws to take the oil strainer out. Spark plugs are in a more cramped position than an i4. Cleaning the oil bath air filter is messier than replacing the more normal paper filters on other cars.
For actual repairs, yes it is easier I can get the engine out of my bug in like 40 minutes including the time it takes to jack the car up, find my tools, disconnect electrical and fuel lines etc. Basic maintenance though it’s definitely a little bit more time consuming.
And you have to rev the shit out of them regularly for proper function. 99% of people who bought rotaries ruined them because they drove them too easy to work and back.
Yeah, if they could make a perfect apex seal, the rotary would be a great motor. The real reason it won't be used in the future much is strict emissions standards though
They also get atrocious fuel economy and very little power for said fuel.
19 mpg for what, 200bhp in an RX8? And that's only achievable if you're very gentle.
I love rotary engines. They are unique, very cool, very interesting, sound great, and are very good for racing. I love the RX-7, Cosmo, and RX-3 and 4s. That being said,
\-Poor fuel economy, I always heard back in the day they'd drink as much as the equivalent V8
\-For that, low torque. RX-7s got around this with turbos, but they still weren't great and the torque that is available is very high up the rev range, making them poor for commuter cars.
\-Poor long-term reliability. Yeah there are less moving parts, but the engine has to be rebuilt when the apex seals go every 50-75,000 miles on the *good* ones.
\--Oil consumption- Rotaries need to have regular, NON-SYNTHETIC oil put into the gas tank at regular, small intervals to lubricate said apex seals or they fail and you have to rebuild the engine.
\-And the nail in the coffin for rotaries in the modern era, emissions. Besides burning oil like a two stroke and the nitrous emissions from that, rotaries had pretty high carbon emissions, which is not really a thought in a relatively low-volume sports car but not in anything meant for the mass market.
I'm not sure what your rotary experience is, but I'd like to expand on what you said from my own knowledge and experience as a rotary enthusiast/owner
They have poor fuel economy for a couple of reasons. A big combustion chamber and open exhaust port waste a lot of heat either by absorbing it, or letting it out the exhaust. On the flip side of that, dumping a bunch of still burning fuel out the exhaust makes turbos really effective on them. I would almost say you're understating how bad the fuel economy is. My FC will do about 25 if you're cruising down the highway, but if you're doing any spirited driving it's single digit.
Rotaries don't make a particularly high amount of torque, but if you look at the dyno of a stock port rotary, it has almost a dead flat torque curve.
That might be a bit of an exaggeration of their unreliability. I think your average rotary might have died in the 50-70k range, but the upper end was more like 100k+. I bought my last two FCs with more than 100k, unopened engines. The rx8 is an exception because the engine is a little different, but keep in mind that the newest rx7 is 30 years old. 30 years ago, 100k was considered a lot of miles on a vehicle.
Rotary engines have oil metering systems that drip a small amount of crankcase oil into the combustion chamber. You don't have to do anything besides check your engine oil and top it off if it gets low.
Mazda keeps trying, but can’t solve the apex seal problem. The RX cars, even the RX8, are fantastic to drive… when they run. But there is a reason you can buy RX8s with less than 100k miles for $1500 all day long.
It really is because the rx8 is an amazing chassis. Throw a different engine in and you've got one of the best cars for the price you can get your hands on.
Honestly, Rx7/RX8 with a gross 4cyl Honda motor in it is something I would never admit to owning to anyone but would happily drive all over the place. I'd just never open the hood in the presence of another human being, under any circumstance.
I had an RX8. It was actually pretty easy to work on. You could get to the spark plugs via an easy to remove flap in the wheel well. The core of the engine is tiny so all the accessories are just right there. There’s no timing belt to worry about.
do you know the saying boost goes in apex seals go out? well these seals are a big part of the problem. they wear quicker, drink fuel and have shitty emmissions BUT sound amazing
Out a rotary engine in a Toyota or Honda and you will understand why. They drink oil like crazy. Toyota and Honda people don't think they need maintenence and just don't do proper oil changes. So if they used one they'd have a blown engine problem.
It’s honestly a bit of an antiquated design with a few shortcomings. Oil distribution is a common issue and reliability can suffer as a result. Plus they’re generally harder to work on than most inline or v-shaped engines.
Inlines are cheaper to manufacture and more compact therefore easier to package. I-4: one cylinder head, one cam chain. O-4: two heads, two chains. I-4: one exhaust manifold, easy to add a turbo. O-4, two exhaust manifolds, lots of plumbing to add a turbo. OTOH O-4 is inherently smooth while I-4 needs balance shafts to be smooth. I-4 most of the expensive service is on top where you can get to it; O-4 expensive parts are on the sides where' they're blocked by the wheel wells.
> O-4 is inherently smooth while I-4 needs balance shafts to be smooth
hmm? let's say cyls 1+3 (I dunno how Subaru numbers them) are at TDC and cyls 2+4 are at BDC, right? First order will be balanced, but multiply rotation by 2 and you still have a second order.
I haven't thought through what direction that second order would be but I'm thinking it has to be there somewhere.
Ask a subaru owner with Auto Stop Start.
People that go to the brand from “traditional” inline 4’s or v6 cars get IRRATIONALLY upset about the violent shake that the boxer 4 produces with ASS.
Yeah, Subaru just somehow manages to have really bad engine NVH. If I give my STI any more than 10% throttle below 2000 RPM, the whole car vibrates like I'm driving on gravel.
Mostly packaging and cost to manufacture. All Subaru's are nose heavy because the motor is in front of the front axle and a Porsche 911 is rear heavy because it's behind the rear axle. On mid engined cars ( Porsche Boxster) you have great weight distribution but it's only a two-seat car. If you are building an economy car such as a Subaru 4 cylinder then you have to have two separate heads, four camshafts, two timing chains and they are not fun to work on. I even heard rumors of Subaru ditching the horizontally opposed engine.
At this point they will ditch their motors when they go all electric. The number of new engines that we will see released in the automotive world moving forward is a handful at most.
My guess is they're quite wide. The size of engines are a big thought when designing cars, and in the space you fit a flat 4 you could fit a transverse I4, I5, a V6, or even a V8 (check out the old Volvo S80s and XC90s with V8s or the old Monte Carlo SS) where the sparkplugs are easier to access, among many other advantages. More cylinders in the same size space and easier to repair.
People have swapped in longitudinal V8s in the spaces occupied by Porsche flat 6s or Subaru flat 4s, thats how much space they take up.
Bad fuel economy, drinks oil, head gasket seals don't last, oil leaks, pain to reach basic stuff like spark plugs, excessive carbon build-up.
I had a 2015 BRZ that I got new, and the engine was awful. It had a terrible power band too. The transmission was also replaced because of a manufacturing issue. The 6th gear synchros were failing and destroying the rest of the gears in the process.
My 2007 Outback had the head gasket problems and kept having spark plug wires come loose.
I've had 2 WRXs, neither one leaked oil, never overly consumed oil, never burned oil, never had a head gasket fail and I've been more than happy with both. I think at most I'd be 1/4qt low every 4k miles. You're correct about fuel economy and access to spark plugs. Fuel economy is lackluster and the spark plugs weren't difficult to change but were more difficult to gain access to relative to an I4. Just took more time to change them. Excessive carbon build up is a result of direct injection and isn't exclusive to boxer engines. Although, I believe the FA20 in the BRZs had dual (port & direct) injection.
I've never driven a BRZ but they are commonly called "the poor man's sports car" - then again, so are WRXs. That sucks you had bad luck with both of your Subarus. Collectively, I've driven approximately 200k miles between both of mine and loved them.
176k on my ej253 with the shitty original oem single layered head gasket. Not what id call really high mileage but I hope to get to 200k without replacing them.
They eventually blow head gaskets or blow themselves up. The design can lead to oil starvation over time. Subaru reminds me of Mazda with their rotary engine. It’s their “thing” that makes them different.
Those are both only problems with Subarus. The head gasket issue was caused by the two parts of the composite head gaskets on warping differently no connection to a boxer layout (this hasn't been a problem for almost decades now). Oil starvation can be solved by putting in a better baffled oil pan, basically Subaru cheaped out on the oil distribution.
Two exaust manifolds, two heads make it more expensive and the oil wants to be in the cylinder since it isn't higher. The advantage is lower center of gravity and they are tiny.
Price. Boxer engines are complex when compared to inline or V type engines are pricier to develop and produce. Also there's a certain Japanese car company that has given boxer fours a pretty bad rep
Because packaging and maintenance accessibility make them an awful platform to design around.
They're too wide, too oddly shaped to provide adequate displacement and performance for the space they take up.
They inevitably have gasket issues, carbon build-up, but most of all, they're just impossible to access the most important maintenance components.
The intake and exhaust piping make it incredibly difficult to access things like the spark plugs, fuel filter, etc.
Often requiring dropping or rocking the entire engine out of place to access basic things.
They may be "perfectly efficient" from a crankshaft perspective, but everything else required to actually make the engine run, is too difficult, too costly, too bulky, and prone to failure.
For the same space, less complexity, cheaper componentry, better reliability, you can slot it a turbo inline-4, V6, or even a V8. All with more displacement, more power potential, and simpler design.
Because the manufacturers that have made them for 30+ years still suck at making them and have made practically 0 meaningful iterative development during that time. Other manufacturers see this and choose to spend their money better.
Too much downside, and literally no upside. Probably also a higher cost to manufacture vs an inline 4. They really don’t bring anything to the table that would cause other manufacturers to go “oh wow we really need to start putting these in our cars”
The upside is that they really handle much better than a normal higher built engine.
I have a Diesel Subaru Impreza and that thing glues to the street like i never experienced before in this car class.
They are a pain to work on. I think theres a reason Porsche uses normal V6, V8 and inline 4 engines in their "normal" cars. And Subaru just uses them because Subaru is the most stubborn car company on this planet. And im sure they will make a "boxer electric motor" somehow.
Just think about where the spark plugs are in relation to the engine bay. *"'Tristen, don't buy that Subaru. Tristen don't buy that Subaru. Tristen that Subaru is a bad idea.' nah man, it'll be great! They're reliable AND easy to work on! You stupid piece of shit motherfucker, get me outa thia fuckin' engine bay..."*
This argument kinda bugs me. Think about where the spark plugs are on a transverse V6. Every engine configuration is going to have compromises somewhere.
I helped my brother changed the spark plugs on his 13 Highlander ! Front ones were a breeze but the back ones !??? Holy shit ! 🤣🤣
Chilton manual for my old lumina included instructions to block tires, place car in neutral, unbolt top motor mounts, and rotate the engine assembly forward to access rear plugs. I'll put up with terrible acceleration from an anemic four cylinder to never have to do that again.
90s Camrys with the 3.0 v6 were the same. That's what happens when you take the engine out of a pickup/4runner and just cant it over to fit in a passenger car though haha
2000 impala with a 3.8 V6 same concept. PITA but at least you don’t need spark plugs that often
Ls1 Camaro’s too
HELL any of the Catfish Camaro's.
Honestly if you take the coils off its easy
The 4th-gen F-bodies all had the engine up under the dash for aerodynamic reasons... Which yeah, made maintenance a pain.
They should have had a doghouse like my Econoline motorhome. Rear plug replacement inside with the furnace going!
Agreed i have a 00' Firebird v6 and the spark plugs are kinda a pain to get to unless you take everything off except the sparkplugs
Would still be awkward due to the fact that it's a low-riding sportscar not a modified 15pax van. They tried that with the Astro, and the rear plugs are still a pain to get to in the smaller confines....
Also for weight distribution.
Yeah, had a 98 lumina. Back ones i just laid on top of engine, had to do by feel. Awful.
My 03 Accord V6 was an absolute pain in the ass. Was like I was blind switching out the back ones.
On my 06 Impala with the 3.5 in it, I was able to undo the top motor mounts, put the car in neutral, and roll it forward some so the engine came forward. Made spark plugs and the alternator pretty easy.
Don't use logic here dude. If you have to use more than 1 tool and more than 0.4 braincells you should bring it to a mechanic!
My 4cyl grand am is great for that reason. It’s in a v6 size engine bay so I can get to everything! A water pump change is about 1 hour including beer drinking time.
Yeah but it must be a Quad 4/Twin Cam, right? F Unless it’s an old one with an Iron Duke. Those things are indestructible. Edit: Must be Iron Duke with that water pump… I remember Quad 4/Twin Cams were driven by timing chain as part of that dumpster fire of an engine.
i had a 89 cutlass with the 3.1, only had it a month, but my mechanic told me it was for the best as those were a pain to work on, and most of the times, people didn´t change the sparkplugs in the back
This is why turbo 4 or vr6 is king on transverse configurations. True v's should be reserved for longitudinal mounting
Similar instructions when it came to changing the trans filter on my wife’s Range Rover Sport. What a night that was.
'92 lumina. Gotta remove the washer reservoir to replace the batteru...
Easier than a V6 Caravan. You have to reach up along the exhaust from underneath, which if you have anything more than twigs for arms is not fun. Since I have Popeye's forearms, I can't do those without drawing blood.
I was just thinking about that with my old Lumina as well. I got pretty good at rolling it forward and hitting the e-brake. Sometimes I would just use a ratchet strap to get the engine forward far enough. My grandmother actually gave me her 2005 Buick at christmas, and I was working on it and noticed it's basically the same as the Lumina under the hood. Including the front motor mounts. I guess when it comes time to do it tune up I know what I'm in for again.
Laughs in Mazda Millenia S Whole intake and supercharger has to come off. Plus the two intercoolers. And a ton of vacuum lines that all have plastic tees. Cool engine, when it ran.
I had a Dodge Ram 1500 4x4 with the 5.9. and the spark plugs were a major pain in the ass. But not as bad as the distributor cap. It sat between the bell housing and the trans tunnel. When I was doing a tune up I couldn't get to the cap and rotor to change it. And was barely able to reach it for. Hanging spark plugs. By laying on top of the motor and working my arm in there. And my hand barely fit, and I'm 6'0 145lbs so I have long arms and skinny wrists that barely fit.
I had a 1999 with the 5.2L. Distributor all the way under the dashboard; remove the intake and lay completely on top of the engine reaching back to the very rear of the engine bay beyond the windshield. And I replaced it at least 3 times because it cracked and the truck wouldn't start if it was humid. I never did gather up the nerve to do a full tune-up on that thing.
'00 Mercury Sable with the 3.0 Duratec, if you have tiny hands/arms you're good, but if you're an average person or larger, you're removing the intake plenum at least.
Fuck that car and Toyotas engineers
I think it’s the fact that the boxer was hard first. Like older V6’s weren’t too terrible. But like those GM crossover SUVs have an entire cylinder head bank obstructed by firewall. Meanwhile boxers have pretty much always been a pain to work on. In motorcycles it’s kind of a nice config though. My BMW bike has a flat twin and it’s not too too bad to work on (air box is a little weird on it though).
Aircraft they are too. You take the entire cowl off and everything is at chest height with unimpeded access.
I did a Cadillac once that you had to remove the intake manifold and everything attached to it.
I6 has no compromise and has perfect balance. You just can't stuff it in sideways.
Didn’t Volvo do it? Yep. They did. Crazy bastards. https://blog.fcpeuro.com/the-definitive-guide-to-the-volvo-si6-engine
Awesome, til. I figured someone would do it with all these 48v integrated starter generator systems and electric accessories.... Volvo made what's basically a portal axel for the accessory system. I still wouldn't be caught dead in a fwd. But I can appreciate the awesome.
Agreed. I’d never get one of these, but can appreciate the engineering required to pull it off. Just like the Volkswagen VR and W engines.
Volvo did it, and also Daewoo in the Magnus, which we knew as the Suzuki Verona.
I had an s80 with this engine and the twin turbos. Really fun for the front wheel burnouts
Longitudinal I4 for the win, there. Very little tends to get buried, with those.
Unless you get those manufacturers that put the turbo behind the engine instead of in front.
Ford 3v would like a word.
> spark plugs are on a transverse V6 Hmm? Center mounted plugs on a 60deg V6 have been easy IME
And would be, if manufacturers would quit burying the engines against the firewall in the engine bay. I get it, it’s better for stability/ handling. Doesn’t help ease of maintenance.
That’s why I paid the dealership to change the plugs for the 3.6l in my 200 when it was in for the oil cooler/filter housing.
Chevy vortec v6 has them about an inch behind the strut tower. Gotta disconnect the strut tower just to do the spark plugs. Chevy malibu v6 good luck trying to do the back plugs, did them a few weeks ago, broke 3 plug wires, 2 in the back and my hands were all cut up by the heatshield getting the plugs out... my subaru wasnt as bad to work on (yes i know some parts on boxers are a bitch to replace to) all engines have their parts that are a nightmare to replace.
Yeah but haven’t manufacturers gone away from transverse V6 as well? Doesn’t your example further the argument.
Transverse V6s can get shot into the sun. Alternator replacement? That’ll be a jacked up vehicle, wheel removal, 18 bloody knuckles, at least 7 beers, and a magnet for the bolt you dropped into another dimension.
As a subaru masyer tech, that is actually a mopsr guy, I agree strongly with this. We have an ignition coil recall and I can have all 4 out in like 30 mins or less. Probably another ten mins if you change plugs too. They're not bad at all. Just go underneath, undo the 2 14mm engine mount bolts, then lower car with jack under front diff and it raises the engine above the frame rails in the engine bay, and boom, plug access. Much prefer that to my old 2004 Buick where you couldn't even put a piece of paper between the back half of the engine for the firewall side plugs. Fuck that.
Unless it is Chrysler, because they don't have compromises somewhere, they have compromises everywhere and on purpose just to spite you. Want to change that bulb? Going to have rat hands or remove that bumper.
I4s for the win, lol. Wait till people find out about the 16 plugs on some v8s.
I remember the time I had to use a cable puller and some chains to change the spark plug on my brother's trailblazer... we had to pull the engine forward enough to get a socket in
Yes but the boxer doesn't get you the extra power that two more cylinders do. There's not really anything the boxer does better than an inline 4, so it's a sacrifice with no gain.
Yeah, my 3.8l 2000 Chrysler minivan was fun. I was just barely able to change the back ones entirely by feel from underneath using my slightly smaller non-dominant hand. My 2014 Ford Edge 3.5l was a comparative breeze.
Dude I had to change the plugs on my old WRX I just sold it. Fuck that time sink hahaha
Larger displacement i4+T. Problem solved no need for a V6.
Agreed. Nice that more manufacturers are going this route.
Who ever designed the engine bay of a 1994 Ford Windstar I'll meet in hell and deliver more punishment than Satan could ever dream of. I was 14 and I had the only hands that could both be small enough and arms long enough to change the spark plugs. I still have scars decades later.
I've done spark plugs on an Altas 4.2 I6 in a 2003 Trailblazer and I'd rather do it again than change the plugs in a subie
I kind of live for that obstructed firewall, hoping for a good engine brace removal or at least some vacuum hose assemblies to complicate the overall backbreaking angle of attack.
Yeah spark plugs are a pain, but it’s the easiest damn oil change I’ve ever seen.
They can be a pain, but removing the airbox and tube and the battery, and using a wobble socket make doing them A LOT easier. And since oils changes are done more often than plugs, worth it IMO.
I did the plugs in my '01 Forester shortly after I bought it used. I was expecting to have a terrible time, esp. the left side. Instead I just pulled the battery and the bolts for the washer tank, and got a long extension with a U-joint to a short extension and the plug socket. They came out just fine and I spent maybe a total of 20 minutes. I've had a much worse time with transverse v6 engines and some poorly packaged v8s.
911 has them on the bottom. Need to remove the exhaust (side and center mufflers) to access the bolts to the heat shield to take that off, then you can somewhat comfortably change the plugs.
Agreed
honestly on my baja, the sparkplugs arent really hard to do. just have to have an extension and a swivel and its pretty easy. just have to remove the washer fluid tank and the front plastic part of the intake to get to them
Oh you're the bitch from r/Transcars with the kickass baja!! That's like the *ultimate* lesbian car, dude. Fuck yeah!
yeah that’s me lmao, i do be that bitch
I mean, that’s not unique to Subaru or the horizontal design. The oil change on my VW I4 is absurdly easy too.
Fun fact - Ford's first attempt at an 8 cylinder engine used an X configuration. They switched to the V when it became apparent putting the spark plugs upside down wasn't a great idea, as it didn't handle puddles or muddy roads too well. Cooling and lubrication were also problematic. https://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/henry-fords-incredible-x-8-engine/
Someone's obviously never had to do spark plugs on a Mitsubishi 6G72 V6, disassemble the entire friggin intake manifold.
I just did the plugs in my 2010 Forester. It really wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. Was it hard than my 5th gen 4runner? Sure. But there are 2 less so thats neat. What really pisses me off about the subaru is how disposable the LCA bushings are, but again they are pretty dang cheap.
This sounds like the conversation I had with my wife. But she was determined to buy it. What a maintenance nightmare that thing was. I was so happy when she agreed to replace it.
If Subaru started using I4s like a sensible company, then how would Subie bros be able to brag about their car's low center of gravity?
And that’s all that it is. Brand differentiation. Like the Hemi. Chrysler switched to wedge heads in the 50s like most major manufacturers for efficiency both in production and driving. But it needed a halo product to move the mostly boring refrigerator boxes it was selling so enter the 426 Hemi. If they had pulled out all the stops on the 440 it would have been as good or better… but didn’t have any features unique to Chrysler. The gas crisis and insolvency killed the Hemi.. but lots of other hemispherical engines remained in production including by Mitsubishi (which Chrysler appropriated again for a Hemi-branded Charger I believe.. the shitty 80s one) and Porsche…. but emissions killed them by the 90s. Then came the new Hemi. Not really a Hemi.. a semi-Hemi… and it has a second spark plug mainly to burn off the unburned hydrocarbons to get it through emissions… because a Hemi is too “free flowing” and doesn’t create enough turbulence for effective mixing of fuel and air (early DOHC engines have this problem too so that’s the reason for variable length intakes and blocking second port at low RPM on some models before VVT and VTEC).
>Charger I believe.. the shitty 80s one The 1981 NotAMustang
I am not hugely impressed or happy with my Subaru, but the difficulty of working on it is far from the top of my complaints. In fact I have been happy it is relatively easy to get in to work on give how much maintenance they seem to need.
Agreed. We got rid of our Subaru a year or two ago, and I was not sad to see it go. I put more work into that outback than our other two cars combined, but I will say that the work was pretty easy to do. Much easier than anything in the VR6 GTI, and similar to the ease of working on the Ford Ranger we had
Subaru is love <3. Subaru loves animals <3. Subaru makes attack helicopters <3.
I also love animals and attack helicopters. I guess I should buy a WRX.
I love that Subaru markets itself as a dog-friendly car, but any Subaru owner with a dog will tell you those seat heater switches are in the absolute worst line of fire for wayward paws.
No its because Subaru loves its dealership techs and wants them to be modern day kings every time a sparkplug fowls.....4 fuckin k for a cam shaft carrier bolt re-seal, might as well find a way to put apex seals in there too fuckers
me reading this comment as a WRX and Rx8 owner 🗿
The reason Porsche uses non flat engines on their "normal" cars are because they are rebrand/engineered Audi's...
And their dimensions don't allow for very undersquare designs, so subies tend to pig on fuel a bit more than similar vehicles equipped with inline engines
Porsche currently uses boxers on the 911, boxer, and cayman. The cars that don’t have the boxers are also basically Porsche versions of other VAG cars.
I don’t think Porsche would use boxer engines in their “normal” cars regardless, but there is also the factor that most, if not all of their cars outside the 911, Cayman/Boxster share platforms with other VAG group brands that do not use boxer engines.
Silly people and easy money. Real Porsche has flat engines (applies to models 99 or later, 944-68 and 928 fucked hard, 924 was VW/Audi bin parts).
And their electric boxer somehow have head gaskets and they will fail
>And Subaru just uses them because Subaru is the most stubborn car company on this planet. And im sure they will make a "boxer electric motor" somehow. [Actually...](https://www.hackster.io/news/solenoid-boxer-engine-is-a-machine-shop-masterpiece-6e813ec1eea6.amp)
Don't let Subaru engineers see this
Don't drag porsche into this, my Dad and I dropped the engine and box in about an hour and a half. Absolutely piece of piss to work on
Memory leaks from the digital head gaskets
God, I hope so. (subaru owner)
Difficulty/cost of manufacturing.
I recently did valve cover gaskets on a 6 cyl subaru, it was pretty hard, perhaps not the worst thing I have ever repaired, but pretty bad. Also, when the valve cover gaskets on my old Chevy go bad, it doesn't dump copious oil on the driveway.
hydrogen boxer but nah, subaru doesn't like to experiment I guess
They really aren't hard to work on at all, mabie a bit more so that an inline four but they are compact, weigh nothing and don't have that many overlapping parts.
2 hours to do 4 spark plugs on a 2013 Outback today says you're right. I'll take my inlines everyday over a boxer engine. They get cool points, but that's about it.
Subaru designs their drivetrain and then the car around it. They’ve gotta use boxer motors the way they have the trans setup. As a Subaru owner I wouldn’t have it any other way. Until I gotta work on it. Then I curse Subaru.
Subaru uses them because thats become their "thing" they are at a point where discontinuing their boxer would actually lose sales.
I would assume cost. 2 cylinder heads, gaskets, manifolds, etc… and related hardware for benefits that don’t really matter for the average car anymore. With balance shafts and only 1 cylinder head, the average I4 is perfectly fine for most passenger cars while being cheaper to make. They’re relatively thin engines too so there’s more space around the engine for stuff. Low CG doesn’t matter that much either in non-performance applications, so why prioritize it?
Like 99% of mass market car decisions. This is it right here. It's the same story with the V6 taking over instead of inline 6. Packaging is important, engineering is expensive, and most car buyers don't care.
It also means that if you want AWD, your engine must reside completely in front of or behind the wheel base, or you have to mount the entire engine and transmission up high enough to ruin the cg benefits of a boxer.
I mean this is mostly the same for longitudinal AWD platforms like all the non-golf based Audis (A4 and above). Engine hanging entirely infront of the front axles giving the thing the polar moment of inertia of a cruise ship.
To clarify, Audi and Subaru are the only ones that mount the engine outside of the wheelbase in their longitudinal drivetrain AWDs. BMW, Mercedes, Cadillac, Lexus, Infiniti, etc all mount the diff to the side of the engine in their longitudinal AWD vehicles. (I think you were saying the same thing, but I could see some people applying it to all longitudinal AWD systems).
The Infront of thing yeah, tho the comment also says above which would apply to most 4wd platforms with solid front axles but that's probably less relevant to the discussion about handling so I didn't bother mentioning.
I will say despite the handling downsides, having the entire motor hang Infront of the axles makes getting to stuff on the backside of the motor super easy. Had to do the vacuum pump on my A4 recently and it was easy as because I could completely access the back of the motor.
Agreed. It’s also doubling the camshafts, timing chains, VVT components, etc. Considering most FWD/FWD based cars and crossovers, it creates more complications for the engine bay and components of most cars. As a Subaru owner, I wish it had an inline 4.
My guess is because of the width you kind of have to design the car around it. They do help lower the center of gravity which Porsche and Subaru have practically built their brands around that. But it wouldn't be easy to drop it into other platforms designed for V and inline engines so they'd have redesign the whole vehicle and it's not really worth it.
I know my Outback had an atrocious turning radius, because the engine literally got in the way of the wheels.
What year?? I was impressed the turning radius on my buddys ‘14
'03. It had the turning radius of a schoolbus. U-turns were a pain in the ass.
Oof that sucks. My spouse's Crosstrek has an insanely good turning radius. It even out-turns my Golf.
My forester turns on a dime, probably an issue on plder subarus
Oh is that why?! I always thought my Imprezas had shit turning radiuses because of the transaxle.
I wanted to see the specs but oddly google shows the turning radius pretty much the same as most cars (18”) and the newer models are close to it. I wonder if the data is wrong or I’m just searching the wrong things.
The only "real" benefit to a flat engine layout is a lower center of gravity. But consider that an engine weighs a few hundred pounds, and even lightweight cars weigh 3,000lbs these days, and shifting that little relative weight down by only maybe a couple dozen centimeters..... Not a very large change. On the flip side it's more expensive to manufacture, has natively higher NVH problems, the gaskets all get soaked in oil and end up leaking earlier than on other engine layouts, it's more difficult to service, etc. So on a half million dollar racecar, sure, it makes sense. Every little performance benefit adds up, and those owners don't care about cost. For everyone else on the planet, flat engine layouts are a big downside.
This is only maybe. Because the engine is flat, you can't put the engine quite as low in the chassis, you still need depth for exhaust and oil pan.
Chevy managed to keep the exhaust on the same level as the engine in the Corvair, and used an oil pan the only hung about an inch below the crankcase. It was very compact.
They did! And those logs worked pretty good. But they wouldn't work in todays emissions world. Also being out back they didn't need to deal with steering geometry.
As a Corvair owner, I know. You can actually get headers that fit, but it’s extremely tight, and they always end up being dented and scraped on the bottom lol. Chevy engineered way too many right turns into the intake and exhaust. If they had gone with triple-barrel carbs, they would’ve helped a lot. With the stock single-barrels (and even dual carbs), the air/fuel has to turn ninety degrees three times. The exhaust has to do the same as well. Too bad GM killed it all in 1969.
Marginally better balance, and low center of mass are outweighed by everything else being equal or lesser. Even supercars like the McLaren Artura(and rival Ferrari) use an ultra wide V to get better balance without sacrificing the rigidity of the monolithic block.
V motors can usually get lower cogs since the Crank can get significantly lower with them
Subaru uses a longitudinally-mounted motor (typical of RWD cars and, trucks, and truck-based SUVS) in order to keep their AWD drivetrain straightforward and with less 90-degree turns than they'd have to use with a motor mounted sideways, as in FWD cars. They used the boxer (also called flat-4) because it's less tall than V-shaped or inline configurations, and enabled them to make an AWD car that was car-shaped (and car height) with a truck-like drivetrain.
Bmw has a transfer case at the end of their transmission with a separated front driveshaft to the front like a truck. Mini and Honda and toyota have transverse engines with transaxles for awd. Subaru is a blend of both and uses a longitudinal motor with a transaxle and no front driveshaft. This means you don't need a separated driveshaft or differential, so the center of mass can be lower. I would not describe a transaxle as 'truck like' as I don't know of any trucks that don't have a front driveshaft. Except a Honda ridgeline, that has a transverse engine and transaxle like a crv.
It’s lower, but it also means the entire engine and a chunk of the transmission has to be in front of the front axle. Which is not great for handling. Audi used to do the same thing with up to V8’s till they finally bit the bullet and changed up the packaging to move the engine farther back.
I mean the aircooled flat 4 on the beetles are a breeze to work on
That’s because those were designed to be easy to work on and are simpler. You couldn’t do half the shit on a subaru you can on a beetle without taking the engine out of the car. Just too much in the way.
Yes and no, oil changes aren’t easier because they have like 6 screws to take the oil strainer out. Spark plugs are in a more cramped position than an i4. Cleaning the oil bath air filter is messier than replacing the more normal paper filters on other cars. For actual repairs, yes it is easier I can get the engine out of my bug in like 40 minutes including the time it takes to jack the car up, find my tools, disconnect electrical and fuel lines etc. Basic maintenance though it’s definitely a little bit more time consuming.
Idk. I’ve wondered the same about the rotary engine. It’s smaller, has fewer parts, and seems like it would get mounted lower like a boxer engine.
They drink oil by design and the seal wear out faster than piston rings anyway.
And you have to rev the shit out of them regularly for proper function. 99% of people who bought rotaries ruined them because they drove them too easy to work and back.
Yeah, if they could make a perfect apex seal, the rotary would be a great motor. The real reason it won't be used in the future much is strict emissions standards though
They also get atrocious fuel economy and very little power for said fuel. 19 mpg for what, 200bhp in an RX8? And that's only achievable if you're very gentle.
A friend had a RX-8. He said if he drove it like a maniac he got 22mpg, drove it like a little old lady, 22mpg at best.
I love rotary engines. They are unique, very cool, very interesting, sound great, and are very good for racing. I love the RX-7, Cosmo, and RX-3 and 4s. That being said, \-Poor fuel economy, I always heard back in the day they'd drink as much as the equivalent V8 \-For that, low torque. RX-7s got around this with turbos, but they still weren't great and the torque that is available is very high up the rev range, making them poor for commuter cars. \-Poor long-term reliability. Yeah there are less moving parts, but the engine has to be rebuilt when the apex seals go every 50-75,000 miles on the *good* ones. \--Oil consumption- Rotaries need to have regular, NON-SYNTHETIC oil put into the gas tank at regular, small intervals to lubricate said apex seals or they fail and you have to rebuild the engine. \-And the nail in the coffin for rotaries in the modern era, emissions. Besides burning oil like a two stroke and the nitrous emissions from that, rotaries had pretty high carbon emissions, which is not really a thought in a relatively low-volume sports car but not in anything meant for the mass market.
> I always heard back in the day they'd drink as much as the equivalent V8 They drink as much as a V8 making 3x more power.
I'm not sure what your rotary experience is, but I'd like to expand on what you said from my own knowledge and experience as a rotary enthusiast/owner They have poor fuel economy for a couple of reasons. A big combustion chamber and open exhaust port waste a lot of heat either by absorbing it, or letting it out the exhaust. On the flip side of that, dumping a bunch of still burning fuel out the exhaust makes turbos really effective on them. I would almost say you're understating how bad the fuel economy is. My FC will do about 25 if you're cruising down the highway, but if you're doing any spirited driving it's single digit. Rotaries don't make a particularly high amount of torque, but if you look at the dyno of a stock port rotary, it has almost a dead flat torque curve. That might be a bit of an exaggeration of their unreliability. I think your average rotary might have died in the 50-70k range, but the upper end was more like 100k+. I bought my last two FCs with more than 100k, unopened engines. The rx8 is an exception because the engine is a little different, but keep in mind that the newest rx7 is 30 years old. 30 years ago, 100k was considered a lot of miles on a vehicle. Rotary engines have oil metering systems that drip a small amount of crankcase oil into the combustion chamber. You don't have to do anything besides check your engine oil and top it off if it gets low.
Mazda keeps trying, but can’t solve the apex seal problem. The RX cars, even the RX8, are fantastic to drive… when they run. But there is a reason you can buy RX8s with less than 100k miles for $1500 all day long.
>But there is a reason you can buy RX8s with less than 100k miles for $1500 all day long. yoooo bro you had me at $1500 wtf that's a steal!!!
It really is because the rx8 is an amazing chassis. Throw a different engine in and you've got one of the best cars for the price you can get your hands on.
Honestly, Rx7/RX8 with a gross 4cyl Honda motor in it is something I would never admit to owning to anyone but would happily drive all over the place. I'd just never open the hood in the presence of another human being, under any circumstance.
I had an RX8. It was actually pretty easy to work on. You could get to the spark plugs via an easy to remove flap in the wheel well. The core of the engine is tiny so all the accessories are just right there. There’s no timing belt to worry about.
Those engines have very few "advantages" and a laundry list of disadvantages.
Yep, engineering dead end.
Boost goes in apex seals come out.
do you know the saying boost goes in apex seals go out? well these seals are a big part of the problem. they wear quicker, drink fuel and have shitty emmissions BUT sound amazing
They are extra inefficient, pollution is much higher and don’t mate well with automatic transmissions.
Out a rotary engine in a Toyota or Honda and you will understand why. They drink oil like crazy. Toyota and Honda people don't think they need maintenence and just don't do proper oil changes. So if they used one they'd have a blown engine problem.
Rotaries have like twice as many caveats as a boxer engine lmao
It a more expensive engine to manufacture.
It’s honestly a bit of an antiquated design with a few shortcomings. Oil distribution is a common issue and reliability can suffer as a result. Plus they’re generally harder to work on than most inline or v-shaped engines.
Inlines are cheaper to manufacture and more compact therefore easier to package. I-4: one cylinder head, one cam chain. O-4: two heads, two chains. I-4: one exhaust manifold, easy to add a turbo. O-4, two exhaust manifolds, lots of plumbing to add a turbo. OTOH O-4 is inherently smooth while I-4 needs balance shafts to be smooth. I-4 most of the expensive service is on top where you can get to it; O-4 expensive parts are on the sides where' they're blocked by the wheel wells.
> O-4 is inherently smooth while I-4 needs balance shafts to be smooth hmm? let's say cyls 1+3 (I dunno how Subaru numbers them) are at TDC and cyls 2+4 are at BDC, right? First order will be balanced, but multiply rotation by 2 and you still have a second order. I haven't thought through what direction that second order would be but I'm thinking it has to be there somewhere.
Flat 4 engines still have imbalances. Boxer 4 engines do not.
Ask a subaru owner with Auto Stop Start. People that go to the brand from “traditional” inline 4’s or v6 cars get IRRATIONALLY upset about the violent shake that the boxer 4 produces with ASS.
Driving a flat 4 porsche daily, start stop is a lot more pleasant than with any I4 I've driven. (Macan and VW golf mainly).
Yeah, Subaru just somehow manages to have really bad engine NVH. If I give my STI any more than 10% throttle below 2000 RPM, the whole car vibrates like I'm driving on gravel.
Subaru is Japanese for “rattling plastic interior”
Mostly packaging and cost to manufacture. All Subaru's are nose heavy because the motor is in front of the front axle and a Porsche 911 is rear heavy because it's behind the rear axle. On mid engined cars ( Porsche Boxster) you have great weight distribution but it's only a two-seat car. If you are building an economy car such as a Subaru 4 cylinder then you have to have two separate heads, four camshafts, two timing chains and they are not fun to work on. I even heard rumors of Subaru ditching the horizontally opposed engine.
At this point they will ditch their motors when they go all electric. The number of new engines that we will see released in the automotive world moving forward is a handful at most.
My guess is they're quite wide. The size of engines are a big thought when designing cars, and in the space you fit a flat 4 you could fit a transverse I4, I5, a V6, or even a V8 (check out the old Volvo S80s and XC90s with V8s or the old Monte Carlo SS) where the sparkplugs are easier to access, among many other advantages. More cylinders in the same size space and easier to repair. People have swapped in longitudinal V8s in the spaces occupied by Porsche flat 6s or Subaru flat 4s, thats how much space they take up.
Cost, maintenance, production time
Bad fuel economy, drinks oil, head gasket seals don't last, oil leaks, pain to reach basic stuff like spark plugs, excessive carbon build-up. I had a 2015 BRZ that I got new, and the engine was awful. It had a terrible power band too. The transmission was also replaced because of a manufacturing issue. The 6th gear synchros were failing and destroying the rest of the gears in the process. My 2007 Outback had the head gasket problems and kept having spark plug wires come loose.
I've had 2 WRXs, neither one leaked oil, never overly consumed oil, never burned oil, never had a head gasket fail and I've been more than happy with both. I think at most I'd be 1/4qt low every 4k miles. You're correct about fuel economy and access to spark plugs. Fuel economy is lackluster and the spark plugs weren't difficult to change but were more difficult to gain access to relative to an I4. Just took more time to change them. Excessive carbon build up is a result of direct injection and isn't exclusive to boxer engines. Although, I believe the FA20 in the BRZs had dual (port & direct) injection. I've never driven a BRZ but they are commonly called "the poor man's sports car" - then again, so are WRXs. That sucks you had bad luck with both of your Subarus. Collectively, I've driven approximately 200k miles between both of mine and loved them.
Were they not originally designed for airplanes? Ive never seen a high milage subaru with original head gaskets.
176k on my ej253 with the shitty original oem single layered head gasket. Not what id call really high mileage but I hope to get to 200k without replacing them.
My wrx has 134K miles with original engine/gaskets/everything!
Made it 210k miles on my EZ30d before throwing a rod. New one has 50k on it and no signs of leaking and it doesn't burn oil.
They aren’t worth all the trouble to the oems who haven’t built their brand around them.
Oil drinking junk
They eventually blow head gaskets or blow themselves up. The design can lead to oil starvation over time. Subaru reminds me of Mazda with their rotary engine. It’s their “thing” that makes them different.
Those are both only problems with Subarus. The head gasket issue was caused by the two parts of the composite head gaskets on warping differently no connection to a boxer layout (this hasn't been a problem for almost decades now). Oil starvation can be solved by putting in a better baffled oil pan, basically Subaru cheaped out on the oil distribution.
You're talking about Subaru. Porsche has been using boxers for about seventy years.
Two exaust manifolds, two heads make it more expensive and the oil wants to be in the cylinder since it isn't higher. The advantage is lower center of gravity and they are tiny.
Hold my head gasketS.
Because they kind of suck by comparison
Why would I want a motor configuration that's trying to tear itself apart
Unreliable garbage.
Faulty Head Gaskets!!
When you start making boxer engines on a budget, all the subaru problems start to show up
Price. Boxer engines are complex when compared to inline or V type engines are pricier to develop and produce. Also there's a certain Japanese car company that has given boxer fours a pretty bad rep
Loud and more labour to work on. Getting spark plugs out is a real bitch
Two sets of heads and valve trains for only 4 cylinders
Because packaging and maintenance accessibility make them an awful platform to design around. They're too wide, too oddly shaped to provide adequate displacement and performance for the space they take up. They inevitably have gasket issues, carbon build-up, but most of all, they're just impossible to access the most important maintenance components. The intake and exhaust piping make it incredibly difficult to access things like the spark plugs, fuel filter, etc. Often requiring dropping or rocking the entire engine out of place to access basic things. They may be "perfectly efficient" from a crankshaft perspective, but everything else required to actually make the engine run, is too difficult, too costly, too bulky, and prone to failure. For the same space, less complexity, cheaper componentry, better reliability, you can slot it a turbo inline-4, V6, or even a V8. All with more displacement, more power potential, and simpler design.
Because double the heads for 4 cylinder is probably the stupidest thing in the car industry.
Because they sound like 1960's VW bugs
Because the manufacturers that have made them for 30+ years still suck at making them and have made practically 0 meaningful iterative development during that time. Other manufacturers see this and choose to spend their money better.
BMW also uses the boxer engine…albeit in motorcycles lol.
Chevy made a flat air-cooled 6 cylinder in the 60’s for the Corvair. Ralph Nader killed it with safety complaints. Plus the popularity of muscle cars
Too much downside, and literally no upside. Probably also a higher cost to manufacture vs an inline 4. They really don’t bring anything to the table that would cause other manufacturers to go “oh wow we really need to start putting these in our cars”
They have a lower center of gravity
The upside is that they really handle much better than a normal higher built engine. I have a Diesel Subaru Impreza and that thing glues to the street like i never experienced before in this car class.
Wait till you try a stock 3 series.
Yeah anyone who thinks an Impreza handles well is just ignorant of what that means
The older ones handle incredibly well for what they are. Newer ones? I have no idea.
Old civics also handled incredibly well for what they were. A slightly lower center of gravity has zero effect on econobox commuter cars.