Subaru Out Of WRC?

[Jacks GT]

Noo I like the Outback! Im very close to buying one for my place in Montana. I only said the Tribecca coz I'd love to see that thing in the icy decals n on a track

[SubieDriver]

I think the Tribeca would do pretty well. Mine handles great! Not sure the auto tranny would be appropriate for racing though.

[KartRacerBoy]

There was pickup truck road racing in the SCCA a few decades back. Time for SUV road racing!

[SubieDriver]

NASCAR still has the Craftsman Truck series don't they? Well, that can't be too much different than running an SUV series. I'd watch it (at least once)!

[invitation]

Say it ain't so: the economic downturn has claimed yet another team. Subaru, a long-dominant force in the World Rally Championship, has announced it won't return to the WRC for 2009.

 

Subaru's WRC team, run in no small part by the British Prodrive consortium, spent 20 years in the sport and captured six World Rally Championship titles. Along the way, it picked up millions of fans who will no doubt grieve the bitter news. Its success in rallying has given the brand recognition, and made the term "WRX" virtually a household name.

David Richards, Prodrive's chairman, said Subaru's departure from the WRC "is a great loss, as it is one of the sport's icons."

 

 

invitation letter

[Knight705]

i'm sure privateer teams will still use subaru, just no more factory backed teams.

[superasianguy]

I was informed that they are taking a break from WRC to fix the wrx/sti lol

[Jacks GT]

Whats wrong with the STi/WRX?

[IwannaSportSedan]

It doesn't meet WRC's stupid regulations that favor transverse drivetrains and inline-engines. Oh, and it is ugly, but that isn't really a reason to quit.

 

I hope they don't go that way to "fix" it. That will be the death of Subaru as we know it.

[bosco]

It doesn't meet WRC's stupid regulations that favor transverse drivetrains and inline-engines.

 

 

in-line engines are better designs overall than the vaunted boxer engine.

[SubieDriver]

Well, that depends on if they've had a hard landing after their vault. ...or did you mean vaunted?

 

The advantage to the boxer is primary balance. Boxers need very little in the way of crank counterweights, because the opposing pistons balance each other rather than needing balances on the crank or adding a balance shaft.

 

Subaru's 4-cyl engines all have each set of opposing pistons go in and out simultaneously, cancelling out any potential vibrations or oscillations. You can't do that with any inline or V engines.

[bosco]

corrected. and yes i know very well the balance pluses of the horizontally opposed engine but i also know the advantages of properly designed in-line engine which is lower weight and superior packaging, better intake flow and exhaust flow when turbo'd, less complex valve train drive, easier to work on, less expensive to manufacture, etc. if the horizontally opposed engine was so good more would use it. btw i love my Subaru but it's no EVO.

[SubieDriver]

I think I agree with all of your points. Boxers have twice as many heads, camshafts, etc., more weight, intake & exhaust plumbing are more complicated, etc., but the boxer design is superior for engine balance and longevity. That's why Porsche hasn't abandoned it. That's why Continental and Lycoming haven't abandoned it for their light plane engines. Good balance begets longevity, and that doesn't come without sacrificing in other areas. Also, good engine balance minimizes the need for counterbalancers, which reduces rotational mass inside the engine. Honda made several engines with a counter-rotating balance shaft which enhanced the balance, but increased rotational mass. There are always trade-offs.

 

Subaru decided to stick with the better internal engine design. Yes, there are distinct advantages to inline engines, but there are also disadvantages. Subaru chose to capitalize on the advantages of the boxer layout.

 

If you want inline, you have a whole host of other manufacturers from which to choose.

[IwannaSportSedan]

corrected. and yes i know very well the balance pluses of the horizontally opposed engine but i also know the advantages of properly designed in-line engine which is lower weight and superior packaging, better intake flow and exhaust flow when turbo'd, less complex valve train drive, easier to work on, less expensive to manufacture, etc. if the horizontally opposed engine was so good more would use it. btw i love my Subaru but it's no EVO.

 

Maybe very slightly less weight in the engine case. But if you have to add counter-balance weight, a counter-rotating balance-shaft, or an offset crankshaft (V6) to the rotating assembly, then you just add that weight back on.

 

Not to mention that an inline or V engine puts the heaviest parts of the engine (head assemblies) higher in the chassis, affecting center of gravity, hood height, and clearances.

 

Superior packaging? how? By having intake and exhaust hanging off the sides? By being crammed up against a transverse transaxle? By having the accessory drive crowding the suspension, and driveline angles being unequal and compromised?

 

Turbocharged flow? an inline has an exhaust side and an intake side, and usually the manifolds have to be bent and folded to fit in the engine bay, especially transverse-layout, and the flow has to get from one side of the engine to the other.

 

Subaru just puts the hot side on the bottom, with the turbo and the intake side on the top, and both systems have the space they need to not be coiled up too much, and to be serviceable under the hood, and under the car. The turbo is top-mounted where the heat won't soak into the objects below it so much, and can rise out of the open hoodscoop. Pretty darn good, if you ask me.

 

Easier to work on, are you insane? Aside from the admittedly cramped spark plugs, everything is laid out on top of, or underneath the engine, where it is EASIER to get at. Transverse inline engines are a beast to work on, and are usually crammed under the hood as densely as possible. Inline longitudinal 4-cylinders aren't so bad, but few of them have the power potential of the subaru boxer, or the low hoodline and low CG.

 

Valvetrain? The valvetrain is largely the same between Subarus and others. shorter cams actually are more rigid, and tend to "walk" in their journals less on an H4 than an inline 4. H6 to V6 is probably no difference.

 

And not everything is better by being cheaper. I'd rather pay for a more balanced engine, with the above qualities, than an inline engine that is simply "easier." Easier does not equate to better, nor necessarily does cheaper.

 

Maybe if more than Subaru and Porsche were interested in engineering, above just being cheapskates and defaulting to "easier" inlines, we would see more boxers.

 

I would take a Subaru over any Mitsubishi, for the drivetrain layout alone, and the engine design is a bonus, let alone over appliances like Hondas and Toyotas, and the Big 3 FWD cars.

 

I would take a good Porsche over almost anything else, and I would LOVE to even just SEE and HEAR a Ferrari 512 Berlinetta Boxer flat 12 up close.

 

And although I like lots of motorcycles, my current choice for owning a new-ish one would be a BMW R1200S. Again, BOXER POWERED.

 

The only thing truly better than a boxer piston engine is an axial-shaft rotational jet engine. Rotaries are probably on-par with boxers, with some benefits over piston engines, and some drawbacks.

 

Inline4s are decent but simple, and an H4 has a shorter, lighter, inherently balanced rotating assembly.

Inline6s have better balance, and are better than V6s, except for engine length considerations. V6s are compromise-engines that have been made good through development.

V8s are nice, especially ***IMHO*** something other than the ubiquitous pushrod overhead-valve american paradigm, which is a good system, but as common as dust. I REALLY wish flat-8s were available somewhere, somehow, but they are wide, as all boxers are, and no shorter than a V8 or I4. But the smooth power would be amazing.

V12s are better, and also have primary and secondary vibration cancellation. (again, flat12s better yet.)

V10/I5s again, are a compromise engine made good. More power than an 8, less length than a V12/I6, but an odd firing pattern, not divisible by 3 or 4.

[bosco]

insane huh? a well designed in-line engine makes more power is more compact, simpler and lighter than a boxer engine plus it is also easier to work on. try pulling the head or replacing a piston on the boxer and while your at it try replacing something simple like the plugs. for most repairs/mods the in-line can be worked on from the top no crawling around on your belly. another problem with the boxer engine in a front engine design is overhang while the cg. may lower the boxer engine hangs so far forward of the front wheel centerline that it compromises overall handling. poor design. even Porsche with the 911's have the same issue only at the rear of the car which is why the new Cayman is the Porsche model of the future.

think in-line engines are a bad design then look no further than the motorcycle industry they don't seem to worry much about balance shafts or engine strength. they pull more power at higher engine speeds per cc than any mass produced normally aspirated engine car engine plus they are silky smooth.

BMW boxer ever ride one? i've ridden a few and i'm not impressed they jump around like a bull dog in a gunnysack plus they make poor power for the displacement. the balance of the bike is not as good either because of all the engine parts hanging off the sides.

[IwannaSportSedan]

insane huh? a well designed in-line engine makes more power is more compact, simpler and lighter than a boxer engine

 

If you have to add weight to balance, it isn't lighter. Designs being equal, a boxer will make the same power more reliably, by not shaking itself to death.

 

plus it is also easier to work on. try pulling the head or replacing a piston on the boxer and while your at it try replacing something simple like the plugs.

 

How many times do you replace a piston with the engine still in the car, without the engine needing to be pulled to be properly re-built anyway?

 

Plugs are an issue, only because of the tight clearance with the chassis. A couple of socket extensions and flex joints, though, and it is do-able. Not truly more difficult than replacing the oil filter on the side of my miata's block, under the intake manifold, and above the frame rail, and almost impossible to reach... How many oil filters get changed between spark plug replacements? Quite a few.

 

for most repairs/mods the in-line can be worked on from the top no crawling around on your belly.

 

Yeah. Sure. Tell that to my brother with a VW turbo Beetle, where half the stuff is under the dashboard, rather than under the hood, (and the car is still front-engined, not front-mid) and the alternator has to be replaced by taking the passenger side suspension out of the way, through the wheel well.

 

another problem with the boxer engine in a front engine design is overhang while the cg. may lower the boxer engine hangs so far forward of the front wheel centerline that it compromises overall handling. poor design. even Porsche with the 911's have the same issue only at the rear of the car which is why the new Cayman is the Porsche model of the future.

 

That is a function of drivetrain, and chassis design (and engine head/plug access is a chassis-clearance issue, as well.)

 

Without AWD, the Subaru boxer engine could EASILY be put behind the front axle without having to re-engineer a transverse trans-axle, and is HALF as long as an inline engine, longitudinally, so a minimum amount would have to be added to the wheelbase and overall length for that. The fact that they drive the front wheels from the transaxle case, means that the engine MUST be in the front, and so does Audi's longitudinal sedans, and their engines are LONGER, and TALLER than Subaru's boxers. The front of an H4 barely extends beyond the front of the front tires, even if the cg of the engine block is forward of the axle centerline. Most transverse inlines are not much better, are still in front of the axle line, and have worse driveline geometry, and the Cg of the engine is much higher than a boxer.

 

And I would still buy a Carrera 4S or Turbo over MANY cars in their category for an everyday performance car, even in poor weather, and fitting AWD to a Cayman would be very difficult. I am amazed that R8/Gallardo has AWD, without the center-position transmission like the Murcielago, and divorced front and rear differentials. I love Cayman's layout for pure sports car, though.

 

think in-line engines are a bad design then look no further than the motorcycle industry they don't seem to worry much about balance shafts or engine strength. they pull more power at higher engine speeds per cc than any mass produced normally aspirated engine car engine plus they are silky smooth.

 

First, I said boxers are a BETTER design, not that inlines were inherently BAD design. There is a difference. Something can be better than something else that is already good.

 

It is always easier to balance a 180-degree crankshaft engine with low rotating mass. The lower rotating mass needs far less correction and thus abuses crankshaft journals less. The rotating assembly of a boxer twin, though is positively feather-weight, and inherently balanced without extraordinary development to make them such.

 

And motorcycle twin-cylinder engines tend to produce much better torque characteristics, and are much easier to ride than an I4 tuned for high RPM efficiency, which behave much more like an on-off light switch.

 

My preference is also not for screaming race-replica bikes, anyway, I would prefer a Ducati to a Suzuki, even if I did.

 

BMW boxer ever ride one? i've ridden a few and i'm not impressed they jump around like a bull dog in a gunnysack plus they make poor power for the displacement. the balance of the bike is not as good either because of all the engine parts hanging off the sides.

 

Yes, I have. And it is smoother than a V-twin, and torqier than an I4. I am not sure what you rode, but it doesn't sound like it was running right.

 

They are air, and more lately air/oil cooled. That does have implications, minus being wider tolerances, so usually less power and thermal transmissive capacity. On the plus side, the bike is less complex, and requires less service by not having water cooling. An R1200S has 128hp, and 85 lb-ft. of torque, in a 430lb shaft-driven bike. Not bad. There are faster bikes, but few that are as reliable.

 

And the spark plugs and valves are a doddle, because they are easily accessible, "hanging off the sides" (again, it is a chassis issue, more than an engine issue.) I was just reading yesterday on another forum about a guy who was fitting new high-compression pistons and forged rods to his R1200S, and it was actually easier than an inline, because the cylinders are exposed on the bike. It is a matter of how the chassis fits the engine... even for Inlines.

 

BTW, the only things hanging off the sides are the engine cylinders, and they are symmetrical, aside from a slight for-to-aft offset, since the rod journals cannot both take up the same space on the crankshaft. (on any engine) The balance of a boxer BMW motorcycle is not a problem. The bike is balanced on it's centerline.

 

The HP2 Sport has even more power, even higher redline, and lighter bike weight, with a DOHC boxer. I hope that engine gets a lot more action in the future than just a limited edition bike.

 

Inline bikes and cars have received insanely more amounts of R&D, and are pushed harder, certainly, but that is a matter of popularity and ease, not superiority.

[bosco]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat-4

[IwannaSportSedan]

What is a wikipedia entry for?

 

Do you think I don't know what a flat 4 is?

[SubieDriver]

No, I think Bosco was showing you that Wikipedia agreed with you.

[Jacks GT]

Bosco, as you are part of this thread and we have evidence...I will post this in here. Is there anyway we could ask Iwannasportsedan, nicely, to shorten his posts? They completely dominate each thread he posts in. I know I know, we don't have to read them, but if one wishes to stay active in a thread, they have to read each post to know what's going on. There is no need to write that much, at all. It will save everyone time, including him.

Thanks

[bosco]

^ i think you just did.

[Guest heightsgtltd]

I think he should be charged per word

[Jacks GT]

Genius

[Jacks GT]

Bosco, as you are part of this thread and we have evidence...I will post this in here. Is there anyway we could ask Iwannasportsedan, nicely, to shorten his posts? They completely dominate each thread he posts in. I know I know, we don't have to read them, but if one wishes to stay active in a thread, they have to read each post to know what's going on. There is no need to write that much, at all. It will save everyone time, including him.

Thanks

 

Since I said this, IWSS hasn't posted once