Pros and Cons of owning a Boxer engine
- Thread starter Marukai
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I'm not sure how a header changes the sound of a Subaru turbo, but I had a friend that installed some on a WRX, and he said the power gains were almost zero.
It's funny how the V-Dub hillclimbers do everything that they can to get their engines to sounds like an inline 4, while the Subaru modders make them sound even more like a dak-dak
I'm not sure how a header changes the sound of a Subaru turbo, but I had a friend that installed some on a WRX, and he said the power gains were almost zero.
It's funny how the V-Dub hillclimbers do everything that they can to get their engines to sounds like an inline 4, while the Subaru modders make them sound even more like a dak-dak
Originally Posted By: artificialist
That, and the OE has to cast 2 different cylinder heads instead of one on an inline engine.
What?
That, and the OE has to cast 2 different cylinder heads instead of one on an inline engine.
What?
This is why you get a boxer. That sound.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
500k is a tough thing. Though a maintained diamond in the rough from any engine class/type with maintenance can likely do 500k, very few ever do. The only engines I view as true 500k engines for passenger cars/trucks are older mb 616/617 diesels, cummins b series diesels, older Toyota 4 cyl engines, ford i6 truck engines and the older gm 350/262 engines. Most others have too many issues too early to be true 500k engines.
I think most engines can go 500,000 miles if properly maintained. The rest of the car is weaker and more likely to fail before the engine does.
500k is a tough thing. Though a maintained diamond in the rough from any engine class/type with maintenance can likely do 500k, very few ever do. The only engines I view as true 500k engines for passenger cars/trucks are older mb 616/617 diesels, cummins b series diesels, older Toyota 4 cyl engines, ford i6 truck engines and the older gm 350/262 engines. Most others have too many issues too early to be true 500k engines.
I think most engines can go 500,000 miles if properly maintained. The rest of the car is weaker and more likely to fail before the engine does.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Marukai
I would like for some of you to post some opinions about Boxer engines, also known as H engines or horizontally opposed engines. I hear that they are significantly more expensive to produce, but they last over 500k miles.
500k is a tough thing. Though a maintained diamond in the rough from any engine class/type with maintenance can likely do 500k, very few ever do. The only engines I view as true 500k engines for passenger cars/trucks are older mb 616/617 diesels, cummins b series diesels, older Toyota 4 cyl engines, ford i6 truck engines and the older gm 350/262 engines. Most others have too many issues too early to be true 500k engines.
I had heard of older subarus being long-life cars, but never saw proof myself.
You forgot the 4.6L Modular. You can find many examples just looking through the Auto Trader. Probably the easiest to find actually.
Originally Posted By: Marukai
I would like for some of you to post some opinions about Boxer engines, also known as H engines or horizontally opposed engines. I hear that they are significantly more expensive to produce, but they last over 500k miles.
500k is a tough thing. Though a maintained diamond in the rough from any engine class/type with maintenance can likely do 500k, very few ever do. The only engines I view as true 500k engines for passenger cars/trucks are older mb 616/617 diesels, cummins b series diesels, older Toyota 4 cyl engines, ford i6 truck engines and the older gm 350/262 engines. Most others have too many issues too early to be true 500k engines.
I had heard of older subarus being long-life cars, but never saw proof myself.
You forgot the 4.6L Modular. You can find many examples just looking through the Auto Trader. Probably the easiest to find actually.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Saw a Horizontally opposed engine which was not technically a boxer, but had scotch yolk crank/piston connection.
Allowed an amazingly compact engine, with effectively infinitely long con-rods.
If I'm visualizing it right, that's not a horizontally-opposed "boxer" engine. It is a flat engine, but is more appropriately called a 180-degree V-engine.
Saw a Horizontally opposed engine which was not technically a boxer, but had scotch yolk crank/piston connection.
Allowed an amazingly compact engine, with effectively infinitely long con-rods.
If I'm visualizing it right, that's not a horizontally-opposed "boxer" engine. It is a flat engine, but is more appropriately called a 180-degree V-engine.
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: mormit
AWD.
AWD has nothing to do with the fuel economy of the engine.
Care to explain how you separate the fuel economy of the engine, from that of the AWD car?
This thread is about boxer engines, not cars with boxer engines.
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: mormit
AWD.
AWD has nothing to do with the fuel economy of the engine.
Care to explain how you separate the fuel economy of the engine, from that of the AWD car?
This thread is about boxer engines, not cars with boxer engines.
Pros: It's often installed in a Porsche
Cons:
- A lot of routine service can become a real pain due to accessibility problems.
- I'm not big on the boxer sound, not that I dislike the sound of a 911. I kind of prefer the half-a-V12 sound of an I6.
Cons:
- A lot of routine service can become a real pain due to accessibility problems.
- I'm not big on the boxer sound, not that I dislike the sound of a 911. I kind of prefer the half-a-V12 sound of an I6.
Last edited:
"Pros: It's often installed in a Porsche
Cons:
- A lot of routine service can become a real pain due to accessibility problems"
accessibility problems, really? what do you mean?
actually oil is very easy, plugs less so but not horrible..beyond that, things can get tedious....
Cons:
- A lot of routine service can become a real pain due to accessibility problems"
accessibility problems, really? what do you mean?
actually oil is very easy, plugs less so but not horrible..beyond that, things can get tedious....
I like the low center of gravity/compact layout of the boxer motor. I think it definitely makes a difference in handling.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: whip
AWD has nothing to do with the fuel economy of the engine.
Care to explain how you separate the fuel economy of the engine, from that of the AWD car?
This thread is about boxer engines, not cars with boxer engines.
True, but unless someone has the BSFC numbers of the engines they're citing, they're talking out their backsides. The only point of reference, that people here are using to reinforce their belief in the inferior fuel efficiency of the opposed-piston design, is an AWD exclusive platform. Take a shot at finding a vehicle platform, offered in both 2WD and AWD, that doesn't show a fuel efficiency difference between the two drive systems.
Comparing the fuel efficiency of two significantly different vehicles and allotting the difference, in its entirety, to the engine design is absurd at best. It would make as much sense to look at the EPA numbers of a BMW 335 and proclaim that they prove the poor design and gross incompetence of Bavarian engineering. Get my point?
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: whip
AWD has nothing to do with the fuel economy of the engine.
Care to explain how you separate the fuel economy of the engine, from that of the AWD car?
This thread is about boxer engines, not cars with boxer engines.
True, but unless someone has the BSFC numbers of the engines they're citing, they're talking out their backsides. The only point of reference, that people here are using to reinforce their belief in the inferior fuel efficiency of the opposed-piston design, is an AWD exclusive platform. Take a shot at finding a vehicle platform, offered in both 2WD and AWD, that doesn't show a fuel efficiency difference between the two drive systems.
Comparing the fuel efficiency of two significantly different vehicles and allotting the difference, in its entirety, to the engine design is absurd at best. It would make as much sense to look at the EPA numbers of a BMW 335 and proclaim that they prove the poor design and gross incompetence of Bavarian engineering. Get my point?
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Comparing the fuel efficiency of two significantly different vehicles and allotting the difference, in its entirety, to the engine design is absurd at best.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly the point. I.e., you can't judge the inherent fuel economy of an engine type when most of the cars in which it is used have an inherently inefficient drivetrain type.
Hence, "AWD has nothing to do with the fuel economy of the engine."
Comparing the fuel efficiency of two significantly different vehicles and allotting the difference, in its entirety, to the engine design is absurd at best.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly the point. I.e., you can't judge the inherent fuel economy of an engine type when most of the cars in which it is used have an inherently inefficient drivetrain type.
Hence, "AWD has nothing to do with the fuel economy of the engine."
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Comparing the fuel efficiency of two significantly different vehicles and allotting the difference, in its entirety, to the engine design is absurd at best.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly the point. I.e., you can't judge the inherent fuel economy of an engine type when most of the cars in which it is used have an inherently inefficient drivetrain type.
Hence, "AWD has nothing to do with the fuel economy of the engine."
We're on the same page of the tech manual, but I'm apparently not getting my point across. That is, some here aren't recognizing that the fuel economy numbers being used as a point of reference tell us not about the fuel efficiency of the engine, but of the vehicle as a whole. Using the EPA numbers of an AWD car to conclude the opposed-piston engine is inefficient is simply without factual basis. But, that is precisely what is being done.
What is actually being seen is that an AWD car requires more energy to propel than a 2WD car. Thus, AWD has everything to do with this point of reference. You simply can't separate one from the other in this situation. The original post by "mormit" was simply pointing out that the observed fuel economy numbers were influenced by the use of AWD. We've yet to see any substantiation of the earlier claim that the engine design is, itself, less fuel efficient.
As an example, compare the numbers for two otherwise identical compact trucks. The 4WD version will have EPA numbers that are a couple of MPG lower in both the city and highway ratings. Does this mean that the exact same engine, in the 4WD version, is inferior to the one in the 2WD version? Anyone with a degree of sense realizes that the answer is "NO". Yet this is just the type of comparison that is being used to purport an inefficiency of the opposed-piston design. Anyone with engine design experience knows that cylinder orientation has "sod all" to do with BSFC numbers...
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Comparing the fuel efficiency of two significantly different vehicles and allotting the difference, in its entirety, to the engine design is absurd at best.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly the point. I.e., you can't judge the inherent fuel economy of an engine type when most of the cars in which it is used have an inherently inefficient drivetrain type.
Hence, "AWD has nothing to do with the fuel economy of the engine."
We're on the same page of the tech manual, but I'm apparently not getting my point across. That is, some here aren't recognizing that the fuel economy numbers being used as a point of reference tell us not about the fuel efficiency of the engine, but of the vehicle as a whole. Using the EPA numbers of an AWD car to conclude the opposed-piston engine is inefficient is simply without factual basis. But, that is precisely what is being done.
What is actually being seen is that an AWD car requires more energy to propel than a 2WD car. Thus, AWD has everything to do with this point of reference. You simply can't separate one from the other in this situation. The original post by "mormit" was simply pointing out that the observed fuel economy numbers were influenced by the use of AWD. We've yet to see any substantiation of the earlier claim that the engine design is, itself, less fuel efficient.
As an example, compare the numbers for two otherwise identical compact trucks. The 4WD version will have EPA numbers that are a couple of MPG lower in both the city and highway ratings. Does this mean that the exact same engine, in the 4WD version, is inferior to the one in the 2WD version? Anyone with a degree of sense realizes that the answer is "NO". Yet this is just the type of comparison that is being used to purport an inefficiency of the opposed-piston design. Anyone with engine design experience knows that cylinder orientation has "sod all" to do with BSFC numbers...
Originally Posted By: Shar
What's wrong with this car?
Besides the owner?
If I had to take a stab at it the turbo is gone.
Once the exhaust side oil seal lets go that is usually the result. Lots of oil burning.
If it is his second engine(or so he claims) is more than likely from abuse BY him. People buy a fast car and think it can bounce off the rev limiter from day 1 and not have an issue. While I agree a car built for speed shouldn't scoff at a little abuse there is a limit for every engine.
What's wrong with this car?
Besides the owner?
If I had to take a stab at it the turbo is gone.
Once the exhaust side oil seal lets go that is usually the result. Lots of oil burning.
If it is his second engine(or so he claims) is more than likely from abuse BY him. People buy a fast car and think it can bounce off the rev limiter from day 1 and not have an issue. While I agree a car built for speed shouldn't scoff at a little abuse there is a limit for every engine.
Originally Posted By: rshunter
We're on the same page of the tech manual, but I'm apparently not getting my point across. That is, some here aren't recognizing that the fuel economy numbers being used as a point of reference tell us not about the fuel efficiency of the engine, but of the vehicle as a whole.
Again, that is exactly the point of the post to which you are responding. If it's your point as well, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you are spending so much energy continuing to repeat it when it's already been said five or six times by now. Maybe I'm missing something.
We're on the same page of the tech manual, but I'm apparently not getting my point across. That is, some here aren't recognizing that the fuel economy numbers being used as a point of reference tell us not about the fuel efficiency of the engine, but of the vehicle as a whole.
Again, that is exactly the point of the post to which you are responding. If it's your point as well, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you are spending so much energy continuing to repeat it when it's already been said five or six times by now. Maybe I'm missing something.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
