yunus

Bajie, a low level boxer enjine should not make a difference in rallying, ok in an F1 car a low level engine would give very low centre of gravity, which is my major f1 engine manufacturers make the engine as small and light as possible. As for the boxer config, I just think its a little out dated! ok so porsche used them as well as ferrari, but the whole concept seem unconventional, like mazdas rotary ****le engine.

Gethin

unconventional does not always equal inferior !

Anyways, I thought that low centre of gravity is an advantage whatever the sport...rallying or F1. Especially I would have thought in a jacked up gravel spec rally car. Also means a simpler transfer of power to drivetrain and the Scoobys equal length drive shafts...surely this is better?

Don't Porsche still use the Boxer layout?



Gethin.

GCollier

If the flat-4 gives such an advantage, why has the Evo won the last 4 drivers WRC's?

AlexM

Yunus,

Why old-fashioned? Every engine configuration used by any manufacturer has been around since the first world war - you name it vee, straight, flat , or rotary engines.

Some configurations are more popular than others for reasons of cost and packaging. The in-line four is inferior to the flat four in terms of it's primary and secondary balance, and therefore durability. Unfortunatly it costs more to manufacture and dictates strut suspension for reasons of packaging. This is why almost all other manufacturers use in-line engines, even when they don't last as long, cause the car to have a higher C of G, and produce nasty vibrations. A low C of G is always desirable for any road car - Would you rather take a corner fast in a Low slung sports car, or a Renault Espace?. (Maybe not the question to ask a Supra driver )

F1 cars don't use flat engines because of their special aerodynamic requirements - all modern F1 cars have tapering rear bodywork, coming almost to a point by the end of the gearbox/rear diffuser/rear wing support and this obviously cannot be achieved so easily with a wide boxer engine. More specifically, they were totally incompatible with ground-effect aerodynamics, and there was no way to win without ground effect at that time, although they are now banned.

As Gethin points out, Porsche have been fairly successful (a bit of an understatement!) with boxer engines in almost every form of motorsport, so there isn't too much wrong with the concept.

Cheers,

Alex

P.S. I know this is an obvious wind-up, but I just thought you might be interested to know

[This message has been edited by AlexM (edited 07-02-2000).]

Gethin

Not an advantage....but then not a disadvantage either. The reason Mitsibushi have won the last 4 WRC's is that they have the better driver. Not because they are unsing an inline four rather than a Boxer layout !

IMHO of course.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Didn't LKJ Setright that well known philospher on all things greasy related provide a well used proof that for every 1cm of difference in ride hight was the equivalent of 6cm of tracking width. Quite a lot, no?

(By the way LKJS for those familiar with his work, calculated this on an abacus in cubits - but the ratio is the same )

So even a small lowering of the Centre of Gravity is of great benefit.

David

yunus

compare this then, how many failures has both the evo and the scoob had in wrc over the last few years!..and how did mcrae do against makkinen during 97/98 i believe there is not much in it between the two drivers.

I doubt that a scoob with its low line engine would have an advantage in gravel, dirt etc, but one thing for the the evo does seem to fly in the wrc, even burns does a good job which just say some thing as to how good the evo really is. So why hadnt the scoob done so well since 95 when mcrae won the championship? maybe the scoob is past it and subaru need to design a new car.

yunus

sorry Burns did......

Oh and Bajie I`m not talking out of my ***, you always talk from your ***!;-P

AlexM

Yunus,

Why would you doubt that a low C of G is an advantage to handling? what does the surface have to do with it?

DocJock

Yunus

All the F1 engines with superhigh outputs use a 'v' configuration. This is because this layout gives the most efficient balancing of the reciprocating forces , not just for compactness.

A boxer is simply a 180 degree 'v'.

Also lower cofg allows for suspension set up for lower roll centre . This means extremes of travel in suspension can be smaller and therefore better controlled (better handling)

Cheers J

chrisp

Personnally, I just like the sound . Also havent GM brought a stake in FHI so they can get there hands on impreza engines and running gear .

I am also think of starting a new thread :
"Afraid of no other motorised vehicle past,present or future"

chrisp

JON HUGHES

Good point chris...
Why should any of us impreza owners be afraid???
Has anybody had another car overtake them when there going for it?

yunus

Alex, I dont think Low C of G is really critical to such extent in a rally car as it would be on a circuit car or a single seater.

Bajie

Yunus.
Could you please read what people are saying and, using the information, answer without saying "I don't think" .
Its blatantly obvious you will not be swayed in your opinion so why not start a new thread with the following title "Evo is Better than Scooby".
In the text put the following sentence."And nothing you say will make ME change my mind"

Beef

Sorry, I have to agree with yunus on this one. With the massive road irregularities on the average rally course, having a flat-4 seems to me to be a disadvantage, because there is a bigger area to suffer damage if it goes all pear-shaped. Plus, with such bumpy roads, any CoG advantage would be instantly negated just by going over a bump that another driver missed.
On a track it may make a difference, but whats the width of the Scooby compared to an Evo anyway?

PaulL

I've been reading this thread with interest, and finally I can't wait any longer....

*Begin Rant*

I just can't believe this "Low C of G makes no difference c**p"!

Are these doubters engineers or scientists?
Christ, this is O-level Physics!

The Merc A-Class is a perfect example of this. Remember the Elk Test? The A-Class passed it with just the driver. The more people that are in it, the higher the centre of gravity rises. Hence, eventually, with more people on board, it fell over.

So, Low C of G means less body roll, which means suspension can be less stiff, which means better compliance over bumps.

And road surface makes NO difference. Do these people think there're no corners on a gravel stage? And that there are no tarmac stages in a rally?

And as for the boxer providing a greater surface area for damage to occur, I think you'll find just about every rally car is pretty well armoured underneath.

*End Rant*

And back to the original point of this thread.
An Evo/Makinen combination is pretty amazing. But how many other drivers out there (Burns excepted) have had any real success in the Evo? Yet, just about everyone who's been part of the Prodrive Scooby team has won a rally at some point.
Yes, the Evo is good, but having Makinen as its driver gives it an unfair advantage!!

Paul L

[This message has been edited by PaulL (edited 08-02-2000).]

Neil F

I think Eunice started the crap by comparing a flat four boxer with a rotary engine and saying that a flat config. is out of date (does that mean all 'V' layouts are over the hill?).
Fortunately Paul L has ended it.

Summary;

Falt 4 = horizontally opposed balance (=smoothness) and low C of G advantage (it can only be an advantage can't it).

WRC comparison has too many driver combinations for conclusive result although I still think the Impreza has been ultimately more sucessful, with all leaderboard and finishing positions through the years considered.

Gethin

Amen !!

Mike Rainbird

Dear All,
Again, I can't believe I am doing this (sticking up for the Scooby), but I personally think a lot of you are missing the point. For a start, how many people here (apart from me obviously ), think they could outdrive ANY rally driver (even a clubman one), let alone someone who is paid a seven figure sum.....?

With the cars being so equal, it really would take someone who knows how to throw them round a circuit (properly) to be able to seperate the two, and if both were equivalent BHP, I bet it would be a case of the Scooby does this better, but the Evo does that better type scenario.....

With the driver being such a key element, any other comments are purely subjective. For me (IMHO), the Scooby boxer engine has THE most charismatic four cylinder engine currently available. Show me one single fully ICE'd up Scooby and I'll bet he/she owns a car HiFi shop! However, the Evo has the most aggressive front end this side of a Pitbull! But the Scooby wins, as they are both so good that I would want the aural content, as I can't see what the Evo looks like when I'm sitting in the car! Even at idle the Scooby sounds like a rally car, the Evo sounds like any other hot hatch and needs a performance exhaust to make it sound different (i.e. aurally pleasant), a Scooby needs no such acoutrements. But when you do put a loud exhaust on one - you ARE Richard Burns competing on a road stage....!
LOL
Mike
PS Tell anyone I said this and I'll plead the fifth - (Cossies are still faster in the dry etc...!)

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Yo, Rainbird - go man, go!

Yunus - I'm afraid you are talking out of YUNUS - if a low centre of gravity was of no advantage on a rally then why are Mitsu Pajero Evos not winning at Monte Carlo, RAC, Greece, etc, etc. Case Closed.

(And before anyone points to the Paris-Dakar - that is a unique endurance event which requires a completely different type of car).

David

Beef

We weren't saying that CoG isn't important. Of course it is. All I'm saying is that compared to the Evo, there is very little (if any) benefit to the Impreza for having a boxer. Anyway, the holder of the crown for 'nicest sounding flat-4' has to be the Alfa 33. Awesome noise, even with the standard exhaust.

IWatkins

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Beef:
<B>Anyway, the holder of the crown for 'nicest sounding flat-4' has to be the Alfa 33. Awesome noise, even with the standard exhaust.[/quote]

Have to agree. Car I had before my GT4 was the Alfa 33 16v. Snap, crackle and pop was its name. With a larger exhaust it sounded mean, mean, mean, especially on overrun. :-)

Then some stupid Ka driver decided to drive into the back of it at about 50mph in the rain. Needles to say it was a write-off (and the Ka, thankfully).

GT4 doesn't cut it noise wise and I think I have only heard a few Scoobies that come close. Mind you you can still buy Scoobies but not the 33 (well not new anyway).

Cheers

Ian Watkins

Reza

You could put Tommi Makinen in a Lancer, ImprezaWRC and perhaps CorollaWRC and he would be bloody hard to beat. That's why he's a four times world champion. I don't think the flat-4 is the be all and end all of ultimate handling. I suppose it's like personal preference to each car manufacturer, if they want their car to handle in such a way (or sound wonderful!!!) then they imploy this technology.

Neil F

You have to hear an Impreza with a Scoobysport backbox or you just can't comment.
All the better if it's an STi.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Actually an Sti V with HKS Hiper and Induction kit on full boost is just the complete and utter mutts nuts for sound.

I am confused as to why Mike R thinks an Evo is improved sonically by adding an exhaust - it just sounds like a louder washing machine - i.e. still s**te.

David

Mike Rainbird

Dear David,
Okay, point taken, I should have said "aurally acceptable"!
LOL
Mike

Dear Yunus,
All this "afraid of" talk, I think you really need to be "educated" as to what is REALLY fast and what is just quite fast....
Hope you are at Santa Pod on 20th Feb and Donnington on 5th March, obviously it would have been better if there were some Supras on the track, but I think you lot are all mouth and no trousers (or will you prove me wrong?) ....
Mike

[This message has been edited by Mike Rainbird (edited 08-02-2000).]

Fred

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gethin:
<B>Not an advantage....but then not a disadvantage either. The reason Mitsibushi have won the last 4 WRC's is that they have the better driver. Not because they are unsing an inline four rather than a Boxer layout !

IMHO of course. [/quote]

Just want to modify this answer to my opinion :
Mitsu have :
- the driver (one of the best)
- the car (one of the best)
- the tires (very easy to be the best)

Only mitsu have the three things...
Don't know other team like that.

I don't really suppose that in the 2 last seasons pirelli helped subaru (sorry it's stronger than me)

Neil F

Rannoch.

You mean you can actually tune the degree of greatness of the exhaust note depending on your personal taste?
Imprezas seem to have no end to their talents, great and small.

[This message has been edited by Neil F (edited 09-02-2000).]

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Neil,

I suspect profound irony in your comments - but hey it's way too deep for me

R