FT-86 GETTING SUBARU 305HP 2.5LTR STI ENGINE

[Edd1Ninety9]

its possible any benefit in the centre of gravity being lower from the boxer engine could be lost because it needs to sit quite far forward, would have been better with a compact inline 4 as far behind the front wheels as possible mid-front for better weight distribution. It'll still be good though, still feel linking it to the old ae86 is utterly retarded though, its a million miles away from a cheap lightweight, its going to be expensive and lardy

True. However, due to the nature of the wide low boxer engine being mounted longitudinally means the gearbox sits basically in the middle of the car giving good weight distribution. A transverse 4 pot would throw way more weight over the nose rather than the boxer configuration.

Besides, with engine layouts its all horses for courses anyway. Attributes gained in some bits will be lost in other departments. If one was clearly better than the other then all cars would have them. Just depends what you're looking for in the car to be honest. Loads of factors to consider.

Apparently for the FT-86 a boxer layout suits the type of car they want it to be. If they just wanted a cheap run around that looks fast then we'd just have another Gen7. Cheap, cheerful, woefully underpowered, FWD etc.

[Zuban]

True. However, due to the nature of the wide low boxer engine being mounted longitudinally means the gearbox sits basically in the middle of the car giving good weight distribution. A transverse 4 pot would throw way more weight over the nose rather than the boxer configuration.

i'm talking longitudal inline 4, sat as far back as possible between the front wheels or even just behind them, even better if they could put the gearbox at the back of the car, with a subaru boxer engine the gearbox sits between the front wheels, with the engine ahead of the wheels, so even though the centre of gravity might be lower because the majority of engine weight sits lower, that weights not in a great place hanging out there in front, this could be less of a problem if they can move it back, they can use a different gearbox because they wont have outputs to the front wheels, but the engines still so wide it will be hard to move it back because you have all the suspension and steering to fit between, if they were starting from a clean sheet i would put money on them not using a boxer engine, the layout just doesnt seem ideal for a rwd car imo, most front engined rwd cars are now front mid setups using either v or inline engines.

[Edd1Ninety9]

i'm talking longitudal inline 4, sat as far back as possible between the front wheels or even just behind them, even better if they could put the gearbox at the back of the car, with a subaru boxer engine the gearbox sits between the front wheels, with the engine ahead of the wheels, so even though the centre of gravity might be lower because the majority of engine weight sits lower, that weights not in a great place hanging out there in front, this could be less of a problem if they can move it back, they can use a different gearbox because they wont have outputs to the front wheels, but the engines still so wide it will be hard to move it back because you have all the suspension and steering to fit between, if they were starting from a clean sheet i would put money on them not using a boxer engine, the layout just doesnt seem ideal for a rwd car imo, most front engined rwd cars are now front mid setups using either v or inline engines.

Not a bad shout. Take a leaf out of Nissan's book perhaps. The R35 with a V6 twin turbo means you get a high bhp/kg engine output and they mounted the gearbox at the back and it seems to have worked really well.

Silly Toyota!