My point about flat fours is that they require twice as many head gaskets,
cams, rocker shafts, and intake and exhaust manifolds, as an inline four of
the same configuration (OHV, DOHC, etc). When you are talking about 8 or 12
cylinders that would otherwise be in a V, there is no difference, but in a
small engine like a four that is a lot of complexity (and cost) to add with
no corresponding improvement in operational efficiency. A flat six might be
on the borderline, but there is no obvious benefit compared to a V6 unless
an extremely low CG is the overriding consideration (or you have to stuff it
in the back of a 911-derivative -- I would call this a matter of
evolutionary contingency, not of design per se).
on 5/1/06 2:26 PM, Simon Matthews at simon.d.matthews@gmail.com wrote:
> On 5/1/06, Max Heim <max_heim@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> I never really cared for those Boxer motors in the Subarus. Noisy, shaky,
>> and inherently inefficient compared to an I-4 (insofar as packaging and
>> plumbing).
>>
>
> Well, flat-4s can be nice packages. In the AlfaSud was an excellent
> F-4. Smooth, revved well (well past the marked limit up to 8000rpm)
> and it fit well under the bonnet. WIth the engine placed
> longitudinally, the gearbox behind, the whole package was short enough
> to have the driveshafts come straight out of the gearbox to the front
> wheels. The valves were operated by camshafts acting directly on a
> plate attached to the valve stem. There were 2 lobes per valve and
> the valve adjustment was achieved by inserting an allen key through a
> hole in the camshaft and screwing the valve up or down in the plate.
>
> Cirtroen also had a FWD/F4 configuration in some cars. This was an
> air-cooled engine, with 4 rocker shafts, OHC, and partially aluminium.
> Like the AlfaSud, This also featured inboard front disk brakes, with
> the brakes attached to the gearbox.
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
|