818 Project Updates From Dave

[mekeys]

I would like to see all 700 so that I could judge for myself.I saw several others posted that I liked better than the three that were picked..

MK

[kach22i]

I would like to see all 700 so that I could judge for myself.I saw several others posted that I liked better than the three that were picked..

MK

We have seen some very crude hand drawn entries, and some computer generated entries others thought were a practical joke of some kind. I'd like to spare myself the pain of looking at some of those, good intentions aside. The enthusiastic efforts I'm sure were appreciated by the FFR group, but not posting some of the more confused ones would spare unnecessary public ridicule.

[crobin4]

I think of track days as being constant-boost scenarios, thus likely to heat up the intercooler quite a bit. Only if airflow is sufficient will it keep the intercooler cool.

Anything less than track (or the right autocross scenario) and the intercooler will have long periods of no boost, allowing insufficient airflow to do "catch up" cooling of the intercooler.

Now, mounting the intercooler on top of the engine may introduce a different kind of heat soak, but I haven't got much of an idea of how extreme that could be...

Water to air. water to air....

[mekeys]

I can take it (seeing all 700) and i'd also like to see a web cam on the work being done on the 1/4 scale models......

MK

[AZJoker]

A while back there were a bunch of posts putting down the contest winning design. Frankly a lot of us were getting tired of the whining and complaints about that design, especially considering the fact that the actual selection for production was still pending – awaiting the results of clay model development.
Frankly, it is just as IRRITATING to see the current promotion of (some people’s) favorite entry. For heaven’s sake, grow up, you are not still in high school (at least I don't think so).
I will not tell you to stop it… I just want to point out how JUVENILE you look when you do this. Why don’t you wait until this grinds through its inevitable selection process, with the clay model development, etc. to see which designs actually hold up instead of campaigning like preteen school girls for your fav?

I have always liked the TVR Tuscan type rear lights and have even debated doing this to the spec racer

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=tusca...w=1120&bih=562

[AZJoker]

We have seen some very crude hand drawn entries, and some computer generated entries others thought were a practical joke of some kind. I'd like to spare myself the pain of looking at some of those, good intentions aside. The enthusiastic efforts I'm sure were appreciated by the FFR group, but not posting some of the more confused ones would spare unnecessary public ridicule.

Whatever they decide I am sure it will be great.

[slopoke]

Is this really Dave's Project Updates thread? ... Sorry for being so impatient Dave

[bromikl]

Funny... When I followed AZJoker's link, my browser blocked it as a known malicious website.

[RM1SepEx]

I'm stoked, My current project list includes a 100% original tube framed electric reverse trike, a 1969 Saab Sonett, a 1990/1994 Mazda Miata 1.8 ....

I want/need a new mid engined autocross car and the 818 is PERFECT. I'm stoked that Dave's favorite design is mine as well so I'm hoping that some sort of that design makes the final cut. I'm looking for a targa with the opportunity for a minimalist soft top, with a full height windshield, that design should fill many needs if the body behind the head rests includes a stout bar.

With the design weight and RWD only the stock WRX drivetrain should be exceptional for performance and reliability

My wife (of 27 years...) already approved purchase so when available I'll be jumping in with the cash and ordering a kit!

The copperhead color that was shown earlier in this thread would be sweet

[mekeys]

Funny... When I followed AZJoker's link, my browser blocked it as a known malicious website.

It did for me too ,but it asked if I wanted to continue,So I did and then the picture came up..

MK

[AZJoker]

If I was more tek savy I would be able to post the pic.

[coolbluelb]

Anyway, the most important point here is that this car is 2wd. That's half the traction. Gear strength will simply not be an issue.

What he said... I blew up 2nd gear on my stage II 05 LGT after 46k miles... the engine is a torque monster, but that is a 3600 pound car with AWD. A RWD car of this weight will simply spin the tires.

[kach22i]

A RWD car of this weight will simply spin the tires.

Or have a severe case of wheel hop.

[Steve91T]

Or have a severe case of wheel hop.

With IRS? Maybe if it had a solid rear axle...

[305mouse]

Dave

[Niburu]

A RWD car of this weight will simply spin the tires.

Or have a severe case of wheel hop.

With IRS? Maybe if it had a solid rear axle...

maybe wear lighter shoes?

I've got a good friend with a 3rd gen RX7 with an LS2 swap in it, yeah if you mash the pedal you'll just sit there, but otherwise at about half throttle you get a decent lanch

[slopoke]

Earth to Dave ... Come in Dave ... I think this thread has morphed

[scartaan]

If we are trying to help design the 818, what would be the consensus on using the glass hatch from the '65 coupe. It would display the engine, give access to the engine, and the weight would counterbalance the gas tank in the front of the car.

[kach22i]

If we are trying to help design the 818, what would be the consensus on using the glass hatch from the '65 coupe. It would display the engine, give access to the engine, and the weight would counterbalance the gas tank in the front of the car.

A lot of "supercars" do something similar as you already know, and I think it's pretty cool myself.

I did a twist on the concept, utilizing the low profile of the Boxer engine, combined with a high roofline. To save weight, and to be a little different I did not use glass, I proposed a wire mesh or perforated metal exposing a partial open tray below (with spare tire) and thus allowing heat to escape.

http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x...cpZZ2QQtppZZ20


Do you have a particular design in mind in which you would like to apply this concept?

[thebeerbaron]

utilizing the low profile of the Boxer engine

Not to thread-jack this much further, but while I've been re-engine-ing my donor, I've come to the conclusion that the notion of the EJ engine (especially the turbo) being "low profile" is bunk. The intake manifold adds significant height to the motor assembly. From a single throttle plate centered along the crank, the runners have to spread out a good distance horizontally to reach the intake ports. This is done with some nice curves which result in a rather high intake manifold. The turbo isn't taller than the intake manifold, but definitely sits above the right-side cylinder head. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing isn't about the same height as an inline four, even ignoring the stock intercooler (which adds even more height). You could definitely argue that most of the mass is lower, but there's still height.

[305mouse]

spare tire? I would rather louvered vents then mesh, keep the rain out just in case. +1 beerbaron. The mass is low, but the intake manifold and TMIC def add height. Use a newer Legacy GT engine and the turbo sits down right betwen the exhaust manifold. Real short piping with that setup. Oh, DAVE, please?

[kach22i]

"low profile" is bunk.

Well it's not high profile, now is it?

The engine fills out the engine bay, up to the top of the hood as much as any other modern car. However Subies don't have tall truck-ish hoods like retro-muscle cars.

I'll agree with you, it's the mass which is lower, not an actual height. The Subie is not a Corvair despite them both being boxer layouts.

http://www.subaru.com/engineering/boxer-engine.html
LowProfile_static_960.jpg

spare tire? I would rather louvered vents then mesh, keep the rain out just in case.

You can put anything in the tray above the engine on my design, I like rally cars but not a big fan of putting extra tires on the hood, roof or trunk.

Louvered vents?

Why not a Disco ball to go with the 1970's-80's theme?

Lighten up.

[305mouse]

Louvered vents?

Why not a Disco ball to go with the 1970's-80's theme?

Lighten up.

lol, I'll get my rollerskates ready

[16g-95gsx]

I've come to the conclusion that the notion of the EJ engine (especially the turbo) being "low profile" is bunk.

Welcome to what I've said all along. I think the concept of the H4 being a low CG is BS and a heavy marketing ploy. On a standard inline 4 cylinder you have the majority of the mass in the block, being a iron/forged crank, reciprocating assembly, pulleys, oil pan/pickup, and possibly even an iron block. I can't think of any 4 cylinder that I've come across that had anything other than an aluminum cylinder head. The weight of my 4g63 head was 30lbs, this included valvetrain components, but did not include cams or a valve cover, which on many 4 cylinders is all of a few lbs. This meant out of the 180-200lbs of mass that was in my 4g63, only 35-40lbs of the was above the block's deck height. HOWEVER, unlike the boxer engine, all of my manifolds were horizontal to the head, not vertical, this included all of my accessories, throttle, etc. I use a 4g63 just as an example, but ANY inline 4 cylinder is done the same way, some of them including things like magnesium/plastic valve covers and such that just further lower the CG. The other complication comes from having TWO cylinder heads. You now add excess weight from unnecessary waste material. The EJ20 heads weigh 20lbs, my 4g63 head weighed 30lbs. Thats 10 lbs of extra weight for essentially nothing.

I have never seen a true dedicated comparison, but I honestly think the concept of CG with these engines is likely more marketing BS than anything, as to an untrained eye they can easily say "yea it's sideways it has to be a lower CG". I will not say that it isn't lower, just it is likely to be FAR less drastic of a change than more people give these engines credit for, and ultimately I don't think it would effect vehicle performance.

[16g-95gsx]

Well it's not high profile, now is it?

The engine fills out the engine bay, up to the top of the hood as much as any other modern car. However Subies don't have tall truck-ish hoods like retro-muscle cars.

I'll agree with you, it's the mass which is lower, not an actual height. The Subie is not a Corvair despite them both being boxer layouts.

http://www.subaru.com/engineering/boxer-engine.html
LowProfile_static_960.jpg

What's with the grossly exaggerated suspension squatting on the non-H engines? That looks like a brochure from subaru. I also love how you can clearly see manifolds attached to the I4, but there is nothing coming out of the top or the bottom of the H4. Tag on the spider-like intake manifold of the EJ engine, and the unnecessarily large exhaust manifold out of the bottom of the engine and I think that picture would look a heck of a lot closer. Also I4's dont always have to be horizontally opposed, run them front to back such as a 240sx, or any fwd I4 that would be used in an 818 application and you wouldnt have any weight bias side to side other than an offset in manifold/turbo weights.

[kach22i]

That looks like a brochure from subaru.

It is follow the link above the image to find the source.

To find the moment generated or force, you multiply the distance from the ground to the center of engine mass, right?

Therefore if two engines weigh the same, but one has a slightly higher center of mass, this extra distance gets multiplied, which is why is has such a profound affect, right?

I wonder if any of the car magazines have done a comparative study of common engines in regards to center of mass.

[Oppenheimer]

Welcome to what I've said all along.

Um, that isn't what BeerBaron said. He said the idea of the overall engine height being low is bunk. He took pains to distinguish his comment from refering to the mass placement, but to focus on how much space the engine takes up, as in if there is more potential for trunk room above the engine then there would be with a traditional inline 4.

[thebeerbaron]

(this post was directed at some personal attack comments that have since been removed, please ignore it)

Dial it back people!

Everyone is welcome here if they play nice. And there's more than one person failing to do that in this thread.

Now, everyone behave, or no 818 for you! (I recommend having a beer or two to calm nerves and repair hurt feelings)

[David]

Welcome to what I've said all along. I think the concept of the H4 being a low CG is BS and a heavy marketing ploy. On a standard inline 4 cylinder you have the majority of the mass in the block, being a iron/forged crank, reciprocating assembly, pulleys, oil pan/pickup, and possibly even an iron block. I can't think of any 4 cylinder that I've come across that had anything other than an aluminum cylinder head. The weight of my 4g63 head was 30lbs, this included valvetrain components, but did not include cams or a valve cover, which on many 4 cylinders is all of a few lbs. This meant out of the 180-200lbs of mass that was in my 4g63, only 35-40lbs of the was above the block's deck height. HOWEVER, unlike the boxer engine, all of my manifolds were horizontal to the head, not vertical, this included all of my accessories, throttle, etc. I use a 4g63 just as an example, but ANY inline 4 cylinder is done the same way, some of them including things like magnesium/plastic valve covers and such that just further lower the CG. The other complication comes from having TWO cylinder heads. You now add excess weight from unnecessary waste material. The EJ20 heads weigh 20lbs, my 4g63 head weighed 30lbs. Thats 10 lbs of extra weight for essentially nothing.

I have never seen a true dedicated comparison, but I honestly think the concept of CG with these engines is likely more marketing BS than anything, as to an untrained eye they can easily say "yea it's sideways it has to be a lower CG". I will not say that it isn't lower, just it is likely to be FAR less drastic of a change than more people give these engines credit for, and ultimately I don't think it would effect vehicle performance.

Something you may be forgetting, is the mass of the block above the crank(cylinders etc). Its not that you loose the weight compared to a standard inline/V motor, but you move it much lower. It can have a fairly profound effect on the handing of a car as it affects the CG and the roll axis inclination of the car which affects handling dynamics. Im guessing the subaru motor moves more than 50-70lbs 8-12 inchs lower in the chassis(or more) compared to an upright motor of the same configuration. If you dont that thats much, tie 50 lbs to a rope and start swinging it in a circle

A lower CG allows one to lower the roll center without impacting roll of the car, reducing jacking forces, reducing bar diameters and increasing grip and responsiveness... all other things being equal. Same reason Porsche uses this type of motor. Its also inherently a very smooth running design.

David

[scartaan]

Smooth running is because the boxer 4 has primary balance. An in-line 4 larger than 2L usually involves a heavy,power robbing balance shaft.

[Flamshackle]

the weight it much lower than a inline four even if aesthetically it is not much shorter... you can reap real benefits of low profile headers and a dry sump setup to get it ground huggingly low however.

its an excellent choice in motor for the application over an inline equivalent...

[el_jefe]

Smooth running is because the boxer 4 has primary balance. An in-line 4 larger than 2L usually involves a heavy,power robbing balance shaft.

True, but on many cars that balance shaft is for NVH reasons and can be removed if you don't mind a rougher idle.

[TroyLynx]

16g-95gsx you mentioned "I can't think of any 4 cylinder that I've come across that had anything other than an aluminum head". My Chevette had a Iron head 4 cylinder. And it was fast. 0-60 in 2 minutes with the Air-Conditioner off.

[2KWIK4U]

0-60 in 2 minutes with the Air-Conditioner off.

WOW that is fast, I had a sunbird that would only do 0-60 in 1 hr...

[D2W]

Something you may be forgetting, is the mass of the block above the crank(cylinders etc). Its not that you loose the weight compared to a standard inline/V motor, but you move it much lower. It can have a fairly profound effect on the handing of a car as it affects the CG and the roll axis inclination of the car which affects handling dynamics. Im guessing the subaru motor moves more than 50-70lbs 8-12 inchs lower in the chassis(or more) compared to an upright motor of the same configuration. If you dont that thats much, tie 50 lbs to a rope and start swinging it in a circle

A lower CG allows one to lower the roll center without impacting roll of the car, reducing jacking forces, reducing bar diameters and increasing grip and responsiveness... all other things being equal. Same reason Porsche uses this type of motor. Its also inherently a very smooth running design.

David

David, knowing that you have done a bunch of suspension research I have a couple of questions. Let's assume you are correct that a typical inline-4 has fifty pounds of weight 8-12 inches higher above the crank. And lets say both engine/tranny combos weigh the same at say 350 lbs. (I'm pulling these numbers out of the air). How much higher is the center of gravity on the inline-4 vs the boxer 4? A couple of inches? Now if you compare those two engines in the same car (which weighs 2500 lbs) in which I would assume (again please tell me if I'm wrong) the center of gravity of the whole car is higher than the center of gravity of the engine/tranny how much does the engine difference change the entire cars cog. Maybe a quarter of an inch? less/more? How much of a real world difference does it make? I've watch 911's racing corvettes/mustangs/bmw's for years and there is obviously not much of a difference. I'm not arguing that there is a difference in cog, just wondering how much it really is.

[Flashburn]

WOW that is fast, I had a sunbird that would only do 0-60 in 1 hr...

0-60 miles in one hour sounds about right.

[16g-95gsx]

Dial it back people!

Everyone is welcome here if they play nice. And there's more than one person failing to do that in this thread.

Now, everyone behave, or no 818 for you! (I recommend having a beer or two to calm nerves and repair hurt feelings)

There's not a hint of anger coming from me, I just enjoy indepth technical discussions. I see no harm in that.

[16g-95gsx]

Something you may be forgetting, is the mass of the block above the crank(cylinders etc). Its not that you loose the weight compared to a standard inline/V motor, but you move it much lower. It can have a fairly profound effect on the handing of a car as it affects the CG and the roll axis inclination of the car which affects handling dynamics. Im guessing the subaru motor moves more than 50-70lbs 8-12 inchs lower in the chassis(or more) compared to an upright motor of the same configuration. If you dont that thats much, tie 50 lbs to a rope and start swinging it in a circle

A lower CG allows one to lower the roll center without impacting roll of the car, reducing jacking forces, reducing bar diameters and increasing grip and responsiveness... all other things being equal. Same reason Porsche uses this type of motor. Its also inherently a very smooth running design.

David

I don't deny that the boxer engine has a lower total CG, I even admitted that in the post. HOWEVER, my concern is that this lower CG is not as drastic as many make it out to be. The weight of inline 4 cylinders is very small. An all aluminum block may weigh only 60lbs total, an iron block around 90. When you realize that regardless of engine configuration that you WILL have weight in your engine block, the difference between the two configurations is very small and also would have a very small height difference. I just simply don't think it's as drastic of an effect as everyone makes it out to be. Is it there? Certainly. But I just don't think it's a major influence.

Like I said I don't have any real world measurements other than the weights of components that I've personally weighed. But when everything is considered a standard inline 4 cylinder engine is not that tall, and the majority of the weight is in the block anyway. As for someone commenting on dry sump systems, that's a universal concept that can be applied to any engine, I can show you off-the-shelf dry sump systems for virtually all of the major 4 cylinder engines out there, of course including subaru.

[thebeerbaron]

There's not a hint of anger coming from me, I just enjoy indepth technical discussions. I see no harm in that.

That was directed at some personal attack posts that have since been edited out. Not sure why my post was left, I will edit it later to clarify.

[jimgood]

I just love how a thread entitled "818 Project Updates From Dave" has completely taken on a life of its own.

No worries, Dave. We don't need no stinking updates! We can find things to discuss and debate on our own, thank you very much.