Except that the "Subaru 1235": - it is not an engine designed by Subaru, only "badged" by them. - I am not sure whether it is a "true boxer", or a "conventional Flat-12" (i.e, a 180° V-12 like the Ferrari). Subaru commissioned "Motori Moderni" to built them the engine; it was designed by none other than Carlo Chiti, who was the designer of the Alfa-Romeo Flat-12 engine of the seventies (also called "Boxer engine", but a Flat-12 in fact, just like the Ferrari). The Formula One "Subaru 1235" was, let's say, an abject failure... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_1235 Rgds
For those of you who read italian, the italian article in wikipedia clearly states that it was not a boxer engine, but a "motore a cilindri contrapposti", that is a "flat 12" or 180° V-12, but NOT a "true Boxer" (opposed pistons) See the description (descrizione) under the picture of the engine in the article about the 1235 itself: Descrizione Costruttore: Motori Moderni-Subaru Tipo: Motore a cilindri contrapposti In the article defining the "motore a cilindri contrapposti", you have at right the scheme of the crankshaft of a "true boxer" opposed to the one for the "motore a cilindri contrapposti". That makes clearly the 1235 not a "true boxer", but a 180° V-12, or "Flat 12". Rgds https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_1235 https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motore_a_cilindri_contrapposti
That belt drive system was designed for high RPM. The BB and TR was not. Another reason to call the race engine story a fantasy.
Lets say it was race inspired, its connection to a "race car" no more tenuous than all the current ferrari road cars. By race we mean F1. because in other classes ferrari road cars are adapted to race, but not drived form race cars, even though their design may employ some race car practice. The BB most famously as BBlM's but these were road based cars adapted to the track, not visa versa. As we now can see their full flowerin in historics, their failings on track in period were a function of development and execution more than one of potential. In any event we can say ferrari engineering is race "inspired" with some race car practice and that the BB motors are flat 12s but not boxer motors. Out of curiosity what is the weight different between a 312 ferrari motor and a boxer motor. The Bb is a curious amalgam of good and questionable ideas. Putting the transmsiion under the motors shortened the package but put weight up high where you dont want it and also led to transaxle weaknesses. Others like zf GT40 and panteras just hung the transaxle out back liek race cars, although maybe the shorter V8s were better suited to this. The late 60s saw some cool experimentation to solve the mid engined length and weight distribution issue, the miura with its sideways engine and internal gearbox, the Ct with its back to front setup, and the BB with the mtoor on top of the gearbox. One gets the impression that a flat 12 was chosen to mimic the race cars, (much as a 458 has a steering with buttons knobs and paddles) and that then they then went searching for other unique solutions to problems. Must have been fun to be an engineer playing around with and executing ideas. As we see in the firearms world there are a number of different engineering and design solutions to arrive at the same function, some more legant than other, some more functional than others and some more artistic than others. Its a pity today that car engineering is increasingly so homogenous, but then all roads lead to Rome and 100 years of exprimentation has lead to optimal solutions in terms of layout, suspension designs etc. these days there are a few known choices based on intended function and companies pick one or the other based on cost and intent. BBs are great entertaining road cars, classics that can still do corners and play with moderns, while also being an engineering curiosity. Their flat 12 motor on top of the transmission may not have been the best engineering idea, but it can work and provide a unique and compelling ride just as an aircooled 911 does. Think of a BB as a early 70s big bore can am car for the road. The biggest drawback to a BB is the tires, those stock ones being best put to use (as designed for) on a period 6 series BMW coupe. Its like a manufacturer today putting subaru outback tires on their supercar. Once you get past the wheels and tires and fit something more modern and dynamicaly suited, the car is transformed. Then all you need to worry about is rear diff carriers, and there are solutions to that as well. What you end up with is a car imbued with all the great charateristics of classic ferraris but also with the avbility to play on road with moderns on brisk sunday drive.
It is an interesting post (from my point of view at least!) because it mirrors what I have always thought, and still thinks today. The "BB" powerplant architecture is obviously not ideal, far from it in fact, putting too much weight too high, and I am very conscious of the theoretical drawbacks. And yet...I still love that car... Rgds
No question "Inspired" is an appropriate term, much more so that the direct connection many suggest. The stacking of the motor on top of the transmission as in the Dino, 308/328 and BB/TR was not the best and is an excellent example of the trade offs made by engineers all the time when trying to achieve various design goals. They were all after all street cars. Re modern engineering and design. I agree totally. Not only in engineering but in design as well. With a very few exceptions there is no evidence of any creativity. It is totally replaced by the needs of safety and ease/cost of manufacture. It is as though all the car guys have been run out of the car business. These are not new needs, they have just pushed all the others aside. We have some very fast and capable cars but with very few exceptions none that are of any serious interest despite it.
Yep, no new "inspired" and few inspiring cars. I thought the Mclarens and Alfa would be so, but alas besides the Cf tubs pretty standard engineering and not so inspiring to drive, feeling more synthesized than alive. No doubt regulations enforce limits, but we also just see conservatism in following known standard design layout, perhaps this is because regulatory compliance is so expensive that there is little left over to experiment, or because after 100 years of experimentation as in track cars there is just a known best function formula, so everyhting is a derivation of the basic layout. We know to make a good handling modern sportscar car you need a stiff tub, either Cf or aluminum, wishbones, lightish ME or front engined powerplant sitting in front of the transmssion 50/50 weight distribution or better, lots of gears and these days turbos. What compromises the set formula further in terms of inspirational to drive is the quest to make these cars everyday useable and driveable by anybody. The exception to the layout rule is the 991, and that exception has historic marketing roots more than inspiration these days, its also "user friendly". As you say, no car guys, its cost to function. Perhaps best inspirations are in the areas blazed by pagani and Lotus, using the best suited off the rack powerplants so as to avoid spending on engine development and putting the money and time into other parts of the car. These are also non corporate products. Look at a Pagani next toa Veyron, one is art and a delight to the eye frow any angle down tot he bolts and hinges, , the other a really powerful Vw. Many modern powerplants are great, off the rack. We also see some inspiration in off the rack cars in terms of wrx subarus, and maybe now the mating of a sedan with a vette in the CTS V, as well as the new mustang and camaro, using chassis formula and modern motor tech to democratise the user friendly modern supercar performance experience. Lotus imo has rebirthed the quintessential british roadster in the elise, all of the positive attributes of the old cars in a still viceral/alive/reactive yet throughly modern performing mid engined package. Imagine if ferrari or others had a model with the same inspired modern interpretation. Most of what I see today in the euro sportscar arena are swoopy really fast nanny stabilized Gt cars, and furtehr up the scale some elctro hybrid, heavy, excess powered gimicks. Not to many inspired fire breathing dragons left, maybe the viper, and it does not sell, although imo thats a powerplant issue. Apart from the Paganis(which i have only stared at), the last new era car I saw that left me mezmerised like a 3 year old, and somethign I really had to drive was a carrera Gt, and it was well worth it. The few newer cars I have tried have been a letdown, like the really hot women who is just not that great in bed. For the big open sweeping road, cant really think of anything newer than the boxer I would rather be in on a crisp sunday am, well maybe a carrera gt and even then on road you are not realisticaly going to be traveling faster. Gotta find that boxer shell, put my NIB 512M motor in it and build my BBLM track car, like the yellow one witht he 312 T wing on the back and flared out wheel arches on otherwise stock looking bodywork, thats my inspiration.
512 competizione, maybe not race designed "to start", but became a race car. Image Unavailable, Please Login
How true. Unfortunately, due to economics, manufacturing scale involved, combined with the 'generic' taste of most of the public, diverging from the common denominator is just not worth doing. Exceptions are pretty much at the extreme high end of the market and that will always be a very limited number of cars. In Ferrari's case, IMO, they seem to have decided to focus even more on raw performance, at the expense of styling and fun-ness of driving(example: no more stick shifts). As you put it, these are, after all, just road cars. Since the modern stuff works so well compared to decades ago, I don't see things changing much. 60s, 70s, 80s cars had a lot of appeal, but the modern stuff is just so much better in most ways that there's no comparison. When I watch BJ Scottsdale auctions of muscle cars, I just groan, cuz for the most part, 1960s-70s cars were pure crap. Some look neat, but that's about it. I still remember riding in a friend's Super Bee in the early 1970s and even then, it felt more like a rumbling death trap than a workable car. Or, as I heard Jeff Gordon say on TV once, "I like the way the old cars -look-, but I like the way newer cars -drive- ." Pretty much says it all...
The Porsche 917 project had a boxer flat 12. Two 911 cranks joined together. I don't know if it was ever raced. The project also had a 16cyl. on the dyno, it never was put into a car I believe, not needed. Porsche was real serious about racing at that time. Witness the turbo Porsche car Donahue drove in the Can Am. Nothing else was even close. On the subject of flat 12cyl. The British Napier Sabre WWII aircraft engine. Had two 12cyls. H design, one on top of the other, gear together at the center, sleeve valves, not a boxer. 2238 cu.in. 3500 hp. very complicated used in Hawker Typhoon.
Gleggy, I have interest in anything with pistons and rods. I have that book Allied Aircraft Piston engines of WWII. Excellent read. I like all cars, motorcycles, steam locomotives, piston engine aircraft, Miller, Offy, Cosworth, on and on. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Gleggy, Fascinated by that engine, very complicated. The engineering in the reduction gear with oil pressure taking the lash out of the gear train. Another the Wright radial Connie turbine compound. Dave
I have a box full of these books 20- 30 copies from the war years. great reading and with wonderful photos and cut away drawings of merlins, and aircraft and all kinds of interesting bits. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Now putting the debate Flat 12 vs 180° V-12 aside for a moment for those who like really weird piston engines, and provided that ship-intended engines do qualify indeed, have a look at the Zvezda M520 through the first link, in the german Wikipedia (it is in german, of course; other countries are not well aware of this 56 cylinder monster, although the English Wikipedia has a short article about it smaller 42 cylinder sibling, the M-503) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swesda_M520 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvezda_M503 Rgds
Now that is big engine. Relatively compact for its size, 61" dia. There was I believe a swash plate aircraft engine that was unusual also. Cylinders arranged like bullets in a revolver.
Sean, I built the locomotive 1990-93. My very young son at the time, and I ran at club tracks when he was younger (34 now). It is built 1" to the foot. Model of B&O Pacific, President Grant 5316. Burns coal. It sits in the game room waiting for my son's 4 boys to get older. I started on a 1.6 scale Pacific, The Southern PS-4 like the one in DC. But I got side tracked when my son grew up and I got more into hot rods and Ferrari's. The photo is a much younger me.(65 now).
There were quite a number, actually. Perhaps the three most often quoted are the Bristol RR1 to RR4 (for buses, 7 litre capacity, 9 cylinders); the Almen A4 in the US, that never entered production, 18 cylinders; and the Mitchell XB-4070, a 18 cylinders, diesel engine for the US Navy, with 2000 hp. Plus of course a number of engines for torpedoes, where the frontal surface is critical. You might find interest in this link: Axial Internal-Combustion Engines. Rgds
