From an engineering perspective, I have a hard time coming up with any redeeming qualities. Best I can say is that it does simplify an AWD drivetrain. Can't see any other point.

 

i dont know. I am not sure really why they bone head about it.
Only VW did pulled it off for a long period of time now, successfully.
Today there is no real advantage having flat four vs the inline or V.
Never mind a fact they had to put every heavy stuff on a top of it of that flat four, so.... LOL

 

I would say weight, they due a phenomenal low center of gravity, Andrew Comrie - Picard would agree, he could never setup his IX to fly like the STi's did in the X games.

I'm speculating that rotating parts horizontally have less mass than do rotating parts vertically. I have no proof of this just speculation on my part.

 

low center of gravity, no vibration, no one else doing one.

 

The "rumble" is why all the hipsters buy them. So, I don't see them going away from it..

 

The good: Lower CG, packaging simplicity, RWD based AWD driveline, more room for a robust transmission. 90% of the ownership base doesn't upgrade beyond full exhaust bolt on mods and a tune, they're pretty reliable around 350 HP.

The bad: TMIC heat soak, lots of piping between manifold and turbo, FMIC upgrade increases excessive piping problem (poor transient boost response compared to an inline 4), servicing overly complex, turbo sizing options.


I plan to keep my car for the long haul. But down the way when I need a warranty and would pick up a daily driver, a DI WRX would be on my short list. Even moreso if that engine gets into the STI and massaged. The Evo is dead soon, we're kinda out of options if we want a new car.

 

Audi uses an inline four with RWD based AWD, so, what is in my eyes, the most important factor you posted is a moot point...

 

I like the flat four. It brings a bit of personality to the car. Also a low center of gravity.

 

You're completely wrong. A4/GTI/R are front wheel drive based transverse engines.
Most iterations of Haldex DEFAULTS completely front wheel drive until slip is detected.

The Subaru's packaging makes for a super robust transmission (plenty of room for thick gears) which all us Evo guys could benefit from.


Why the F am I defending Subarus??? I was just trying to contribute to the thread about pro cases of boxer motors.

 

I've heard the low CG benefit before, but I could swear I read an article that claimed the benefit of the F4 for low CG was not that great. But perhaps I was high on ethanol. I'll have to go see if can find it.

 

No, you're partially wrong. the A3/GTI/R have the haldex labeled as Quattro/4motion whatever. The A4 and up uses a longitudinally mounted engine with Audi's Quattro system...

 

I could see how it wouldn't be a huge advantage. The heavy bits are the crank and block. and those parts are relatively low even with an inline 4..

 

and you are right, in a reality the STI engine ( as a whole) is just as much if not more top heavy then a inline counterpart now 4B11T.
All the additional part which had to go on top and not a side etc , makes the engine CG is just as high as the inline counter part. SO there is really no real Better CG at the end in the engine bay.
Other miss belief is the STI is easy to work on, fact is the opposite, it is not an engine to easy to work on.

 

http://www.2015-2016newcars.com/2015...-release-date/

A4 is transverse now.

 

Well it's an obvious benefit for the engine itself. But you're talking about moving maybe 100 lbs of drivetrain (basically the head) down about 10 inches - in the context of a 3200-4000 lb car, not a huge difference.

It's probably more valuable in packaging terms (lower hoodline) and sound (H4 rumble vs I4 ... noise), but I see a lot more downsides than upsides, which is why there aren't many horizontally opposed engines anymore. Porsche will stick with them until the end of time just like they have with rear engine cars. Subaru? Who knows...