Bring the Boxer Diesel to the US!

[Fairtax4me]

That's not a 4EAT, but nice try. That's a Toyota transmission.

[Suba9792]

I have actually read that the Subaru diesel boxer engine is frankly junk, its a maintenance nightmare and it doesn't produce much HP or torque, and is loud as hell. Check you tube see for yourself, I personally think a diesel boxer is a bad idea, and if they are bringing them to the US are they using all aluminum? I just see lots of problems.

[brumby420]

well thats something unfortunate. if they come to the US they may completely change the design of it and make it less reliable and less powerful to keep up with our excessively almost fascist emissions standards. ive never heard anything about the boxer diesel being unreliable ive heard plenty of great reports about it from independent reviewers. I believe the block is an aluminum iron combo and thats the same as what most duramax diesels have and from what ive seen those are powerful and reliable so in a boxer configuration it should be great.

[Loyale 2.7 Turbo]

That's not a 4EAT, but nice try. That's a Toyota transmission.

 

The Subaru Bighorn has Nothing to do with Toyota... but with Isuzu (Follow the Links I've Posted)  And it is a 4EAT Dual Range.

 

About the Diesel Boxer Engine, I Only have Readed and Heard Bad Comments ... I'll watch carefully when I See one in Person, beside the Dealer's Place.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

[eulogious]

I'm sorry that this Thread went off-Topic...

The Only Subaru Picture of a Dual Range Automatic I Found, Belongs to the Subaru Bighorn:

 

 

 

More info about it, at this Thread:

 

http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?p=971787#post971787

 

 

Look at Post Nº 763

 

OK, Back to Topic!

Kind Regards.

 

This uses a transfer case to provide the "dual range" and "4 wheel drive" so it still does not fit a "4EAT Dual Range". I also don't even think that there is a 4EAT in that car anyways, the 4EAT would choke and die on itself if it had to haul around that much weight all the time. It had a hard enough time with the SVX, let alone a rather large SUV like the Isuzu Trooper. It's not AWD either, it's RWD with a 4 wheel drive transfer case which would make it not a 4EAT at all.

 

Just because there is a "Subaru" badge on a car, doesn't make it a Subaru

 

Still looking for this infamous dual range 4EAT...

[jdemaris]

My understanding is they simply think that diesels won't sell here; that people are too stuck on using gas engines (something I very much disagree with -- everyone I know that has a diesel loves them).

 

 

USA consumers have never been accepting of small diesels. In addition, few repair shops (or private mechanics) have the proper tools or know how to work on them. I think Subaru would be nuts to try to sell diesels in the USA.

 

Name me one car or light diesel truck that ever sold well in the USA? There were plenty of good ones made. Chevy Chevette with the 1.8 Isuzu diesel. Chevy S10 or S10 Blazer with the 2.2 Isuzu diesel. Chevy LUV with the 2.2 Isuzu diesel. 2.2 and 2.3 Ford Ranger, 1.8 Escort, or 2.3 Bronco with Mazda-Perkins diesels. Lincoln Continental with a 2.4 liter diesel. 1968 Checker cab with a 3.9 liter Perkins diesel. 1968 Jeep with a 3.1 Perkins diesel. 80s Jeeps with Renault diesels, Isuzu PUP or Trooper with 2.2 diesel. 1977 International Scout with a 3.2 liter Nissan diesel. Dodge mini-ram pickups with Misubishi diesels. 1978 Dodge 1/2 ton pickup with a Misubishi 6 cylinder diesel, 1980 Mazda B2200 mini-truck with a 2.2 Mazda diesel, 1982 Chevy or GMC vans, light trucks, Blazers and Suburbans with Detroit Diesel designed 6.2 liter diesels, the many Volkswagen, Mercedes, and Volvo diesels, a few BMW diesels, etc. Out of the whole mess, proably the only poor design was the seires of Oldsmobile diesels offered in cars and light trucks in the late 70s.

 

There's a learning curve for a diesel owner and from what I've seen, few people are willing to learn. Also, it's hard to convince people that diesels (without turbochargers) have less power then equal sized gas engines - not more. A 6.2 liter non-turbo diesel makes the power of a 5 liter gas engine. Also, diesel fuel gels in cold weather unless treated properly. And, diesels can be more problematic when starting in cold weather since they lack electric ignition.

 

I've worked as a diesel mechanic for 50 years and have yet to see a "popular" diesel car in the US that sold well.

 

My 81 Chevy 1.8 liter diesel Chevette runs down the highway at 70 MPH and easily gets 46 MPG. Either of my 91 Volkswagen 1.6 liter Jettas do the same and get 48 MPG and sometimes 50 MPG. My 82 Chevy 4WD 6.2 liter diesel truck gets 22 MPG down the highway. My 91 Dodge 3/4 ton, extended cab, 4WD 5.9 liter diesel gets 20 MPG down on a highway cruise.

All relatively old and low tech, get great mileage and have held up well.

 

One more note. For the most part, diesel fuel is NOT a byproduct of gasoline production. In my area of mid New York State, farm diesel is $2.79 right now. Gasoline is $3.05. Highway low-sulfur diesel is up to $3.35. Removing the sulfur from diesel, and then - adding lube additives to repair the damage done from removing that sulfur - adds to the cost.

 

As to this new Subaru?? From what I've read, the new diesel Subaru Outback can do a best of 35 MPG (that's miles per US gallon -NOT a Canadian or UK gallon). I just drove a new Ford Escape AWD with the 2.5 gas engine. With five people and a dog it got 29 MPG on a highway trip. So, lets do the math.

 

Ford Escape cost $21 to go 200 miles.

Diesel Subaru would cost $19.

 

Considering a diesel rig will probably cost a lot more, and maintencne costs more - I don't see a huge - or any - savings or gain here.

 

I'm also leery of a Boxer-design diesel - but since I'm no engineer- that's just a gut-feeling. In-line diesels have just about always held up better then opposed-types.

[brumby420]

USA consumers have never been accepting of small diesels. In addition, few repair shops (or private mechanics) have the proper tools or know how to work on them. I think Subaru would be nuts to try to sell diesels in the USA.

 

Name me one car or light diesel truck that ever sold well in the USA? There were plenty of good ones made. Chevy Chevette with the 1.8 Isuzu diesel. Chevy S10 or S10 Blazer with the 2.2 Isuzu diesel. Chevy LUV with the 2.2 Isuzu diesel. 2.2 and 2.3 Ford Ranger, 1.8 Escort, or 2.3 Bronco with Mazda-Perkins diesels. Lincoln Continental with a 2.4 liter diesel. 1968 Checker cab with a 3.9 liter Perkins diesel. 1968 Jeep with a 3.1 Perkins diesel. 80s Jeeps with Renault diesels, Isuzu PUP or Trooper with 2.2 diesel. 1977 International Scout with a 3.2 liter Nissan diesel. Dodge mini-ram pickups with Misubishi diesels. 1978 Dodge 1/2 ton pickup with a Misubishi 6 cylinder diesel, 1980 Mazda B2200 mini-truck with a 2.2 Mazda diesel, 1982 Chevy or GMC vans, light trucks, Blazers and Suburbans with Detroit Diesel designed 6.2 liter diesels, the many Volkswagen, Mercedes, and Volvo diesels, a few BMW diesels, etc. Out of the whole mess, proably the only poor design was the seires of Oldsmobile diesels offered in cars and light trucks in the late 70s.

 

There's a learning curve for a diesel owner and from what I've seen, few people are willing to learn. Also, it's hard to convince people that diesels (without turbochargers) have less power then equal sized gas engines - not more. A 6.2 liter non-turbo diesel makes the power of a 5 liter gas engine. Also, diesel fuel gels in cold weather unless treated properly. And, diesels can be more problematic when starting in cold weather since they lack electric ignition.

 

I've worked as a diesel mechanic for 50 years and have yet to see a "popular" diesel car in the US that sold well.

 

My 81 Chevy 1.8 liter diesel Chevette runs down the highway at 70 MPH and easily gets 46 MPG. Either of my 91 Volkswagen 1.6 liter Jettas do the same and get 48 MPG and sometimes 50 MPG. My 82 Chevy 4WD 6.2 liter diesel truck gets 22 MPG down the highway. My 91 Dodge 3/4 ton, extended cab, 4WD 5.9 liter diesel gets 20 MPG down on a highway cruise.

All relatively old and low tech, get great mileage and have held up well.

 

One more note. For the most part, diesel fuel is NOT a byproduct of gasoline production. In my area of mid New York State, farm diesel is $2.79 right now. Gasoline is $3.05. Highway low-sulfur diesel is up to $3.35. Removing the sulfur from diesel, and then - adding lube additives to repair the damage done from removing that sulfur - adds to the cost.

 

As to this new Subaru?? From what I've read, the new diesel Subaru Outback can do a best of 35 MPG (that's miles per US gallon -NOT a Canadian or UK gallon). I just drove a new Ford Escape AWD with the 2.5 gas engine. With five people and a dog it got 29 MPG on a highway trip. So, lets do the math.

 

Ford Escape cost $21 to go 200 miles.

Diesel Subaru would cost $19.

 

Considering a diesel rig will probably cost a lot more, and maintencne costs more - I don't see a huge - or any - savings or gain here.

 

I'm also leery of a Boxer-design diesel - but since I'm no engineer- that's just a gut-feeling. In-line diesels have just about always held up better then opposed-types.

im not sure about the whole boxer vs inline thing. When you think about it a boxer engine should technically be more reliable then any other motor hands down but its not (though it is still very reliable). In my opinion some of the most reliable motors on earth are the 22r (toyota), 4.0 inline 6 (jeep), 4.3 vortec (chevy), 300 inline 6 (ford) ej22 (subaru) om617 (Mercedes). Now out of all those motors only one is a boxer motor the rest are all inline or V motors.

[jdemaris]

When you think about it a boxer engine should technically be more reliable then any other motor hands down . . .

 

Why? On an engineering level, why would any engine with opposed cylinders be inherently better then a straight engine? Makes no sense to me, but perhaps I'm missing something? I've never regarded Boxer, or Volkswagen-type "pancake" engines to be very durable.

 

The strongest engine-block design on earth is a straight ladder-frame construcition - as used with in-line engines.

 

The only slight advantage a Boxer opposed-four might have - is less need for extra balancing. Straight-fours, over certain sizes - have special balance needs that 3s, 5s, and 6s do not. That is why many larger straight-fours use extra balancing shafts for gears.

 

With Subaru in general? I've been using them hard since the 70s. Up to the early 90s, they made some great utilitarian cars with 4WD, hi-low range transfer-case, etc. Always something wrong with them, but usually easy fixes and they go great in the ice and snow. But great engines?? Not in my experience. I have never, ever blown one up - but all my 1.3s, 1.6s, and 1.8s were eating a lot of oil once past 100K miles. Every Justy and Loyale (that I finally stuck up in my fields) -ran good, ate oil, and finally rusted out so bad the rear wheels came through the floor.

 

The first Subaru that I ever owned that did NOT burn oil at high miles was/is my 95 Impreza with a 2.2. It has 220K miles on it and the engine still runs perfect. So rusty though, it has to come off the road. I'm still driving my 91 Loyale wagon. It has 150K and eats oil like a pig. But at least it has true 4WD since it's stick-shift. I found out the hard way that the Loyales with three-speed automatics don't.

 

On a side-note, I've got three 4WD Geo Trackers with inline 1.6 liter fours and they've been bullet-proof. Two have overf 200K and don't burn a drop of oil. They were made by Cami and the engines are little "el-cheapo" Suzukis.

[brumby420]

Why? On an engineering level, why would any engine with opposed cylinders be inherently better then a straight engine? Makes no sense to me, but perhaps I'm missing something? I've never regarded Boxer, or Volkswagen-type "pancake" engines to be very durable.

 

The strongest engine-block design on earth is a straight ladder-frame construcition - as used with in-line engines.

 

The only slight advantage a Boxer opposed-four might have - is less need for extra balancing. Straight-fours, over certain sizes - have special balance needs that 3s, 5s, and 6s do not. That is why many larger straight-fours use extra balancing shafts for gears.

 

With Subaru in general? I've been using them hard since the 70s. Up to the early 90s, they made some great utilitarian cars with 4WD, hi-low range transfer-case, etc. Always something wrong with them, but usually easy fixes and they go great in the ice and snow. But great engines?? Not in my experience. I have never, ever blown one up - but all my 1.3s, 1.6s, and 1.8s were eating a lot of oil once past 100K miles. Every Justy and Loyale (that I finally stuck up in my fields) -ran good, ate oil, and finally rusted out so bad the rear wheels came through the floor.

 

The first Subaru that I ever owned that did NOT burn oil at high miles was/is my 95 Impreza with a 2.2. It has 220K miles on it and the engine still runs perfect. So rusty though, it has to come off the road. I'm still driving my 91 Loyale wagon. It has 150K and eats oil like a pig. But at least it has true 4WD since it's stick-shift. I found out the hard way that the Loyales with three-speed automatics don't.

 

On a side-note, I've got three 4WD Geo Trackers with inline 1.6 liter fours and they've been bullet-proof. Two have overf 200K and don't burn a drop of oil. They were made by Cami and the engines are little "el-cheapo" Suzukis.

The SUBARU BOXER engine is itself a study in symmetry. Yes, other types of engines have to have a certain amount of balance or they’d shake themselves apart. However, the horizontally opposed layout of a Subaru engine has inherent advantages.

 

With cylinders directly opposite one another, piston movement is in a line all the way across. Power is distributed evenly on either side of the crankshaft.

 

In an in-line engine, all the cylinders are laid out on only one side of the crankshaft. Power drives against it from only one direction.

 

V-type engines have cylinders connected to the crankshaft from both sides of the V. However, instead of having the balance of direct opposition, piston movement in either bank tends to push the crankshaft off-center.

 

Well this is what i saw that made me believe boxers are supposed to be more reliable. though i will admit it came from a subaru web site so im not sure how biased it is. As you said though youve never blown a motor but have had trouble with head gaskets and we all know that old subarus along with most other old import cars werent famous for great head gaskets

[Subaru_dude]

Your EA82 ate oil like a pig because of it's pcv design. Subarus aren't nearly as negatively effected by cold startup as inline or V engines because the cylinders are laying down, so not ALL of the oil runs out of them. Your Subarus were probably losing most of their oil either because they were leaking it or because it was going out through the pcv system, not because it was getting past the rings. Subarus hold their compression for a LONG LONG time.

[jdemaris]

Your EA82 ate oil like a pig because of it's pcv design. Subarus aren't nearly as negatively effected by cold startup as inline or V engines because the cylinders are laying down, so not ALL of the oil runs out of them. Your Subarus were probably losing most of their oil either because they were leaking it or because it was going out through the pcv system, not because it was getting past the rings. Subarus hold their compression for a LONG LONG time.

 

As far as I can tell, all my Subarus became oil-eaters by sucking oil through the valve-guides. Nothilng to do with compression, piston rings, PCV system, etc. If the engines were something other then Subaru-Boxer - it would be easy to put in new valve-guide seals without an engine tear-down.

 

Never was a big issue for me, since all I had to do is put in a quart of oil ever few weeks. I never blew one up - and all my junked Subaurs that sit in my fields were driven to their final resting places. All because of rust.

[jdemaris]

The idea of an engine having "symmetry" because the cylinders are directly opposed to each other makes no sense to me.

 

In order for it TO make sense- you'd have to have one on each side firing at the same time - to cancel out the forces. This way, this Boxer four-cylinder engine would sound like a two-cylinder engine. There are several industrial and tractor engines built this way - but never heard of any car having it.

 

A Subaru Boxer engine fires one cylinder at a time, with no opposing force opposite at that moment of combustion - correct?

 

I am one to believe what I see, rather they try to theorize. I've never found Subaru engines to be particularly durable, or exceptionally cold-weather starters (as suggested by antoher poster).

 

Note that I've had a few Subarus with non-boxer engines. Just in-line three cyinders and they started just as well as the Boxers. In fact, the last car legally sold new in the USA with a carburetor (instead of fuel injection) was an inline Subaru. 1989 as I recall.

 

Subarus do have some great advantages. I suspect by using that short Boxer engine, they are able to put the engine further towards the front and get better weight distribution for good traction. I guess ALL Subaru cars now are designed around that concept and they'd have a hard time getting away from it.

 

I live on a steep, dirt, mountain road on top of the mountain . We get lots of ice, snow, and temps down to minus 30 F. Most of the Subaru 4WD wagons I've had defy reason -becaues they get such good traction. I've had days I dare not try to drive a full size SUV or 4WD pickkup down my road without spinning around or skiddihng off the road -even with studded tires. Yet an old Subaru wagon could do fine - even with not-so-great tires.

 

When I got my first Justy 2-door, non-wagon, 4WD, I expected to be awful. Too light, less weight in the back, and non-Boxer engine. But, to my surprise it was a great car in ice and snow. Mechanically, it was a piece of junk - but that's a different subject. Now, compared to my Geo 4WD Trackers? They spin like tops at the hint of snow and ice and I gave up driving them in the winter. The Justy had 12" tires and the Tracker has 15" tires. Those bigger tires might be part of the problem. Yes the Tracker is rear-wheel drive - but I'm talking about stopping going down a hill, or in 4WD going up.

 

As to cold starting? All my Subarus with carburetors were pretty poor at below zero temps. Those with fuel injection - either throttle-body or sequential have been fine. Overall, if anything - Subarus with carburetors were worse starters in severe cold then many other makes I've had. My 1964 Chevelle SS with a 283 V8 started much better in severe cold.

[monk50]

/\/\ thats retarded!! diesel is a by-product of making gasoline therefore it should NEVER cost more than gas. capitalism irks me

 

RV

It is not capitalism, it is the government regulation requiring different fuel formulations in differents states. capitalism brings the price down if you keep the #$@#$%^%$#government out of the process!!!!!

[katienadine]

All I know is I love my 1982 GMC half ton diesel it gets 28-35 mpg and I'd certainly love to be driving a subaru with a diesel.

[Loyale 2.7 Turbo]

... I'd certainly love to be driving a subaru with a diesel.

 

 

[Loyale 2.7 Turbo]

Now you actually can obtain a Brand New Subaru EE20 Diesel engine, Legally in the USA!

Just Click Here... and Grab your Wallet  

~►

Kind Regards.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

[Fairtax4me]

Awesome! Now to get the money to buy one... :-\ might take a while.

[smiffy6four]

Latin America Too ... ... we have it!

I Believe that the Only thing which Stops Subaru to take those Diesel Boxers to the USA Market, is the Emmissions Laws against air Pollution...

But I Think that Subaru Must be Workin' in Something to fix That... Or those will Remain Outside USA like the Carbureted EJ Engines and the EJ Dual Range Transmissions we have?

Kind Regards.

 

The yellow font is really hard to read. How about plain old black?

[Loyale 2.7 Turbo]

Please, Excuse me if some of my Older posts became unreadable due to the yellow text colour and white background colour Contrast; I Explained why that happened, here:

~► http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/topic/124339-prefer-the-brighter-web-page/?p=1052563

I Just Finished to Edit All the Posts I Made on This Thread (and some other threads) changin' the Yellow Font to a Deep Blue & Bigger Font ...   ... Now my Texts are Readable Again!

Kind Regards.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

[monk50]

/\/\ thats retarded!! diesel is a by-product of making gasoline therefore it should NEVER cost more than gas. capitalism irks me

 

RV

 

It is not capitalism that causes diesel fuel cost. Guess who? Governemnt has boutique blends with different requirements in each state therefore, just like always, it is governments intrusion with EPA and their 473 different regulatory agencies that are the cause of most problems in the US.!!!

 

May I say Keystone, Anwar, run the rigs out of the Gulf, let Mexico drill, China off our coast, again it is governent that creates most of the problems that interfere with the workings of free enterprise, the system that creates efficiency.

 

Monk50

NC

[1997reduxe]

It is not capitalism that causes diesel fuel cost. Guess who? Governemnt has boutique blends with different requirements in each state therefore, just like always, it is governments intrusion with EPA and their 473 different regulatory agencies that are the cause of most problems in the US.!!!

 

Monk50

NC

 

The true cost of making petroleum products and chemicals, the disposal of their wastes, and chemicals in general in this country (US) is a far more expensive notion than can be calculated in dollars per gallon of a particular delivered product.

'97

[Loyale 2.7 Turbo]

So Sorry for Hijack this Thread once again, but about This:

 

...Still looking for this infamous dual range 4EAT...

 

 

Could this be the Living Proof of a Dual Range Automatic Subaru?

 

 

It Came on a JDM Specs Subaru EA82 GT-II

 

More info ~► Here.

 

/Hijack.

 

Kind Regards.

[Gloyale]

I'm sorry that this Thread went off-Topic...

 

The Only Subaru Picture of a Dual Range Automatic I Found, Belongs to the Subaru Bighorn:

 

 

More info about it, at this Thread:

 

~► http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/topic/50983-strange-and-weird-subaru-stuff/page-31?do=findComment&comment=955900

 

 

Look at Post Nº 763

 

OK, Back to Topic!

Kind Regards.

 

That's not really a subaru.

 

That's a rebadged Isuszu Trooper.  And definately not a 4EAT transmission.

 

I really do not think Subaru ever made a Dual range Automatic.  It isn't needed, the torque converter allows for creeping like a dual range would.

[Loyale 2.7 Turbo]

That's not really a subaru.

 

That's a rebadged Isuszu Trooper.  And definately not a 4EAT transmission.

 

I really do not think Subaru ever made a Dual range Automatic.  It isn't needed, the torque converter allows for creeping like a dual range would.

 

Yes I Know it is an Isuzu Trooper Sold as Subaru, as I already Stated above:

 

The Subaru Bighorn has Nothing to do with Toyota... but with Isuzu (Follow the Links I've Posted)  ...

 

That was an Incomplete Repost of my Post, used as Reference for the Pic Only.

 

 

 

Also I really don't believe too much that Subaru made Dual Range Automatics, but some other USMB Members have seen them and posted about them since years ago, as you can read,

 

Here: ~► http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/topic/26031-1993-loyale-4wd-auto/?p=211122

 

So I am just Searching for Proof of their existence, then I found that interesting Photos of a JDM Subaru EA82 which features a Digi Dash with 4WD-Lo and Automatic transmission Gear Numbers... and my immagination flew ...   ... and I posted that here Hoping that somebody could Help with more info in the Subject...

 

Kind Regards.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

[Loyale 2.7 Turbo]

 

... Still looking for this infamous dual range 4EAT...

 

So am I ... 

 

Again Sorry for Hijack this thread 

 

Kind Regards.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Loyale 2.7 Turbo