And what would that be?
Where to draw the line. See above.
Where we’ve already drawn it.
And where would that be? Obviously it’s not the same as what the software allows.
As far as how it seems to me, the line is generally drawn around what’s happened and that happens to include the stuff that might not have happened but is possible with not too many issues. This includes a lot of “garbage” (or, if you want nicer language, simply disadvantageous) solutions made from existing “ingredients”.
The line wouldn’t then make a squiggle to cover somebody’s hypothesis on how one such idea could be made to work better, as reflected with a proprietary stat rebalance.
And just to say something in resolution of one of the original post’s queries…
These are weight diagram screenshots from an all-else-equal car I made that has a transverse V6 in the top picture and that same engine but “as a boxer” in the bottom picture. We would have to ask the developers to ascertain whether or not this diagram represents the game’s calculations for vertical center of mass, but it seems to me that the engine’s CoG does lower when it’s a boxer. If anything, what’s actually disturbing is that the transmission’s CoG lowered right along with it.
8 Likes
i can make this very simple - as a host, you draw the line wherever you need it. realism has a variable definition across hosts, but the agreed upon thing is generally “did this exist in reality, in real cars?”
transverse boxers are not one of those things, regardless of any defenses or practical arguments. just because the game allows you to do something, does not mean that the thing you are doing is feasible or realistic.
4 Likes
Here you have it. The Tucker prototype. Not that an even more oddball prototype for an already odd and quirky car that flopped almost 80 years ago might change the arguments very much, so just a “fun fact” I guess. 
4 Likes
On the related side topic of realism and having been done IRL - I don’t think the line should typically be that simple. For example, V12 city cars haven’t been done, and for damn good reasons, with really no reason besides “cool” going for them, which is a bit too little. But, maybe surprisingly, (longitudinal) FWD boxer 6 hasn’t been ever done in production either, at least as far as I managed to research it - but all it would take would be Subaru making another trim with what they already had, they just didn’t decide it was necessary. Or Citroën fully succeeding with the DS engineering - the initial idea included a boxer 6.
In general, I think there should be a distinction made between things that weren’t done because there’s something inherently disadvantageous about them, and things that just never happened to be, despite there being nothing such inherently disadvantageous about the idea (or at least not much more than what real manufacturers did). And those are numerous - petrol RWD I5, supercharged boxers or V12s, boxer 4 minivans, rear mounted V6s and more, likely many engine unrelated too (I just focused on those so I know more of them). Compared to rear V8-engined luxury sedans, transverse I6s (front and mid) and transverse V12s (mid mounted) or even a transverse V16, V8 minivans from Europe, mid engined minivans, FWD V8s (up to freaking 8.2 litres) in both orientations that all DID happen in series production… those that didn’t happen don’t sound too unreal, do they?
3 Likes
About the FF boxer 6, some versions of the SVX were front wheel drive in the japanese market so it’s been done.
@moroza
Everything can be done, look at the V6 Clio or the Cizeta Moroder with its V16 mounted transversaly, but if you are after an efficient and fun car to drive, well, it has already been done multiple times throughout history, look at the Super 7 for exemple.
The faisability of this project lies to what kind of scale you’re in. Low production, hand-built? Well, you won’t find as many obstacles as if you were going high volume.
One good exemple of a fun car to drive is the Peugeot 205. The very early ones had a SLANTED inline 4, then they went to the perpiducular TU and XU engine family.
You can clearly see that on this Peugeot 104
You see the whole aluminium engine block under the flat intake and the gearbox under the battery.
They stopped this layout beacause of packaging, that makes the bonnet too long for the overall length of the car, reducing the potential space for the passengers and the boot.
By the way, have you driven a 306 HDi or a S16 6-speed? Have a ride and you’ll see you can do fun and efficient!
That’s part of my point - there’ve been so many things far wackier (IMO) than transverse boxers actually made. Boxer diesel has some fundamental drawbacks too, and it had never been done… until Subaru did it not long ago.
Rear V6 has been done - the DMC DeLorean. Boxer 4 minivan as well - various VW. FF F6 was in early Subaru SVX and its XT6 predecessor.
@s31 Regrettably, no. They were never sold in the US, and in my time abroad I’ven’t had the opportunity.
2 Likes
…and Alpines… Yeah, that’s what I get for writing when still not fully awake 
As for the minivan, I mean a modern minivan layout, with the engine in the front. Subarus - well, I might be mixing things, but I was pretty sure that all of them had AWD with boxer 6.
Anyway, my point is still that some things haven’t been done just due to historical happenstance, since very similar solutions and their prerequisites have existed, and using such non-existent solution X wouldn’t really be more problematic than all that similar stuff. I don’t think this applies to transverse boxers, as they are IMO wackier than almost anything that has actually been done, due to reasons given by @donutsnail. But I’ll end it on that, as I didn’t really want to go back to that, just mention something general about the limits of realism (which, in short, shouldn’t IMO be strictly at “was this produced IRL” - I want my RWD I5s not binned, thank you veey much)
Ok, one last point I’m gonna make on the main topic - I don’t think there’s any point to aim specifically for the transverse boxer arrangement (just as there isn’t with a transverse V8 IMO), but it could maybe arise due to some extremely weird circumstamces (unlike a transverse V8, for which the circumstances required are really simple). And this “extremely weird circumstances” part is why I don’t really support the idea, despite liking some other wacky layouts.
Some layouts that seems weird on their own are of course products of working with what you have. Maybe we can take Volvo’s transverse 60 degree V8 as an example. The XC90 is after all a development of the P2 platform that can trace a not so small part of its roots to the 850, that was designed with one layout in mind - a transverse inline 5 cylinder. It would not be able to fit a 90 degree V8 properly transversely, not to mention how out of question changing to a longitudinal layout would have been. If it was designed firsthand with a V8 in mind, a longitudinal 90 degree layout would probably have made more sense.
So. That leads me to one of the few examples I can think of where a transverse boxer COULD have happened. The Nissan Cherry, that was originally designed for a transverse inline 4. Its ill-fated cousin, the Alfa Romeo Arna, however, got the boxer from the Alfasud.
Let’s say that the Alfasud instead had used a L-FWD layout but with an inline engine, in that case the logical thing would have been to just hook it up to the Nissan transmission, and mount it transversely, I am pretty sure that it would have been the solution there. Well, yes, there is the Renault 21, not going to bring that up now, but still…
Instead, the whole layout was changed into L-FWD in the Arna. And another case is of course the Alfa 145 that was available with both boxer and inline engines, L-FWD with boxers, T-FWD with inlines, despite, AFAIK, sharing its platform with the Fiat Tipo that was running transverse engines. So no transverse boxer there either.
That’s two cases where I feel that the transverse boxer actually could have happened if it made sense, but appearantly reconfiguring the car for L-FWD made more sense in those cases…
5 Likes
Yeah, thanks for expanding on that, that’s basically what I wanted to convey. I can’t logic
No, the Nissan Cherry Europe/Arna would never have been able to be transverse boxer, because if you put the Alfasud Boxer engine in front of the Cherry original transmission, the output shaft would be where the cylinder head is.
Also, reengineering the Cherry to be L-FWD was way easier than you’d imagine, the whole subframe was transferred including the suspension, and turns out the packaging was not that different in sizing, maybe because a small FWD car in similar size would have similar hard point, who knew.
One can try putting transmission in engine sump, like in the Mini, but then COG’s out of the window and there are more issues that will ensue in actual use. It’s also unlikely that the final drive would be tall enough to be useful at highway speed, because the space in the transmission casing would then also be extremely limited.
Furthermore, as donutsnail’s point out that if the original CAD drawing was made exactly as shown, the transmission would be where the suspension travel is. This would already stop any further discussion in actual designing until that is solve. It’s a HUGE, GLARING, OBVIOUS issue that cannot be ignore for the “we’ll figure it out later”.
Let’s not go into the this and that of advantage and disadvantage, because at this point it’s academic. Real life is not Automation where you’ll gain stats just by selecting a layout in a spreadsheet.
It’s fun to ponder and all, but if not even a single completely harebrained boutique manufacturer out there have tried to make this layout work, maybe it’s not just that the drawbacks outweigh benefits stopping them doing so, maybe it’s literally like trying to shove square peg in a round hole.
It’s been pointed out for so many times, and the discussion always have had the same conclusion. I personally don’t see the point in continuing further, but heigh ho, nothing’s stopping anyone.
Well, it seems like you have misunderstood me a bit. I am not trying to say that it would have been easier to just throw in a boxer transversely and that Nissan/Alfa was stupid for not doing it. Fact is, you are just clarifying what I was trying to say. Not even in designs where you already have a transverse engine, this quirky design makes sense to go for, because of the headache it would be to arrange things. If it had not been for the packaging troubles, sure throwing a boxer at the end of the Nissan transmission would have been easier than making the Cherry into a quirky Alfasud hybrid, even if it was an easier task than it first looked like. You brought the actual troubles up (some of them that could also be seen in the arguments up above), I didn’t have the energy to dig deeper into them.
1 Like
I don’t know if you’re really getting what I’m saying, but I don’t want to create unnecessary argument.
The packaging trouble is everything that is stopping Transverse Boxer, any other consideration is just secondary and we wouldn’t really be getting there at all in the actual engineering process of a car. It wouldn’t even go through the thrown around idea planning phase.
It’s not really even a vague possibility that converting the Alfasud engine to Cherry drivetrain should be done, because if you’re ignoring the fundamental issue with the physical being, then yes, everything can be done, including perpetual motion machine and those crazy stairs illusion.
Thinking about it from production design, converting the Alfasud subframe into the Cherry, especially at the production level, is not difficult at all in the grand scheme of things. The idea of the Arna being a thrown together janky ass shit is only by it’s perceived reputation, which in my opinion is unfair and inaccurate, but I digress.
I’m sorry if my post happen to sound dismissive/rude but the discussion is so long in the tooth at this point. I hope you don’t take offense to it because I don’t mean it in that way, not even passive aggressively.
Let me clarify in a more direct way. I get what you’re saying. We’re agreeing to the same thing. It’s just that I think the example of Arna/Alfasud is not a good one.
Yes, I agree with you on that point.
And this was more or less what I was trying to say. The physical issues are such obvious that it didn’t even happen in one of the few cases that exists when you had a boxer that was going into a car where there already WAS a transverse engine to start with. Why I brought it up? Well, because when it comes to a clean sheet design there’s not much speaking in favour for a transverse boxer. And the Arna is IMO sort of the proof why it does not make sense at all. Because it does not even happen when a boxer is going into a car that was designed for a transverse engine to start with.
Absolutely not impossible. I mean, Ford basically threw a low series version of the Escort onto a Sierra floorpan, including longitudinal engine and everything, just to be able to use the existing technology from the Sierra Cosworth, including the AWD system not suited for a transverse application. Compared to that, making a Cherry/Alfasud hybrid for what probably was intended to be larger series than they were able to sell in the end probably made more sense (if it had not been for the rally homologation and halo car status of the Escort Cosworth) from a production and economical standpoint.
The Arna/Cherry Europe might have kind of a status as an IRL meme car but that had nothing to do with my choice of bringing that car up, I agree that it makes a bit more sense than it first seems like when you read up on it, and that people is a bit too unfair to it when they don’t know the whole story behind it, but that’s another story.
Not at all, I just want to clarify that we more or less wants to say the same thing but in different ways, which it seems like you have understood too. But yeah, maybe the discussion is a bit long in the tooth since you actually CAN make a transverse boxer design in this game despite it being more or less non-existant, so yeah, it is a bit over the top with a long thread about the game being unfair to the design. There is way more unbalanced stuff in the game to take care of, to start with.
It may not be, but it is the only case I can think of when there has been a transverse engined car where a boxer was going in, and even then it was changed to L-FWD for obvious reasons. Maybe I should just have mentioned that instead of drifting away too far as I always do. But yes, we are agreeing on the same thing, so I guess I have proven my point enough.
Ha, AWD system weight rebalance when
Let’s just chalk it up to ESL and being eepy. I agree with all of that.
(As to everyone wondering, yes, I did read all of it to agree with that, and I’m now wondering why I brought it up in the first place too as the discussion went nowhere lmao).
3 Likes
To be completely unbiased, regardless how you engineer this into possibly, what car and market would this even cater to?
Unlike the Mini Cooper or the Volkswagen Beetle which did have their respective usage of FWD and a boxer layout. There seemed to be no real practical usage to combine the two. As the Mini Cooper used a transverse FWD setup to increase interior room and create a shorter car itself, as for the Beetle, it was more about maintenance, it being the “The car for the people”.
Possibly trying to combine the two may cancel out each others benefits for it’ll take more room for less gain, not stating it isn’t possible, but it is less viable as stated previously by others.
My concerns as a regular consumer as opposed to an enthusiast would be the ease of repair, cost of replacement, and anxiety of duration.
I’m not an engineer, but with these factors; how would stuff like cooling, electricals, and plumbing be all sorted out of which I don’t have to disassemble the front end of the engine to access the sparkplugs facing the firewall? (this has been stated already, my apologies)
I believe as a one-off, it would have some semblance to an independent company doing quirky things as opposed to a mass-market company.
Of which I state all these things with respect @moroza.