Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I reckon all boxer engines sound similar. Porsches sound more like VW's than WRX's do though.

I'm not sure why the sounds are different, but with a boxer 4 and a v-twin (motorcycle) you get more of a pulse because each half of the engine fires at once. I don't know how that applies to boxer 6 engines because I would have thought the extra set of pistons would interrupt the pulse wave of the other 2.

That also doesn't really explain V8's, which have even more cylinders to interfere with the "pulse" sound, and yet they still sound very "pulsy".

Also, 180 degree parallel twin engines (motorcycles again) sound fairly "smooth" like an inline 4, but a 270 degree parallel twin sounds like a v-twin which also has a 270 degree firing pattern.

thatz coz its a box, and boxes make weird noises?? :confused:

tiny little engine it is, but impressive for little engine, the boxster 2L engine it is..

its like so mini compared to a boxes..to me it doesn't make heaps of power compared to the sky, but in that space it is efficient for power compared to the outside universe.

Subaru (WRX, Forester, Liberty) and VW (Beetle, Kombi, Type 3) engines are the same basic layout and like two40 says have a different firing order to an inline 4. This is why they sound similar if you listen to exhaust noise and not mechanical noise. The VW is extra noisy because it's air cooled and does not benefit from the noise reducing properties of a liquid cooled engine.

Porsche went to a great deal of trouble on the 996 engine (1st production water cooled boxer 6 for them) to retain the "air cooled" sound.

I follow all that, they have a different firing order etc., but they still fire one cylinder per 180 degrees (four cyl four stroke) of crankshaft revolution, just like an inline four, but they sound distinctly different. I cant figure out why, and I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation. For instance, if you changed the camshafts on an inline four to give a different firing order the car (or bike) would sound the same. In fact I believe early Kawasakis had different firing order (1,4,2,3) from Honda (1,4,3,2) but sounded pretty much the same. If it's doing 1000 rpm then it's firing 1000 times a minute at 1/1000 minute intervals regardless of its firing order or configuration. So why does it sound different?

Originally posted by two40

I've never heard a WRX that sounds like a VW.  

VW's sound the way they do because they have a metal chain.

WRX's sound the way they do because like you said, it's a flat four. Crap layout if you ask me. I'll let someone who knows more about it explain.

Don't make me bust out my alfa and show you otherwise Porgie!!

also on JimX,s point, why is it that the more cylinders you have, the smoother the engine (or exhaust note) gets, except for V8's.

For example, a 12 sounds smoother than a 10, which sounds smoother than a 8 which DOESN't sound smoother than a 6 or a 4.

It's a bit hard to compare i guess, cause most people, when they think V8, think of GM/Ford V8's, whereas most 10's and 12's are made by prestige marques. I guess we need to compare a Ferrari V8 to a Ferrari V12 to check properly...anyone care to indulge me? :D

Belly_up, I think a lot has to do with the firing order. The GM Gen III sounds a lot smoother than the previous Holden engine, and the only fundamental difference is the firing order. I think they changed it to smooth out the idle. You can get some of the sound back with a decent exhaust (most I've heard are crap) but it still doesn't sound as rumbly as the old Holden V8's or even the current Ford V8's.

That said, even a "rough" sounding V8 is still quite smooth in a driving sense.

Originally posted by Belly_up

also on JimX,s point, why is it that the more cylinders you have, the smoother the engine (or exhaust note) gets, except for V8's.

cause no one wants a smooth 8. they want a grumpy 8 with a huge cam and blap blap blap idle. muahahaha

ahem, i'll just go to my corner now.:uhh:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...