Subaru Boxer vs. Atkinson cycle engine ? Reliability and Longevity?

Here's some info on this, http://www.autoevolution.com/news/there-s-a- big-difference-between-a-boxer-and-flat-engine-85305.html

And , some more information, please comment, http://www.e31.net/engines_e.html

James, while these are new models, the boxer engine is by no means a new engine. And, Toyota has a share in Subaru. Both the FRS and the BRZ share some similar components. Do you have any comments on the efficiency of the flat engine design over the traditional inline Four. The design of the engine means there's no counterweight balance on the crankshaft. Also, rather than pushing up and down against gravity, these engines move side to side. What do you think?

Not all inline fours use the Atkinson cycle, which is often used on hybrids and keeps the intake valve open longer to increase efficiency at the cost of horsepower. (In other words, Subaru could adapt the Atkinson cycle to the flat-four as well). Subaru's flat-four engines are easily as fuel-efficient as an equivalent inline design, and (although arguably a bit noisy) have notably less vibration than an inline engine as the second-order vibrations cancel out. They are low, lightweight and fit well with Subaru's AWD system. The biggest disadvantages of the flat-four are the wide design (which would not work well mounted transversely) and the added complexity of two sets of camshafts/valves/heads instead of one.

Yes, Mark...it appears that you're conflating apples and oranges again. Maybe that's why responses are withheld?