What is top speed

what car?

Top speed is the number in black on a white sign beside the road. You will notice the word "Speed" on top and the word "limit" on the bottom. If you exceed that, a real nice person will hand you a piece of paper with the top speed written down to remind you. Top speed? The Terrain will work at 110 down hill. You're driving a top heavy, non-aerodynamic vehicle that is not really safe at the vehicle's capable top speed. It does not have a sports suspension or geometry to get you out of trouble should that happen. Wear your seat belt my friend.

Carson, good message and advice. There's a lot of people out there who don't understand or want to know how dangerous it is to themselves and others about speeding. Look at what happened to Paul Walker and his friend and they were supposed to be professionals? They exhibited poor judgment and got themselves killed. You're right, just because a vehicle can do 110 or more and have an insanely large engine and power doesn't mean that it has the aerodynamic capability of doing this safety. Airplanes are designed to go fast and are appropriately made to travel at high speed, that's what they do. They've also got wings and can coast and land safely if you know what you're doing. Cars, on the other hand are susceptible to road conditions and tire failures and your only contact with the ground are your tires. So, a failure at 100 or more miles per hour is a really big problem! And, if you're caught with an exhibition of speed citation it may cost you your driver's license and make you either uninsured or make your rates so high you'll find it just as hard to pay the premium. So, when I see so many people at this forum talk about "top speed ", I have to wonder, "why are they asking this question?".

By the way, just in case you thought Four cylinder cars were slow, I've got some news for you, see this link below, http://www.topspeed.com/cars/subaru/2015-subaru-wrx-sti- premiumdriven-ar166524.html

One more thing, just because you can go this fast doesn't mean you should. It's incredibly dangerous and I don't recommend it. And, don't think you can evade law enforcement like James Bond. They have radios and helicopters to find and stop you. Almost every day there's someone on the news in some high speed chase and they always get stopped in the end. What are they thinking? Oh wait, they're not thinking!

My 1969 Corvette when stock did 155 at 5500 rpm with a 6000 rpm top end. I did it several, (a few) times. It is made for speed, BUT not 155. The front of the car is long, and holds a lot of air under the hood and above 135 makes the front end start to float. At 155 you almost have no control with the tires, no matter what you have because the weight is not on the tires. Now I rebuilt the engine and it went from 350 to 450+ hp, and put in a 5 speed transmission. I now do 50 at 1500 RPMs. so at 3000 RPM I should be at 100. Actually 110 mph. 4500 should be 165? and 6000 over 200. The car will not go that fast due to the aerodynamics and 450 HP is not enough to put it that fast as at 200 you are displacing a lot of air. The new Z06 Corvette has over 650 HP, a 7 speed manual or 8 speed auto. Because of the body design to hold the car down to the road, it will not hit 200 MPH. Have you seen drag racers lift the front ends in the air and flip over backwards? That is what my car would do. It is built for high speed, and the power is more that the car can safely handle. I turned on my headlights that pop up and disrupted the air flow and put more air pressure on the front to control the decent. When I opened the headlights, the speed dropped to 145. It still took a long time to stop because the front tires were unstable when the brakes were applied at 155. That's my personal experience. I have had my GMC terrain up to 90 and I felt is was unsafe at that speed due to it being unstable. It, even with the 4 banger could of gotten going faster, but I want to keep it out of the ditch.

Carson, I guess it's due to the weight and proportion that allows the Subaru WRX STI to be so fast and yet be a Four cylinder engine. I'm sure you would admit that the main reason is must be the advancements in technology. After all, there's a 46 year difference between your Stingray and the new Subaru WRX STI coupe. Even my 2010 Subaru Outback 2.5 Limited has a rated top speed of 123 and the Subaru Outback 3.6 is rated at 143 mph , but, it's too risky and dangerous to go that fast, not to mention getting caught, losing your license and insurance etc. I'm sure that my station wagon at even 100 or 105 would be more stable than a top heavy SUV, my car has the conformation and is in fact officially a station wagon even according to the CA DMV. One of the advantages of the boxer engines are their low center of gravity and the profile of the car is more long and narrow than most high centered SUVs. But, again, going this fast is not only unnecessary, but, a fools errand. Thanks for sharing your experience, I see that even your Stingray as aerodynamic as it is became unstable at 155? I cannot imagine how the WRX STI could be anywhere near as stable as your Stingray. My only guess would be that the WRX STI has a newer suspension enabling it to achieve those speeds. What is interesting is that the 2.5 engine in the WRX STI has 305 horsepower and that's something no one in 1969 would have ever expected. As for your GMC Terrain, I suspect that the problem is the high roofline and wind coefficient of the car. I think it's possible that the Subaru Outback has a lower drag coefficient number even though it has a lot of ground clearance. Don't know and am not interested in field testing this, but, a lot of people have written reports on the purported top speed of both the Outback and WRX STI. I think 80 is a much more comfortable top speed and then only if I'm passing someone and it's necessary. Never with my trailer.

Carson, I have a follow up question for you. Do you think that the AWD feature of the Subaru WRX STI and Outback, stiff suspension and double wishbone rear suspension enables these newer cars to go these speeds and maintain stability on the road?

Both suspension, low center of gravity, and body design helps. Weight of the car and how it handles air at high speeds. A stiff suspension helps also. The WRX STI body is built to scrub through the air at high speed, but I think you will also find it unstable at 155. It is designed to handle 125 mph speeds, but that is not a speed I'd want to do in a stock WRX on public highways. My Corvette could do 165 to 170 tops but not before modification of the body to keep the air from collecting under the hood and put front air dams to hold down the front and keep pressure on the tires. All that will make it harder to go faster as more weight is added to the car to keep it planted. 165 to 180 was the top speeds the modified C-3s could achieve.

Carson, here's the specs on my suspension, Front- Independent, raised struts, coil springs, stabilizer bar,  anti-dive geometry  Rear- independent, double wishbone, coil springs, stabilzer bar, anti-Lift gemometry. I think that you may know more about cars than I do. I'm old enough to remember that cars in the 60s generally speaking as tight as cars today. My 1995 Honda Accord EX station wagon had four wheel double wishbone suspension. I had that up to 100 once many years ago briefly and it was amazingly smooth, but, that was on an open road with no one around. I'm sure that the Subaru Outback would be just as smooth. Since you are so knowledgeable about cars can you please tell me if it theoretically takes less energy to move the pistons side to side on a boxer engine vs. an inline engine? Seems like these boxer engines are capable of very high speeds, higher than most Fours I've read about online and their power to weight ratio is very impressive when compared to a lot of other standard inline Fours. Strictly an academic question, as I've stated before, I don't plan on doing anything past 80 anymore. Just too risky. Here's the link to the complete specs on my car below, http://www.cars101.com/subaru/outback/outback2010.html

Carson, correction, I meant to say "cars in the 60s are NOT as tight suspension wise as cars today. Also, that's anti dive geometry in the front and anti lift geometry in the rear. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

First, the boxer engines are engines that have the pistons opposed to each other. The V-8 and V-6 and even the v-4 engines for that mater do not. The huge difference is the Boxer engine lays flat so the engine sits lower in the frame, giving a lower center of gr4avity. The Boxer engines, with 6 8 or 12 configurations don't have a vibration issue as the 4 cylinder Boxer's do, so no heavy flywheel or counter balance weights are needed as in the V style engines. So now not only do you have a lower center of gravity, but an engine weighing less that the old monster V-8 that need counter weights to off set the vibrations of pistons not firi9ng in direct opposite order to neutralize the banging the rods put on the crankshafts. Subaru Boxer engines are mostly 4 cylinder engines, strong and reliable, but heavy due to the 4 cylinder vibrations it creates. The Europeans have been able to squeeze an unbelievable amount of power out of the Boxer engines using cams, intake and fuel delivery systems that over the years is near unsurpassed. Porsche is the lead on this technology followed by the Japanese that have a great knack of copying others. So with lighter weight, lower COG the weight on the front ends are less on the cars. Using more substantiated geometry or after market products not offered by the factory due to cost, will work better. There recently was an article I can't remember if it was on line or in a car magazine, Vette, or Road and Track, that a tire company published. It had to do with the width of tires and suspensions done to vehicles. The faster the vehicle goes, the less rubber is on the roadway surface. This is due to centrifugal force applied to the tires. The new or trick suspensions help keep the tires flatter to the surface, but still the same amount of rubber is touching the roadway. Their conclusion was, the tighter suspensions help in tight corners allowing the outer edge of the tires from rolling onto the rims. In this end, corning is improved somewhat. The tire theory of being really wide does nothing for the footprint on the roadway at high-speed. It was found in their study, a tire narrower than a very wide tire had a larger footprint on the road surface in almost all their studies. Now the after-market products that help defuse the air flow to create a better down-force and better slipstream through the air helps in high speed. BUT as I stated above, there is a limit to the effect of down-force. The Corvette C-7 Z06 has so much down-force to plant a larger foot-print for stability at high speeds, that it limits the high end speed and not allow it to achieve 200 MPH. The smaller HP C-7 without the down-force tricks can get to 205. The C-6 Z06 Corvette with the large 427 w/a blower did go past the 200 MPH barrier but was not as stable getting there. Anything that can use the air to stabilize the car at high speeds is good. Read the articles on the new Z-06 Corvette and see every square inch is used as a device for control at high speeds.

Carson, here's something I found that might be useful. By the way, from articles I've read, boxer engines with their lower center of gravity have better "lateral acceleration " which is what this thread discusses. Thanks again for your very comprehensive answer above, helpful. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_handling

I know that the Four cylinder boxer engines have a phenomena known as "rocking couple " and that the H6 engines are smoother. In my case, the CVT transmission and higher gas mileage. I've had a number of Four cylinder cars, 70 VW Beetle, 78 Rabbit, 80 Honda Accord, Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera 2.5 (worst performance of all), 95 Honda Accord and now 2010 Subaru Outback 2.5 Limited. Don't remember how smooth the engine of the old VW beetle was but the 95 Honda probably came about as close to the NVH of the Subaru. In between all of these cars, I had a 1985 Ford Thunderbird 3.6 V6 for about 12 years. This car had only 120 horsepower, 50 less than my Subaru and did not have a uniform power band and was much harsher than the Fours. Interestingly, it was not nearly as efficient in relation to its weight, felt nose heavy, so -so acceleration and lousy fuel mileage. Tell me, aside from the obvious fact that Subaru boxers are water cooled vs. air cooled, and use different valve technology, do you think that they're similar to old VW'S? All in all, so far I'm very pleased with my Subaru Outback 2.5 Limited. The car's engine idles as smoothly as a purring kitten. When you need power and efficiency, it wakes up enthusiastically and just takes off. Have you ever driven a car with a CVT? It's a different sensation than other cars.

Carson, in the model year 2010, only the CVT transmission was available with the 2.5 engine. Now in 2015, the CVT transmission is Subaru's standard automatic transmission and the old 5EAT has been shelved. It's partly due to the fact that government regulations on gas mileage, but, according to some engineers I know say that the CVT transmission is not only more durable and simpler than the older technology of planetary transmissions. And, you can't even purchase a manual transmission for the Subaru Outback in the US anymore. Lots of reports I've seen have not been kind to that gearbox anyway, good riddance.

This was on facebook. German magazine Auto Bild recently tested the 2015 Corvette Z06 and to say they were impressed with the new American hero-car would be nothing short of a massive understatement. Check out this top speed run in the video above where they take the new Vette up to 305 km/hr (190 mph!) They note the aerodynamic downforce generated by the Z07 Performance Pack is holding back the car at high speeds, but it’s also the reason for it being an absolute monster on the track, destroying their former fastest production car lap record holder at Sachsenring, the Porsche 991 Turbo S, by a whopping two seconds.

Thanks for sharing this information. So, just curious if you can answer some of my prior questions. 1. Even though the balance of H4 is not the same as the H6 and other engines, are they naturally smoother than a standard inline Fours? 2. Have you had experience with driving a car with CVT? 3. Is there any similarities between the water cooler Subaru boxer engine and the old air cooled VW? 4. Do you agree that the Four cylinder H4 being lighter weight than the H6 would have better handling over the heavier front end on the Outback? 6. Do you think generally that the flat boxer engines have better handling with the lower center of gravity over inline engines ? 7. Do you think that the anti lift geometry technology they've built into Subaru cars is adding to their higher top ends like the WRX STI and even the Outback. Who would expect my car to have a top speed of 123 or the H6 to go as fast as 143, estimated of course. Thanks in advance your consideration.

Carson, 190 is certainly fast, however , take a look at this http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars

Carson, here's something interesting. Just saw a car on the street only 1 or 2 inches off the ground with rear tires that appeared to be "folded in" so the tires are riding on the outside edge. Front tires were tilted but straighter. Do you have any idea why someone would modify their suspension to move the tires to that extreme angle. Looked like a fast car in other respects, but, you couldn't drive over anything without hitting it. I thought your car was low to the ground, but, this car was ridiculous. Maybe he has lifters on this thing. Any ideas?

It has an air suspension. It can be raised or lowered with a flip of a switch. "Low riders" use this to drive the vehicle to a show or lot and then for looks, lower the car, sometimes all the way to the ground. It depends on how they hook up the air shocks, sometimes to get the tires to fit under the lowered body, they tilt the tires in from the top to clear the fenders. I'm not that familiar with cars that are used to drift, but would they tilt the tires in from the top to get a better side drift? I know old racers and even now some of the circle track racers put in positive camber to push the tires out from the bottom to try to keep as much rubber in contact with the track as possible.

For you answers, Google "Boxer engines" and go to the Subaru Boxer engines. They give an extensive report of the advantages and disadvantages of the 4 cylinder vs 6,8,and 12 Boxer engines and the vibrations and why. Also the V-10 and V-12 engines don't have the vibrations of the V-6 or V-8 . The in-line 4 or 6 or 8 engines don't have as much vibration as the V engines. The water cooled boxers are heavier due to the water jackets, water piping and radiator and water pump. VW used the boxer 4 bangers in the WWII airplanes I think. The ones in the Bugs that came across the ocean at first were problem engines, but German engineering soon fixed it and had money to do research when the Bugs started selling like hot cakes and they made money to do the research. I read an article where Porsche, Audi and MBZ in the last two years spend over one billion dollars on the racing programs. Mazda is trying to compete, but is spending a whole lot less, and their racing program is mixed with the production cars they market. The "anti lift" stuff you are referring to is what I stated before. At high speeds the air will lift the front end and takeaway handling. Through dams, foils, wings, and ducting, the air is used to create down force to keep the front-end heavy for control and higher speed. GM went to a dry sump oil pump system in the new C-7 Corvette and Cadillac engines so the oil pan is not as deep. This allows the engine to sit lower between the frame rails, lowering the center of gravity. This give a better advantage to control and to the vehicles. The 4 cylinder is lighter in the Boxer engines because there is two less cylinders. The old in-line engines sit higher in the frames due to the oil pump in the bottom of the pan. So the weight is higher.

Thank you Carson, I appreciate it. I have read many articles about the boxer engines on the web, but, it's always good to validate this from someone who knows and you appear to be a quite knowledgeable car guy! OK, tell me this, which engine has more grunt, a 2.5 Four or a 2.5 Five. And, which do you think is smoother. I still think that the 2.5 Four Boxer is pretty smooth.

Which engine is more dependable and bullet proof. The 351 Ford or the 350 Chevy? Depends on your preference and what is on the short block. Of course one boxer engine is a tad bit bigger either due to bore, stroke or head displacement. If you EFI one and carb the other, the EFI is more reliable and efficient, but in all reality, the carburetor engine is stronger. The four boxer has opposing pistons firing simultaneously opposing each other, so there is more HP produced and at a quicker and smoother pace. The V engines are like a heavyweight boxer. Bigger, stronger and can do more damage. The middle or light weight boxer can also hit with power, but not as much, but is more quick and nimble. Put a martial arts expert, a boxer, and a college wrestler in the ring. Which is the last one standing? The wrestler. Speed, agility, strength, and endurance. Also it depends on the ability of each. So to ask which engine is more... over the other, is unanswerable unless both are built equally with the same items. Then both must be in an identical vehicle and the drivers must be also of equal ability. Bottom line, I can't answer or I'm ducking the question. BTW, my money is on the Chevy engine, but the Ford's engine is very bullet proof. NASCAR tries to make all the cars as equal as possible, but some drivers are more successful than others. A lot has to do with the car's design, and the rest is the driver and prep of the car.

OK, so, this is true, "The four boxer has opposing pistons firing simultaneously opposing each other, so there is more HP produced and at a quicker and smoother pace." I did not mean to stump you, rather, just understand why some manufacturers are choosing the 5 cylinder, which on the face seems unbalanced to me. At least on the face of it, the 2.5 Four with the larger pistons and heads seems like it might be stronger than one with lighter pistons and an extra cylinder. So, in the above example, is my engine best described as the the martial arts expert? Do you think that higher compression engines lead a shorter life than lower compression motors. My compression ratio on my Four is just over 10 to 1. Hopefully, it's bullet proof long enough to go to 200,000 miles. There are some people in the "high mileage club" who have gone past 300,000 miles. As far as I'm concerned it's always less expensive to repair rather than replace your car. Repairs can sometimes be expensive, but, compared to $400 per month for 60 months makes that decision easier.

Carson, another guy on the forum suggested that the H4 Boxer engines were closely smooth to "Wankel " Rotary engines? I don't have any experience with those engines, but, I've heard they are smooth. Do you agree?

The Wankel engine rotates around in a circle so there is no opposing movement. The V.W. and Subaru both state the Boxer 4 cylinder by design created a vibration due to the two pistons going off at the same time. The 6,8,or 12 cylinder engines can stagger the piston detonation and minimize the opposing vibration. A counter balance weight or harmonic balancer needs to be added to the 4 cylinder Boxer design engines to off set the harmonic vibration, adding to the weight of the engine. The in-line 5 has the pistons firing at a closer ration in rotation so it is not as much vibration as the 4 in- line engine. BMW and I believe Volvo used this engine for a long time. It fit into the engine bay where a large bore 6 cylinder would not. Remember sometimes the car is designed, and then the engineers are given a task to fit an engine in it. The V-12, V-12, and V-16 engines due to the timing of the opposing pistons firing do not have the vibration created in the V-4.6 or 8 engines. That is why Ferrari and others put in V-12 engines even though the total displacement is less that the bigger V-8s and why they can rev higher. Less vibration to shake them apart.

I found this on Wikipedia, for clarification. "In 1896, Karl Benz invented the first internal combustion engine with horizontally opposed pistons.[1] He called it the kontra engine, as the action of each side opposed the action of the other. This design has since been called the "boxer" engine because each pair of pistons moves in and out together, rather like the gloves of a boxer.[3] The boxer engine has pairs of pistons reaching TDC simultaneously.[3] The boxer configuration is the only configuration in common use that does not have unbalanced forces with a four-stroke cycle regardless of the number of cylinders, as long as both banks have the same number of cylinders. They do not require a balance shaft[4] or counterweights on the crankshaft to balance the weight of the reciprocating parts, which are required in most other engine configurations. However, in the case of boxer engines with fewer than six cylinders, unbalanced moments (a reciprocating torque also known as a "rocking couple") are unavoidable due to the "opposite" cylinders being slightly out of line with each other. [3] Other engine configurations with natural dynamic balance include the straight-six, the straight-eight, the V12, and the V16. Boxer engines (and flat engines in general) tend to be noisier than other common engines for both intrinsic and other reasons.[5] In cars, valve clatter from the engine compartment is not damped by air filters or other components" . Another person on this forum suggested that the "smooth features" of the Boxers are a "close second " in smooth operation to the Wankel engine, but, of course, I know that the rotary engine goes in a circle and is not the same technology as boxers. As you can see from the information above, these engines do not use harmonic balancers or counterweights in their design even in the H4 design. The H4 does have a "rocking couple" in the Four , but regardless of this, since they have the same number of cylinders on each side no counterweights or balancer is necessary.

You found my source.

Carson, here's a post I found online from someone in 2008 saying the same thing that Wikipedia said regarding balance on boxer engine from a motor trend forum, so, some consensus here. "Some quick info... Flat engines are shorter than in-line engines, and have a lower center of gravity than any other common configuration. Automobiles and motorcycles powered by a flat engine generally have a lower center of gravity, giving better stability and control. These engines, however, are also wider than more traditional configurations and are more expensive to build. The extra width may cause problems fitting the engine into the engine bay of a front-engined car owing to the interference with the steering wheels, and create cornering problems for a motorcycle. The flat configuration also fits very well with air cooling and aircraft engines. Air-cooled designs such as in the VW Beetle used a flat-4, as did the Porsche 356 and 912. The Chevrolet Corvair used an air-cooled flat-6, a rarity in American designs. Both the older and newer models of the 911 use a flat-6, at first air cooled but later models are water-cooled. These automobiles situate the engine in the rear rather than the front, where its width does not interfere with the steering of the front wheels. Front-mounted air-cooled flat-twin engines were used by Citroën in their model 2CV and its derivatives, while the Citroën GS used a flat-4, and a flat-6 was proposed for the Citroën DS, but rejected. BMW uses an air- cooled or partially oil-cooled flat-twin in many of their motorcycles. All versions of the Subaru Impreza, Forester, Tribeca and Legacy use either a flat-4 or flat-6 engine. ( this includes the Outback as well ) Boxer engines probably got their name because the pistons of the motor, when observed from the top, resemble the fists of a boxer pummeling his opponent. Boxer engines of up to eight cylinders have proved highly successful in both automobiles and motorcycles, and continue to be popular for light aircraft engines. (interesting information ) One benefit of using a boxer engine versus a V-engine is that the design provides good balance because each piston's momentum is counterbalanced by the corresponding piston movement of the opposite side. Boxers are one of only four layouts that have a natural dynamic balance; the others being the straight-6, the V12 and the wankel engine. These engines can run very smoothly and free of vibrations with a four- stroke cycle and do not require a balance shaft or counterweights on the crankshaft to balance the weight of the reciprocating parts, which are required in other engine configurations. Note that this is generally true of boxer engines regardless of the number of cylinders, but not true for all V and straight, or inline engines. However, in the case of two-cylinder boxers, a small "rocking couple" imbalance is unavoidable. This is a consequence of the "opposite" cylinders being not exactly opposite but offset slightly.( so, this rocking couple is only in the two cylinder engine? ) Boxer engines tend to produce more noise than inline and V-engines because valve clatter is not so well dampened due to lack of covering by air-filters and other components, and produce a larger torsional vibration than a V-engine, and so tend to require a larger flywheel. They have a characteristic smoothness throughout the rev range and, combined with the mounting position immediately ahead of the rear axle, offer a low center of gravity and more neutral handling.    --------------------------------------------------------------- Read more: http://forums.motortrend.com/70/6732601/the-general- forum/boxer-engine-in-line-engine-v-type- engine/index.html#ixzz3XrVR0rgn So, apparently there have been comparisons made to the "Wankel " engines.

Yes, I did. And, I found some additional information as well in my last post. Apparently, the rocking couple phenomenon is more prominent in row cylinder boxers. I imagine you these are mostly uses in motorcycles. In any event, I would definitely say that for its size, power output and fuel efficiency, its a pretty good engine. Of course, your big block V8 with 500 to 600 horsepower is much more powerful.

Yes I have said all that. What is your point? You asked the question, now your telling me my answers?

Although it's interesting that the 305 horsepower WRX STI gets only 17 miles per gallon for the 305HP it delivers, not very good. Someone pointed out that 305HP in a Four costs just as much as it would had it been a larger V8 delivering the same 305HP. I guess it all depends if you want to have all that speed and acceleration. Personally, I'd rather have the smooth performance and economy.

So, all in all, in answer to this original question in this thread, there is NO STANDARD FOUR CYLINDER CAR!

Sorry, my point earlier . I was just trying to clarify the confusion about the need for a harmonic balancers or counterweights, the Subaru Boxer engines don't have them Including the H4.

There are several sayings in the car / engine building field. One is "How fast do you want to go? How much money do you have?" The other one is, "The more horse power you have inside your engine, the hotter it runs." That is why the Boxer high performance engines to keep up with the Detroit Iron increased the HP in the Boxer engines. They experienced metal failure contributed to heat or lack of proper cooling. That is why the boxer engines came to be water and or oil cooled. So it was a fine balancing act Porsche, VW and others had to do. Weight, heat, HP, and reliability with economy in mind for the most part. They did a great job is getting there. The opposed boxer engines since the pistons are opposed to each other, the vibrations cancel each other out. Same as in the sound industry. Create a sound wave that is 180- degrees opposed to the offending sound and it will nearly neutralize the offending sound. This is part of the science exhaust header face among other challenges when building/designing the exhaust headers, pipes and mufflers. Now we are getting off into another month long discussion on other facets of car / engine design.

The WRX STI is a speed machine so the gearing is lower, and that takes higher revs and more gas to run. It also is designed to be slippery through the air, adn the down force add additional weight and it takes more gas. So it is built for a reason, economy is not a factor. Want to go fast and save gas at the same time, take a train. The Subaru 4 cylinder has a counterbalance weight to smooth out the vibration, but it is not as big as an in-line or V-4 ,6,8 needs. The 6 cylinder does not have one as the firing order can be adjusted to cancel out the vibrations. Sorry about the little rant earlier. I got up on the grumpy side of the bed, for reasons I will not state here. Not car related, nor family related. And no there is not a standard 4 cylinder car. The motor sometimes is dictated by what the company can make and still be under budget, and also what will work and fit into the car or vehicle.

This is the type of car I learned on.

Carson, sure, no worries on your earlier attitude, hope you're feeling better soon. My only confusion/question was on the counter balance weights issue? Some said it was on the Four vs. the posts I found saying that they didn't have them? So, both cannot be correct. It's not a critical item either way, and I still think the engine is smooth, but, its just an academic question. Now that I'm in my 60s, going fast at super speeds, or getting to 60 in 7 seconds isn't as much as a priority as it was in high school, lol. And, I know that the WRX STI has a pretty harsh ride and I don't need my bladder shaken up by this either. So, I'm perfectly fine with a car that does 0-60 in 9.7 seconds and gets respectable fuel economy. The WRX STI is certainly a niche market and at the price point it's set at, I wouldn't think its a car for high school kids or even twenty somethings unless they come from a well to do families or have a great technology job that pays really well. The WRX STI is the most expensive car Subaru makes and I would think it's probably the most expensive to maintain. And, I agree with you, it's all about how much money you want to throw at this stuff. I think if I were going to spend the full price on the WRX STI, I'd rather have a fully equipped Outback with every option instead. I think my next Outback will have the new Eyesight technology for safety, but, I need to keep my 2010 for a while. So, that was your Dad's old Studebaker or was that your first car in high school. I'll bet you wish you had kept that, collector's car? I'm sure that was a straight 6? Those cars had an ugly body, but, what a conversation piece. You might find this video interesting, https://youtu.be/0_MXK2nzt2Y

My dad had a 1950 Studebaker, than a 1951 Studebaker. We were poor dirt farmer from Iowa. 0-60 hardly never happened on gravel roads. The new C-7 Corvettes are fast and have a smooth ride if so selected on the ride control selector. The C-7 Z-06 is a true beast and not for a high schooler to own, or a young hot shot 20 year old for that matter. As one editor of a car magazine put it,, "If you drive it, you will not get injured, you will get dead." It is that fast, strong, and wicked. It is for those who have driven very fast cars before and understand how to handle a car around the race track. Same as the Subaru WRX STI. These machines are for rich fast and crazy people. At our age, if we can't tow a trailer behind it or carry 2 X 4s from home Depot, we don't need it.

Carson, you are absolutely correct! Unless you're an experienced driver who really knows how to handle speed, just getting behind the wheel of one of these ultra fast cars is dangerous. It's certainly possible to have a too powerful car. These cars are for enthusiasts and people with deep pockets who can maintain them. Here in LA, its a wonder you can get to 60 most of the time let alone get there in less than 5 seconds. Then, there's the matter of stopping; who wants to speed up just that fast just to come to a screeching halt. Not my idea of a good time. More fuel, brakes, transmission stress, tires, tickets (let's not forget that) and accidents that could and do happen. So, like you said, if you can't tow a trailer, boat or pick something up from Home Depot. Someone can go ahead and call us old farts, which we are, but, I'd rather be practical and use the money for more important stuff than just have the bragging rights saying my car has faster acceleration than most. That kind of stuff may have been important once, but, it's not important now, at least to me. If a car, truck or any vehicle does not have a practical purpose, I can live without it.

My four banger GMC Terrain can go as fast as that turbo Carrera in rush hour traffic. 25 to 40 mph tops.

Yes it can ! I get it. Hey, by the way, my brother just got stuck in Arizona with a broken motorcycle chain. The bummer is that he just had a lot of engine work done to the cycle including a new tensioner , but, the shop never put a new chain on that thing. He purchased it from my nephew who burned up the engine at 19,000 miles and it needed an overhaul. Well, he's lucky at 75mph that the thing just broke off, didn't hit him or lock the rear wheels. This is how speed can kill you. He's very lucky, but, you've got to ask why especially young kids don't take care of details/business The bikes in the shop right now and they're checking that out. Have you had any direct experiences with motor cycles, I have never had one?

I'm alive and you ask that question? Yes, but before I was able to buy alcohol. My brother had a CK Harley with a super souped up motor. I had my girlfriend on the rear seat. Iowa two lane highway, slow moving gas truck going up hill. No helmets, no protective gear, mid 60s mentality and too young. Passed the truck at 80, car topped the oncoming hill. Hit the gas, up on one wheel to over 100 to pass. Went 10 more miles and stopped at Henry's gas and lube and dumped a ton of waste. Last time I was on one. My brothers, son in law, and nephews and grand nephews all ride. Chain letting go is bad news. rear tire locking up? Can happen. 4 tires on the ground for me. Done enough stupid thing in my Corvette to know now God was watching out for me for sure.

Carson, you've got that right, stay in your car! Years ago, I remember someone telling me if you ride a motorcycle everyday after five years your number is UP! As far as I'm concerned, it's just too risky. If I want to be on a bike, I'll ride my bicycle. It's a lot easier to deal with at speeds between 12 and 15 mph, and even I'm wearing a helmet.

Did you know that the GMC Terrain is made in Canada, not truly an American car, see this link .http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_Terrain It's interesting that while the parent company of Subaru is in Japan, the Subaru Outback is made in Lafayette, Indiana. So, what's more American? ..

Sorry Carson, here's a statement you wrote a short time ago, unfortunately, it's not correct. "The Subaru 4 cylinder has a counterbalance weight to smooth out the vibration, but it is not as big as an in-line or V-4 ,6,8 needs.  A counter balance weight or harmonic balancer needs to be added to the 4 cylinder Boxer design engines to off set the harmonic vibration, adding to the weight of the engine". Listed below is the official response from Subaru on the Four cylinder engines, I asked them for clarification. Here's the answer I received from them. Hi Mark,I have confirmed with our technical team that there is no counter balance, or harmonic balancer weight on our engines. Should you have any questions in the future, please feel free to contact us at 1-800-SUBARU3 (1-800-782-2783). Thank you! -Cara Palumbo Subaru of America, Inc.

By the way, in case you are wondering, I specifically asked them about the Four cylinder engines like the one in my 2010 Subaru Outback 2.5 Limited and even provided them my VIN number. The car does not have the counter balance weights or harmonic balancer.

hi

Enjoy the read? Sometime we have nothing to do but a lot to say.