It's the end of an era...

get a double cab dodge with a 6.5 litre diesel in it or something then :) there are some, my trip to florida i spotted a 300d merc on a driveway!

A C63 AMG of course. What kind of a stupid question is that?

Note the country suffix... (Plenty of other links on Google though).

Strange that, around the same time, they used Lycoming engines in their planes.....

It's a bit of an oddity.

Maybe I'm wrong, then.

ETA:

Most google links are for aero conversions of car engines.

"Tim S Kemp" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Umm, neither, they're both taxis?

Yea, I quite often jump in an AMG Merc on the way home from town.

Off over the pond then?

Have you been talking to Charlie? :)

Kinda like Wales, except Wales is a lot smaller.

Hell yeah! :)

Maybe. Trick is to balance mileage covered with pence per mile. If I worked in York five days a week I'd be tempted to run a V8. :)

Yes, but if I didn't like it I wouldn't have bought it... and if I trusted the Italian 1.9 donk I'd have had one of those, no problem.

It's Saab-ish enough in the bits that counts - seat comfort, ease of use. It's also modern too. The interior is an interesting mix of the new and the old.

It does feel sluggish, though. The gearing is marginally taller than the TiD in most of the gears, so with less torque it delivers less power than the TiD until it reaches somewhere over 3,500 rpm or so.

Yea, the main one - the Enfellegger thing or whatever it's called - being a modified Sube lump.

Subaru has its roots in the Aircraft industry, that's true - but I think the statement "subaru engines are in fact aircraft engines" had a little bit of poetic licence attached to it...

Their "old" one's -read 4 cilinders- were, the new 6 cilinder is the standard Subaru Legacy engine on which a PSRU (Prop Speed Reduction Unit) is bolted. A propeller may not turn faster than around 2500 - 2700 RPM or the tips gets supersonic, rendering it useless because air caracteristics changes quite dramatically.

I don't like those reductions (either by belt or gearbox) because of the added weight and complexity. Strangely enough even Merc Benz (Thielert Aero Engines) hasn't come up with a faultless PSRU. They "certifie" an engine 2000 hours before it has to be overhauled but IRL the PSRU fails after 200-300 Hours, Rotax idem.

Poetic licence is for poets, I am a technician.

The original Subaru engine was indeed aero-engines but they proved not powerfull enough (at 2500 RPM) or needing the dreaded PSRU. So Subaru switched to proven certified engines (of which there are but 3 makes ,all designed in the Stone Age. They cost per revised unit (so not a new one!) the total of an arm, a leg and a kidney. They are all fueled by liquid gold which 98% of the time is stressed less to regular petrol).

The Subaru engine soldiered on and found a home in cars just like some F1-engines found a aerodyne-place to live in. (the V6 Tag Honda Turbo- engines are in not too far away form found in choppers)

Development went on and also the Sub-engines became heavier, received overhead camshafts, timing belts and all the stuff interesting for a "low life, low reliability"- automotif engine but pretty useless down to damned annoying in a plane where 1 engine failure often means the end of aircraft and quite possibly the pilot.

Comes now this boxer diesel engine, not that heavy, with a timing chain, which can be lighted and is turbood as standard (so torquecurve can be moved by fiddling with the turbo)... 150 HP@2500 RPM obtainable and Jet grade A1 fuel (kind of diesel but close to no taxes) making flying a fair bit cheaper with an added bonus of extended range.

For those out there -I know you exist!!- having bought a Subara Legacy Diesel: crash it. I need such an engine! Oh yes: crash it from the rear side for obvious reasons. ;-)

Tom De Moor

I don't doubt it (and for the record I'll take your word over most people's in here as it's one of the only voices of sanity). But your original statement sort of implied that Subaru engines were just as happy in a plane as in a car "as is" (which is obviously not the case - by your own admission). That's all I meant.

I've always found Scoob lumps to be pretty lacking in low down torque as standard, especially under 3,500 - never mind under your desired figure of 2,500 (Mine didn't do anything particularly interesting until >

The original Subaru-engines were, their only difference to the Subaru aircraft engine was the different camshaft, the other carbs and the rear part with attachments for the gearbox (the rear part of the automotif engine is in a "puller" plane the front part).

From there on Subaru made more money with cars than with aeroplanes (even Porsche never succeeded mastering all the hurdles for an aero- version on the flat 6) and things evolved. They went higher in RPM and became heavier.

But basicly the modern Subaru engine needs very few converted parts to become aero-engines again. They are used in experimentals and homebuilds, outperforming in performance and money spent the Lycomings, Continental and other Rolls Royces.

I rate them a fair bit higher than the Rotax-engine which has now become almost obliged for small planes.

Tom De Moor