Talk:Flat engine

message: If there are two definitions of a V-engine then we should explain that, and then we should just be clear which one we are using in each case. This article and the V-engine article are very confusing. --Gbleem 20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two definitions

message: I copied information from the wikipedia page on 180 V engines to further show the difference between, a V engine and a "boxer" flat engine. This also helps the articles be inline with each other in content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lossy (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardising

message: A mechanic recently explained to me several deficiencies in this engine.  These include the oil pooling on one side of the engine and the combustion of the gas, which is injected into the cylinder, occurring primarily on one side of the piston.  This results in a slight impact of the piston on the cylinder wall on ever power stroke.  Eventually, this causes a decrease in engine life as the piston tends to go through the cylinder wall.  I don't even know where to obtain professional verifiable sources for this but would welcome anyone expanding on this or finding sources for this.  Andrew M. (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Engine deficiencies

message: This article has a huge gap in that it hardly more than mentions in passing the biggest use of horizontally opposed piston engines in general aviation and particularly fails to mention the two biggest manufacturers of these types of engines - Lycoming Engines and Teledyne Continental Motors. The only example of a horizontally opposed aircraft engine in the article is a small ultralight engine from a relatively obscure manufacturer. Roger (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. WP:BOLD - add it. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lycoming and Continental "O" aircraft engines 

message: The animated gif does not represent even a stylized boxer crankshaft. There is no identifying the center of axis of rotation. The backmost plate of the three doesn't even make sense. Temblast (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It could certainly benefit from being re-done, but I'd keep it until there's something better. It does illustrate the piston and con rod movement usefully, even though the pistons have different strokes too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation needs to be redone 

message: The article is sadly lacking in sources... and we all know what that means:  it's largely conjecture and original research.  Not good.  Who will clean up the article?  842U (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The following paragraph from the article:
Boxer engines have been used successfully, with up to twelve(1) cylinders in automobiles and up to six cylinders in motorcycles.  Multi-cylinder boxer layouts are common for light aircraft engines.(2)(3)
is not referenced well at all:
# - twelve 
# -  
# - 
Reference #1: I have seen many, many stupid things in my lifetime, but I will have to search hard to find something more stupid than the word "twelve" given as a reference to verify a statement.
Reference #2: Quote from this site: "...the flat boxermotor (the German term for flat engine) has been powering some of the world’s best known automobiles (Porsche, Volkswagen’s Beetle and Kombi f’rinstance), motorcycles (Honda’s Goldwing and BMW’s mainstay Boxer range) and aircraft (Lycoming and Continental) ever since." This statement does not verify anything in the given passage, and no other statement at the site even comes close.
There is, however, another statement at the site that makes one wonder about its reliability: "In 1896, when Karl Benz patented the first internal combustion engine..." By 1896, Benz, Daimler (Cannstatt), Peugeot, and Panhard had all made cars with internal combustion engines in them!
Reference #3: This is a press release about Hirth's line of UAV engines and says nothing at all about the use of boxer engines in motorcycles, automobiles or aircraft.
I am going to remove these citations because they don't verify anything the paragraph says.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truly poor referencing 

message: I propose that the "Automotive use" section be sub-sectioned as follows:
;Drivetrain layouts
Layouts normally used with flat engines. This would feature the compact layouts (FF and RR) and the four-wheel-drive derivatives of these layouts. Mention would be made of MR (Porsche, Ferrari, Jiotto Capista) and of FR layouts (Tatra, Toyota). (Is there any documentation to show that flat engines are almost universally mounted longitudinally?)
;Air cooling
Mention the many examples of air-cooled flat engines in cars.
;History
Filter out what's in the list and try to build a coherent history from it. (I've been trying to do that in the "Automotive use" section thus far) A possible further section of this would be a general "Up to World War II" section and a post-war section further divided into countries: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, US, and "Rest of the world". UK (Jowett) and US (Corvair) could probably be lumped into "Rest of the world"; Japan (Toyota and Subaru) probably could too, but the Subaru fans would disagree strongly.
;Current users
Porsche and Subaru, with mention of the Lykan HyperSport.
Any objections? Suggestions? Counter-proposals?
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of "Automotive use" section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flat engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219232421/http://fgwcf.org/rever/debut_legende.asp to http://fgwcf.org/rever/debut_legende.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The second sentence of the second paragraph
The flat-twelve in the 917 model is a 180° V 12 engine and later Followed by Ferrari Berlinetta Boxer (BB 512) used 180 degree Flat 12 for Le Mans to compete with Porsche but Ferrari BB 512 used on road going cars unlike Porsche.
does not make sense and needs some rephrasing.
Frikdt (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Section 4.3.1 

message: The article originally had "Compared with straight engines— the most common layout for engines with four cylinders or less— flat engines have better ...". In September, an editor removed the "for engines with four cylinders or less" to make it just "Compared with straight engines— the most common layout — flat engines have better". The part about straight engines being the most common is a bold statement that may or may not be true but is totally unsourced. Straight engines are indeed quite common - but are they truly the most common ? As NiD.29 said in his edit summary, it was probably true in the 1930's. Is is still true today? Is it still true if all engines ever made were totalled up? Ships certainly like their straight 6 engines. So do trucks. Trains have been a mix of straights and V's. Planes started with inline engines but flat engines are also very common in non-jet planes. Motorbikes like mostly V-twin's, boxer twins and inline 4's. Cars are all over the place with V-twins, flat twins, inline 3's, inline 4's, flat 4's, VR 5's, inline-6's, V6's, V8's, V10's, ,V12's, V16's, W16's. In other words - it's not obvious and needs a reference. Or, better yet, just delete it because it's not really that important to this article.  Stepho  talk  11:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  most common