http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/27/rendered-for-your-pleasure-subaru-wrx-powered-kickboxer-motorcy/ There's a longstanding tradition of using horizontally-opposed boxer engines in motorcycles – and not just from BMW – the flat configuration has found a home in a slew of two-wheelers ranging from Russia's Ural to the current Honda Goldwing. So, it's not too much of a stretch to wonder how Subaru's well-known flat-four engine would work in a bike. At least one man has decided to find out. According to The Kneeslider, Ian McElroy taught himself Solidworks just so he could create the KickBoxer motorcycle concept, which marries the aforementioned liquid-cooled boxer engine from Subaru to a futuristic motorcycle chassis that features single-sided swingarms front and rear along with hub-center steering. We're not entirely sold on some of the details, but it sure looks like fun. Even a bone-stock turbocharged WRX powerplant should equal a rather favorable power-to-weight ratio, wouldn't you say? At this point, the KickBoxer exists only on paper and computer files, but McElroy says he'd love to see the machine put into small-scale production. As would we.
Crazy. I can just imagine the amount of heat blowing over your legs with the engine block sitting like that.
Unfortunately unlikely to be a very good motorcycle. There is a long tradition of wedging car engines in bikes (e.g. Amazonas, Boss Hoss) and unfortunately none have proven to be anything other than caricatures of the more is more end of biking. Car engines are too heavy, not compactly enough packaged and too torque heavy to make sense for bikes. A primary advantage of a motorcycle over a car is weight, so bikes work a lot better with less torque and more horsepower biased power bands. This is clearly demonstrated by current liter bikes which bone stock put out 160rwhp, but only 90 or so ft. lbs of torque. In bikes which weigh 440lbs wet you get a sub 3 sec. 0-60, sub 10 sec. quarter mile and 180 mph top speed for around $12K list. You won't get these results as well as handling using a car engine for power. The specific output of these naturally aspirated engines make WRX engines look weak, but if you take the motorcycle approach to power in a car, you end up with a Honda S2000. Ray
You're dumb as balls. "Side heavy" doesn't make any sense. The center of gravity is lower than inline motors or a big v-twin that sits much further up in a bike.
At this point, on this bike, I guarantee it weighs three times as much as a 1000cc inline, so where all that weight is really doesnt matter. Its neat but dumb.
and IMO that engine is on par with a normal inline 4 when it comes to placement. I think it would be quite heavy....I'll use this ZRX as my proof.
yeah, I got an idea.... lets put the intercooler out of the air stream so the end tank splits the air and diverts it from the finned heat transfer portion of the intercooler.... Wait, he beat me to it.
I'm not denying that its a heavy bike, by no means. All I'm saying is that its not tippy or a handfull. That is all.
Look at the placement of the engine vs the handlebars vs the gas-tank on the wrx bike. Then on the ZRX. The wrx bike IS going to be tippier, look at how high the motor sits, MUCH higher then it needed to be. Does the bike really have to have the retarded single sided swingarm in the FRONT?
I was talking about the Rune, not the WRX bike which I agree would be ugly to ride. Little miss communication...
No, the rune looks freaking sweet! And the engine is definatly sitting low low. Ide ride the wheels off of it.
