Jump to content
Ultimate Subaru Message Board

Recommended Posts

I'll Try my Best to Shorten this Very Long Story:  :) 

Today, I Was Drivin' my Weberized "BumbleBeast" Wagon in the Parking Lot of a Huge Shoppin' Mall, when an Old Gentleman Started to Yell at me: "Stop!, Hey You Stop!" ...  :o ... He Took me by Surprise and I Was about to Park my Wagon nearby, so I Did it and the old man approached Saying:

"...That's a Really Beautiful Old Subaru you Have..." and he Started to ask me Questions about How did I manage to Fit Those Rims in the Subie, also about the Engine's Deep & Loud Sound; Very Kindly I explained some Details... "Weber Carb, I Knew it!"  he Said...

Long Story Short: He accompanied me to do my errands while we were Talking about Old Subarus for around a Couple of Hours... even we ate lunch Together.

Resulted that He was the Master Mechanic at the Local Dealer's Repair Shop Long time Ago
(Late 1970's to Late 1980's) and he had the opportunity to go in 1983 to FHi in Japan for Training Purposes.

Also he Said that at the Training's end, the Japaneses took the Students for a some sort of "Tour" around their Factories, including their Research & Development areas; he saw some Prototypes and some Engines; also many other Things...

He Said that the Third Gen Subaru Leone
(Usually Known here as "Loyale" or EA82) was selling in Japan since 1983 but the Japaneses wanted a New Engine to suit the New Car before Launch it Worldwide.

 

Well, Looking to the Subaru's History, you can Confirm the date of first Launch of that Model...

 

 

 

Loyalein1981.jpg


 

...they were in the Development of the New Engine for that car; He said that they originally wanted a 2.0L Engine to be their "Top of the Line" Engine for that Model and the Very First Developments were going on that Way, With the USA Market on Mind as their First Costumer.


They Already got the EA81 that was 1.8L so, to Make a Newer EA Engine with the Same Displacement does not make any Sense, Right?

But their Problems were two:

First the SOA's Old Campaign that sounded since 1975: 'Inexpensive and built to stay that way' the Bigger Displacement engine would Killed the "Stay inexpensive" Idea by increasing Fuel Consumption...

And Second: the EA Engine Design Platform was Pushed somehow to its Limits... especially with the addition of a Turbo.

So, the Japaneses Built the EA82 as we Know it, Basically Their novelty was the new implementation of Timing Belts.  :mellow:
 

The Old Man Shared many more Stories with me, but that about the 2.0L EA engine was the Most interesting to Share here... After some errands together and a awesome lunch time, we've talked for hours, He Left the Place with a Big Smile in his Face, going to do what I Did with my Subaru "BumbleBeast": to Change the Lug Pattern, to fit "Standard" Rims on his Old Subaru Leone...

 

Kind Regards.

Edited by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you Know where Did Subaru Based their first EA engine Design?

Yes, is Based on a German car but No, it is Not the VolksWagen.

It is the "ARABELLA" made by "Borgward / Lloyd" in Germany.

Subaru based its "Subaru 1000"
(FF-1 / Star) Design on it.


inspiration.jpg



BoghwardArabellaEngine.jpg


That info was Posted 
here Before, by Kiwi Subie, as you can Read:
~► Here.




LloydArabellaEngineinColour.jpg


But now you can Confirm the Bogward-Subaru Relation in the Official Bogward's Website:


http://www.borgward.org.uk/brief_history_marques.htm

Read it at the End of the Third Paragraph...

Edited by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is very interesting. It does make sense though - since the EJ was developed as a 2.0 from the beginning. They eventually came to the conclusion that it was going to take a redesign to keep the fuel economy down I suppose...

 

Really cool how he was friendly like that - having obviously never met you. I Wish people were like that in the US..... people here have no time for being friendly and having lunch with someone they just met off the street. Too bad....

 

GD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. In Colorado I have been approached many times in my Brat(s) by former Subaru techs from the 80's. Got a few neat factory tools over the years from one of them.

Some have been a little off their rockers but otherwise nice guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Subaru Still Needed a New Engine and a New Designed Car to Compete in the Modern Market, they Wanted to get Rid of the Aging EA Platform.

The creation of the Legacy was influenced by Subaru's desire to Compete with Successful Japanese carmakers Toyota, Nissan and Honda; and the Legacy was Targeted against the Camry, Stanza, and Accord.

The Legacy was Considered Mainstream in its Appearance and a Departure from previous vehicles, which had earned a Reputation of being "quirky".

So, by the Time when they were Developing the EA82 in Japan, Subaru asked to the Vehicle Research institure, of the Western Washington University,
(VRi WWU) to Develop a Brand New Boxer Engine, more capable and reliable than the EA Series.

... at the time WWU got the contract, the EA82 was aready in development. When Dr. Seal went to Japan, the EA82 was already in production. So WWU used that EA81 as a start for the next gen OHC engines for Subaru, if you look at the belt layout, you'll see something similar to the EJ single belt design, not the two belt design of the EA82. ...



Yes, the VRi Developed Three Engines for Subaru, one Became the Very First Prototype of the Actual EJ Engines Series, the Other one was Powered by Natural Gas Somehow, and the Third one was the EA81D ... Yes, a Diesel EA81.



 

The First Subaru Boxer Diesel engine, that Powered the VRi's "Viking V" Vehicle:

VikingVDescription.jpg

as you can Read Above.

Edited by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...people here have no time for being friendly and having lunch with someone they just met off the street. ...

 

...nice guys.

 

People here Trend to be very Friendly, much more if you have Something in Common.

 

Especially if it is an Old-School Subaru!

 

... you know ... Subarus trend to make Friendly Connections, Somehow ... :burnout:

Edited by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. In Colorado I have been approached many times in my Brat(s) by former Subaru techs from the 80's. Got a few neat factory tools over the years from one of them.

Some have been a little off their rockers but otherwise nice guys.

 

Probably due to their supreme rareity there. It's still not common to see them here but was more-so when I was driving mine around. Been a few years. I did get approached on occasion but nothing like what most people here talk about.

 

GD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some USMB Friends have been There, Doin' That ...
 

Got an e-mail from Dr. Seal, he said that they did three engines for Subaru, one eventually became the 2.2 in the Legacy, so that engine has NW roots, maybe that's why it is so dependable. ...



...I also have a blurry picture of a set of EA81 heads that were modified to diesel. When talking to the current prof of the VRi (the program I'm in) he said that the EA81 diesel ran like crap.



I Wish I Could studied There ...

Edited by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another View of the Arabella's Flat Four Engine:

Arabella_Engine.jpg


I've posted Before the Relation Between Subaru and the WWU's VRi in the Past,

 

Look at post Nº 359 of this Thread:

~► Here: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/topic/50983-strange-and-weird-subaru-stuff/page-15?do=findComment&comment=765610

Kind Regards.

Edited by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... So WWU used that EA81 as a start for the next gen OHC engines for Subaru, if you look at the belt layout, you'll see something similar to the EJ single belt design, not the two belt design of the EA82. ...

See this Picture, the EJ engine Prototype, based on the EA81:

 

(notice the Single Timin' Belt for both heads)

 

 

SubaruQuadCamEA81-VRi.jpg

Edited by Loyale 2.7 Turbo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arabella_Engine.jpg?t=1295251836

 

I own many engines similar to this. There was another company off from Borgward / Lloyd. There was the Goliath. I happen two own one. The were horribly unreliable mine only made if 14k before it was parked and is now another one of my many projects, but I think the best rout to go would be to put an ea81 in it an be done with it.

 

1-9.jpg?t=1295272142

 

It's an 1100cc h4 with about 46 hp. I have one of the rare dual carb setups that had 63 hp! Also mine is the only wagon in the US know to have a sliding canvass roof!

 

-SB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did we all not know this before? Good point of discovery, since i just read that an ej20 has the same bore diameter as the 1.8 ea81/82.

 

It would be nice to see a history writeup if enough research can be done, and enough material discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had heard of the Borgward connection back in the earl 1980's... IIRC, it was in an article/road test of a Subaru EA81 in Road & Track Magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lloyd ancestory of the Subaru engine has been talked about on this board before. I've known about it as far back as when I joined this forum back on EZ-Board. It's not really discussed much though. Mostly it's brought up when someone thinks that Subaru is somehow related to the VW boxer. They are completely different animals though and being water cooled the Subaru pushrod EA series has much more in common with the Lloyd.

 

But yeah - descended from the German design..... back when the Germans actually made stuff that wasn't *too* complex.

 

GD

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subaru has always acknowledged they looked at many engines before building their own flat four. This is nothing new as many Japanese (automotive) companies looked to European designs for their inspiration in the 1950s and 1960s. Following on from them where the Koreans and now, of course, the Chinese manufacturers.

 

However, the idea the Lloyd Arabella engine is somehow the prototype for the Subie engine is nothing but urban myth. They actually share nothing but their flat four (boxer) configuration and aluminium construction. Just like numerous other flat fours which were produced in Europe at that time. Indeed Subaru would have looked at nearly all of those before designing their own 1000cc engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the idea the Lloyd Arabella engine is somehow the prototype for the Subie engine is nothing but urban myth. ...

 

Have you Read the Post Nº 2 on This Thead?

 

 

 

...

But now you can Confirm the Bogward-Subaru Relation in the Official Bogward's Website:

 

http://www.borgward.org.uk/brief_history_marques.htm

 

Read it at the End of the Third Paragraph.

 

 

 

So, if you Follow the Link, at the Third Paragraph's end, you can read:

 

it resulted in Lloyd managing to develop a new 900cc flat four water-cooled engine ... Subaru actually used the Lloyd powerplant as a prototype for its boxer engines in Japan.

 

There was Licensing. No Urban Myth at All.

 

Kind Regards.

Edited by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loyal 2.7 Turbo we will have to 'agree to disagree' on that point! Please do not take offense as none is intended.

 

If the Lloyd engine was the prototype for the Subaru flat four then why are they completely different internally? In the Lloyd engine the camshaft is vertically above the crankshaft, whereas on the Subaru engine it is below, driven by a steel pinion meshing with an aluminium one.

 

As previously stated Subaru acknowledges they looked at the Arabella and its engine, however they do not acknowledge there was any licensing. Why would Subaru want to hide this? IF there was a licensing agreement with Lloyd (or Borgward) people would be able to find this information easily. It cannot be found as it does not exist!

 

A brief history of Borgward online does not constitute proof the Lloyd engine was the Subaru protoype. Fuji Heavy Industries also appears to be (in the early 1960s) a far larger concern than the Goliath-Hansa-Lloyd-Borgward concern ever was, so it is hard to believe Subaru needed their engineering expertise! Nakajima Aircraft Company anyone?

 

Subaru was and still is an engineering firm. The idea they were incapable of designing and building their own flat four makes no sense, both emotionally and mentally!

 

Cheers

Lee

Edited by Leeroy
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loyal 2.7 Turbo we will have to 'agree to disagree' on that point! Please do not take offense as none is intended. ...

 

No Problem  :)

 

I Know that there's not easy to Find Old information accurately on internet... But Lots of Sites trend to not only say the Bogwards-Subaru Conection on the Engine Design, but also in other Engineering.

 

In Example: Here is a Great Website with Lots of information and Technical Data about the Subaru 1000:

 

~► http://http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/car_info_subaru_1000.htm

 

 

 

This is an Extract of the Massive Article:

 

Fuji Engineers Admit Similarities

 

At the time the Subaru engineers at Fuji admitted that they had investigated the Lloyd as research for their own car, but apart from the engine claimed only the front suspension was like that of the Arabella. Both employed double wishbones to leave the hub clear to take the drive through to the wheel, but the Subaru used leading torsion bars instead of coil springs, worked by the upper wishbone.

 

On the Subaru there was a self-supporting front sub-frame which included angled forward facing struts to support the front ends of the torsion bars and a kinked outrigger to support the top end of the telescopic damper which bolted at its lower end to the trailing side of the upper wishbone. The torsion bar formed the pivot pin for the upper wishbone with a quick adjustment for ride height. The lower wishbone was a steel pressing with a forged arm carrying the lower ball-joint bolted to it with slots allowing for camber adjustment. The rack and pinion steering was ahead of the hubs (on the Arabella it was behind).

 

 

Kind Regards.

Edited by Loyale 2.7 Turbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×