Having never driven an I6, rotary, or boxer, what is the benefit

They don't require as much harmonic damping / balancing (which slightly increase the weight of rotating engine parts; slightly reducing power output), but you won't notice a difference.

t. mechanical engineer grad (working as a 'software engineer' though).

In a modern car it's pretty marginal because modern technology does a pretty good job at mitigating such defects.

It used to matter more. I'd say these days it's more important to worry about reliability or set up and handling.

>>17074293
This. I drive a v6 and compared to an i6 there's relatively little shaking. (V6 was transverse so shaking would be front to back however.)

File: WP_20170201_001.jpg (1MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2688x1520px

Shakes like a dance floor although it may have something to do with the gearbox.

once the engine revs though it smooths out big time.

You don't realize how rough an I4/V6 is until you don't have one. There zero vibration, shake, and creaking of motor mounts in a rotary in an I6. It's hard to describe why it feels better, it just *does*

>>17074364
I remember when I had a 90s Subaru a friend was sleeping against a window and then asked if the car was running and why it wasn't shaking and knocking his head.

I told him about boxer engines and he asked why everybody else didn't do that. But that was in a cheap 90s car. What I will say for it is that it you did notice the weight in front was down lower and didn't swing around like the rear.

>>17074230
They last longer

>>17074364
modern i4 with counter balance shafts and engine mounts worth a shit are pretty good. If i'm not paying attention i will forget what gear i'm in my 01 saab and be cruising around at 4000rpm. In my old saab, sans balance shafts, i would know. My s130 and s30 were both very smooth.

The only way i can tell what rpm im at in my i6 is by sound or looking at the rev counter

>>17074293
This with a caveat.
V6's, by and large, are perfectly balanced when given a 60* V angle like the GM 60* V6, High Value V6, or High Feature V6. or the Nissan VQ series.

>>17074230
Wait, there's benefits to not having a loud gargling V8?
I can't even imagine how awful it must be to drive in such silence. Like driving an electric car.

>>17077531
>Rotary
>Quiet
Top kek.

File: 18lgkae41gmr7gif.gif (1MB, 635x357px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 635x357px

>>17074230
when you get it in it you'll know. Also its way safer to rev to 8000+ in an inline 6.

>>17077558
this is blue board...

>>17076115
You know what I always thought was rad? There was some racecar or other where they figured on using a 120* V6, which is its natural angle. Coupled with a dry sump, that let them run the exhaust headers on bottom no lower than the crank case, and gave the whole shebang a lower center of gravity than a 180* design.

Pretty slick.

>>17074230
It might be hard to believe but the benefits of a smooth or "perfectly balanced" engine is you get an engine that's "perfectly balanced" and smooth. It's a stretch I know, but trust me on this one.

>>17074230

Subaru engines like the FA20, while loud and not refined at low rpm, are pretty smooth and breathy at high rpm. Like so much that I can just ignore the revs and keep a stable chassis with all the engine braking I could need. Also the subaru ads claim that the lower center of gravity prevents upper wobble of the engine through a corner, stays balanced.

>>17077558
>>17079634
this

too lewd