front vs mid vs rear engine
12-30-2001, 11:16 PM
#3
Re: front vs mid vs rear engine (DCDeCell)
It depends on the application. Porsche 911's are no longer ill-handling because of the rear engine. Wiessach engineer's fixed that about 10 years ago. Of course adding the 4 wheel drive helps too.
Most mid engine applications are just the rear engine swapped around with the transaxle in the rear and the engine forward of the rear axle.
1 layout you omitted was the front engine / rear transaxle like on the Porsche 928 / 944 / 968 and the C5.
Actually the C5 is a mid engine (behind front wheels) mid trans axle layout, which is a main factor in the awsume handling in the C5.
Most mid engine applications are just the rear engine swapped around with the transaxle in the rear and the engine forward of the rear axle.
1 layout you omitted was the front engine / rear transaxle like on the Porsche 928 / 944 / 968 and the C5.
Actually the C5 is a mid engine (behind front wheels) mid trans axle layout, which is a main factor in the awsume handling in the C5.
12-31-2001, 12:42 AM
#4
Race Director
Re: front vs mid vs rear engine (Gary2KC5)
I like the mid engine layout. This setup offers great handling and an awesome driving experience hearing the engine right behind your head. The drawback like you said, is its not very easy to access.
12-31-2001, 01:20 AM
#5
Team Owner
Member Since: Jul 2001
Location: Various places in California. Not currently aflame.
Posts: 20,510
Received 634 Likes
on
392 Posts
Re: front vs mid vs rear engine (DCDeCell)
All of these configurations have their positives and negatives. Rear-engined Porsches handle well, but so do mid-engined Ferraris, but so do front-engined Ferraris. It's all in the details.
One big benefit (at least in racing) with a mid engine configuration is that the car will turn more quickly, due to the car's lower polar moment of inertia. Think about how a figure skater can speed up a spin by bringing her arms in to her body and slow that same spin by spreading her arms out. What she is doing is reducing, then increasing her polar moment of inertia.
Rear engine cars have some advantages too, especially in traction with more weight over the drive wheels. This same rear weight bias also helps in braking, since it leaves more weight at the rear wheels for more even braking.
For simplicity's sake, however, the front (or front-mid) engine with a transmission in the rear is hard to beat, especially for the road.
:cool:
One big benefit (at least in racing) with a mid engine configuration is that the car will turn more quickly, due to the car's lower polar moment of inertia. Think about how a figure skater can speed up a spin by bringing her arms in to her body and slow that same spin by spreading her arms out. What she is doing is reducing, then increasing her polar moment of inertia.
Rear engine cars have some advantages too, especially in traction with more weight over the drive wheels. This same rear weight bias also helps in braking, since it leaves more weight at the rear wheels for more even braking.
For simplicity's sake, however, the front (or front-mid) engine with a transmission in the rear is hard to beat, especially for the road.
:cool:
12-31-2001, 03:24 PM
#7
Racer
Re: front vs mid vs rear engine (DCDeCell)
Like some of the others have said; they all have their pros and cons. As an owner of a mid engine (Pont. Fiero), a front engine, and now a C5 I can attest to some of the pros and cons.
The Fiero is an excellent handling and accelerating car. The mid engine gives it near 50-50 weight ratio (it is more biased to the rear). The rear weight bias gave the car very good traction for moving (it was my "daily driver" while in college in Laramie, WY so it saw alot of snow and ice). It also was very easy (and therefore fun) to spin cookies :jester . The downsides were access to engine components (three spark plugs are very easy to change; the others you have to do by feel) and the ease of "swapping ends" (on an icy hill you could wind up facing backwards real easy).
Front engine cars con's are self evident. The pros are the easy access to engine components (at least in theory).
As much fun as the Fiero is, the C5 runs circles around it. In my opinion, the C5 gives you the best of all worlds; it has the balance and feel of a mid-engine and fairly easy access to engine components.
FWIW, while in college I knew an individual that had a rear-engine Porsche. His take on this arrangement was similar to mine on the Fiero. His was more prone to swap ends than the Fiero due to more rear weight bias. This tendency to "swap ends" scared him so much that he refused to drive it in bad weather :(
I hope this helps answer your question :cheers:
The Fiero is an excellent handling and accelerating car. The mid engine gives it near 50-50 weight ratio (it is more biased to the rear). The rear weight bias gave the car very good traction for moving (it was my "daily driver" while in college in Laramie, WY so it saw alot of snow and ice). It also was very easy (and therefore fun) to spin cookies :jester . The downsides were access to engine components (three spark plugs are very easy to change; the others you have to do by feel) and the ease of "swapping ends" (on an icy hill you could wind up facing backwards real easy).
Front engine cars con's are self evident. The pros are the easy access to engine components (at least in theory).
As much fun as the Fiero is, the C5 runs circles around it. In my opinion, the C5 gives you the best of all worlds; it has the balance and feel of a mid-engine and fairly easy access to engine components.
FWIW, while in college I knew an individual that had a rear-engine Porsche. His take on this arrangement was similar to mine on the Fiero. His was more prone to swap ends than the Fiero due to more rear weight bias. This tendency to "swap ends" scared him so much that he refused to drive it in bad weather :(
I hope this helps answer your question :cheers:
