You Probably Already Own a Front/Mid Engined Car

"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
06/28/2018 at 19:00 • Filed to: engine layout, layout, terminology, cutaways

Is it merely splitting hairs to call a car “front/mid-engined”? Is that not just a variation of front-engined layouts? I believe that front/mid-engine layouts !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , and they’re a LOT more common than most people realize...

For the longest time, I thought of front/mid-engine cars as not being appreciably different enough from a regular front-engine layout to earn their own category. It seemed like just some BS excuse to try to explain what makes certain sports cars so special.

But my argument was based on the wrong thing. I was too hung up on the compartment order (engine compartment - passenger compartment- cargo compartment) that I was losing sight of the fact that the definition was supposed to be about engine location in relation to the chassis.

This Audi is so front-engined, that it hurts.

Not just the chassis itself, but where the engine is, in relation to the wheels. A front-engined car has the engine ahead of the front “axle”. Rear-engined cars follow a similarly obvious rule. And if the engine is between the front and rear wheels, well then it’s mid-engined. Duh.

But what does it mean to combine two of these categories? How can a car be both front-engined and mid-engined at the same time? An engine can (and often does) straddle the front axle. So how do you determine whether it’s front, mid, or front/mid?

You HAVE to draw the line somewhere. But where? Does the engine have to be completely, distinctly behind the front wheels (like a Previa) to qualify as mid-engined? Can you not overlap the wheels, just a little? How much of the axle does it have to be behind? I can think of no better place to draw the axle line than the centerline of the wheels.

Ah, but how much of the engine has to be behind that point to qualify? The whole thing? What about the drive belt(s) and accessories? Does it no longer count as front/mid if one lousy inch of the block hangs over the wheel centerline?

Well that doesn’t seem fair at all. If most of the mass is concentrated between the front and rear axles, how can that not be (at least partly) mid-engined?

Besides, why do we even have these categories? Why do we obsess over there being a difference between front-engine and front/mid-engine at all? It’s about weight, isn’t it? The engine weighs a lot, and the location of that mass matters . When we talk about mid-engined cars as having better inherent balance than front-engined cars, we’re talking about weight distribution. Putting the bulk of that mass behind the front wheels (or ahead of the rear wheels) grants a distinct advantage. So much so, that these layouts deserve their own category.

There are so many different cars, with so many variations of where the engine is in relation to the wheels, that you’ve got to draw the line somewhere. And I can’t think of a better place to draw that line than wheel centerline and engine block centerline. Yes, we could get into center-of-mass, taking the accessories into account, but we could just as easily start talking about transmission placement too. Since we’re not discussing front- or rear-transmissioned cars, it’s a lot simpler to just focus on the engine and look for the center of the block instead.

And look, I feel just as weird about calling my pickup truck “front/mid-engine” as you probably do. I have no interest in bragging about my plain old truck as being something special just because six out of eight cylinders happen to fall behind the front axle centerline.

In fact, that’s exactly what I’m trying to avoid here. “Mid-engined” and “front/mid-engined” are not special terms set aside exclusively for sports cars. These only describe engine location, nothing more. There are probably a surprising amount of cars that are at least partially mid-engined. Some cars are just more mid-engined than others.

But what exactly does it mean to say that a car is front/mid-engined, as opposed to front or mid ? If the centerline of the block and the centerline of the axle are used to pinpoint the exact location as front, mid, or rear, then why do we have to concern ourselves with an overlap that we have the precision to avoid?

Because the order of compartments still matters. Even if the engine is technically mid-ship, it rarely gets to be at the actual middle of the car. That spot is often already taken by the passenger cabin, which has pretty good reasons for being in the middle of the car itself. In most cases, the engine MUST fall either behind, or ahead of the driver.

Is it still mid-engined? Sure it is. But the placement of the engine in relation to the driver is an important-enough factor to warrant separate categories (or perhaps sub-categories). We can say “mid-engine” in conversation, but it instantly begs the question of where it is in relation to the driver. “Front/Mid” and “rear/mid” clears that up before anyone has a chance to ask for clarification.

I have an unproven hunch that if my pickup truck makes an effort to be partially mid-engined, then this is probably a lot more common than I thought. Maybe there just aren’t that many cars anymore that are truly front-engined, with the bulk of the engine ahead of the front wheel centerline.

After all, automakers have already caught on to the benefits of cold air intakes, to the point where aftermarket CAIs are all but obsolete now as a performance modification because modern cars already come with intake tubes that draw air from outside the engine compartment. In the same way, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve been turning regular cars into mid-engined ones right under our noses in the interest of compact packaging and improved weight distribution.

Is your car mid-engined? Check and see. You might be surprised.

DISCUSSION (58)

Mercedes Streeter > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 19:05

Technically all of my cars fall under “rear/mid” because the engine sits right on top of the rear axle with bits both in front and behind the axle.

But physically it’s a rear engine because the car ends only a couple inches after the engine does.

Milky > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 19:06

Engine looks so little like this.

Kinja'd!!!

Chariotoflove > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 19:09

I suspect the front/mid term came about to differentiate cars whose engines are in front of the cabin but still between the axles from those cars we traditionally think of as “mid-engined” with their engines behind the cabin but between the axles.

But then, I didn’t do any research or put near as much effort into this as you just did.

feather-throttle-not-hair > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 19:10

Pshaw. I drive a 350Z. Not only did we already know this, we have refused to shut up about it for like 15 years straight now.

Ex: “Nissan’s FM platform means ‘front-mid engine’ wanna race? I can drift! ”

Kinja'd!!!

CaptDale - is secretly British > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 19:17

FR like god intended

Kinja'd!!!

Ash78, voting early and often > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 19:18

AuthiCooper1300 > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 19:19

Well, it is a pity that you p r e c i s e l y don’t want to take into account gearbox placement etc. Because the big joy with a car with the engine amidships a n d behind the passengers is not s i m p l y weight distribution (which sometimes is not at all that wonderful - t o o l i t t l e w e i g h t a t t h e f r o n t ! ) but lower polar moment of inertia.

I n a front-mid engined car with i t s gearbox also at the front you don’t get quite the same result.

A front-mid engined car with gearbox at the rear may have an amazing weight distribution but the input needed to change direction has to be higher than if it had both engine and gearbox behind the passengers.

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d i t s d i r e c t i ona l s t a b i l i t y w o u l d b e e x c e l l e n t – s o m e t h i n g t h a t c a n n o t a l w a y s b e s a i d o f c a r s l i k e t h e Stratos, for example.

lone_liberal > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 19:19

My wife’s EX35 is because it’s on the FM platform, but I don’t think my Mariner, being a transverse V6 is and I don’t think my Camaro is as the engine sits pretty squarely on the front crossmember.

M.T. Blake > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 19:24

So basically another way to make an old thing new again? My G35 says some ‘Front Mid-Ship’ jargon under the hood.

AuthiCooper1300 > Mercedes Streeter
06/28/2018 at 19:27

T h a t ’ s m o r e o r l e s s w h a t h a p p e n e d w i t h t h e C l i o V 6 . W i t h t h e a d d e d p r o b l e m o f a l o t o f w e i g h t q u i t e h i g h u p (V 6 , 24 valves: a f l a t - s i x i t a i n ’ t) . T h e r e s u l t w a s a v e r y , v e r y t w i t c h y c h a s s i s – s u r e l y w o r s e t h a n t h e A 3 1 0 V 6 , w h o s e e n g i n e w a s d e c i d e d l y b e h i n d t h e wheels. T o s u m u p i t w a s l i k e c o m b i n i n g t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e 9 1 1 a n d t h e S t r a t o s .

jasmits > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 19:28

Great weight distribution is a good thing, no matter how you manage to achieve it.

Calling a front-mid engined car “technically mid-engined” is a way for someone with a 350z or Honda S2000 to tell their friends at the bar that it’s “ basically a Ferrari.” Technically true, but e veryone knows what is meant if you call a car mid-engined. Means it’s behind the driver but in front of the rear axle.

gettingoldercarguy > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 20:04

I really miss the technical drawings road and track had on their road test articles.

Die-Trying > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 20:46

this is ALWAYS a fun topic.....

with most race cars, you are not “ allowed” to set the engine further back than the frontmost spark plug to the upper ball joint. i would say that is about the threshold there for front becoming mid engine.

i have fun telling folks about my mid-engine bug. it has about 13 inches of setback from where most s10 have their stock locations.

Kinja'd!!!

but what of other OLDER car setups?

Kinja'd!!!

yeah, its been converted over to a tractor, but the front engine suspension is still stock. i would hardly consider it mid engine though. the entire engine IS behind the axle centerline, but it just doesnt seem right to call it mid engine......

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 20:58

Well, the FieSTa is front engined. the majority of the engine mass is in front of the axle... Both my tractors handily qualify as Front/Mid, with the entire engine, including the radiator, behind the front axle on the Ford. The entire block is behind the front axle on the Zetor, though the fan, radiator and Intercooler are all located in front of the front axle. Both of these are 4wd too AND have rear transaxles , for the coveted Front/Mid/T ransaxle/ 4WD combo! I mean, shit man , they’re pr actically R35 GTRs! . The motorcycle probably doesn’t count, but its most decidedly mid-engine. Now, the interesting question: what about the 2.7 ecoboost F150?

Kinja'd!!!

I can’t find a nice chassis only pic, but this picture of a burnt-out wreck makes me think it’s pretty close... 4WD too ;)

BigBlock440 > jasmits
06/28/2018 at 22:02

why does mid mean behind the driver? Behind the driver is rear.

BigBlock440 > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 22:06

If we can’t consider FM mid engined, why do we consider RM mid engin ed ?

wafflesnfalafel > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 22:27

yep - my subie falls into that category, (and it’s pretty well balanced off throttle. ) Interestingly my old Mazda 3 was truly front engined - the 2.3 MZR hung way out forward - but it still hunkered into corners really nice.

I have another burner, try to guess it! > Urambo Tauro
06/28/2018 at 22:38

I wonder if engine mount position matters . If all the mounts connect to the chassis behind the axle center line, does it matter if the engine itself is partially in front of it? Basically is it where the engine is, or where it’s supported that matters ?

jasmits > BigBlock440
06/28/2018 at 22:42

For simplicity’s sake lets not get into transverse mid-mounted engines, but mid means the engine is in front of the rear axle with the output shaft to the rear of the car , rear means it’s behind the rear axle with the output shaft to the front of the car.

BigBlock440 > jasmits
06/28/2018 at 22:57

So Corvette, Viper, S2000, etc. are mid engine? As all of them the engine is in front of the rear axle with the output shaft to the rear. They’re even all behind the front axle too.

jasmits > BigBlock440
06/28/2018 at 23:05

And behind the driver, c’mon that’s how we got there.

Although, technically yes, they are. But if you run around saying your S2k is mid-engined you’re just trying too hard, everyone knows when you say a car is ‘mid-engined’ the connotation is mid-rear. The front of the engine in my damn Tacoma lines up with the front axle, I’m not going to run around telling people that’s mid engined

BigBlock440 > jasmits
06/28/2018 at 23:20

But what advantage does a rear-mid have over a front-mid that makes it worth distinction?

jasmits > BigBlock440
06/28/2018 at 23:37

It does a better job of centralizing the mass. A front-mid engine car with a rear transaxle can have the same perfect static weight distribution as a mid-engined car but the dynamics are different because the mid-engine car has all the weight right in the center instead of a little just in front of the center and a little just behind the center.

This example is a little more extreme but demonstrates the principle, i magine you have two 5 foot long sticks, one of which has a 10-pound weight on each end and one of which has a 20 pound weight in the middle. They have the exact same mass and center of mass but if you wiggle them side to side from the middle which one changes direction more easily ?

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Urambo Tauro
06/29/2018 at 00:12

I have two vehicles that have their timing cover line behind the front axle centerline, which would satisfy all but the most manically stringent standards. One is a ‘66 Land Rover (FM4) and the other is the v8 converted Ranchero (FMR). However, my Galaxie is also quite close.

Something all three have in common was a six in the engine compartment in some way - the Rover had a six option but came as a four , the Ranchero came with a six and has had the mount point pushed back, and the Galaxie is a small v8 in a long six/big v8 capable car.

Each one is therefore the most mid that it can be without drastic (or for ranchero, more drastic) change.

The other two (59 Lincoln and 87 Benz) both have a hefty engine block straddled over the front wheels like a fat kid in a wheelbarrow. Might match the centerline rule, but even under mild braking the weight increase from dynamic forces would press ahead of the front wheels, so...

Nauraushaun > Urambo Tauro
06/29/2018 at 06:41

Plenty of cars are front mid. But they got nothin on rear mid.

Front mid is a front engined with improved balance. But so few cars have the engine in the back, it’s always worth a mention. It’s serious business

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > Urambo Tauro
06/29/2018 at 10:51

I’ve always understood “mid-engined” to mean the engine lies entirely within the wheelbase of the car. My Jeep is not front/mid- engined despite 4 /6 cylinders being behind the front axle centreline, because there’s engine ahead of the axle.

Front/mid is a bit of a pedantic designation. Effectively what it says is yes, the engine is between the axles, but not enough so to have a significant effect on weight distribution vs a front-engine car . Most mid-engined cars would be more accurately called rear/mid-engine, as the engine generally is still pretty far back. There would be a bit of a difference in vehicle dynamics between front and front/mid and rear and rear/mid that can be accounted for broadly by pointing out that front- engined cars rarely have the entirety of the engine ahead of the axle, while rear-engined cars typically would be entirely behind the rear axle, so the unique handling characteristics of front- engines are somewhat muted in contrast to those of rear-engined cars.

So all that is pretty much to say that almost no car is truly mid- engined, with the engine centred in the wheelbase. But it's less noticeable that it's mid-engined when the engine is in the front, so people feel the need to point it out.

Urambo Tauro > Mercedes Streeter
06/29/2018 at 12:10

One interesting thing about these layouts is that it doesn’t matter where the body of the car is. It’s just where the engine and wheels are. So, if you wanted to convert a car from front or rear into a mid-engined setup, you wouldn’t necessarily have to move the engine at all. Repositioning an axle would work, too.

Urambo Tauro > Die-Trying
06/29/2018 at 12:11

It does feel weird to call mundane things “mid-engine”, doesn’t it? I’ve been so used to it being a sports car thing.

Urambo Tauro > gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee
06/29/2018 at 12:16

I don’t think the actual e ffectiveness of the weight distribution is necessary for a car to be literally mid-engined. There are too many other factors that affect weight distribution, and this layout terminology doesn’t need to address anything more than physical location. Front/mid is a little pedantic, but it does help clear things up a little for those who care a bout the compartment packaging.

Urambo Tauro > AuthiCooper1300
06/29/2018 at 12:22

I don’t want to downplay the weight of other components, and their effect on weight distribution. It’s true that the terminology exists because we care about weight distribution, but the engine layout terminology itself serves only to address the location of the engine. If we really want to get into weight distribution, I think we have to take the whole car into account. Not just the engine, or the gearbox, but everything.

Urambo Tauro > CaptDale - is secretly British
06/29/2018 at 12:23

That’s definitely RWD, but I can’t really tell where the engine falls in relation to the front wheel from here. Could go either way.

Mercedes Streeter > Urambo Tauro
06/29/2018 at 12:26

Oh yeah, I know! lol The actual physical location of the engine in relation to the car’s body is irrelevant. Sometimes I feel the classification doesn’t really work in all situations...Hence why I have a rear/mid car despite the engine residing less than six inches in front of the rear bumper. But hey, I’m cool with a “mid-engine” classification, too! :)

Urambo Tauro > Chariotoflove
06/29/2018 at 12:27

This posts has been sitting in my drafts folder for a long time haha . Kristen’s DB11 post yesterday almost got me started on a rant, but I soon realized it was going to be too long for a comment. Since I was inspired to write, I figured I’d just polish up one of my old drafts and get it out there instead.

Urambo Tauro > I have another burner, try to guess it!
06/29/2018 at 12:30

Good brain teaser. I want to say that it’s probably the engine location that’s more critical than the supports , as fooling around with the engine mounts probably allows the engine to have more leverage one way or the other over its mounting location.

Urambo Tauro > BigBlock440
06/29/2018 at 12:31

I think that FM and RM are both variations of mid-engined.

Urambo Tauro > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
06/29/2018 at 12:38

Yeah, my Mustang is like that too. As near as I can tell, its engine is just about perfectly centered over the front wheel centerline. It’s hard to get a good measurement, but FWIW the center valve cover bolts seem to line up with the wheels. It’s so close, that motor mount flex might have an effect here too.

Interestingly, this means that a V6 model would more easily qualify for front/mid placement than the V8...

Chariotoflove > Urambo Tauro
06/29/2018 at 12:48

I too have stuff I meant to post but never got around to.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > jasmits
06/29/2018 at 13:01

While this is true, there’s enough variance in the proportion of engine weight to overall weight to make a great deal of difference, and responsiveness will have just about as much to do with the wheelbase to polar moment ratio as the magnitude alone. A short car with a traditional mid layout can conceivably experience an adverse dynamic weight shift forward and backward under braking greater than an FMR with longer wheelbase, and that can impact responsiveness a disproportionate amount - and by the same token, the points of grip far from C.G. afforded by a long wheelbase are more than capable of providing *very* suggestive torque moments around the instantaneous C. G.

The weight of the body also gets a vote, and while traditional mid favors minimal overhang to front and rear, such a car in modern times can require a great deal of extra structure in the outermost body *not* directly related to the backbone, because the minimal structure required to support the drivetrain is not as automatically helpful as a larger chassis structure.

tl;dr: Any mid layout has advantages in reduced polar moment *and* reduced unstabilizing dynamic change from “weight in the wrong places”. RMR does the first better, and a good FMR often does the second better. They’re not the same, but the first is not the only consideration.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > AuthiCooper1300
06/29/2018 at 13:11

Depends somewhat on what center is being rotated around, though. With dynamic distribution of weight forward and changes in available grip, it would be pretty easy for a front mid (with the gearbox forward!) such as a Shelby Cobra to have a much easier time rotating, with available torque moments all accounted for .

I’d wager it’s easier to change direction in a small-block Shelby at the edge than a first gen MR2.

Kinja'd!!!

(Daytona Coupe chassis)

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Urambo Tauro
06/29/2018 at 13:28

By the numbers, my Galaxie is probably pretty okay re: front/rear weight distribution, dynamic shifts, engine placement... except that it’s only as heavy on the rear wheels as it is because of a looooong overhang, the suspension is extremely soft, and the track width is quite narrow for its size (it’s as big as an S-class with the track of an E-class).

Therefore, it is... *not* a cornering machine. The Ranchero, with the engine lowered about 4" in the body, swapped for shorter block, doghoused 6" into the firewall, rear suspension swapped for (heavier) independent, and front suspension stiffened, will be something else entirely. Similar positioning of elements, overall length, track, displacement, etc. etc. to a Series II XKE.

AuthiCooper1300 > Urambo Tauro
06/29/2018 at 13:40

I get that you are mostly interested in how to define a car according to where the engine is. Unfortunately that is just part of the story, as you also say. So the expectations when one hears “mid-engined”, “front mid-engined” and “rear mid-engined” tend to go through the roof, while in fact the reality is enormously complex.

Even terminology can be confusing. In the thirties, the powerplant position in an Auto Union GP car was called r e a r -engined.

Regarding “taking the whole car into account”: if we are talking about t r a d i t i o nal , p r o p e r cars with petrol/diesel engines (no trucks, lorries, utility vehicles, pick-ups, E V s , h y b r i d s etc) most of the weight will correspond to engine and gearbox, followed by the people inside. The rest is not so relevant for the purposes of weight distribution and polar moment of inertia ( u n l e s s w e a r e c o nsidering cars with v e r y b i g f u e l t a n k s ). O f c ourse I am talking here j u s t about, shall we say, “planform”. Vertically things c an also get interesting if a car has a big greenhouse (glass is very heavy, so higher CoG) or a sunroof (ditto).

B u t o f c o u r s e c h a s s i s dy n a m i c s a l s o h a s t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t s p r u n g v s u n s p r u n g m a s s . L i g h t e r s u s p e n s i o n comp o n e n t s , l i g h t e r w h e e l s a n d l i g h t e r t y r e s m a k e a c a r a lot m o r e r e s p onsive t o s t e e ring i n p ut (and f i nding t h e right s e t u p o f s p rin g ing/dam p i ng a n d s u s p e n s i on control will also be easier). T h e s e h uge wheels and tyres we are seeing lately a r e in fact a b ackwards step f or r o adholding. Of course, dam p i n g t e c h n o l o g y i s s o d a m n g o o d n o w a d a y s t h at the problems they c a u s e a r e l e s s r e l e v a n t t h an , say, if we had t r i e d to f i t t h e same siz e s to a n 8 0 s car with 80s dampers.

AuthiCooper1300 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
06/29/2018 at 13:54

Very true. It is no coincidence that several twitchy, s k i t t i s h c a r s ( t h e s weaty-palms , dry-throat i n d u c ing v a r i e t y ) are mid-engined, transversely-engined and have v e r y short wheelbases (Stratos, MR2, Clio V6).

All those cars have a natural tendency to spin like a top , so it is easy for t h e m to change direction rapidly. Whether that is nice feeling for the poor driver who has to accelerate on a long, slightly damp sweeper is another story.

T h e C o b r a w o u l d b e ( r e l a t i v e l y ! ) e a s i e r to han d l e o n t h e l i m i t a t h i g h s p e e d s b e c a u s e i t i s a l w a y s g o i n g t o b e m o r e p r o g r e s s i v e t h a n a S t r a t o s d u e e x a c t l y t o w h a t y ou mention. Conversely, you would h a v e a m u c h h a r d e r t i m e i n a C o b r a i f y o u w e r e c o m p e t i n g i n t h e T o u r d e C o r s e . Noble manners, yes, but it w o u l d n o t t u r n q u i c k e n o u g h i n s l o w b e n d s .

jasmits > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
06/29/2018 at 14:04

True. Responsiveness used to be a factor too because the driveshaft basically becomes nonexistent with RMR but we’ve material-scienced our way around that one to the point it’s negligible . Honestly, for a street car at this point we can engineer around a lot of things to the point they no longer really matter. Also, as you mentioned, safety regulations make it impossible for a modern road car to really centralize the weight. For the purposes of a street car it really doesn’t matter at this point.

RMR does have the ultimate performance advantage though, I mean there’s a reason pretty much any top-level modern race car that was designed as a race car from the ground up is RMR, and even “front engined” ones(IE: Aston Martin Vantage GTE) have the engine pushed so far back it’s essentially in the same spot, the driver is just in a different spot in relation the engine lol .

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > AuthiCooper1300
06/29/2018 at 14:17

Being able to hold onto a curve is a plus. When the chassis dynamics overly encourage one end or other to give up halfway through, I think the car changing orientation rather than actual direction could be described as “STOP HELPING ME”.

The Cobra’s dynamics suggest a certain brilliance going into a curve with the first ghost of trail-braking , and are potentially less favorable in a chicane under acceleration, though safer . The Stratos, more the other way around. A 928 would be nimble in both but excel at neither and be a little more bullish overall.

AuthiCooper1300 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
06/29/2018 at 14:34

I quite liked the nuance between orientation and direction!

I find interesting what you say about the 928 (also valid for 924/944/968 and the whole gaggle of DeDion Alfas). Their limits would appear to feel higher overall, but the transition from rear grip to no grip at all can really catch you unawares because it happens at much higher speeds. Once the dumbbell effect sets in, forget it.

I remember years ago a national champioship of amateur (i.e. well-heeled) racers with 968 CS where there was a spate of serious accidents. The car was good and the drivers were mostly good but once you crossed the line between fine and dandy and losing it completely everything happened extremely quickly and there was no way to stop the crash.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > AuthiCooper1300
06/29/2018 at 14:46

I recall seeing an ad for an Audi - possibly early ‘80s vintage, which featured proudly a cutaway of the whole car. A cutaway showing a straight five engine entirely in front of the front wheels, and boasting at the same time that the car had a fifty-fifty weight distribution. To me, more horrifying than reassuring, because of what that meant the polar moment of the car had to be. Horrendous .

That is to say nothing of the pride about the neutral caster + redesigned kingpin center and how the car would not therefore pull to one side from a tire issue. Ah. You want me to *destroy* the tire completely without having had much warning. I see, I see.

Combined, “This Audi wants to kill you, and wants it to be a surprise, dammit”.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > Urambo Tauro
06/29/2018 at 22:44

Yeah. I was totally pointing out the pedantry of distinguishing between front/mid, mid, and rear/mid.

I suspect it’s much better from a drivability standpoint to put the driver in the middle of the car, which would be much easier to do in a rear/mid setup than either front/mid or longitudinally-centred-mid, as you don’t need to leave space for foot room. It would also be better for packaging, weight, and safety I think which is why more performance cars follow the rear/mid layout.

But ultimately most people wouldn’ t realize a car is front/mid engined from either a construction or performance standpoint unless you point it out, while the distinction between rear and rear/mid is much more obvious so the term is far less common. But yes, any way you swing it it’s still pedantic.

McMike > Urambo Tauro
07/01/2018 at 14:06

Weird car trivia:

How many front wheel drive cars are front-mid engined?

Urambo Tauro > McMike
07/01/2018 at 14:28

Very few, I’d bet. Only one that comes to mind is Saab Sonett.

McMike > Urambo Tauro
07/01/2018 at 14:54

Saab Sonett’s engine was right up front, past the front axle centerline. It was s uper fronty, just like an Audi.

Renault 4 and 5 (LeCar) is the only one I’m aware of. Transaxle was in front of the engine.

Kinja'd!!!

McMike > Urambo Tauro
07/01/2018 at 15:01

I have two cars that are not rear-engined. One of them is a fronty-front, and the other is a fronty-mid.

It’s no surprise that the one that is fronty-front has four seats, and the other has no back seats.

I think anything that’s fronty-mid is going to only have two seats (or at least two very tiny rear seats) Why? Because packaging.

Urambo Tauro > McMike
07/01/2018 at 15:06

The original Sonett I was like that too. Hard to find any good pics, though. Later gene r a t i o n s had the engine in front.

McMike > Urambo Tauro
07/01/2018 at 15:20

Shit, that’s the one I didn’t see. I saw the II and the III and thought they were all the same.

Urambo Tauro > McMike
07/01/2018 at 15:45

See, t his is exactly why I wish they wouldn’t make big changes like that without changing the name of the car too haha . It really shouldn’t be considered another generation of t he “same” car.

McMike > Urambo Tauro
07/01/2018 at 16:12