|
braddo
2,986 posts
57 months
|
5 USA said: Well, if Evora is mid-engined then Corvette is one hell of a lot more mid-engined! Corvette engine is set back low and completely behind the front wheels with transmission at the back in front of the rear axle.  How long has the 'vette had a transaxle? I didn't realise it had one.
|
|
|
kambites
32,864 posts
90 months
|
braddo said: How long has the 'vette had a transaxle? I didn't realise it had one. Since the C5, I think.
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,404 posts
143 months
|
kambites said: Whether it's "technically correct" or not "mid engined", used in isolation, means "with the engine between the passenger cell and the rear axle to the vast majority of people. unlike the Megafactories (Lotus) definition of it being 'between the rear wheels! - (I kid you not!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQLVr-OuvIo&fea...
|
|
|
kambites
32,864 posts
90 months
|
Scuffers said: kambites said: Whether it's "technically correct" or not "mid engined", used in isolation, means "with the engine between the passenger cell and the rear axle to the vast majority of people. unlike the Megafactories (Lotus) definition of it being 'between the rear wheels! - (I kid you not!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQLVr-OuvIo&fea... 
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,404 posts
143 months
|
GroundEffect said: You also don't get as good Charge-air cooling. Normally you want your CAC to be right in the airflow at the front of the car but that would be silly in an MR car as the inertia of all that air mass in the system would make throttle response non-existant. To combat you can have big ducts in the side of the car, which don't see particularly good airflow, or a duct in the roof which again makes your package larger. LOL! which is why most have gone with water-based intercoolers (Esprit Turbo etc).
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
MarJay
1,716 posts
44 months
|
|
|
marcosgt
6,192 posts
45 months
|
kambites said: Scuffers said: kambites said: Whether it's "technically correct" or not "mid engined", used in isolation, means "with the engine between the passenger cell and the rear axle to the vast majority of people. unlike the Megafactories (Lotus) definition of it being 'between the rear wheels! - (I kid you not!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQLVr-OuvIo&fea... I rather like Megafactories, but they do trot out some tripe on it, don't they?  M.
|
|
|
Derek Chevalier
662 posts
42 months
|
DanDC5 said: Marf said: kambites said: Surely the NSX isn't under 1200kg is it?  No. I think '92 Type R's are something like 1165kgs. But only 276bhp.... Normals were about 1230kgs. Weight on the Facelift models was higher. Not sure that facelifts were heavier as they got rid of the popup headlights which were apparently fairly weighty. My 2004 weighed 1350kg with ~3/8 tank of fuel when standard, but if you removed spare wheel, toolkit and boat anchor exhaust would be nearer 1300kg.
|
|
|
crazy about cars
2,319 posts
38 months
|
It's all gone here... 
|
|
|
the-photographer
830 posts
45 months
|
How about a Tushek Renovatio T500  1090kg V8 450bhp
|
|
|
Chilliman
3,408 posts
30 months
|
the-photographer said: How about a Tushek Renovatio T500 1090kg V8 450bhp Looks like a TR7 with a facelift 
|
|
|
boxerTen
Original Poster
146 posts
73 months
|
To reply to various points: 1. 'Mid-engined' means rear mid-engined of course. Why rear mid-engined? To get the moment of inertia down and to get substantially more than 50% of the weight over the rear wheels. This has been dominant racing practice for almost 50yrs, hence my use of 'modern'. 2. Why naturally aspirated? To eliminate throttle lag (turbos) and complexity (superchargers). Typically if you need either you haven't been able to source the right n/a engine. 3. Why a high specific power output? To ensure an engine that responds with alacrity to the throttle and is capable of high rpm. Yes you can get the same power more easily from a bigger engine but it won't rev the same because its rotating masses are all larger. 4. Why at least 6 cylinders? This is personal preference - combined with the difficulty of getting 300bhp from an n/a four without it being vibrationally challenged. Finally this picture says it all really. On the left a 'proper' sports car (not with 300bhp but with power commensurate for its day). On the right a touring car. And if one thinks 1200kg weight limit is harsh note the weight of the 904. Bodo said:  This picture shows a bit what changed it the last forty years. Cayman R: 1370kg, 320PS 904 (Road): 650kg, 155PS g.
|
|
|
Dusty964
5,420 posts
59 months
|
I Would suggest it's power is commensurate to it's weight today also, but legislation means the weight would be nigh on impossible to reach.
|
|
|
Chilliman
3,408 posts
30 months
|
boxerTen said: To reply to various points:
1. 'Mid-engined' means rear mid-engined of course. Why rear mid-engined? To get the moment of inertia down and to get substantially more than 50% of the weight over the rear wheels. This has been dominant racing practice for almost 50yrs, hence my use of 'modern'.g. Why of course? Lots of weight over the rear wheels in a rear wheel driven car is great, for traction off the line... but too much weight on the rear invariably means less grip up front and bagloads of understeer.....  Having owned a few reasonably rapid motors in my time I've always found that those nearer to a 50/50 weight distribution went round corners a bit quicker than tail heavy motors... Just my personal experience 
|
|
|
Randy Winkman
1,990 posts
58 months
|
kambites said: Whether it's "technically correct" or not "mid engined", used in isolation, means "with the engine between the passenger cell and the rear axle to the vast majority of people. I agree.
|
|
|
mx5tom
403 posts
42 months
|
Bodo said: That's crazy! I thought it was a Panamera at first because of the size difference...
|
|
|
Chilliman
3,408 posts
30 months
|
Randy Winkman said: kambites said: Whether it's "technically correct" or not "mid engined", used in isolation, means "with the engine between the passenger cell and the rear axle to the vast majority of people. I agree. Maybe thats because the 'vast majority' don't understand what 'mid engined' actually means
|
|
|
xRIEx
1,417 posts
17 months
|
boxerTen said: Finally this picture says it all really. On the left a 'proper' sports car... This (latter) sentence says it all: who the hell are you to say what is a 'proper' sports car? You're not short of arrogance, are you? Is a 458 not a proper sportscar because it's 300Kg too heavy for your liking? An Ultima GTR is not a proper sportscar (OK, bordering on supercar depending on the engine) because it's a kit? A Noble is not a proper sportscar because it's got turbos? A Caterham Levante isn't a proper sportscar because it's got the engine up front? In fact, I'd like to see how well you could handle that latter non-sportscar. Still waiting for you to tell us what is a proper sportscar.
|
|
|
mx5tom
403 posts
42 months
|
This argument crops up here so often, and it really is a bit pointless really. Everyone has their own opinion and general idea (or very specific idea in this case...) of what a sports car is, what a super car is, etc... There's no rules about it, it's just opinion so surely no one can say with any authority whether something is or isn't a sports car... That said, the oddest one I've heard is someone describing their C Class diesel as a sports car.  Even I draw the line at that one.
|
|
|
Chilliman
3,408 posts
30 months
|
xRIEx said: boxerTen said: Finally this picture says it all really. On the left a 'proper' sports car... This (latter) sentence says it all: who the hell are you to say what is a 'proper' sports car? You're not short of arrogance, are you? Is a 458 not a proper sportscar because it's 300Kg too heavy for your liking? An Ultima GTR is not a proper sportscar (OK, bordering on supercar depending on the engine) because it's a kit? A Noble is not a proper sportscar because it's got turbos? A Caterham Levante isn't a proper sportscar because it's got the engine up front? In fact, I'd like to see how well you could handle that latter non-sportscar. Still waiting for you to tell us what is a proper sportscar. Good post. Bit personal but still good It always intrigues me when people post with strong views where their experience comes from????? It's easy to sprout views based on stuff you've only read, basically just repeating what other people have written. IMHO, if you haven't driven the cars that give you the experience to make a qualified judgement then you're just talking bo  cks.......... No offence intended, Chilli
|
|
