Slightly down on power, but a clio V6?

Edit and a bit fat too at 1475Kg

Are you referring to marketing claptrap that some companies come out with to try to convince us that their front engined car is better than some else's front engined car because the engine is a few centimetres further back?

Is an E-Type Jag "mid engined"?

Technically yes, E types, TVRs, Caterhams Corvettes etc have the engine as far back from the front wheels as possible for better balance (technically known as front/mid). Some front engine cars have the block much further forward, a really good example is the old Audi quattro set up, front engine entirely ahead of the front axle, understeer ahoy!

Apologies - I clearly (still) don't understand your post.

Still trying to work out the obsession with mid-engined to be honest.

Its a reasonable option, but rear or even, dare I say it, front engined, RWD has made some fine, responsive cars... I just don't think (and judging by the manufacturers, nor do they) think mid-engined is a way to go, even in niche.

Possibly because of packaging / platform standardisation, but also because a rear engined car (eg. 911) isn't trying to kill you all of the time these days. Just some of the time.

The Aerial is slightly flawed as it is mid layout but the engine sit transversely. Its a good set up by if you are going to discount the Caterham and 911 on engine location then you have to realise Aerials, Elises, Exiges etc are slightly too rear biased and flawed as well!

OP is a bit of a tit, isn't he?

I don't understand the OPs obsession with labelling everything that is over a certain weight as a GT. Also in common with a lot of others I'd like a list of non modern cars that fulfill the criteria from the good old days that never existed.

Never before, in the history of the universe have these words been uttered! The Caterham is brilliant BECAUSE of its engine position!


Here's a Caterham being massively compromised by its awful engine position earlier:




;-)

Have you driven any of these cars though?

You want a road car, I presume, not a race car. If so, then I would say to you that you're incorrect to seek mid-engined because mid-engined cars do not make the best road cars imo. You end up with a car like my Boxster which has masses of grip, can corner very quickly indeed, but by gum you'd better be quick when it lets go because it goes very quickly indeed.

And to be honest, the public road is not the place to be exploring the limits of such grip, because such antics are as socially acceptable as drink-driving, or should be. Ahem.

The Caterham is not compromised in any way by it's engine position. Nor is the Elise, despite it being rear-engined (and it *is* rear engined). Both of these cars are brilliant sports cars. I would pick the Elise of the two because it has a decent sized rear boot (or the one I looked at had).

Ah yes, luggage space. A sports car should be great to drive, so there is no reason at all why the driving of such a car should be confined to a radius around one's home. A sports car should be taken on long drives, which may involve nights, or many nights, away from home. This means it needs some luggage space.

FYI OP, Porsche's first road car was mid-engined but they moved the engine to the rear when it went into production. Ferdinand Porsche had also designed the pre-war mid-engined Auto Union, so you are incorrect to say that the 911 was pre-mid-engined thinking. It's the other way round.

I can understand your desire for multi-cylinders, but I think weight, size and packaging within the car should come first.

That beautiful, beautiful 904 in that earlier picture may be what you are seeking, but I would also suggest it would make a fairly horrendous road car. It will be too noisy, too hot inside and too compromised to make a great road car.

And I'd also like to say that that earlier picture of the Evora shows that there is no way on God's earth can that car be described as mid-engined. Kick the rear passenger out and turn the engine in-line, and then it will be mid-engined.