Transverse mid engined cars
Discussion
I think transverse inline engines make a lot of sense because they require so much less chassis length compared to an inline unit. Having your CoG moved up an inch is a small price to pay for losing a foot of overall vehicle length and all the weight associated with it. Transverse Vs always struck me as rather less sensible because (especially if you're going to make it possible to actually get at the engine to service it), they are getting closer in overall packaging size to an inline unit.
There's also an enormous number of cheap transverse inline-4 engine/trans axle combinations out there to use which is a huge benefit in a cheapish sports car.
Despite the fact that the design is clearly a compromise, I wouldn't want a longitudinal engine in my car for these two reasons - it would be £5k more expensive for a car that would ultimately probably handle worse due to the extra weight. In a heavier, more "GTish" car, I'd want the engine longitudinal (although a transverse engine wouldn't put me off as long as the chassis is set up well enough to disguise it).
There's also an enormous number of cheap transverse inline-4 engine/trans axle combinations out there to use which is a huge benefit in a cheapish sports car.
Despite the fact that the design is clearly a compromise, I wouldn't want a longitudinal engine in my car for these two reasons - it would be £5k more expensive for a car that would ultimately probably handle worse due to the extra weight. In a heavier, more "GTish" car, I'd want the engine longitudinal (although a transverse engine wouldn't put me off as long as the chassis is set up well enough to disguise it).
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 26th August 09:41
vx220 said:
My guess is that most are "boring" four-pots, saloon car derived powertrains, so maybe other sports car owners with six-plus cylinders and more bespoke running gear (or those who think they have more bespoke running gear) look down on them?
It does seem to be Lotus that gets the most criticism, seemingly from those with flat sixes, even if they are hanging out the arse end of the car 
ravon said:
Wonder why no racing cars, where performance is the sole criteria, opt for the transverse, side gearbox, rear axle mounted engine route ?
Maybe because packaging requirements are different?They are single seaters for a start, so the rear of the car is very narrow compared to a road going 2 or more seater.
The engine weight is a significantly higher percentage of the total, so getting the weight further forward has more benefit.
Also the transverse mount makes most sense with a short engine (I4 is best). While a v engine can be fairly short, exhaust routing gets compromised as you need to get pipes around from the front bank.
Most race cars have a larger power plant, but I could see a 4 cyl transverse racer being competetive.
It is an interesting question, since a transverse engine / gearbox has slightly lower friction, as the drive does not have to turn through 90 degrees. I assume the packaging advantage outweighs the slight efficiency loss.
As previously mentioned, all modern Lotuses use the transverse layout. Whilst I'm a huge fan of how they all drive and am on my second Lotus (a 2-Eleven), inherent balance isn't exactly their strong point! Until someone makes a 2-11, Elise, Exige or Evora that drives as well and has better weight distribution though, I'll stick with Lotus. The Porsche Cayman for example has fantastic weight distribution, but in my opinion, for my own personal tastes, doesn't drive as well as an Evora and for the overall package I'll take the Lotus every time. Same with the OP's car: I'll take an MR2 over an MX5 or similar because I prefer the way they drive. It's all personal taste. They'd probably be better if longitudincal though, yes.
Oh, and it's not just a height thing, it's also a packaging and therefore weight distribution issue.
Oh, and it's not just a height thing, it's also a packaging and therefore weight distribution issue.
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 27th August 11:13
ravon said:
Wonder why no racing cars, where performance is the sole criteria, opt for the transverse, side gearbox, rear axle mounted engine route ?
You mean apart from the Stratos, 205T16 and so on,When a competition car needs a short wheelbase, choices are transverse engine or fewer cylinders.
In purpose built formula cars they go for V configuration even though a flat configuration would give a lower CofG because the flat would get in the way of aerodynamics, particularly underbody venturis. A transverse engine would have the same drawback.
It would seem in rallying that the short wheelbase was more important than underbody aerodynamics, so when they went mid engined they were fine with transverse engines.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff