Transverse mid engined cars
Discussion
AER said:
Even the received wisdom of boxer engines having lower CoG's than V-configurations, as mentioned earlier in the thread, is actually almost always incorrect.
I wasn't the person saying that, but I read it and thought no more of it as it sounded right to my untrained mind. What would make the CofG higher on a boxer (or a flat engine?) higher than a V? I'm trying to think what would offset the higher cylinder heads of the V. Genuine question - I have no strong feelings either way, but it just tickled my curiousity.doogz said:
RobM77 said:
wasn't the person saying that, but I read it and thought no more of it as it sounded right to my untrained mind. What would make the CofG higher on a boxer (or a flat engine?) higher than a V? I'm trying to think what would offset the higher cylinder heads of the V. Genuine question - I have no strong feelings either way, but it just tickled my curiousity.
The boxer engine itself has a lower CoG than a V engine generally would.But they tend to be mounted higher, to allow for the manifold underneath.
doogz said:
RobM77 said:
wasn't the person saying that, but I read it and thought no more of it as it sounded right to my untrained mind. What would make the CofG higher on a boxer (or a flat engine?) higher than a V? I'm trying to think what would offset the higher cylinder heads of the V. Genuine question - I have no strong feelings either way, but it just tickled my curiousity.
The boxer engine itself has a lower CoG than a V engine generally would.But they tend to be mounted higher, to allow for the manifold underneath.
Now we're on the subject of installations though, I didn't realise they ran like that. I've never owned a car with a boxer engine before and I just assumed they'd have intake and exhaust manifolds on the top. I'll do some wikipediaring
Yes, I did mean installed CoG, although that wasn't clear, I'll admit. It's the only CoG that's relevant really.
Anyway, the main point is that received wisdom can be misleading - you need to analyse the whole package without prejudice unless you are really keen to avoid the optimal solution...
Anyway, the main point is that received wisdom can be misleading - you need to analyse the whole package without prejudice unless you are really keen to avoid the optimal solution...
blueg33 said:
My Evora has a transversely mounted V6, it can't be too much of an issue as most reviews consider the car to be one of the best handling road cars there has been and you get the added advantage of rear boot space and a car that isn't too long
I suppose it depends what you call handling. For me, the Evora is the best car to drive in its sector (£50-£70k coupés) by quite a margin, but whilst Lotus work magic with handling, they are doing so on theoretically dynamically inferior underpinnings to the Cayman. Now, I've only driven both on the road (about an hour in each in total - I've driven two of each), so can't comment on the absolute handling, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Cayman handled better in the true sense of the word 'handling' (or my definition at least), but in terms of driving pleasure there's no contest in my opinion, the Evora wins it hands down. It's the same story with the Elise, but better documented. I adore the Elise and owned mine for 8 years, but I wouldn't consider what I call its handling to be better than, for example, a Caterham. I've chatted with a few high profile racing drivers who agree with me on that, but I suppose our meaning of the word 'handling' may be different to journalists who rave about the Elise's 'handling'. My definition of handling is how a car moves around - how quickly it turns, how it progreses into oversteer and understeer, how it responds to various driving techniques, its balance in terms of CofG and polar moment etc. I think journalists usually refer to handling as also encompassing a car's controls and feeling on the road, which of course Lotus are so good at by that definition they'll win every 'handling' test going. By my definition, the Elise could be improved in its handling though.
My most recent Lotus experience is with my 2-Eleven, and whilst I love its performance, its responses and its handling up to a point, the engine is simply too far back and too heavy. In an ideal world, it would be mounted further forward and lower down (like a Lola sports racer for example). As a consequence of its weight distribution, the rear tyres overheat quite quickly, even when driven very neatly, and beyond a certain angle of slide it has a vicious sting in its tail, just like a more harcore Elise really. I enjoy that, but my definition of good handling is a well set up Caterham or BMW 3 series, both of which remain placid and lucid through a much greater range of movement, and balance out their tyre load much better. When everything else, like controls, performance, responses etc is taken into account (perhaps by a journalist's definition of handling), I'd rather drive my 2-Eleven on track, and the same for the Evora, I'd rather drive an Evora on the road than a Cayman or 911 etc.
I hope my ramblings made some sense!
RobM77 said:
suppose it depends what you call handling. For me, the Evora is the best car to drive in its sector (£50-£70k coupés) by quite a margin, but whilst Lotus work magic with handling, they are doing so on theoretically dynamically inferior underpinnings to the Cayman. Now, I've only driven both on the road (about an hour in each in total - I've driven two of each), so can't comment on the absolute handling, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Cayman handled better in the true sense of the word 'handling' (or my definition at least), but in terms of driving pleasure there's no contest in my opinion, the Evora wins it hands down.
It's the same story with the Elise, but better documented. I adore the Elise and owned mine for 8 years, but I wouldn't consider what I call its handling to be better than, for example, a Caterham. I've chatted with a few high profile racing drivers who agree with me on that, but I suppose our meaning of the word 'handling' may be different to journalists who rave about the Elise's 'handling'. My definition of handling is how a car moves around - how quickly it turns, how it progreses into oversteer and understeer, how it responds to various driving techniques, its balance in terms of CofG and polar moment etc. I think journalists usually refer to handling as also encompassing a car's controls and feeling on the road, which of course Lotus are so good at by that definition they'll win every 'handling' test going. By my definition, the Elise could be improved in its handling though.
My most recent Lotus experience is with my 2-Eleven, and whilst I love its performance, its responses and its handling up to a point, the engine is simply too far back and too heavy. In an ideal world, it would be mounted further forward and lower down (like a Lola sports racer for example). As a consequence of its weight distribution, the rear tyres overheat quite quickly, even when driven very neatly, and beyond a certain angle of slide it has a vicious sting in its tail, just like a more harcore Elise really. I enjoy that, but my definition of good handling is a well set up Caterham or BMW 3 series, both of which remain placid and lucid through a much greater range of movement, and balance out their tyre load much better. When everything else, like controls, performance, responses etc is taken into account (perhaps by a journalist's definition of handling), I'd rather drive my 2-Eleven on track, and the same for the Evora, I'd rather drive an Evora on the road than a Cayman or 911 etc.
I hope my ramblings made some sense!
I should have said best handling relatively comfortable road car. My G33 handled better as does a caterham, but I wouldn't drive them 200 miles in the rain whilst wearing a suit for work It's the same story with the Elise, but better documented. I adore the Elise and owned mine for 8 years, but I wouldn't consider what I call its handling to be better than, for example, a Caterham. I've chatted with a few high profile racing drivers who agree with me on that, but I suppose our meaning of the word 'handling' may be different to journalists who rave about the Elise's 'handling'. My definition of handling is how a car moves around - how quickly it turns, how it progreses into oversteer and understeer, how it responds to various driving techniques, its balance in terms of CofG and polar moment etc. I think journalists usually refer to handling as also encompassing a car's controls and feeling on the road, which of course Lotus are so good at by that definition they'll win every 'handling' test going. By my definition, the Elise could be improved in its handling though.
My most recent Lotus experience is with my 2-Eleven, and whilst I love its performance, its responses and its handling up to a point, the engine is simply too far back and too heavy. In an ideal world, it would be mounted further forward and lower down (like a Lola sports racer for example). As a consequence of its weight distribution, the rear tyres overheat quite quickly, even when driven very neatly, and beyond a certain angle of slide it has a vicious sting in its tail, just like a more harcore Elise really. I enjoy that, but my definition of good handling is a well set up Caterham or BMW 3 series, both of which remain placid and lucid through a much greater range of movement, and balance out their tyre load much better. When everything else, like controls, performance, responses etc is taken into account (perhaps by a journalist's definition of handling), I'd rather drive my 2-Eleven on track, and the same for the Evora, I'd rather drive an Evora on the road than a Cayman or 911 etc.
I hope my ramblings made some sense!
I have driven the Cayman S a fair amount (to Le Mans and back, for several days on long term test and on a track). Handling is subjective, but in my mind the Evora handles better than the previous Cayman (I have't compared the latest one) and it certainly rides better. Your definition of handling is pretty similar to mine, but I ultimately judge it by the speed at which I can enter and leave corners in control. Even my die hard Porsche mates who have Caymans and 911's feel that they can take the Evora faster into bends and exit faster than they can in their cars.
On the track and on the road the G33 was much better at entry and exit speeds, just like the caterham, but IMO the advantage they have is less overall mass and a much lower CoG
ravon said:
If this is the case, I again ask, why is the front drive, side gearbox, rear axle mounted engine configuration not used by any modern successful racing car. Why do racing car manufacturers spend millions on lowering and engine/ transmission 0.5mm ?
If it's a single seater then a transverse upright engine is worse for aerodynamic efficiency (asymmetrical too), also the packaging advantages of providing boot space isn't a factor and obviously cost is much less important too. Plus if you want to use the engine as a structural member it's nice if the main structure is symmetrical and runs in the right direction. Symmetry is good for corner weights as well as aerodynamics. I imagine changing gear sets is easier with the box sticking out the back too. Transverse also has a higher polar moment of inertia in roll, which a sufficiently talented driver might be able to detect in a light enough car, pitch is much less critical (unless the car is wider than it is long).Are there any modern 4WD single seater racers? If so do they use transverse engines or what? If there aren't any modern 4WD single seater racers does that mean 4WD is fundamentally s
t for all cars, or just that it's a compromise that isn't universally the best solution?I've done a bit of automotive engineering and whenever I sketch out a new car in an idle moment it has a longitudinal engine in the middle. I'm currently a big fan of the longitudinal mid-mounted straight six (not very space efficient, but I pack light and like the noise). But I'm also very happy with my Elise, which is transverse. Any layout has compromises, and it's easy enough to engineer any of them to make a satisfactory vehicle*. The 911 is famously based on a terrible engine layout, but that doesn't seem to have stopped it being a commercial, racing and critical success.
I can't think of any racing motorcycle that doesn't use a transverse engine, unless it's based on a production longitudinal engine (which are rare). Maybe it's because an engine that makes the vehicle move from side to side is bad when the vehicle steers by moving from side to side.
* unless your criteria is just is it fastest round a track within a given set of rules and those rules favour one layout or another
Interesting comments, I'm retired, so I am able to spend a good deal of time enjoying my passion, which is driving, doing a track day almost every week and lots of road-craft style road driving. My favourite road car that can be used on track has for many years been an MO30 spec Porsche 968 Club Sport, front engined, transaxle gearbox, so a high polar moment car, making it a car that is so beautiful to drive very hard in the dry, and is so easy to drive in wet and slippery conditions, almost like a big Caterham 7, which I also have in my fleet and enjoy immensely on-track and on-road in the right weather conditions. Could it be that for the driver of average ability, that the front engine layout with benign characteristics and relatively slow responses is in fact the ideal ?
I've done around ten track days this year with my new 981 Cayman S, and it seems to me that it has been endowed with similar characteristics to the 968, but has a much better engine and modern transmission, so is a good deal faster wet or dry . I've also been amazed by how gentle the Cayman is on it's tyres, I'd ( probably now wrongly ) assumed that this was because of it's superior weight distribution, as I know that other transverse axle mounted rear engined cars tend to destroy their tyres very quickly with track use ( but of course compounds will play a large part in this ). In road driving mode, I attended an event in Teasdale, empty moorland roads, and found the Cayman's ride ( on 20" wheels ) and handling to be exemplary, my instructor commenting that this was far and away the best road car he had driven regardless of price from the current production crop.
I've done around ten track days this year with my new 981 Cayman S, and it seems to me that it has been endowed with similar characteristics to the 968, but has a much better engine and modern transmission, so is a good deal faster wet or dry . I've also been amazed by how gentle the Cayman is on it's tyres, I'd ( probably now wrongly ) assumed that this was because of it's superior weight distribution, as I know that other transverse axle mounted rear engined cars tend to destroy their tyres very quickly with track use ( but of course compounds will play a large part in this ). In road driving mode, I attended an event in Teasdale, empty moorland roads, and found the Cayman's ride ( on 20" wheels ) and handling to be exemplary, my instructor commenting that this was far and away the best road car he had driven regardless of price from the current production crop.
blueg33 said:
RobM77 said:
suppose it depends what you call handling. For me, the Evora is the best car to drive in its sector (£50-£70k coupés) by quite a margin, but whilst Lotus work magic with handling, they are doing so on theoretically dynamically inferior underpinnings to the Cayman. Now, I've only driven both on the road (about an hour in each in total - I've driven two of each), so can't comment on the absolute handling, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Cayman handled better in the true sense of the word 'handling' (or my definition at least), but in terms of driving pleasure there's no contest in my opinion, the Evora wins it hands down.
It's the same story with the Elise, but better documented. I adore the Elise and owned mine for 8 years, but I wouldn't consider what I call its handling to be better than, for example, a Caterham. I've chatted with a few high profile racing drivers who agree with me on that, but I suppose our meaning of the word 'handling' may be different to journalists who rave about the Elise's 'handling'. My definition of handling is how a car moves around - how quickly it turns, how it progreses into oversteer and understeer, how it responds to various driving techniques, its balance in terms of CofG and polar moment etc. I think journalists usually refer to handling as also encompassing a car's controls and feeling on the road, which of course Lotus are so good at by that definition they'll win every 'handling' test going. By my definition, the Elise could be improved in its handling though.
My most recent Lotus experience is with my 2-Eleven, and whilst I love its performance, its responses and its handling up to a point, the engine is simply too far back and too heavy. In an ideal world, it would be mounted further forward and lower down (like a Lola sports racer for example). As a consequence of its weight distribution, the rear tyres overheat quite quickly, even when driven very neatly, and beyond a certain angle of slide it has a vicious sting in its tail, just like a more harcore Elise really. I enjoy that, but my definition of good handling is a well set up Caterham or BMW 3 series, both of which remain placid and lucid through a much greater range of movement, and balance out their tyre load much better. When everything else, like controls, performance, responses etc is taken into account (perhaps by a journalist's definition of handling), I'd rather drive my 2-Eleven on track, and the same for the Evora, I'd rather drive an Evora on the road than a Cayman or 911 etc.
I hope my ramblings made some sense!
I should have said best handling relatively comfortable road car. My G33 handled better as does a caterham, but I wouldn't drive them 200 miles in the rain whilst wearing a suit for work It's the same story with the Elise, but better documented. I adore the Elise and owned mine for 8 years, but I wouldn't consider what I call its handling to be better than, for example, a Caterham. I've chatted with a few high profile racing drivers who agree with me on that, but I suppose our meaning of the word 'handling' may be different to journalists who rave about the Elise's 'handling'. My definition of handling is how a car moves around - how quickly it turns, how it progreses into oversteer and understeer, how it responds to various driving techniques, its balance in terms of CofG and polar moment etc. I think journalists usually refer to handling as also encompassing a car's controls and feeling on the road, which of course Lotus are so good at by that definition they'll win every 'handling' test going. By my definition, the Elise could be improved in its handling though.
My most recent Lotus experience is with my 2-Eleven, and whilst I love its performance, its responses and its handling up to a point, the engine is simply too far back and too heavy. In an ideal world, it would be mounted further forward and lower down (like a Lola sports racer for example). As a consequence of its weight distribution, the rear tyres overheat quite quickly, even when driven very neatly, and beyond a certain angle of slide it has a vicious sting in its tail, just like a more harcore Elise really. I enjoy that, but my definition of good handling is a well set up Caterham or BMW 3 series, both of which remain placid and lucid through a much greater range of movement, and balance out their tyre load much better. When everything else, like controls, performance, responses etc is taken into account (perhaps by a journalist's definition of handling), I'd rather drive my 2-Eleven on track, and the same for the Evora, I'd rather drive an Evora on the road than a Cayman or 911 etc.
I hope my ramblings made some sense!
I have driven the Cayman S a fair amount (to Le Mans and back, for several days on long term test and on a track). Handling is subjective, but in my mind the Evora handles better than the previous Cayman (I have't compared the latest one) and it certainly rides better. Your definition of handling is pretty similar to mine, but I ultimately judge it by the speed at which I can enter and leave corners in control. Even my die hard Porsche mates who have Caymans and 911's feel that they can take the Evora faster into bends and exit faster than they can in their cars.
On the track and on the road the G33 was much better at entry and exit speeds, just like the caterham, but IMO the advantage they have is less overall mass and a much lower CoG
To use the journalist's definition of handling, the Evora is certainly the best handling car out there. If Lotus were given a bigger budget though, I suspect they'd end up producing something mechanically like a Cayman (with a lower and more central engine), but set up like an Evora, and I suspect it'd be better than either of them. As things are though, I'll take the Lotus every time, especially for road driving where feedback and feel matters so much more than pure speed or ultimate balance.Of course often the speed you can carry with confidence is down to the information the car's giving you - it takes a far more experienced hand to drive a numb car fast than one full of feedback. All the current Lotus models give oddles of feedback and huge amounts of driving pleasure. In contrast, the Caymans I drove felt like Audis in terms of driver involvement if I'm brutally honest... (and it pains me greatly to say that as a lifelong Porsche fan who grew up with Bell's exploits in the 956 etc, but it's the truth sadly of how I felt after driving them).
AER said:
ravon said:
Apologies, my mistake, should have looked up the facts before commenting, was relying on the little grey cells, which clearly deserted me !
Clearly this was the case since the beginning of the thread.Anyone who has a ideological bent against a particular configuration has probably not sat down and designed something much before. Every configuration has merit at some level and for some purpose - a good engineer will remember what he was once told about it. A great engineer will truly understand the compromises and trade-offs that have been chosen.
Even the received wisdom of boxer engines having lower CoG's than V-configurations, as mentioned earlier in the thread, is actually almost always incorrect.
I also much like the classic marketing led press releases that include those famous words "no compromise" ;-)
(in which case, why isn't the car being advertised capable of a sub 1sec 0-60, whilst returning 1000mpg and carrying a grand piano and 7 adults in the back, oh, and i only want to pay £8 for it...... )
Qwert1e said:
Recent quick Lotuses have compounded that compromise by sticking a supercharger on top of the engine and virtually destroying any hope of rear visibility. Still, I don't suppose the driver needs to look out the back very much!!
The supercharged Elises have exactly the same rear bodywork as the naturally aspirated cars. The Exige's supercharger installation won't fit in the Elise's engine bay because it has a huge intercooler sat on top of it, but then the naturally aspirated Exige has the same bodywork and lack of rear visibility - an issue shared with the S1 Exige, which was never supercharged.
No compromise indeed.
I have been involved in designing a few race cars in the past : when the race is 3200 km across Australia, and the power source is sunlight, the engineering challenges are a bit different to single seater formula cars.
The current Maclaren F1 car would have run out of power about half an hour into the race, if they had passed scrutineering.
I have been involved in designing a few race cars in the past : when the race is 3200 km across Australia, and the power source is sunlight, the engineering challenges are a bit different to single seater formula cars.
The current Maclaren F1 car would have run out of power about half an hour into the race, if they had passed scrutineering.
Mave said:
Max_Torque said:
I also much like the classic marketing led press releases that include those famous words "no compromise"
Yep, "engineered without compromise" = oxymoron :-S It's a very odd marketing statement that surely gets ignored by most intelligent people? Every car ever made is made with compromises - that's why there are so many different cars available and so many different opinions on them all.ravon said:
Interesting comments, I'm retired, so I am able to spend a good deal of time enjoying my passion, which is driving, doing a track day almost every week and lots of road-craft style road driving. My favourite road car that can be used on track has for many years been an MO30 spec Porsche 968 Club Sport, front engined, transaxle gearbox, so a high polar moment car, making it a car that is so beautiful to drive very hard in the dry, and is so easy to drive in wet and slippery conditions, almost like a big Caterham 7, which I also have in my fleet and enjoy immensely on-track and on-road in the right weather conditions. Could it be that for the driver of average ability, that the front engine layout with benign characteristics and relatively slow responses is in fact the ideal ?
I've done around ten track days this year with my new 981 Cayman S, and it seems to me that it has been endowed with similar characteristics to the 968, but has a much better engine and modern transmission, so is a good deal faster wet or dry . I've also been amazed by how gentle the Cayman is on it's tyres, I'd ( probably now wrongly ) assumed that this was because of it's superior weight distribution, as I know that other transverse axle mounted rear engined cars tend to destroy their tyres very quickly with track use ( but of course compounds will play a large part in this ). In road driving mode, I attended an event in Teasdale, empty moorland roads, and found the Cayman's ride ( on 20" wheels ) and handling to be exemplary, my instructor commenting that this was far and away the best road car he had driven regardless of price from the current production crop.
Out of interest have you driven an Evora, a V6 Exige or a Noble M12? I've done around ten track days this year with my new 981 Cayman S, and it seems to me that it has been endowed with similar characteristics to the 968, but has a much better engine and modern transmission, so is a good deal faster wet or dry . I've also been amazed by how gentle the Cayman is on it's tyres, I'd ( probably now wrongly ) assumed that this was because of it's superior weight distribution, as I know that other transverse axle mounted rear engined cars tend to destroy their tyres very quickly with track use ( but of course compounds will play a large part in this ). In road driving mode, I attended an event in Teasdale, empty moorland roads, and found the Cayman's ride ( on 20" wheels ) and handling to be exemplary, my instructor commenting that this was far and away the best road car he had driven regardless of price from the current production crop.
Yes Kambites, I have, an Evora, not a Noble or an Exige S. Didn't care for the twisted driving position, a bit like, but not as bad as, a right hand drive air-cooled 911, and thought the gear linkage was appalling, far worse than my M100 Elan which is two decades old !
One of the posters earlier on this topic commented that having to negotiate the exhaust manifolds forced the boxer configuration to be mounted higher in the car than is optimal, so this afternoon I jacked my 981 up to see the exact arrangement, the manifolds actually neatly fit under the cylinder heads and their lowest part is roughly flush with the bottom of the sump, so no forced raising of the engine. If you Google "Cayman Engine Position" you will find photographs that clearly show this. Out of interest I also Googled "Lotus Evora Engine Position" and from what I can see, certainly with aftermarket exhaust systems, the exhaust runs under the engine, presumably forcing it to be mounted higher than would be optimal, or it could be that the exhaust runs under the side mounted gearbox, but that looks to be at the same level as the sump pan ?
One of the posters earlier on this topic commented that having to negotiate the exhaust manifolds forced the boxer configuration to be mounted higher in the car than is optimal, so this afternoon I jacked my 981 up to see the exact arrangement, the manifolds actually neatly fit under the cylinder heads and their lowest part is roughly flush with the bottom of the sump, so no forced raising of the engine. If you Google "Cayman Engine Position" you will find photographs that clearly show this. Out of interest I also Googled "Lotus Evora Engine Position" and from what I can see, certainly with aftermarket exhaust systems, the exhaust runs under the engine, presumably forcing it to be mounted higher than would be optimal, or it could be that the exhaust runs under the side mounted gearbox, but that looks to be at the same level as the sump pan ?
Yes, but there are still 101 compromises in all of those designs. If you want a low CoG, then get the crankshaft (the heaviest part of any engine) as low as possible. This will pretty much dictate a V-configuration by the time you've specified a dry sump and multi-plate clutch, á la F1 engine.
A longitudinal engine layout demands you turn the power through a less efficient 90°, so you've already accepted a compromise there too. It's horses for courses and budgets play a large part in how much hay your horses eat.
A longitudinal engine layout demands you turn the power through a less efficient 90°, so you've already accepted a compromise there too. It's horses for courses and budgets play a large part in how much hay your horses eat.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff