Cars with mid engine FWD layout?
Discussion
coppice said:
I think it is disingenous to talk about mid engined meaning something where the engine is in the front , but behind the axle line. It may technically be correct but on planet earth if a headline reads 'new mid engined MX5' does anybody really expect to encounter anything other than an engine behind the driver and in front of the rear wheels?
Yes. Some RWD BMWs have the engine behind the front axle to give near 50:50 weight distributioni.e. Mid engine RWD
and MGB?
Audis often have the engine in front of the the front axle so Front engine FWD.
What were those early FWD SAABs and Triumphs?
I once worked on these 6.5 litre turbo mid engined beasts too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_LH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_LH
Mound Dawg said:
gforceg said:
Beaten to it. My old 5 Gordini had this layout, made possible by the engine being inside the passenger compartment. (Longitudinal layout, remember.)
Fixed that.Pal of mine briefly owned an automatic one of these. Boy, it was noisy in there!
I suspect that in Renaults case this layout allowed them to recycle their whole rear wheel drive 4CV/Dauphine drive train for FWD without too much re-engineering.
If you're defining it relative to the driver then there's really only front or rear engine positions, i.e. in front of or behind the driver. Mid-engined in that context would surely be on/under/between the occupants?
Before the transverse front-engine configuration was invented and started to place the engine ahead of the front axle, pretty much every single car made was what we would now call front-mid-engined, but of course at the time it was just 'front-engined'.
When engines started to be placed behind the driver in what we would now call mid-engined, the cars were simply referred to as rear-engined. All those grand prix cars pioneered by Colin Chapman were rear-engined, not mid-engined, although we now recognise them as being rear-mid-engined. I'm not sure when the term mid-engine came into use as a thing in it's own right, but it was certainly much later than the cars that first used that configuration.
Before the transverse front-engine configuration was invented and started to place the engine ahead of the front axle, pretty much every single car made was what we would now call front-mid-engined, but of course at the time it was just 'front-engined'.
When engines started to be placed behind the driver in what we would now call mid-engined, the cars were simply referred to as rear-engined. All those grand prix cars pioneered by Colin Chapman were rear-engined, not mid-engined, although we now recognise them as being rear-mid-engined. I'm not sure when the term mid-engine came into use as a thing in it's own right, but it was certainly much later than the cars that first used that configuration.
Strange I thought it was obvious when I posted it up
Mid engine FWD has the engine behind the front wheels with gearbox and diff up ahead
What do you call this SAAB 99 layout with the engine on top of the FWD?
The clutch is way over there up at the front if I can move these arrows over > > > > > > > > ^ ^ ^
Mid engine FWD has the engine behind the front wheels with gearbox and diff up ahead
What do you call this SAAB 99 layout with the engine on top of the FWD?
The clutch is way over there up at the front if I can move these arrows over > > > > > > > > ^ ^ ^
But the engine in the Saab ^^^^ is pretty much all ahead of the driving wheels, so very definitely not what I'd call mid-engined. The clutch sits just behind the radiator (nice and easy to change though) and the timing chain right against the bulkhead, with the driveshafts being right at the back of the engine bay.
The configuration stayed like this for the 900 too.
The configuration stayed like this for the 900 too.
Lordbenny said:
Am I missing something here? can you explain why your Jesus is weeping? For the record let me clarify that I don't consider a car with the engine infront of the occupants but still behind the front axle to be 'mid engined' it's still front engined!
Yes, but I suspect you're deliberately missing it.You assume that just because you don't understand what defines mid engined you automatically assume most other people don't also, and therefore agree with you.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions within this thread, and also a Wikipedia link posted, mid engined essentially means the engine lies between the axle centres.
FeelingLucky said:
Yes, but I suspect you're deliberately missing it.
You assume that just because you don't understand what defines mid engined you automatically assume most other people don't also, and therefore agree with you.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions within this thread, and also a Wikipedia link posted, mid engined essentially means the engine lies between the axle centres.
That wiki article was poorly written for a start You assume that just because you don't understand what defines mid engined you automatically assume most other people don't also, and therefore agree with you.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions within this thread, and also a Wikipedia link posted, mid engined essentially means the engine lies between the axle centres.
, and wiki is far from a definative source.Some people (and all marketing and automotive PR folk) use the wiki definition.
Others relate the term "mid engine" to where the driver sits.
I can call my 4WD van mid engined, as the engine is between the driver and passenger, like most of its type.
I understand that this thread is about FWD cars with the engine behind the axle line.
AW111 said:
ETA I don't like calling a car with the engine in the front "mid engined", but as the term gets (mis)applied to front engined RWD cars by some, front engined FWD has an equally valid claim.
It's a completely valid and acceptable definition IMO. The term "Mid-engined" doesn't imply the location of the engine with respect to the driver, other than the fact it's between the two axles.Clearly engine location is important enough to differentiate between a rear engined car (e.g. 911) and a mid/rear engined car (e.g. MR2), so why would we abandon this system when the engine happens to be mounted closer to the other end of the car?
Look the the old 1930's GP cars (e.g. Bugati Type 35). The rear end of the engine was almost exactly in the middle of the two axles, yet because it was in front of the driver (who was sat almost on top of the rear axle) you wouldn't like to call this a mid engined car?
Gaz. said:
So we sound normal? A strut brace for my S2000 passes infront of the engine, but I'm damned if I'm calling it mid engined even if Comic Book Guy says it is. If I check the oil, which end of the car am I going to stand at?
I check the oil in my 911 from the drivers seat, therefore it's mid engined.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engli...
The McLaren Meredes SLR was marketed as mid engined.
Edited by FeelingLucky on Sunday 7th September 07:36
ash73 said:
The between-the-axles definition is the only one that makes sense. If you define it relative to the driver, all cars are either front or rear engined; apart from the Suzuki Carry Van 
e.g. Caterham 7s must be considered front-mid engined, the axle is way out front!
Why wouldnt you just call that mid engined rear wheel drive?e.g. Caterham 7s must be considered front-mid engined, the axle is way out front!
remember these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commer
Rear wheel drive with the engine mounted under the middle padded thing between the front seats ( you could call it a seat)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff