Mid Engined Front Wheel Drive?

[Bisonhead]

All this talk of different layouts recently has got me thinking...did they ever make or do make a mid or rear engined car with the driven wheels at the front?

Allow me to explain via the medium of microsoft paint...

|http://thumbsnap.com/GGGGYLz2[/url]

Edited by Bisonhead on Thursday 26th July 12:05

[kambites]

Assuming you mean with the engine behind the passenger cell: yes, it has been done. A long time ago, though.

There have been a few "front-mid engined, FWD" cars, too.

[Big Fat Fatty]

This is one, from a long time ago. I saw this in the Guess the car thread a few weeks ago.

Rear engined and FWD only.

[Herman Toothrot]

Bucket loads of 4 wheel drive mid engines stuff. Thing is why would you not send drive to the rear if this where the gearbox/ engine is?

[kambites]

Big Fat Fatty said:

This is one, from a long time ago. I saw this in the Guess the car thread a few weeks ago.

That's the one.

All the disadvantages of both layouts.

[illmonkey]

Herman Toothrot said:

Bucket loads of 4 wheel drive mid engines stuff. Thing is why would you not send drive to the rear if this where the gearbox/ engine is?

Why'd you put the engine in the front and send the power to the back...

[Bisonhead]

Marks out of 10 for the drawring as well please!

I know it doesnt make any sense from a functionality point of view but then not many car makers have sense in bucket loads!

[C.A.R.]

illmonkey said:

Why'd you put the engine in the front and send the power to the back...

Packaging and weight distribution. Hence older cars = more likely to be F/R. When FWD platforms became more compact, they offered more freedom for designing the rest of the car and making the entire chassis lighter, so it became commonplace (was it Citroen who we have to thank for it?)

I can't fathom a good reason for putting the engine in the rear and powering the front wheels, though - which is probably why it's hard to think of one...

[HustleRussell]

Worst of both worlds!

[illmonkey]

C.A.R. said:

illmonkey said:

Why'd you put the engine in the front and send the power to the back...

Packaging and weight distribution. Hence older cars = more likely to be F/R. When FWD platforms became more compact, they offered more freedom for designing the rest of the car and making the entire chassis lighter, so it became commonplace (was it Citroen who we have to thank for it?)

I can't fathom a good reason for putting the engine in the rear and powering the front wheels, though - which is probably why it's hard to think of one...

He used a basic example of "Its easier for them both to be in the sale place", so I retorted.

I understand why RWD is used.... Roundabouts

[Negative Creep]

Aren't there some cars where the frontal engine is so far back it's technically mid mounted? Possibly some older Audis or VWs?

[alfa pint]

Poor dynamics. The advantage of a front engine front wheel drive car is low production cost and a large area behind the engine for cabin space. It does not handle well as the balance is poor and the best wheels to be driven are the rear ones so that traction is better and the front wheels only have to steer.

Mid engine rear drive provides a compact unit with optimal handling and traction, but does not lend itself to a large amount of free space for cabin space (unless you build a mahoosive car, therefore still impractical).

So why build a car with good balance, that drives like ste, is more expensive to make and isn't a useful shape?

[kambites]

I can't even begin to imagine how little traction that thing above must have had. Mind you, it probably didn't have enough power for it to be much of a problem.

[C.A.R.]

Negative Creep said:

Aren't there some cars where the frontal engine is so far back it's technically mid mounted? Possibly some older Audis or VWs?

Isn't it more likely to be modern cars that fall into this clasification? Look at the description of 'FMR' or Front-Mid-engined Rwd. Older Audi's for example had the engines incredibly far forward on their quattro models...

Corvette is a good example of an FMR layout...

[Big Fat Fatty]

C.A.R. said:

Corvette is a good example of an FMR layout...

Indeed, plus the Vipers, most front engined Ferraris as well (599, California, F12 etc)

[kambites]

Yes but that clearly isn't the engine location that the OP was talking about.

[vrooom]

god, no. traction issues everywhere, it is bad enough in normal fwd config.

[900T-R]

Big Fat Fatty said:

Indeed, plus the Vipers, most front engined Ferraris as well (599, California, F12 etc)

All TVRs as well.

[chris7676]

The OP asked about mid engine fwd.
(Why the mention of front-mid engine rwd ?)

Agree, must be the worst of both worlds. Are there any test drive reviews available ?

[kambites]

chris7676 said:

(Why the mention of front-mid engine rwd ?)

Because people love to be geeky and point out that it's possible for a car with the engine in front of the passengers to be "mid engined" despite the fact that no-one outside a motoring forum would ever use the term it to mean that.