Front engined vs mid engined at the front RWD
Front engined vs mid engined at the front RWD
Author
Discussion

saaby93

Original Poster:

32,038 posts

208 months

Sunday 7th September 2014
quotequote all
Following my discussion about mid engined FWD cars (eg Citroen DS) Kambites asked for a list of front engined RWD.
Mid engined at the front RWD would be where the engine is behind the front axle and weight distribution is appoaching 50:50. Most BMWs, MGBs Caterham ?
Front engine RWD has the engine above or in front of the front wheels so these are??


xRIEx

8,180 posts

178 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
What's the definition of front-mid? Engine centre of mass behind the front axle, or the entire engine behind the axle?

Krikkit

27,938 posts

211 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
I would think centre of mass - to get the whole engine behind the front axle you need a pretty long car if you've got > 4 cyl!

Kawasicki

14,380 posts

265 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
There are not that many rwd cars where the entire engine is behind the front axle line. I think it needs to be a fairly long car with a short engine to achieve that, at the very least a rearward seating position.

I'm not sure an E36 318is gets there, but I am sure than an E30 318is does not. The Porsche 944 also doesn't have the full engine behind the front axle.

I think recent Corvettes and Aston Martins fit this description. ferrari F12 and SLS AMG also. Caterham 7 too. MX-5 and S2000 are two cheaper options.

Not that many normal cars.


kambites

71,525 posts

251 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
If you're allowing "mid engined" to mean in front of the cabin at all, I think the definition has to relate to the CoG of the engine. Otherwise you need three terms - one for behind the axle, one for over the axle and one for in front of the axle.

I can't actually think of any RWD cars with the CoG of the engine in front of the front axle line. So does this mean there's so such thing as a front-engined RWD car, they're actually all mid-engined? If that's the case, can we just go back to calling anything with the engine in front of the cabin "front-engined", it's much easier. hehe

Fastdruid

9,389 posts

182 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
RX-8, engine is behind the front wheels.



MX-5 isn't



E90 isn't



And just look how far in front the RS5 engine is!


kambites

71,525 posts

251 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
Looks to me like both the Mazda and BMW have the centre of the engine behind the front wheels? Obviously the Audi doesn't, but that's not RWD. smile

Toltec

7,179 posts

253 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
The MX-5 mk1 engine is at least partially over the axles, center of mass may depend on if you include the ancillaries and clutch etc.

E46 325 has cylinder two over the axles.




edward1

839 posts

296 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
If the driving experience and my memory serve correct the TVR wedges have the engine much more over the front axle where as the chim/griff and I assume later TVRs had the engine further back behind the front axle. Certainly the wedge was much more tail happy than the chim and when corner weighted the Chim's weight distribution was pretty much 50/50.


GravelBen

16,512 posts

260 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
S2000 engine is completely behind the front axle line:





RX7's are too IIRC.

Edited by GravelBen on Monday 8th September 10:08

_Neal_

2,954 posts

249 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
edward1 said:
If the driving experience and my memory serve correct the TVR wedges have the engine much more over the front axle where as the chim/griff and I assume later TVRs had the engine further back behind the front axle. Certainly the wedge was much more tail happy than the chim and when corner weighted the Chim's weight distribution was pretty much 50/50.
Cerberas have the engine a long way back too.

otolith

69,090 posts

234 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
I don't think there is any sharp cut-off in benefit from moving the engine closer to the car's centre of mass when it crosses the front axle line, so the term is purely descriptive, and I think should mean simply that the whole engine is behind the centre of the front wheels. Usually means that cabin space is sacrificed - I can't think of many full four seaters with that configuration. There's the RX-8, what else?

kambites

71,525 posts

251 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
otolith said:
I don't think there is any sharp cut-off in benefit from moving the engine closer to the car's centre of mass when it crosses the front axle line, so the term is purely descriptive, and I think should mean simply that the whole engine is behind the centre of the front wheels. Usually means that cabin space is sacrificed - I can't think of many full four seaters with that configuration. There's the RX-8, what else?
Do the four-pot BMWs not have the engine entirely behind the axle?

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

164 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
Fastdruid said:
And just look how far in front the RS5 engine is!

It's not bad. Their engines are usually pretty short dimensionally. The older cars have a lot more overhang, and even their winning Trans Am race cars from the 80s had a lot more overhang than the RS5 (or any modern Audi).

On that note, the Panamera looks worse than most sport saloons, and probably outhandles them all:


otolith

69,090 posts

234 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
On that note, the Panamera looks worse than most sport saloons, and probably outhandles them all:
They probably tuned the handling while driving it in reverse wink

Mr2Mike

20,143 posts

285 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
kambites said:
I can't actually think of any RWD cars with the CoG of the engine in front of the front axle line. So does this mean there's so such thing as a front-engined RWD car, they're actually all mid-engined? If that's the case, can we just go back to calling anything with the engine in front of the cabin "front-engined", it's much easier. hehe
Only if all front engined cars are RWD, which they are not.

kambites

71,525 posts

251 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
Mr2Mike said:
kambites said:
I can't actually think of any RWD cars with the CoG of the engine in front of the front axle line. So does this mean there's so such thing as a front-engined RWD car, they're actually all mid-engined? If that's the case, can we just go back to calling anything with the engine in front of the cabin "front-engined", it's much easier. hehe
Only if all front engined cars are RWD, which they are not.
True, front engined 4WD cars vary quite a bit.

Kawasicki

14,380 posts

265 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
Fastdruid said:
MX-5 isn't

hmm...interesting...





Fastdruid

9,389 posts

182 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
Probably depends on which MX-5 smile

Kawasicki

14,380 posts

265 months

Monday 8th September 2014
quotequote all
kambites said:
If you're allowing "mid engined" to mean in front of the cabin at all, I think the definition has to relate to the CoG of the engine. Otherwise you need three terms - one for behind the axle, one for over the axle and one for in front of the axle.

I can't actually think of any RWD cars with the CoG of the engine in front of the front axle line. So does this mean there's so such thing as a front-engined RWD car, they're actually all mid-engined? If that's the case, can we just go back to calling anything with the engine in front of the cabin "front-engined", it's much easier. hehe
My logic

Entire block behind front axle = front mid engined
Any part of block forward of the front axle = front engined
Entire block in front of front axle = WTF

Edited by Kawasicki on Monday 8th September 13:57