Wouldn't RR/MR be just as cost effective and cheap as FF?

>>13998868
Smaller fuel tank?

Snap oversteer is a very good reason to not have MR in a DD

>>13998914
Mr2 was my first and only car at 16

>>13998868
It could be but it's too hard to drive for normies.

>>13998919
see
>>13998937

I assumed front end collision ratings but the fiero actually did pretty good for what it was.

Probably axed them partially because of the whole fiero fire thing giving MRs a bad rep, and like the other anon said snap oversteer.

I don't think they would sell great today anyways, look at the brz/frs sales for an example and that's with a conventional drive train people are used too.

>>13998868
A few companies in the 60s and 70s used primarily RR layouts like Skoda. They eventually changed to FF because they were considered more dangerous and a little less cost effective.

>>13998914
>Snap oversteer
Shirley, this can be addressed by suspension changes.

>>13999007
By expensive and complex suspension changes, which means it would not be as cost effective and cheap as FF

seems like a stupid idea

RR/MR is more expensive just by the suspension alone

>>13999007
Snap oversteer is mostly a meme but if most shitboxes on the road were RR it would be an issue. Most people can't drive, and even having the rear wheels being powered is difficult for them. Also most fwd cars have shitty rear suspensions because it is basically dead weight compared to rwd, so now automakers would need to invest in making the rear and front suspension good.

>>13998868
People pointed out snap oversteer, wich i think is not that big of an issue since MRs or RR will not be standarized, they would be something like what AWD began as, technology being added on cars for people that UNDERSTOOD it and WANTED it.


I guess one of the main grips against Medium engine placement or Rear would be how easy it would be to understeer it and how small trunks are. Say what you say, anyone that has just one car, a fun car, or two, one of them being a sportsy fun car, will need a lot of trunk space for several reasons.

There is also the weight balance. Its extremely hard to balance an MR or RR car, but if you do, you might solve snap oversteer

Snap oversteer is to fr as lift off oversteer is to ff.
Rr or mr would be less affected than fr you tards.

>>13999118
Weight balance isn't an issue. 40/60 is actually preferable for performance. Unless they started putting into more funboxes like the new Twingo where performance isn't a concern. They could always create a frunk like Caymans have. Having two small trunks is not as convenient as having one big truck though.

File: _20151207_184328.jpg (307KB, 2245x1030px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 2245x1030px

Op is a dum

>>13999028
I'm assuming we're talking about a hypothetical car not an MR2. You can design an MR/RR chassis that doesn't have snap oversteer characteristics.

>>13999007
Don't call me Shirley

>>13999431
i am sorry, i forgot you only want to be called like that after 10pm

>>13998868
As evidenced by the Covair, Normies can't drive RR or similar.

Most of them have problems driving FF.

>>13998868
There's still parts that need to be in front. Having your master cylinders and steering rack in the trunk reduces available capacity when they could be in the engine bay instead.

File: 1960-chevrolet-corvair-700-series-sedan-photo-302801-s-1280x782.jpg (134KB, 1280x782px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1280x782px

>>13998868
Because the last time we built mainstream RR sedans, they were slaughtered in the marketplace by the amazingly primitive Ford Falcon and Plymouth Valiant. Therefore it will never be tried again.

>>13998914
>Snap oversteer
Just stick a big stiff sway bar on the front so it understeers like a dump truck. Problem solved.

File: shirley.jpg (32KB, 738x550px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 738x550px

>>13999455
Kids these days, no fucking respect for the classics.

>>13999467
It was unsafe at any speed, anon.

>>13999505
I didn't thought Airplane was funny

>>13999511
Go back to bed Nader, You're not supposed to be up this late.

>>13998868
What car is this ?

>>13999529
Literal fiero with a body kit.

>>13998948
>look at the brz/frs sales for an example

The FR-S/BR-Z was overpriced and everyone who had half a brain went and bought a WRX or a Mustang instead of falling for the "daily drifter" meme.

Smart for two and twingoe exist.

Because normies econobox sedans have more interior space with FF.

>>13999523
then you probably have shit taste in movies

File: killself.jpg (42KB, 500x344px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x344px

>>13999523

>>13999118
>medium engine placement
>medium

kek

>>13998919
MR2 as first car
EL OH EL

>>13999973
this desu
suicidal

>>13999523
Surely you must be joking

>>13998948
>pretty good
It the safest car you can buy without airbags. The worst year has a 5 star safety rating.

>>13999488
This.

Might as well shove as many mechanical components as we can into one spot. That's a lot of trunk space to be giving up for the engine to be in the back when it could just as easily be in front. And as far as extending the cargo space into the passenger area as one big space like a wagon or hatch, it would block visibility from the front....Not that modern A pillars don't do that already.

>>14000688
don't call me Shirley