Are we keeping engines in the front of the cars for traditional

It's actually useful. With mid-rear engines you're destroying all hopes for rear seats or luggage space. With rear-ear engines you still compromise bodystyle variety and practicality (in case of a rear engined wagon you'll have one trunk above the engine and one trunk in the front instead of one big trunk). If you have the engine in the front you can do whatever you want with the rest of the cabin. Also it makes cooling far easier. The only benefit of mid-rear is handling so it only makes sense in sports cars, and rear-rear actually compromises handling as well as compromising practicality so it's completely retarded.

FF is the most efficient in terms of space design.

>>17805410
>>17805418
Hadn't considered this, but...
>engine in the front - can have big trunk in the back
>engine in the back - can't have big trunk in the front, because you need to be able to see where you are going

>>17805418
This is objectively true, and transverse FF also has the lowest drivetrain loss which results in better fuel economy.
And it's easier to put together in the factory, as you only need a pre-assembled drivetrain/suspension unit to bolt into the body rather than fucking around with driveshafts and differentials, which reduces production costs.

simply speaking it's all about weight distribution (more weight above an axle = more grip) and moment of intertia around yaw axis. FR means a lot of grip on the front axle for more reliable turning and a high moment of inertia so they don't spin out as suddenly as mid-engined cars.

Traditional reasons for front engine include simpler cooling and easier, "safer" and more predictable handling characteristics for "normal" people who only see car as a means to get from point A to point B. Also in most cases can have most room for passengers and luggage.

>implications of mid-engine design
Hands down the best driving characteristics for someone who actually can drive or at least understands concepts like polar moment of inertia and dynamic weight transfer. The only obvious drawback is usually not having space for more than 1 passenger or too much stuff but in theory could also be made to have a decent sized trunk and frunk like Fiat X1/9 did so you could actually have a decent amount of storage space with a mid-engined car if that was higher on priority list with companies that make them.

>implifications of rear-engine design
Most efficient design as far as acceleration and deacceleration is concerned. Huge static weigh bias on drive wheel combined with even more weight going to drive wheels under hard acceleration means a rear-engined car will always accelerate faster than a car with similar power/weight ratio. Notable rear weight bias is also beneficial to braking as the static rear weight bias allow less front weight bias meaning rear brakes are also contributing to braking much more than they would in front or mid-engined cars. Also has same or even lower drivetrain losses than FF cars and can be even easier to put together in factories. There is a reason RR used to be the standard for small affordable cars in back in the day.

>>17805410
>RR layout compromises handling
>911 platform has taken the most racing wins of any particular chassis over the last 50 years
this doesnt add up

>>17805519
That's because it's been produced for 50 years.

>>17805432
I want you to tell me how exactly FF has less drivetrain losses than a mid-engined car having transversely mounted engine over it's rear wheels.

>>17805548
why would you change what you got right from the get go?

File: porsche-normal.jpg (230KB, 1200x398px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1200x398px

>>17805519
[rotates motor]

>>17805380
>hits a soft dirt embankment
>frame crumples from the rear
No wonder the body count is so high.

File: 640x350m.jpg (32KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x425px

>>17805578
Dunno. Ask guys from 9ff, Ruf and Porsche's own racing departament on why they all moved the engine inboard in their highest-performance modifications.

>>17805548
So has front engine dude

>>17805432
Not completely true, look at Mazdas one piece drivetrain for the MX5.

>>17805380
it's useful, more efficient and safer
>puts more weight on the wheels that are responsible for directing the car
>more room for passengers
>bigass hunk of metal between you and the stacy paying more attention to her phone than the road
>convenient engine bay makes it easier to service
plus the design philosophy makes for a more aesthetically pleasing car

>>17805519
Yeah and how many Porsche driving douchebags walker themselves into a tree...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opGa1AUeVtQ&t=207s

>>17805564
Yeah, but it's hard to have back seats or much trunk space with MR. Two things needed in a normal car.

File: 9cd4f2772135209340e9d486c8d005a9.jpg (174KB, 800x645px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 800x645px

>>17805418
that's mostly because of gimped suspension
>>17805430
there may also be some aerodynamic considerations
>>17805432
>lowest drivetrain loss
no more than any other trans-axle

>>17807066
Here is some food for through:
Ferrari Mondial has backseats that actually can be used by full-sized adults and a small trunk.
Fiat X1/9 has two decent sized trunks at both ends of the car and more storage than many normal cars as a result.

Combining the two shouldn't be too hard if someone actually took a shot at it.

>>17808458
>Ferrari Mondial
The problem is that the Mondial is regarded as one of the worst Ferraris ever.
You don't get something for nothing.

Don't know enough about the specs on the second one to comment, but wasn't it the Bertone X1/9?

>>17807043
the RR layout is harder to handle if your a noob, but having the weight back there means more weight on the drive tires thus better traction in the turns

>>17806778
>Porsche's own racing departament
To fit a big diffuser at the back. It had nothing to do with weight distribution.

>>17805519
That has more to do with sales and marketing. The cayman is superior in every way except engines, the only reason the cayman isn't faster than the 911 is because porsche doesn't want to.

>>17809515
>It had nothing to do with weight distribution.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/los-angeles-auto-show/a31586/this-is-porsches-mid-engined-911-rsr/
>The switch to a mid-engine layout was made for the sole purpose of improving weight distribution,

http://www.evo.co.uk/news/18547/porsche-unveils-new-mid-engined-911-rsr-race-car
>We saw that, to use the tyre properly we needed a different weight distribution.

Weight distribution was literally the main reason they switched to MR, RR simply can't compete.

>>17805380
RR engine was the second most used engine config when it appeared.
It allowed for better weight distribution during braking, allowing for better braking then the other configs
Reason why Porsche "had the best brakes" for so long. It had little to do with brakes.

Dinamically, the RR layout provides you lift off oversteer, which is useful if you know how to use it but deadly for noobs.
Hence why it is so good in motorsports but so infamous on the roads.

The new twingo is RR, but the amount of shit they had to put in so that the commoners driving it wouldn't spin it is ridiculous, wider tyres is the rear, super aggressive ESP, shit rear brakes.
All advantages from the RR layout were basically eliminated, the car doesn't even have a front trunk.
The only advantage maintained was the tiny turning radius.

I don't get why we don't just put the engines at the bottom already. Surely we should be able to design an engine that's spread out rather than in a little ball, then we can put the thing at the bottom and weight distribution is now perfect and visibility is perfect out the front and there's now much more space for people/things in the car.

>>17809563
So when do we plebeians get a mid engined 911? Is is gonna be restricted to race car drivers forever?

>>17809630
Very interesting post. Maybe it has to do with cooling? Or impractical to fit the fuel tank in that case? Or harder to manufacture/maintain?

File: Tesla_Motors_Model_S_base[1].jpg (823KB, 2153x1431px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 2153x1431px

>>17809630
Tesla wins again

>>17805410
Fpbp

>>17809617
>The new twingo is RR,
oddly, so are smart cars. I hear they're actually a lot of fun to drive because of it, because even though its got a tiny engine the thing as a whole only weighs like four pounds anyway

File: 1937 VW vw-30 Chassis with Floor Pan B&W.jpg (92KB, 950x411px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 950x411px

>>17809865
Meh.

>>17809630
Where would you fit the intake manifold and exhaust manifold? Where does the alternator and A/C and P/S go?

>>17809630
>take a speed-bump too fast
>engine dead
wew

>>17811863
>oddly, so are smart cars
Nothing oddly about that, smart cars were always RR to save length and the new twingo is a rebadged smart forfour. Born out of the partnership between mercedes and renault.
Mercedes got the 1.5dCi engines and renault got the smart forfour and tecnical advisory for the current Espace luxury features.

>>17809630
Buses have that configuration. inline 8s turn on the side put under the back rows of seats.

>>17811863
Smart cars drive like a glorified golf cart
Ride is bumpy as hell, brake pedal hinges at the bottom instead of the top like every other car, and the anemic engine has trouble getting up to highway speeds