What is mid engined?
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In between the rear and front wheels?
A boxster or Elise is mid engined as it's ahead of the rear wheels. But then again a caterfield or s2000 has the engine behind the front wheels making it mid engined even though we all think of them as front engined.
Is there a clear cut definition anywhere?
A boxster or Elise is mid engined as it's ahead of the rear wheels. But then again a caterfield or s2000 has the engine behind the front wheels making it mid engined even though we all think of them as front engined.
Is there a clear cut definition anywhere?
#7
Once upon a time, there was only front-engined and rear-engined. Front-engined had the engine in front of the driver, rear-engined had the engine behind him. Then, clever engineering-type folks worked out that moving the engine forward of the rear axle line improved handling by bringing more of the mass of the car nearer its centreline and, to differentiate their newly-introduced brilliance from what had gone before, they designated it "mid-engined".
From that, I don't think you can have a mid-engined car where the engine sits in front of the driver but what do I know?
From that, I don't think you can have a mid-engined car where the engine sits in front of the driver but what do I know?
Trending Topics
#8
I agree with H7. If the engine is in front of the driver, regardless of position relative to the axle, it's front engined, if it's behind the driver but in front of the rear axle it's mid engined and if it's behind the driver and over the axle it's rear engined.
That would make westerfields front engined, ferrari 360 mid engined and Porsche 911 rear engined (I think).
That would make westerfields front engined, ferrari 360 mid engined and Porsche 911 rear engined (I think).
#9
Gorden Murry (designer of the McLaren F1 road car) defines mid-engined as any car that has the engine within the axles. Which is why Mercedes describes the SLR as front mid-engined as Mr Murry designed that too.
As the reason for moving the mass into the center of the car is to increase the yaw rate for a given turning force and this is improved by moving the principle masses towards the center of the car then I suppose the SLR can be called mid engined.
Lets face it, the MR2 is called mid-engined and its engine is much nearer the rear wheels than the SLR's engine is to the front wheels.
As the reason for moving the mass into the center of the car is to increase the yaw rate for a given turning force and this is improved by moving the principle masses towards the center of the car then I suppose the SLR can be called mid engined.
Lets face it, the MR2 is called mid-engined and its engine is much nearer the rear wheels than the SLR's engine is to the front wheels.
#10
Rear biased mid-engined set ups are always going to be better for handling than front based mid-engine for two main reasons:
First is to do with how weight distribution shifts under acceleration and braking. You want more weight over the rear on acceleration to give good traction, and you also want less over the front under braking otherwise all the braking is being done by the front wheels and the large contact patch at the rear is under used (this is why most shopper-cars have discs at the front, and only drums at the rear, and why Mk1 MR2s have larger discs at the rear than the front.)
Second is to do with polar moment of inertia (strictly, not centred on the geometric centre of the car). When steering, it is easier to change direction quickly when the engine mass is further to the rear. When it's closer to or over the front wheels it's like you running around with a broom out front carrying a large weight on the end of it ie a lot more difficult to change direction than if you held the weight close to your chest! Result is the front tyres have to work a lot harder to cope and lack the outright direction change responsiveness of a rear MR setp.
First is to do with how weight distribution shifts under acceleration and braking. You want more weight over the rear on acceleration to give good traction, and you also want less over the front under braking otherwise all the braking is being done by the front wheels and the large contact patch at the rear is under used (this is why most shopper-cars have discs at the front, and only drums at the rear, and why Mk1 MR2s have larger discs at the rear than the front.)
Second is to do with polar moment of inertia (strictly, not centred on the geometric centre of the car). When steering, it is easier to change direction quickly when the engine mass is further to the rear. When it's closer to or over the front wheels it's like you running around with a broom out front carrying a large weight on the end of it ie a lot more difficult to change direction than if you held the weight close to your chest! Result is the front tyres have to work a lot harder to cope and lack the outright direction change responsiveness of a rear MR setp.
#12
The current Z/Skyline and RX-8 claim that they are FM too. I can say from seeing the RX-8 with no clothes on that the heavy bits end at the front axle, so I guess Mazda is telling the truth Not quite so sure about the Nissan tho...
I think Honda made the same claim about the old Legend too - which was understeer city
I think Honda made the same claim about the old Legend too - which was understeer city
#14
In that case steve, then any car with the engine to the rear of the driver would logically be rear engined !!!
I suppose the traditional term means behind the driver and within the wheelbase. However some cars are more mid than others
Take the 328GTB and the 288GTO, very similar bodies but the 'cheaper' 328 had a transverse engine, the 288 had a longditudinal engine which moved the engine much nearer to the C of G.
I suppose the traditional term means behind the driver and within the wheelbase. However some cars are more mid than others
Take the 328GTB and the 288GTO, very similar bodies but the 'cheaper' 328 had a transverse engine, the 288 had a longditudinal engine which moved the engine much nearer to the C of G.
#16
Gorden Murry (designer of the McLaren F1 road car) defines mid-engined as any car that has the engine within the axles
#17
I take it you mean the TVR ?, yes acording to Mr murrary. In an interview, they asked him if it was different working on a car that was not midengined (the merc SLR), a bit miffed, he said it 'certainly is mid engined'
#18
Interestingly McLaren used a Cebera as the test mule for the SLR running gear and drive train.
Oh, and using the engine between the axles definition, I think the Bedford Rascal van is also mid engined!
Oh, and using the engine between the axles definition, I think the Bedford Rascal van is also mid engined!
#21
i just think calling a car 'mid engined' when the engine is at the front of the car is misleading, so what if its behing the front wheels its still at the front. If you were asked to point to the engine and were told 'its a mid engined car' but it had a cover over it you'd point to behind the driver seat and thinking ferrari, Mac F1, Lambo, MR2, MGF, Metro 6R4, Lotus et al..
Rear, people only thing 911 and old beatle
Rear, people only thing 911 and old beatle
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sam Witwicky
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
17
13 November 2015 10:49 AM
Brzoza
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
1
02 October 2015 05:26 PM