Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The mid-engine layout is typically chosen for its relatively favorable weight distribution. The heaviest component is nearer to the center of the vehicle, reducing the vehicle's moment of inertia and making it easier and faster to turn the vehicle to a new direction. Also the engine weight is more evenly carried by all the wheels with this layout. As a result, vehicle stability, traction, and ride quality are naturally improved when turning, braking, and accelerating.
Mounting the engine in the middle instead of the front of the vehicle puts more weight over the rear tires so they have more traction and provide more assistance to the front tires in braking the vehicle, with less chance of rear wheel lockup and less chance of a skid or spin out. If the mid-engine vehicle is also rear-drive (as almost all of them are) the added weight on the rear tires can also improve acceleration on slippery surfaces, providing much of the benefit of all wheel drive without the added weight and expense of all wheel drive components. The mid-engine layout makes ABS brakes and traction control systems work better, by providing them more traction to control. The mid-engine layout may make a vehicle safer, since an accident can occur if a vehicle cannot stay in its own lane around a curve or is unable to stop quickly enough. Mid-engine design is also a way to provide additional empty crush space in the front of the automobile between the bumper and the windshield, which can then be used in a frontal collision to absorb more of the impact force to minimize penetration into the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
In most automobiles, and in sports cars especially, ideal car handling requires balanced traction between the front and rear wheels when cornering in order to maximize the possible speed around curves without sliding out. This balance is harder to achieve when the heavy weight of the engine is located far to the front or far to the rear of the vehicle. Some automobile designs strive to balance the fore and aft weight distribution by other means such as putting the engine in the front and the transmission and battery in the rear of the vehicle. Some of the same benefits are gained, but at the cost of greater moment of inertia compared to the mid-engine layout, making it harder and less responsive to turn the vehicle to a new direction.
Another benefit comes when the heavy mass of the engine is located close to the back of the seats. It makes it easier for the suspension to absorb the force of bumps so the riders feel a smoother ride. But in sports cars the engine position is once again utilized to increase performance and the potentially smoother ride is usually more than offset by stiffer shock absorbers.
This layout also allows the transmission and motor to be directly bolted to each other—with independent suspension on the driven wheels this removes the need for the chassis to transfer engine torque reaction.
No one builds affordable mid-engine cars. Mid-engine means the engine is in the backseat, which limits it to two-seaters. America doesn't build any affordable two-seaters either, unless you consider the Corvette affordable. Affordable cars are bought with practicality in mind. The MR2 wasn't a sales success because, well, it wasn't very practical. It had enough storage room for a large sock. The Boxster does better job of providing some degree of practicality. On the other hand, it's not like the Boxster's M-R layout is really winning it any appreciable amount of sales over F-R or even R-R layouts. It's still perceived as being the Porsche for people who just can't afford a 911 despite being much more nimble than it's bigger rear-engine brother.
Because we build very few cars that would so benefit from mid-engine design that it would warrant a complete change of design philosophy. The Vette is the only American car I can think of that would still be true to it's design intent if it were mid-engine. Maybe a Viper or Ford GT, if they are/will be built; I've lost track of their progress.
But mostly because we like front engine/rear drive for sports cars.
Not to go too off, but they have a tendency to snap over-steer if one is not cornering carefully. MR2s often had this problem and you could even see it in an autocross. Fun flaw but maybe annoying.
Not to go too off, but they have a tendency to snap over-steer if one is not cornering carefully. MR2s often had this problem and you could even see it in an autocross. Fun flaw but maybe annoying.
very few automakers world wide build affordable mid engined cars because the general public does not want affordable mid engined cars. if they did then the fiero, the MR2, and the fiat X19 all would have been huge sales winners, and they were not.
I think the 911 actually qualifies for a rear engine, rear drive. The Mid engine vehicle would be the Boxster/Cayman which has somewhat of a rear trunk.
Why don't they do it, what current American vehicle do you think would actually benefit from a mid engine layout? Also, what vehicles (worldwide) currently offer a mid-engine layout and which ones are affordable? I can't think of any off the top of my head, is the Smart technically a mid engine? It doesn't really benefit from any performance enhancing, fun to drive, characteristics (unless you consider parking sideways, fun) that I can think of. I'd say the extra costs in developing a mid engine vehicle (drive shafts, trans axles, etc make it a little less desirable than the proven FF design, or FR setup.
Also, if you're simply wanting to improve weight distribution, just tuck the engine further towards the middle of the car. BMW has found a way to get 50/50 weight distribution on a front engine rear drive BMW 3 series for years now, the idea works...push the engine back, push the wheels forward, and shift unnecessary things to the trunk. It'll handle like a dream!
But they weren't mid-engine. 911s were prone to this because of the chunk of metal in the rear that wants to go straight. Lift the throttle in mid-turn, lose rear tire grip as the weight shifts forward, and you facing the opposite direction.
very few automakers world wide build affordable mid engined cars because the general public does not want affordable mid engined cars. if they did then the fiero, the MR2, and the fiat X19 all would have been huge sales winners, and they were not.
You may or may not be correct about what people want. The Fiero and X1/9 were horrible cars. The MR2 was quite capable, but tiny, and not so much better than the Miata.
The current Boxter is probably the most affordable mid-engine car available.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
