So what is the definition ? Would an engine set behind front wheels be considered or just infront of rear wheels be the only def.
So what is the definition ? Would an engine set behind front wheels be considered or just infront of rear wheels be the only def.
IMHO If the entire engine and accessories that are attached are completely behind the center line of the front wheels it is Mid-engined.
When people say "mid-engined" they typically mean in front of (or even on top of) the rear wheels. Behind the front wheels is called "front midships"
I've heard my TVR, which has the front of the engine about in line or just behind the front axle center, called "front-mid engine". Don't know if that's correct or not, so TIFWIW.
Mid-engine, too me, means: Ahead of the rear wheels, yet behind the passenger compartment. See Fiero, MR2, etc
I see mid-ship and mid-engined as two different things, not mutually exclusive. Gearheadotaku has that right. The TVR would be a front-mid-SHIP layout.
This is a silly argument.
Mid = between the wheels Rear = behind that Front = in front of that
I agree with Tuna.
the Ferrari 599 is a Mid Engined car with the engine ahead of the drivers compartment.
Wasn't the first generation RX-7 marketed as front mid-engined?
See under the EPA estimates.
Mid engine = behind the driver, yet in front of the rear axle. (914)
Rear engine = farther behind the driver, behind the rear axle (VW Bug, Fiat 600)
I think a lot of these arguments are based on not wanting the Corvette to be a mid engined car.
Seriously, who gives a crap where the driver is in relation to the engine? The whole thing is based on the engine's location with respect to the wheels.
tuna55 wrote: I think a lot of these arguments are based on not wanting the Corvette to be a mid engined car. Seriously, who gives a crap where the driver is in relation to the engine? The whole thing is based on the engine's location with respect to the wheels.
To be more specific, it's really about where the engine is in relation to the horizontal axis. You can have a car with a 50/50 weight distribution that's front engined (or even front-mid), but it won't have the same polar moment as a 'rear-mid' engined car.
Engine placement and drive train layout choices all have pros and cons, and while nobody is knocking the performance of the vette, or any other front-mid engined car, it's not going to have the same handling characteristics of a 'rear-mid' engined car.
For decades, mid engined has meant a layout that had the engine behind the driver, and ahead of the rear wheels. This layout also became synonymous with high performance / desirable sports cars: Ferrari, Lotus, Lamborghini....and for gear heads, Ford RS200, MR2, NSX...
If the layout was synonymous with mini-vans I don't think the makers of front-mid cars would be as eager to make the claims they are.. they'd just say a car has great balance and can turn well. Instead, they are trying use the term to associate themselves with the general perception of mid-rear engined cars. It's an indirect way of claiming a design goal and performance envelope they just don't have, and it's that indirect dishonesty that a lot of gear heads gets pissed about.
maroon92 wrote: I agree with Tuna. the Ferrari 599 is a Mid Engined car with the engine ahead of the drivers compartment.
If the 599 is mid engine my viper is mid engined. If its behind the driver and in front of the rear wheels then it is mid engined in my book.
fromeast2west wrote: If the layout was synonymous with mini-vans I don't think the makers of front-mid cars would be as eager to make the claims they are.. they'd just say a car has great balance and can turn well. Instead, they are trying use the term to associate themselves with the general perception of mid-rear engined cars. It's an indirect way of claiming a design goal and performance envelope they just don't have, and it's that indirect dishonesty that a lot of gear heads gets pissed about.
Exactly. It's all marketing BS, inferring credibility for something that, until then, had nothing to do with the claims.
Who remembers Lee Iochocha's "cab-forward design", a term that, until then, refered to something like a Porsche 962. Nice try, Lee, but we aren't mistaking a Chrysler for a Porsche, and still don't.
yeah, calling the 599 a mid engined car seems silly to me.
You guys are being silly.
If the motor is between the axles, it's mid engine (though there are variations on this theme):
regardless of where an engine sits, a cool car is a cool car. Simply placing the engine in one place or another doesn't make or break a car (within reason)
I'll throw in my vote that a front-mid engine counts, just like a rear-mid engine. And for a front engine to count as mid, it's gotta be totally behind the front wheels. That's the way I look at it, anyway.
Its a lot of opinion if you ask me, I don't think anyone official like the SAE has sat down and defined it so its really just who you are talking with and what cars you want to glorify 
Really, in the end it doesn't matter. But as far as I am concered mid means its in the middle, front means its in the front, rear means in the rear, all with respect to the wheel center lines.
I will add that a mid/front engined car can have exactly the same polar moment of inertia as a mid/rear engined car. If the horizontal centerline is the center between the wheels, it doesn't matter at all where the stuff is inside.
Not to mention it is rather dubious if the polar moment of inertia matters that much - as long as we're not talking about school buy type overhangs here, I think we're all playing pretty much the same game. Have you ever seen someone measure it on an actual car? Hmm... If it was that important, seems like it would be a statistic.
The driver is just another part of the car.
Cheetah, anyone?
tuna55 wrote: I will add that a mid/front engined car can have exactly the same polar moment of inertia as a mid/rear engined car. If the horizontal centerline is the center between the wheels, it doesn't matter at all where the stuff is inside. Not to mention it is rather dubious if the polar moment of inertia matters that much - as long as we're not talking about school buy type overhangs here, I think we're all playing pretty much the same game. Have you ever seen someone measure it on an actual car? Hmm... If it was that important, seems like it would be a statistic. The driver is just another part of the car.
How can the polar moment not matter? I guess it wouldn't if you're looking at drag cars, but in any type of motorsport that requires turning the polar moment is a pretty big deal.
To reduce it to it's absolute basics lets look at tire grip at the margin. In theory, a cars performance is limited by it's total grip. Assume we have two cars, both capable of using 100% of the available grip over an entire course; one has a higher polar moment than the other (the basic difference between a 'front-mid' and a 'traditional-mid' engine car).
At all points on the track the available grip will be used to either; accelerate, brake, or turn. If any traction used to do one of those things, it is unavailable for another.
With it's major masses located closer to it's center, a 'traditional-mid' design takes less torque to rotate. This translates into less grip/traction used for that action, which allows more to be used for acceleration/breaking.
Most of the 'front-mid' designs I've seen package the transmission with the rear axle to achieve a near 50/50 weight distribution, so you have the engine and transaxle sitting on either side of a relatively empty drivers compartment... so it's basically a big dumb bell shape, with the driver in the middle. It takes more force to initiate a turn than the more centrally packaged 'traditional-mid' design. That's great for drifting, but less efficient (fast) on a track.
FWIW: –adjective Automotive. of or pertaining to a configuration in which the engine is located behind the driver and between the front and rear wheels: midengine sports car; midengine design.
May I ask what prompted all this?
Dan
fromeast2west wrote: If the layout was synonymous with mini-vans I don't think the makers of front-mid cars would be as eager to make the claims they are.. they'd just say a car has great balance and can turn well. Instead, they are trying use the term to associate themselves with the general perception of mid-rear engined cars. It's an indirect way of claiming a design goal and performance envelope they just don't have, and it's that indirect dishonesty that a lot of gear heads gets pissed about.
When you mentioned that, I immediately thought of Toyota's weird mid engined minivans. I've always thought of mid engined cars having to put the motor behind the driver myself.
You'll need to log in to post.
