Talk:Mid-engine design

Merge

This article should be merged with MR layout Grs1969 — Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense, since mid-engine can be MR or MF. The features common to both should be elaborated in Mid-engine design.66.77.124.61 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the it doesn't make sense. The bit about polar moment of inertia isn't right. AFAIK, the mid-engine design is done 'cause of acceleration and stability-- which is related to center of mass and wheel base (spacing of the wheels, distance between the wheels). Straight line stability -- last time I checked -- Newton's first law said things go in a straight line... unless there is another force acting on it. I assume what was meant was... the issue related to breaking and weight shift. With breaking-- weight shifts to the front and one may get an nasty oversteer (as seen in the first Audi TTs), that in an unexperience driver leads to an accident. Anyhoo... first good attempt--article needs some work. Nephron T|C 07:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only straight line stability issue I can think of is that mid-engine cars sometimes have their center of gravity aft of their lateral center of pressure, which can cause issues in heavy crosswinds. I'm not sure if that's what the original author meant, or if it's even worth mentioning in the article, though. DoktorRocket 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've a hunch it has to do with fuel packaging, too, leading to C_g movement as it burns off. This seems to be what the article implies, & it tallies with what Len Terry's book suggested. (I'm not an engineer, but that was the sense I got.) Trekphiler 09:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If MR and MF were to be changed into subsections for Mid-engine, that would justify the merge. Otherwise the article MR is a distinctively different article from mid-engine as stated above. The polar moment of intertia is different between every MR configuration vehicle. Article needs editing but should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.121.29 (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Support there should be a merge... only question, IMHO, is which way. I spent some time in the automotive industry and I'm not familiar with "MR" ... so I think merge should go into "Mid-engine design" -- which I think is in accordance with the Wikipedia naming guidelines (WP:Naming) --the name should be simple and recognized by most people. Nephron T|C 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support And agree that it should go to 'Mid engine design' - more recognisable for most. Watch out for other articles in the set, I assume there are FR and FF articles around as well. In reply to the objections above, neither article is currently very long so all variants on mid engine can be covered. (Incidentally, my understanding is that MR means Mid engine Rear drive. The 'front mid' layout that BMW claim (engine in front of driver, but between axle lines, driving rear wheels) would not be MF as referred to above, but still MR.) 4u1e 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refute I disagree. The purpose of defining "Mid Engine Layout", and "Mid-Rear" as seperate definitions, is because they are two different concepts. Saying that an engine is Mid-Engine, does not mean that it is Mid Rear. It could be Mid-front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impreziv (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, even manufacturers of cars with engines mounted in front of the driver and behind the front wheels, such as many of the GT Ferraris, do not describe such vehicles as mid engined, but front engined. In fact, very few front engined vehicles have their engines truly mounted ahead of the front wheels. Mid engined pertains to an engine mounted behind the driver. Rear engined refers to an engine mounted behind the rear axle. These are the common and established permutations and nomenclatures.Michael Calwell 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refute Placing the heaviest component of an automobile in the middle of the car produces a distictive set of car handling characteristics regardless of the driven wheels. The purpose of a seperate article in Wikipedia is to describe distinct things seperately. The placement of the engine in the chassis (front, mid, rear) and the drive wheels (front, rear all) are not directly connected. Using auto company marketing materials is a poor guide to the correct encyclopedic definition. RMR is the most common type, because of the documented problems of packaging a vehicle with the engine inside the wheelbase, but trying to shoehorn all cars with the engine located completely inside the wheelbase into RMR is unworkable. PLawrence99cx 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Engine 4 wheel drive?

Are there any vehicles with this feature? Doesn't seem technically impossible. What about the Toyota Previa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.77.124.61 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I have personal experience of is the Volvo C303. The engine sits below the wall separating the driver's area from the cargo (or passenger) space. Two lids give you access to the engine from the inside of the car. http://www.real4x4.com/Volvo303.shtml gives some pictures that show the engine placement. // Liftarn

ATVs and UTVs use a Mid engine 4 wheel drive layout! I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.89.121 (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty. Most of the successful Group B rally cars put the engine behind the crew and drove all four wheels, the notable exception being the Audi Quattro. And there are numerous sports cars/supercars with this layout. Mr Larrington (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Lancia Stratos and the Renault 5 Turbo; both of those are Group B cars without 4WD. And there were a number with front-engine RWD like the Quattro; Audi was just the first. But you did say successful, didn't you?

As for mid-engine, 4WD cars, there are several. Audi R8/Lamborghini Gallardo (same chassis), McLaren P1, Bugatti Veyron, etc, etc. All come with rear-mid engines and all-wheel drive, at least in some versions. I don't see why it should be impossible; it's very simple: you put an engine and transaxle in the rear, driving the rear wheels. You run a driveshaft from the transaxle under the passenger floor, driving a front-mounted differential. Basically the exact opposite of the layout seen in a Subaru, for example. And of course, there is the whole crew of recent additions which drive the rear-engine mechanically and have electric motors driving the front, i.e. Porsche 918 and LaFerrari (God what a dumb name that is!).45Colt 15:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Engine?

Engine in front of the driver is mid-engine? Since when? Trekphiler 08:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Front-Mid designation is a questionable one. When looking at the layout of a powertrain there is a big difference between classical rear engine, mid engine and front engine layouts. These terms general date back to when engines were longitudinal in most cars. As such it the location of the engine, axle/final drive and passenger compartments were very much one after the other.

This is a quick example list of layouts.

Classical rear engine, VW Beetle. The layout is: Passenger Compartment, Axle/final drive, engine. This layout does allow a portion of the passenger compartment to sit above the axle. The engine is relatively easy to access at the back of the car. Historically this layout had good packaging efficiency.

Classical Mid engine, Porsche 550. The general layout is passenger compartment, engine, final drive. This layout is good from a vehicle dynamics point of view but relatively poor for packaging and engine service. It is important to note that the structure of this layout is different than that of a rear engine vehicle.

Front engine: The classical front engine RWD layout is: Engine, passenger compartment, axle/final drive. The significant element is the engine is in front of the driver. There is not a significant change to the generic layout of the vehicle if the engine is or is not completely behind the front axle. Because of this, the term front-mid-RWD doesn't really significantly differentiate the layout from front-RWD. Furthermore, some vehicles which had both an I6 and I4 engine option could be considered front-mid when equipped with one engine and front-not-mid with the other. Several BMWs as well as the Jeep Wrangler and possibly Cherokee come to mind.

As best as I can tell, the front-mid term started as a marketing term. Sports car enthusiasts have come to believe that the mid-engine layout (rear mid-engine that is) is the best layout. Marketing groups realized this and coined the front-mid term simply to capture that name association. As far as vehicle layout the term says little other than we have a classical front-RWD layout with the engine pushed back against the firewall.

I do think the term should either be removed from the article or include some discussion of the idea that front-mid may not be a strict engineering term. I am not adding it at this time because I do not have a reference. Springee (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FMR Model list

many of the cars listed in the FMR list are described as FR platforms on their individual articles such as:

I would think that the two should match
Compgeek86 20:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Commodore VE

The presence of a Holden Commodore in a list of mid-engined cars is, I believe, mildly amusing. It's obviously not out of the question though, having a short front overhang; do we have a source on this? 124.176.8.153 (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, the engine is over the front wheels, not behind. https://www.autoinstruct.com.au/manufacturer/holden/ve-commodore/v6-oil-change-llt-lfx-ly7/ Greglocock (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable claim of cooling issues on the Porsche 914

The claim that there are problems cooling the engine of the Porsche 914 does not have any citation. The article on the Porsche 914 doesn't mention any problems with cooling, either. I've owned three Porsche 914s, including a 914-6, which clearly requires more cooling than the 4-cylinder models, but I've never encountered any problems with cooling. Sure, if you're doing competition driving, you want to have a supplemental oil cooler, but that's something you'd want on any air-cooled engine for competitive driving. For daily use the regular cooling mechanisms are fine on the 914, even in warm and hot climates. I understand that Wikipedia doesn't use this kind of claim as source material, but I'd like to see a credible source on this alleged issue.

This questionable, uncited claim has been in place for almost a month now. Unless there is strong opposition, I'm going to either edit or remove it. -- CLSwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.; there has been no citation on this for 3+ months. I'm deleting the reference to the 914. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 07:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these articles

I don't understand why Mid-engine, front-wheel drive layout and Mid-engine, four-wheel drive layout require their own separate articles. All of the information on those pages (which is very little) would easily fit in dedicated sections of this page (which is even more lacking). I thought that was Wikipedia policy, to minimize the number of different pages floating around, to make it easier to keep track of what each one says, and make sure they all are in line and not diverging as people edit them. Not that either one seems to have get much attention. And of course, if one insists on having these separate articles, then the main page (this article) probably ought to at least provide a single link to either of those pages..45Colt 15:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this users suggestion, and further more, the entire topic of 'wheel drive:engine positioning' needs a complete overhaul. The top level should be " 'wheel drive:engine positioning' " , and within this article you would have ALL of the various forms of 'wheel drive:engine positioning' nested within. Working with a ranking something similar to 'wheel drive:engine positioning' to the main types, and within each main types the sub catergories.

The structure and meta of the articles pertaining to two wheel, engine positioning systems is truly a mess, and it shouldn't be too difficult as it is a fairly easy self contained topic that consists of about 3 umbrellas, with a couple of sub categories within each umbrella. I think the whole 'wheel:engine positioning' 'domain/topic' of wikipedia needs a serious overhaul.

E.g, -main type, *sub type :

Main Article: 'Wheel drive:Engine positioning' ....with nested:

-FR

FMR
etc

-RR

a given sub type of RR
etc

-FM

a given sub type of FM
etc

-etc

etc

FMR being given as an example of a type mid engine design

An FMR is a type of FR, and is strictly not a type of mid engine design. An FMR, IS NOT an example of mid engine design.

Remove FMR as an example of mid engine design ?

E.g - http://www.woiweb.com/index.php/FMR_layout "Technically FMR is a subcategory of FR, since the engine is still in the front of the car," — Preceding unsigned comment added by BattleCrap (talk • contribs) 12:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is not a mid engine layout. But in the mean time I am removing any examples given where the front of the engine block is not behind the wheel centreline. Greglocock (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More Dangerous

The article makes a claim that mid engined cars are more dangerous than front engined cars but provides absbolutely no evidence in support of the claim. This entire section should be removed unless evidence is provided:

"Mid-engined cars are more dangerous than front-engined cars if the driver loses control - although this may be initially harder to provoke due to the superior balance - and the car begins to spin. The moment of inertia about the center of gravity is low due to the concentration of mass between the axles (similar to standing in the middle of a playground roundabout, rather than at the edge) and the spin will occur suddenly, the car will rotate faster and it will be harder to recover from. Conversely, a front-engined car is more likely to break away in a progressive and controllable manner as the tires lose traction."

Kia Stinger claim

Sorry, every photo i can find of a Kia Stinger's engine bay clearly shows the spring tower is behind the front of the engine, hence it is a front engine car not FMR https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/reviews/2022-kia-stinger-gt-line-rwd-review/ I guess I'll just cn bomb it. Greglocock (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]