Best Front-Engine Car Ever

[nota]

I suppose you could go mad with definitions, and even in defining what 'old school' is. Many of the really old veteran cars are indisputably mid engined, with passengers seated atop the motor. These motor wagons evolved into vehicle genre like Ford Model T with their engines generally positioned ahead of the driver, but entirely behind the front-axle centreline, so still contained within the wheelbase and technically thus (front) mid engined. Usually it's only after WW2 that we begin to see car design further evolve with engines pushed forward to the extent that they partly overhang the front axle

Case in point: Porsche Boxter is universally accepted as being mid engined. Would you also classify this beautiful pre-war Peugeot 402 Coupe as being mid engined? If not, why not?

(semantics are the food of the pedant )

[Matra et Alpine]

I woudl have said it was FRONT as at the time it was made it was the relation to the DRIVER/PASSENGER that gave the naming.

[nota]

I woudl have said it was FRONT as at the time it was made it was the relation to the DRIVER/PASSENGER that gave the naming.

So in your opinion, the era in which it was made has more bearing on a technical description (front vs mid) than does the actual engine placement itself?

Hmm .. To test your 'rules of engagement' let's reconcile it against these two cars in attached pics. The left picture is of a Talbot, circa 1938. The right is a Talbo (replica) built in 1993.

On both cars, their engines are wholely contained within the wheelbase. However, according to your time-mandate, the original version of these ostensibly near-identical vehicles is a front engined car .. while the replica - purely because of its build date - becomes a mid-front, or more precisely a mid-engined car ??

ps: there's no ambiguity about this one is there? Unless of course you choose to sit astride it!
http://vintage-reprints.com/catalog/...oducts_id=4181

[henk4]

enter the mid engined, front wheel drive Traction Avant, which has its engine clearly behind the front axle.....

[Matra et Alpine]

However, according to your time-mandate, the original version of these ostensibly near-identical vehicles is a front engined car .. while the replica - purely because of its build date - becomes a mid-front, or more precisely a mid-engined car ??

No back then NOBODY made that level of distinction.

This whole front-mid started with the PR/Marketing guys needing to convince buyers ( and fanboys ) that a front engined car can handle as well as a mid and has all the benefits when the engine is pushed back.

ANYONE asked in the time of those cars woudl call BOTH front engined.
In the begining it was where the engine was RELATIVE TO THE DRIVER.
That is what I was saying.

[Coventrysucks]

If people acknowledge that there is a very distinct difference between a "rear" engined car, and a "mid" engined car, where in both instances the engine is behind the driver, then why is there such resistance to accepting that the same distinct difference exists between "front" and "mid" where the engine is ahead of the driver?

If you think that calling a front-mid engine layout "mid engined" too fussy and pedantic, surely all rear-mid layouts should strictly be refered to as "rear engined"?

[MrKipling]

Because moving the engine forwards behind the driver has a much greater influence on polar moment than moving it backwards infront of the driver.

I've driven all four types in anger - 612 Scaglietti, F430 and 360, Porsche 993 and a race-prepared (or race-completely-f*cked would be closer to the truth) MX5 and I can promise you that moving the engine around at the back makes a much bigger difference. I guess because of the pendulum effect. Perhaps a 612 would be much more stable for reversing than the Mazda?

[Matra et Alpine]

If people acknowledge that there is a very distinct difference between a "rear" engined car, and a "mid" engined car, where in both instances the engine is behind the driver, then why is there such resistance to accepting that the same distinct difference exists between "front" and "mid" where the engine is ahead of the driver?

: pedant mode on:
Because usually a mid engine has the transaxle BEHIND it and a rear engine has it in FRONT - or it's difficutl to get the drive-shafts to meet up
: pedant mode off:

If you think that calling a front-mid engine layout "mid engined" too fussy and pedantic, surely all rear-mid layouts should strictly be refered to as "rear engined"?

I think the modern nomenclature is totally sensible and does call on the need fro a name for a front engine well set back setup that is differnet from "normal" front. That they called it front-mid is odd given the other usage of mid but understandable from a sales-brochure-speak POV

But it's not that important just as front-longtidunal and front-transverse was once common parlance it has been lost in the realms of less important usage, just as I suspect front-mid will either become the norm for "front" as it becomes more widely adopted OR the desire to claim "mid" will be dropped and it will just be "front".

Etymology is an enjoyable subject once embraced

[Piacki_117]

Ferrari 575 M Maranello

[Matra et Alpine]

to get back on .... Jag D-type or A-M DB4 .... cars that made you FEEL you had driven them

[PerfAdv]

Pointing out the front-mid distinction is acceptable in a conversation with people informed of the distinction between front and front-mid. Even if the engine sits within the axle centerlines it handling characteristics are that of a FR layout. With less weight on the steering wheels the chances of terminal understeer is much less.

Unlike rear-engined cars where the engine is entirely behind the axle centerline, front-engined cars have never had the engine placed entirely in front of the axle-line. So, from a purely engine placement POV, FR have always been at least a partial front-mid layout.

The Maserati Quattroporte has a weight distribution of 47% front/53% rear yet it's not a front-mid layout. The distinction can be made that a design is front-mid but there are other ways of achieving the goal of ideal weight distribution for a more balanced handling car.

Automobile mag. Quattroporte article

[Matra et Alpine]

Unlike rear-engined cars where the engine is entirely behind the axle centerline, front-engined cars have never had the engine placed entirely in front of the axle-line.

yes they have. Almost every Gregoire ever built was in front of the front wheels AND was longtitudonal !!!!
But if we stay "modern" in the analysis then most transverse engines have most of the engine ahead of the axle line.
But that IS splitting hairs.
I left the Audi out as the 5 cylinder coudl be argued to have the tail end of the block on the axle line so I was letting that hair stay split

[MrKipling]

But if we stay "modern" in the analysis then most transverse engines have most of the engine ahead of the axle line.
But that IS splitting hairs.

Perhaps, but the 612 at least has the leading edge of the block (if you see what I mean) just about on top of the front axle - and that's a V12! It does have an exceptionally long bonnet though.

I APOLOGISE, I AM TALKING ARSE.

Talking of car that make you feel like you driven them, it has to be the Caterham 7. I know it's a bit silly, but I really, truly love the fact that you can place you hand almost flat on the floor without moving from your driving position.

[nota]

Pointing out the front-mid distinction is acceptable in a conversation with people informed of the distinction between front and front-mid. Even if the engine sits within the axle centerlines it handling characteristics are that of a FR layout. With less weight on the steering wheels the chances of terminal understeer is much less.

Unlike rear-engined cars where the engine is entirely behind the axle centerline, front-engined cars have never had the engine placed entirely in front of the axle-line. So, from a purely engine placement POV, FR have always been at least a partial front-mid layout.

Why insist on calling a spade a shovel? Those that do will only dig a bigger hole

In my book, pointing out anything is entirely 'acceptable' as long as it is true & accurate. And yes there are cars with engines entirely ahead of axle centreline

[Matra et Alpine]

Perf ? You sure the new Maser isn't' front-mid ?
I can't find any pics of the engine bay BUT that transmission tunnel is HUGE so the 'box is obviously pushed way back which might suggest that it's front-mid.
It might just be that Maserati dont' feel the need to feed the fanboys with the "front-mid" hype knowing the car will sell itself
Got any engine bay pics or cutaways ??
It's always possible to do other things to get weight distribution better - but usually at a cost. My A610 has the power steering and air con and battery located in the front wings beneath the headlights and the radiator and ECU in between -- with the ENGINE at the back. Got the weight issues of the GTA resolved BUT is a repair/maintenance nightmare !! ( one only the French would undertake )