Why doesnt anyone make a FWD layout like this?

Citroen DS had an MF layout. i think the SM had it aswell

>Le Mans requires 2 things: speed and reliability
>Nishit has none of those

>Muh lap times

Nissan fanboys everyone

>guy with zero engineering or design experience comes up with stupid idea
>ass blasted when people say it's garbàge
Don't you remember user? This whole thinking stuff is the reason you dropped out of high school and became a wrench monkey

Name a good reason why the layout OP suggested is bad (keep in mind, with transverse MF the front axle would be moved forward to accomodate the engine, like in a FR car.)

>user is such a dunce that he/she does not understand the concept of burden of proof

Yes Mr.Autismo I'm sure your silly ideas are better than the stuff actual car companies that spend millions in R&D are coming out with.

You haven't answered the question.

>le "prove me wrong" meme
You haven't given any reasons as to why it would be good, apart from baseless assumptions

>nurburgring

allows you to move the wheels further forwards

Of course that intrudes into the cabin space. The enginecomes further from the axle centerline than the transmission itself. Swapping them around costs more cabin space.

Okay, here are some reasons:
>Better weight distribution, improving handling
>Better aesthetics (similar proportions to an FR)
>Roomier engine bay, more space for radiator, intercooler etc. in the front
>Cool factor, if that even counts

Pic related is a somewhat comical illustration of what the same car would look like with transverse FF and transverse MF

Funny you should bring up the R5 Turbo, the regular version of the R5 does what OP wants, but longitudinally. The transmission is in front of the engine.

Yes, pic related is modified but it's easier to see what I mean than a stock one.

>Better weight distribution, improving handling
Baseless assumption
>Better aesthetics (similar proportions to an FR)
Subjective
>Roomier engine bay, more space for radiator, intercooler etc. in the front
Irrelevant
>Cool factor, if that even counts
Again, subjective

I'm laughing at you, not with you.

The closer you move the engine to the center of mass of the vehicle, the better the car will handle.

Examples: miata, mr2 and every boxer based vehicle.

Why do you think a 50/50 weight distribution is preferred

Nigga what are you on about. Weight distribution improves when the center of mass of the car is closer to the center of the car itself. The engine is a heavy part of the car, the closer it is to the center, the closer it will be to 50/50 weight distribution.

For an example, take a look at the miata or honda S2000.

A roomier engine bay is much better for easy maintenance and mods, keeping mechanics mecanics from ripping your ass off in labour costs.

Interior space

>every boxer based vehicle
Nah. When I was a kid we had Subaru's with FWD and the engine was way forward.

Spoon did that with some of their EK9 Type R Civics.
Remember watching a BMI or some shit with one of those.

HAHAHAHAHA

I believe 60/40 is preferred for FWD layouts because of traction issues. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

That makes sense when the car in question is RWD.
However, with FWD you're transferring weight away from the drive wheels when you accelerate. You lose traction.

You are right. 50-50 in FF will actually increase understeer, by putting more weight in the back and thus lifting the front up if that makes sense

True I forgot about those subaru's. I should have said the modern sporty cars with boxer engines.
That is a good point.

Fuck it, move the engine forward more on those fwd cars. Just keep my boxer where it currently is.

>Better weight distribution, improving handling
Fair enough, although I could argue that it doesn't necessarily improve handling.
moving some of the weight off the front axle (by moving the engine behind the axle, a small portion of its weight is now supported by the rear axle too) will make understeer worse. It's also true that it puts more weight closer to the center of gravity of the car, contributing to a more neutral handling.
My opinion is that just flipping the engine around the axle and moving everything a little bit forward without an extensive rebalance of the suspensions won't do any good.

>Better aesthetics (similar proportions to an FR)
Subjective so I won't even argue

>Roomier engine bay, more space for radiator, intercooler etc. in the front
There is a lot of shit on and in front of firewalls in today's cars, even assuming you somehow find a way to not reduce cabin space, you would put the engine so close to the firewall that most of that stuff would need to be relocated elsewhere, so your point is arguable at best, also considering you suggest to move the whole axle a little bit forward, further reducing the available bay space in front of the engine.
You need a large engine bay to do this shit.

>Cool factor, if that even counts
Again, subjective.

Okay so what about this, my turbo sits behind the motor and I have about a foot of space from the back of the motor to the firewall. If you could relocate the turbo and push the motor back it would be the same as what op is talking about and it would have room to do it

Look at all of that room for activities

Peugeot lean their engines back in some cars to achieve this.

top diagrams m80

/thread

Is that enough for you to use the original suspension setup? And by that I mean: if you flip the engine over, will that space be enough for you to push the whole thing back enough so that the gearbox can be connected back to its driveshaft without any noticeable angle?

My answer is probably no, you would need to relocate your suspensions forward (my guess is the towers would probably end up at least where your coolant tank is) which means you would have completely different engine mounts, exhaust layout, subframe layout and you would need to generally rearrange things around the engine bay like crazy to fit this idea.

It's not just a matter of "look, I have a few inches of space behind the engine, let's turn the whole thing 180° and use that space"

>people think the problem with this car was FWD

With OPs setup, the engine bay stays the same size. The axle moves forward, and the car gains a longer wheelbase, and looks more like a RWD longitudinal configuration.

There might be a need to increase the engine bay size so that engine components that are now closer to the firewall are more accessible.

This is a great design, I just dont understand why the first transverse FWD configurations didnt take a hint from this, and decide to put them all in front of the axle.

Great illustration.
While a FWD does not need 50/50, putting that weight behind the axle should improve handling.

You're missing the part where the front axle moves forward more. The engine bay stays the same dimensions.

The engine doesn't magically take up more space if flipped. It just needs to sit behind the front axle, which are moved forward more.

pic related

Shop quality aside that looks considerably better.

Maybe an issue would be safety, keeping the engine block out of the cabin must be easier if it is further away.

you'd need to use a different suspension setup to get the clearance for pedestrian impact

How do RWD cars do it? Their engines are either behind the axle with long ass hoods, or centered over the axles.
Saab, and Citron had FWD engines that sat behind the front axle, they were designed to slide under the car in a front end collision.

...

I agree that it would be better but manufacturers don't care too much about under steer and handling characteristics in their economy box hatchbacks and shit boxes.

a bit of rear weight bias is better than 50/50

...

>>Roomier engine bay, more space for radiator, intercooler etc. in the front
>Baseless assumption

This 100% helps distribution because the weight is closer to center.

>>Better aesthetics (similar proportions to an FR)
>Subjective
Portional aesthetics are not subjective. Your brain automatically sees more balanced or symmetrical shapes as more attractive.

>>Roomier engine bay, more space for radiator, intercooler etc. in the front
>Irrelevant

Better cooling, more easy for maintenance which brings down service times and costs, more space for modification, simply easier to see everything.

Olds did it

This would worsen understeer, though.

Volvo did it

desu still prefer 50 50 on a RWD car because it seems more stable. Rear biased cars may be faster and grippier on the track but for the street it seems really twitchy and prone to oversteer

Senpai, more weight over the rear wheels means more grip, right? Unless you're talking snap oversteer...

Er, you'll find that's still in front of the axle, genius.

> Rear biased cars may be faster and grippier on the track
I don't know about that. Before all the driver aids now on Porsches they had a very bad reputation for handling at fast speeds.

The problem is related to how the chassis is laid out and where the suspension components have to go. If your engine is in the same place except that now the axles are moved further forward, your front struts and suspension pieces now have to be moved further forward as well. This reduces chassis stiffness and stability in turns while adding more stress into the chassis.

Now if you did it by simply moving the engine farther back, you're cutting significantly into the overall cabin space of the car which is something you DEFINITELY don't want in a FWD car that's meant to be used as a daily.

Basically, it makes no sense and there are FWD cars that handle in a sublime manner already even without this - prime example being the Ford Fiesta.

You get much more improvement for the money just by making the car lighter - there's no reason for any company to put resources and R&D into this for dubious benefit.

ride quality

youtu.be/AG55Bf9nWHk?t=9m28s

What you're doing there is increasing the wheelbase, which will more negatively affect a cars handling than a slight alteration of weight distribution will improve it.

That's a very good question. I've seen toyota do it for some JTCC race car, so there's surely a good point from a performance standpoint.

One thing I on the other hand can't wrap my head around is why so many have the exhaust exit in the front and the air sucked in the back of the engine. Why not just do it the other way so the engine can suck cold air infront of the engine and the exhaust don't have to wrap around the engine, or worse go below the engine. Both the intake and exhaust could be made shorter, meaning that it would be cheaper and lighter. And not having to lead the exhaust below the engine means that you could mount it lower for a lower center of gravity.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

K20 is like that

It was still faster than the Vetts.

>hurrr durrr fastr den vette

No shit, genius. It is a fucking LMP1 car. Even the worst LMP1 car had BETTER be faster than a fucking LMGTE-Pro class car!

actually I think the c7.r had faster lap times than the gt-r lm. I could be wrong though, but if memory serves me correct it happened.

...

7gen Celicas do that

Don't try to improve FF, Honda already perfected it

How about we move the steering wheel and pedals to the back seat?

It would be the comfiest ride

Honda's K series are setup like that. The evo X has its engine like that too.

Jesus, that's some serious slant.

Well.

Can only manlets fit in those?

Using the front tires to turn and provide torque means the car will break traction and understeer into a wall.

also placing the weight behind the driving axle will have suspension gremlins. think how bad a 911 is, then add a wheely bar, that's op's design.

>it also took porsche a billion years to get the 911 to stay planted.

>thinking toyota or hunda could make decent suspension

I'd like to add that engine in front of a FF layout adds grip, if the weight is behind the axle, the tires will lose grip.

FMR layout would probably work on a low torque car tho

I think you just have to lie down to actually drive the damn thing, comfort isn't exactly a priority with rat rodders. To be honest, anything other than style isn't really a priority.

The whole 'better weight distribution improves handling' point is about inertial momentum -not really sure that's how you say it in english-. And improving -lowering- the inertial momentum to make a car more agile is about getting the masses closer to the mass center. If you flip the engine around to get the mass closer, then you push the axle further front to regain leg space, that's two cancelling actions at best, but in this case, as you'd be also taking the gearbox farther from the mass center, you'd effectively worsen the handling.

And in these modern days when FF shitboxes get smaller and smaller engines and bigger and bigger stupid robotic hexa-clutch rocket-tronic transmisions, I wouldn't be surprised if the gearbox was actually heavier than the engine, thus making the idea even stupider.

>anything other than style isn't really a priority
why its so fucking ugly then

That picture of the RS makes me think of one reason companies put the transmission behind the engine on FF cars: if you want to offer an AWD option on the vehicle, it's fairly straightforward to build a transmission with a rear wheel power takeoff on that layout, but if you put the transmission in front of the engine you'd have to run the rear axle under the engine, which would require you to lift it at least 4-5", raising your center of gravity and causing headroom issues.

regarding what said about the exhaust manifold being in front of the engine, I've assumed it's to prevent heat buildup between the engine and the firewall, as little to none of the air that comes into the engine bay gets back there

sure, but very little cars come in awd, and fwd layout