Rear engine layout is the most superior performance layout ever

Rear engine layout is the most superior performance layout ever.

So why don't other companies other than Porsche do it?
Are they all fucking stupid as their buyers.

Other urls found in this thread:

Shove a GT3 4.0l flat 6 in here than tell me which would be the better track car

>Rear engine layout is the most superior performance layout ever.
[...] for rwd

all of Porsches best performing cars are mid engined

They crippled the Cayman on purpose ;_;

sexy af

The reason 911s look more or less the same is because it's taken them 55 years to make the rear engine application appropriate. That's what's so special about the 911- it's an evolution model with many variants

The reason other car makers don't use the rear engine layout is because they don't want to start from square one and finally make a competitive viable car in 2045

It's so obvious Porsche knows the Cayman is the better car.

Because rear engine layout is fucking retarded and German engineers are as stubborn as they are brilliant.
That's why it still has a shitty engine layout, same type of engine, and looks so similar to every other generation.

im finna shit hard

>The Alpine won't be a proper RR 2+2 like the original to compete with the 911

Feels bad man

>Rear engine layout is the most superior performance layout ever.
>highest performance 911 is mid engined
really makes you think

>Glorified Beetle
>Superior performance layout ever
Hitler, is that you?

>not wanting a beetle.

>Wanting a beetle

its too hectic and acts with little provocation
consider many crashes are caused by poor drivers
apparently its better to have a car like FF that ignores inputs

>not wanting vintage vws.

Wasn't that mainly to make room for that fuckoff massive diffuser?

>post yfw Sharkwerks are building a 4.3L conversion

Earth will never be the same

> snap oversteer
> superior


No, it was for better weight distribution and handling.

Honest question: anyone have experience with a RWD rear-engined car in snow? Does it have better traction than RWD/front-engined?

>tfw Ralph Nader killed the RR layout in America

Nope, but I read about some test driver for Porsche (possibly Walter Röhrl) who grew up in Germany and when he got his drivers license as a kid, he drove a VW beetle esp during the winter and getting used to driving a low hp RR car, esp in the snow pretty much set him up to master cars like the 911.

Yupp. It also improves tire live, but apparently the RR car had better traction, especially in the rain.



> "It was clear for us that we give up our weight advantage, but we gained the advantage of the aerodynamics and the weight distribution," said Walliser. "Yeah, we gave something up, but we gained more on the performance side."

So basically both.

The 911 still

The only vintage VW that I want is a Meyers Manx

>same type of engine

Flat six is good though

>Perfect Primary / Secondary balance
>Lower polar moment than a straight six
>Lower CG than inline or V engines

For a sports car it's a very good (arguably the best) engine layout.

They fuck it up by putting it at the rear and ruining the free revving nature with turbos.

lol they're probably scared because the one generation where they DID change the headlights (996) was/is still considered to be the ugliest porsche

Granted anyone could have told them that headlight design was ugly as fuck. It wasn't that they changed it, it's that it was a shitty change.
What if Porsche just said fuck it and did another slantnose with headlights similar to the 300zx? (Because popups are no longer feasible)

That's wrong though

expensive meme shit, just buy one of the 700+ other kits that were made from 1960-1990

because it leads to fire.

Mid engine RWD > Front engine RWD > Everything else

Lmao, what is the smart fortwo and the new twingo


longitudinal mr is better than traverse mr ?