Best RWD Midship Layout?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_FM_platform

>The Nissan FM platform is a modern FR automobile layout. The name is derived from the "front midships" location of the engine, with its center of mass located behind the front axle centerline, shifting weight to the middle of the car, leaving the front suspension less encumbered.
>350/370Z

why is o so dumb

>Center of mass behind the front axle line
That's not what FMR means. See .

>engine is in front of the driver, but fully behind the front axle
>fully behind the front axle

really, dumb, you

>NSX, MR2, and Fiero aren't RMR

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_NSX_(first_generation)
>Layout Transversely mounted mid-engine, rear-wheel drive
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_MR2#Second_generation_.28W20.3B_1989.E2.80.931999.29
>Layout Transverse mid-engine,
rear-wheel drive
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Fiero
>Layout Transverse mid-engine, rear-wheel drive

yes they are

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-engine_design#RMR_layout_.E2.80.93_Rear_Mid-engine_.2F_Rear-wheel_drive
>nsx
>mr2
>fiero

o is absolutely fucking retarded today, jesus christ

>engine is in front of the driver, but fully behind the front axle
Do you not understand the difference between "engine" and "center of mass of the engine"? Just putting the middle of the engine on the axle line is meaningless; nearly every FR car ever made is FMR by that measure, including earlier Zs.

>MR
>MR
>MR
Yes, they're MR, not RMR.

>The name is derived from the "front midships" location of the engine
>front midships location of the engine

The *majority of the engine* is located behind the front axle, therefore designating it a midship. It is in fact a front midship engine as designated by the engineers who built the car and the location of the engine.

>they're MR
The Mid location is at the rear, making it RMR.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_mid-engine,_rear-wheel-drive_layout

It can be referred to as either one. Stop being such an autist.

RMR came before MR

MR is shorthand

by your logic this ferrari pontiaca is rear engined because the engine is mounted above the rear axle, not between the front and rear axles

If your engine is in front of the rear axle you are a coward

Give 2 VERY GOOD reasons why a rear engine is better than a mid-engine with sources?

First you name a car with a greater more successful racing history than the 911

Not that guy, but that's what a rear mounted engine is. Same with the 911.

This thread is retarded.
It's full of a bunch of aspies who think they know technicalities that everyone else doesn't.

>he couldn't even give 2 reasons why Rear is better

pathetic

No it isn't, in a rear engined car the transmission is in front of the engine.

Discuss

they made a mistake
but is a hares breath compared to if the engine were longitudinally mounted
id accept hind or back engined loz

FMR is more stable on the touge

try again in english and with punctuation marks, please

the engine is canted backwards with the gearbox in front

So a car with an engine mounted transverse on the rear axle is RMR (MR2, Fiero, Boxter etc)

And a car with the engine mounted longitudinally in-between the front and rear axle yet behind the driver is true MR. (Ford GT, Diablo, etc)

And a car with the engine mounted longitudinally in-between the front and rear axle yet in front of the driver is FMR. (S2000, RX7, etc)

And a car with the engine behind the rear axle is RR. (Porsche 911, Alpine A110, etc)

Is that right?

due to leverage and shit the car looses traction earlier and in a much slower fashion
so you can drift just by steering rather than throttle control

having so much mass at the back gives no only a little more traction from a dig
but also give the rear brakes more to work with >not like they ever do much more than 30% anyway

because of packaging reasons of the transmission being narrower than the engine
you can have two extra "seats" when compared to an mr car of the same length
it also makes it so the gear shift linkage can be shorter compared to mr (not that this matters with automatic transmission)

nope pure accident
you really need to look up why its rear engined in the first place
and the amount of bullshit they had to do the suspension and subframe of later models to make them a bit more drivable

mid engined car

see

rear engined car

sooo?

Engine in front of the axle? FF or FR (Depends on where drive goes.
Engine behidn the rear axle? RR or RF (although the latter would be retarded).

Engine between the axles? Great, that's fucking confusing.
Engine between the axles, in front of the driver? FMR (Front-mid engined, rear wheel drive).
Engine between the axles, behind the driver? RMR (rear-mid engined, rear wheel drive).

MR is most often used by normies to describe RMR cars, but in enthousiast circles it can be used to describe both FMR and RMR cars as one group. Transverse and longitudinal has nothing to do with it (although transverse is plebeian tier).

I was just capturing the mood of the thread

>Center of gravity is behind the front axle
It's only truly mid-engined if the entire engine is behind the front axle. Front accesories is maybe being pedantic, but you get tthe idea.

>It is in fact a front midship engine as designated by the marketing department
FTFY

>Transverse is plebian tier

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, at least when it comes to pic related

Although it is plebian in cars such as the MR2 where the axles are different lengths, the atom V8 has equal length axles

>he thinks engineers are wrong
ok

Post your engineering degree we might believe you

Dude are miatas FMR then? 3 of the 4 cylinders are behind the top hats

All of these are transverse RWD, designed as such that their crankshaft are in front of the transaxle. However, there's still engine parts in the V6 Fiero and NSX that stick out behind the axle line, making them (strictly speaking) rear engine, RWD cars. MR2, being I4, has no second cilinder bank hanging off towards the rear of the car, therefore does not have a piece of engine sticking out over the rear axle, and can therefore be considered true RMR. Same goes for the I4 Fiero.

Isn't the crank on those in front of the rear axle line? That would make the I4 models RMR, and the v6 models RR.

Something feels autistic about this

you never even scratched the surface
LMFE LMFG-2

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear-engine,_rear-wheel-drive_layout#Overview

>In these respects, an RR can be considered to be an exaggeration of MR - harder braking, faster and earlier acceleration, and increased oversteer, but faster turning if it can be controlled.
>if it can be controlled
>if

Now imagine if modern Porsches didn't have elctronic driving aids and computers. Have you ever driven an Analog 911? They're deadly, and for good reason.
oh . .

>Where RR differs from MR is in that the engine is located outside the wheelbase. The major advantage of MR - low moment of inertia - is negated

Eh, I'll pass

>due to leverage and shit the car looses traction earlier and in a much slower fashion
>What is polar moment of inertia?
True rear engined setups like the Porsche 911 are actually well know for losing traction rapidly. See: Early 911 Turbo's. Or that one Yellowbird 'ring video.

It does add weight over the rear wheels, but so does a RMR setup. We all know that 40/60 is superior in RWD cars, anyways.

Porsche's layout is indeed fantastic for packaging purposes. Not the best for performance (although that can be fixed with sticking to theoretically inferior layout for 50 years), but great when it comes to building a practical grand tourer around your drivetrain.

Unequal length driveshafts aren't a problem (unless you're in FWD cars and it causes torquesteer). The problem with a transverse layout is the is centers a lot of weight near the rear axle, instead of working from the axle towards the driver. In the Atom's case, they're something like 40/60 already, which is pretty much optimal in a RWD car. Adding the bigger V8 means you add more weight to the rear, causing a real tendency towards sudden oversteer. The V8 Atom would be a lot more interesting if it were longitudinal (as would the regular K-powered ones be).

>nope pure accident
Yeah Ferdy Porsche was a total amateur.
>you really need to look up why its rear engined in the first place
I have.
>and the amount of bullshit they had to do the suspension and subframe of later models to make them a bit more drivable
Even with the 930 and earlier cars the 911 dominated racing. The car is unforgiving, but in the right hands the rear bias is an advantage that has given the car the reputation that it deserves.

This is longitudinal right?

Still wokring on it though. One year away....

Still, the engineering definition of a mid-engined car is simple. The engine has to be in the middle, so between the axles. It can't stick out beyond the engines. This is simply not the case with the 350Z - it sticks out. Go look at cutaways.

>The *majority of the engine* is located behind the front axle, therefore designating it a midship.
Find me an FR car that *doesn't* have the majority of the engine behind the front axle centerline. The only cars at all that I can think of that that don't are AWD Subarus and Audis because of their dumb symmetrical AWD thing. Calling the 370Z FMR is pure marketing misinformation.
>The Mid location is at the rear, making it RMR.
RR engines are longitudinal. RMR engines are the same layout, but flipped around so the engine is between the axles. MR is transverse and stacks the engine and transaxle on top of the axle. Just because one shitty Wiki article doesn't make the distinction doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

actually yes, miata is also FMR because of muh jinba ittai principles

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_MX-5#Design_genesis

>Jinba ittai
>That the basic layout would continue with the original's front-midship rear-drive configuration with the engine positioned ahead of the driver but behind the front axle for 50:50 weight distribution.
>front-midship rear-drive configuration

they are mid-engine cars with the mid point being towards the rear, not the front

take your autism elsewhere

>Engine have to be between the axles to call a car MR
>Gearbox doesn't have to be between the axles to call a car MR
>Both engine and gearbox is located between the axles.
>That means car cannot be considered MR
women can be car enthusiasts too

boolean logic lesson 1:
1 or 1 = 1

>The car is unforgiving, but in the right hands the rear bias is an advantage that has given the car the reputation that it deserves.
Too bad it's got excessive rear bias, and, more importantly (and this doesn't show up on static tire weight distribution), it's got really bad weight centralisation. It would be better if the engine were closer to the front, between the axles, centralising that weight and keeping sudden oversteer away.

Yup. It'd be great with the Atom's V8.

>RR is behind the rear axle
>RMR is in front of the rear axle
>MR is transverse rear drive
Wouldn't the following be simpler:
>RR is behind the rear axle
>RMR is in front of the rear axle
And then see if the transverse engine is located completely in front of the rear axle? If not, it automatically falls under the category of RR.

>It can't stick out

and that's where you're wrong

t. not an automotive engineer

Question: if the MX5 is mid-engined, how come it doesn't have a rear-biased weight distribution, like all the other true mid-engined cars have, and like all RWD cars should have?

>A definition doesn't apply when I say so
You sure convinced me there buddy.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me the center of the rearmost cilinder has to be behind the front axle for a front engined car to be RWD.

>And then see if the transverse engine is located completely in front of the rear axle?
Sure, but the Cizetta V16T is the only car I can think of set up like that and it wasn't exactly a success. I figured bringing it up would be excessively pedantic.

>Find me an FR car that *doesn't* have the majority of the engine behind the front axle centerline
pic related
>Calling the 370Z FMR is pure-
Engineers and other engineers who reviewed the design deemed it a true midship. Deal with it.
>RMR engines are the same layout, but flipped around so the engine is between the axles. MR is transverse and stacks the engine and transaxle on top of the axle.
[citation needed]

Maybe if you bothered to read the wiki source, you would know it's right and you're wrong.

RMR

FUCK FRONT HEAVINESS

Most inline 4 transverse RWD cars like the Fiero and MR2 are true RMR though. When you add the V6 to the Fiero, the engine stick out behind the rear axle line. So, a V6 Fiero would be RR, and an I4 Fiero would be RMR.

>Engineers and other engineers who reviewed the design deemed it a true midship. Deal with it.
[Citation needed]
Often times it's the marketing department that does this, or it's engineers not exactly sticking to automotive definitions.

>I'm right and engineers can not supersede wikipedia's general definition

lol

>Wikipedia is a credible source

>how come it doesn't have a rear-biased weight distribution like all the other true mid-engined cars have

incorrect
other front mid engine cars like the s2000 and RX-7 are also 50:50
cars praised for their handling and performance

>and like all RWD cars should have?

also incorrect
whole slight (like 45-55) rear bias is beneficial for pure performance track driving, for normal street use and some specific type of sport (like downhill racing) 50-50 is actually better

>dat quickchange rear end
>dat V12

>engineers who designed the car aren't a credible source

Maintenance wise I have yet to see a high production mid engined car easier to work on than an FMR. RMR is objectively better performance wise but until modern mainstream cars like the Boxster/Cayman have a clamshell engine bay opening that isn't a bitch to move around in I'm afraid there will always be FMR's in the market.

For downhill racing you want more weight rearward because you'll be spending more time on the brakes, transferring weight forward.

>cars praised for their handling
True
>and performance
Not per se. They were good, but at the time, all of them were beaten by faster cars.

>whole slight (like 45-55) rear bias is beneficial for pure performance track driving
No, you want a heavier rear bias, like 40/60.
automotivethinker.com/chassis/stop-and-weight-a-5050-weight-distribution-is-not-optimal/

>for normal street use and some specific type of sport (like downhill racing) 50-50 is actually better
[citation needed]
For downhill racing, you'd actually want significantly more weight towards the rear than 40/60, because gravity would push grip forwards in the static situation, causing a net loss of grip from the horizontal position.

>[Citation needed]

nissan-global.com/EN/NEWS/2002/_STORY/020109-01.html

Rear engine cars have extremely higher unstable oversteer characteristics without the intervention of electronics

They'll also understeer more than FMR unless you are constantly shifting the weight forward for EVERY turn

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_FM_platform
Please note that there isn't a single citation from any Nissan engineers whatsoever, so there goes your claim that ''The engineers who designed it called it midengined!''.

Second off, the engineers, even if they said that (good luck on finding a source for that btw), are on Nissans payroll. They are, by definition, not a credible source.

>Literally a Nissan press release
No clear citation of an unbiased engineer claiming it's midengined, just some marketing from the Nissan PR department. This is not a credible source.

>all of them were beaten by faster cars.
Not by the NSX or 348. Which cars are you referring to?

The S2K, FD and MX5. Great cars, fun to drive, controllable - but not the end-all in terms of performance.

>he didn't read it
>won't even trust a source directly from Nissan

lol
You're hopeless. Enjoy your mid-ship tinfoil theories and thinking you are smarter than engineers.

>The S2000 and FD were beaten by the S2000, FD, and MX5
I think one of us isn't following this conversation very well.

>If modern Porsches didn't have elctronic driving aids and computers.
most every modern car is fly by wire now
either to avoid flaws created by cost cutting or to exploit an inherently unstable platform

>low moment of inertia
I think traverse engine and gearbox mid engined cars take this a bit far
not only by having shorter wheelbases but also concentrating more weight in that length

>well know for losing traction rapidly. See: Early 911 Turbo's. Or that one Yellowbird 'ring video.
not really true as they have to be forced into that and there is a fair amount that can be done to bring it back
for the most part its just a bit of understeer from lack of weight over the front
they are more unstable under braking than acceleration or cornering as far as I'm concerned

its just expedient to have it that way
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Union_racing_car#P-Wagen_project

Of course I read it. There is just a simple statement that the platform name comes from it's supposedly midengined layout. There's no named engineer claiming it. There's no sketch, graph or cutaway backing it up.

Of course I won't trust Nissan. Would you trust VW for giving you a reliable emissions statement? Chevy for giving you a credible air bag, ignition service? Would you trust Fiat? Of course you wouldn't. That's what independent agencies are for: to measure and test automotive stuff. And guess what, there isn't a single independent body out there that would claim the 350Z is midengined, because it isn't.

I don't think I'm smarter than engineers. I just hold your claim's to an engineer's standard.

I'm afraid it might be both.

welp, i though downhill racing was more about suspension setup and brake bias, i stand corrected

>Not per se. They were good, but at the time, all of them were beaten by faster cars.

yeah, but they beat shitload of cars including those with proper rear bias
especially the FD, which had cornering speed close to awd cars despite being only rwd and having oh so inferior 50-50 weight distribution

of course that doesn't mean that they were best of the best, but nevertheless that lack of rear bias never stopped them from having excellent handling and performance

Low MOI means that the weight is centralized between the axles. Putting a lot of weight on top of or very close to the rear axle (transverse MR) is not lower MOI than putting the engine directly in the center between the front and rear axles (longitudinal MR).

>especially the FD, which had cornering speed close to awd cars despite being only rwd and having oh so inferior 50-50 weight distribution
The FD did have some great weight centralisation though, thanks to it's rotary engine. Weight centralisation, and polar moment of inertia, doesn't show up in static wheel weight measurements.

>he still thinks Nissan's engineers are colluding to lie about the FM platform
lmao
t. tinfoil engine poster

Yeah, but that's a benefit shared by all FMR chassis, including the Corvette and S2000. The FD is impressive even in comparison to them.

I'll believe OEM engineers know what they're doing when they start beating tuned cars in stock config. Your suggestion implies that the car is mechanically perfect from the factory. This is always false.

Stop replying to Alphonse dude.

>Thinks the guy that wrote that press release actually consulted any engineers
I can tell you've never worked in engineering, marketing, or production.

Same goes for you too

odd gearbox and differential positions inbound

ferrari 312 t2 has the engine longitudinal and the gearbox sideways

>gear box under the crankshaft
ferrari 512 tr
Datsun 100A
morris mini minor
saab 900

>prop shaft under the crank shaft and differential in the sump
Lamborghini countach and diabo

so do other FMR cars
like this guy said
goddamn it, i can't find that picture with g circles that tested the cars from the 90s

you could see in that picutre that miata has excellent weight cenralisation too
it also shows FD btfo 911

you probably know which one i'm talking about

>FM platform
>literally designed and defined by Nissan's engineers

keep tinfoiling, it's amusing

it turns quicker once you loose traction as well
where as RR kind of steps out all the time and is only really a problem once that movement picks up speed

front engined cars can pivot around their mass even FF
rear and mid engined cars tend to cause problems with too much traction on the front under brakes

RR might be worse or better a J turns than MR or FR
but I've never taken the time to investigate this

The reason that the 911 has the "widowmaker" stigma is because all of that weight in the rear resists turning at first so you get push on turn-in, and then once it starts turning it doesn't want to stop so you get oversteer on exit.

This is the opposite of the ideal handling characteristic where the car rotates quickly on entry, pointing you right where you want to go, and then understeers on exit when the rear tires hook up and launch you out of the corner.

This is why AWD cars tend to turn well, especially on poor surfaces: they understeer badly when you start putting power to the front wheels, so you can set the car up loose and turn the throttle into a switch that basically toggles between under and over.

>oversteer on exit
>on exit

youtu.be/VzIXLS06utY?t=12s

Looks like a blown out wheel bearing to me. It happens to FR cars, too.

youtu.be/3k2u2zaIA3c

>goddamn it, i can't find that picture with g circles that tested the cars from the 90s