Inherently, I don't believe that one has an advantage over the other. In practice, most mid engine cars aren't exactly designed as family sedans, so will tend to fair worse in crashes than say a volvo. Cars are designed to drop the engine during a huge impact, as the engine carries momentum. In the end, the designed of the rails, aprons, etc determine how the crash is going to be. If volvo were to make a mid engine, no sporty family sedan, I'm sure it'll be as safe as a front engine version.

 

All c ars (in the USA at least) have to adhere to NHTSA ratings for safety, so no matter where the engine is, there's a common test for how safe the car is. If you look at NHTSA data for mid engine cars like the Boxster and Cayman and see how they compare with the S2000, you'll see they are all good.

Of course, you never really know with an accident. I'll never forget seeing a Fire Engine truck hydroplane across traffic and hit a 70's VW beetle head on - that car was pancaked from the front half on and the driver was in bad shape but lived. I'll also never forget the Camry that hydroplaned and hit a Fire Engine head on - that driver died.

 

I'd never want to be in the rear seat of a Mini in a rear-end collision.

 

There are a few inherent advantages to a front engine car in a front impact. First, the engine is very heavy and it takes quite a bit of structure to support it in a wreck. When the engine is in front the structure of the car doesn

 

Generally front engine cars are safer for the average driver, because they are more likely to under steer when control is lost, where mid and especially rear engine cars are more likely to over steer.

It is more likely that the average driver will be able to ride out or correct an under steer situation than an over steer one.

 

um, no.