from what i have seen, the NSX engine is very small that is even a small trunk after the engine.

Porsche's flat-6 engine is also small and can't see it unless from the bottom of the car or half-open and half-close the soft top in the Boxster (not sure, some Boxster owner told me that)

 

William has it right. It is mid-engine, and it's a disgrace that Car & Driver called it front engine. Just another example that these guys don't know s**t.

The engine position designation (front, mid, rear) has absolutely nothing to do with where the engine is relative to the passenger compartment but, as William noted, where it is relative to the two axles. It's amazing that the "journalists" (read maufacturer's shills) who write for rags like C&D don't know this. Pure and simple, this is a mid-engine car.

 

Hey guys please do not confuse Polar Moment of Inertia with Weight Distribution.

Any car can be made 50/50 by loading the trunk with the appropriate number of bricks. That does not make it a spinner! As far as the PMI is concerned it does not matter whether the engine is mid front or mid rear. It's the overall distribution of mass around the CG that is important. And I cannot see why a mid rear would have an advantage over a mid front from this perspective.

As for the 50/50 to 40/60 discussion, it's all a matter of compromises. In theory, a 50/50 has an advantage when turning at steady throttle, a 40/60 would have an advantage when accelerating or braking.

 

The current Viper is also front mid as will be the new SRT Viper convert.

 

Hi, Luis!

I can. The CG of the driver, which in a 2-seater is much nearer to the rear axle than the front, will also have an influence. In the mid-rear car the CGs of the engine and driver will be very close together, perhaps within half a meter; in the mid-front car the CG of the engine will be perhaps 2 meters or more away from the driver's CG. (The effect increases with a passenger.) The mid-rear car will therefore have a lower PMI.

PS: Another thing -- in a mid-rear car the driver sits very close to the CG for the whole vehicle. In a mid-front car the CG will be well in front of the driver. This may not affect the car's capability, but it will affect the way the driver perceives it.

 

Some thing else to ponder....

The CG and the center of rotation are not the same. PMI depends on the distribution of the weight about the center of rotation. But the center of rotation is not constant. As the steering angle increases the center of rotation moves towards the back of the car. So in high-speed corners with less steering a front-mid engine would be close to a mid-rear engine assuming you manage to get the weight as close to the center as with a mid-rear (not likely), but in slow corners with lots of steering input mid-rear and rear engine cars have an advantage.

As far as the definition of mid-engine, there isn't one. It depends on who you ask. From a designers standpoint front-mid and mid-rear are very different. To a driver they also behave differently. For example imagine if the s2000 engine were moved a few inches forward so that it was no longer completely between the axles. Would it handle much differently? No. But according to some that would change it from mid engine to front engine. I can find as many places that define it mid engine as between the driver and the rear axle as I can definitions that say "between the axles". So I wouldn't get too hung up on terms, since neither one is really wrong. There's no denying that a front-mid layout is going to have a higher PMI than a similar engine setup in a traditional mid engine layout, simply because of packaging problems.

 

Incidentally, I did a rough analysis on where the CG of the S2000 should be, assuming a 50:50 weight distribution. It turns out that the CG is almost directly below the rear view mirror, probably below the stickshift. That's pretty damned close to the driver =)

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hoof
[B]Incidentally, I did a rough analysis on where the CG of the S2000 should be, assuming a 50:50 weight distribution.

 

A qoute from Honda's own website (www.hondacars.com/models/s2000/features.html):

"Type: Front Engine/Rear-Wheel Drive"

 

Yea, I typo'ed quote in the previous post.