Mid-front, or front-mid, means that the engine is behind the front axle(s).
Mid-rear, or rear-mid, means that the engine is in front of the rear axle(s).
Front, means that the engine is either over or in front of the front axle(s).
Rear, means that the engine is either over or behind the rear axle(s).
Mid, without further qualification, usually means mid-rear, with the engine between the driver and the rear axle(s), but any configuration that places the engine between the front and rear axles can be referred to as "-mid-."

IOW, you're all right.

It's not about weight distribution, but rather about the polar moment of inertia.
You can achieve a 50/50 weight distribution lots of ways, including putting the motor in front and the transmission, battery, and other stuff, in the back, but the closer the mass is to the center of the wheelbase, the easier it is to rotate the car (because the polar moment is lower).

Top fuel dragsters use a mid-engine configuration but keep the weight distribution heavily biased toward the rear rather than at 50/50. The old slingshot dragsters were front-mid, while the newer dragsters are rear-mid, so that the running gear is all behind the driver (for safety reasons).

 

Anyone who has owned, tracked or even driven a real mid-engine car would never call the S2000 a mid-engine vehicle. The engine may be behind the front wheels, but this fact does not give the car the same polar moment as a car with the engine really in the middle ...

 

I've posted this image in the other thread. Here you can see the actual placement of the engine just behind the fron axel and most of the drivetrain almost in the middle of the car.

It's interesting that even though most of the engine is just above the front axis Honda managed to achieve almost 50/50 weight distribution. What's in the rear that mathes the weight of the engine, fuel tank? differential? Driver?....

 

The cars height differential, front to rear can change the weight balance too.

 

No...the center of gravity is not necessarily changed just because of the car's configuration. The center of MASS is...
Imagine holding a baseball bat at the grip, with one hand. Now turn your wrist. NOW...hold the fat end of the bat and do the same exercise. Which is easier? Why? The center of MASS is closer to the axis by which the bat (vehicle) turns.

 

soo...we've discussed everything but WHICH handles better the s2000 layout, or the mr2 layout? this could be subjective but i was wondering seeing as how im considering selling my S for an older mr2 turbo.
-Chris

 

You should also keep in mind that the lighter MR2 Mark III out performance the MR2 Turbo. Straight line speed is a different story.

 

I don't think either one is strictly superior. It all just depends on the specific implementation. It's quite possible to have a rear/mid engine car with a really high polar moment of inertia.

Of course, at one point all the F1 cars were front/mid engined then they all went to rear/mid, so there's probably a lesson to be learned there.

 

Slightly off topic. I invite all to try driving a rear mid-engine car. Gives you the strangest feeling around corners. Just imagine your turn in. Your body appears to stay put while some unknown force picks the car up (without actually picking it up) rotates the car in a different direction around you. What a hoot. Very, very different and strange to the senses. Is this what they mean by the difference in polar movement?

 

There is undoubtedly a lesson .. but is it a lesson on peformance? Maybe the lesson is about driver safety or merely a lesson on aerodynamics.