Jump to content

Rear engined cars


ProgRocker

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, barrett said:

Similarly, it's frustrating how the Corvair is 'remembered' as an ill-handling deathtrap (almoat exclusively by people who've never driven one) when, in fact, it is the ONLY American car I've experienced that actually handles at all - a total joy to drive on twisty roads with a lovely predictable feel. The front end gets a bit light in cross winds, but no worse than lots of much more modern front-engined, rwd cars do. 

Gonna fess up that I did read Ralph Nader's book (it is also hideously expensive as it's been out of print for decades). IIRC a further issue with the Corsair was the heating system which had a habit of filling the cabin with fumes - something like it didn't run off a heat exchanger matrix and instead warmed the air directly from the engine block.

It had a cool fanbelt though.

5523f6a6a8e979415faf5e25090831aa.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love rear engine cars. I have had a a few, various Volkswagens, an Autobianchi and this Alpine, which was my only car for five years and about 50,000 miles.

IMG_0006.thumb.jpg.687dd9b9e5f80ed1e508e50da192e106.jpg

I loved it despite it's occasional Renault-ness and perverse bits of French nonsense like the door locks and wipers. Utterly dependable handling, wet or dry, massively better than my MR2 Roadster (which had very similar performance),  which I could never trust in the same way as I trusted the Alpine.

Highly recommended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, jamiechod said:

personally hate rear engined cars, the only one ive had experience with is a mk2 MR2 and a couple of mgtfs- the 'pendulum' effect is not something which is pleasant, give me a mx5 any day- Front engined RWD is so much more controlable! 

Those are both mid engined.

 

Your driving style must be odd if you found them difficult to handle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing about the Nader book is that only one chapter is about the Corvair, but it's the one bit everyone remembers. Mainly because, instead of ignoring him, GM embarked on a campaign against him including hiring private detectives to follow him, go through his trash and basically harass him into piping down. The media found out about this, the story gained traction and book sales soared. The private detectives found exactly diddly squat with which to discredit Nader - a 'boy scout' is how he was described. If GM hadn't gone all psycho chances are the book would have sunk without a trace and Corvair sales would have continued to rise and we'd all remember it as that groundbreaking American compact with the incredible engine and beautiful balance... oh, well.

More ironically, the Corvair was essentially put on trial and was subjected to an intense and expensive government-backed safety investigation. After several years of study and countless taxpayers dollars, the independent body responsible for the tests published its report, which concluded the Corvair was no more dangerous than any other American car and was, in fact, much safer than many of its rivals. It remains to this day the only car in history to have been officially branded as 'safe' by the US government...

The heater is a separate, petrol-fired affair with it's own gas tank, and its own ignition system complete with coil and condenser, mounted in the boot. Our one doesn't work and we have no intention of trying to fix it - somehow that seems much more dangerous than swing axles and light steering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, barrett said:

The funny thing about the Nader book is that only one chapter is about the Corvair, but it's the one bit everyone remembers. Mainly because, instead of ignoring him, GM embarked on a campaign against him including hiring private detectives to follow him, go through his trash and basically harass him into piping down. The media found out about this, the story gained traction and book sales soared. The private detectives found exactly diddly squat with which to discredit Nader - a 'boy scout' is how he was described. If GM hadn't gone all psycho chances are the book would have sunk without a trace and Corvair sales would have continued to rise and we'd all remember it as that groundbreaking American compact with the incredible engine and beautiful balance... oh, well.

More ironically, the Corvair was essentially put on trial and was subjected to an intense and expensive government-backed safety investigation. After several years of study and countless taxpayers dollars, the independent body responsible for the tests published its report, which concluded the Corvair was no more dangerous than any other American car and was, in fact, much safer than many of its rivals. It remains to this day the only car in history to have been officially branded as 'safe' by the US government...

The heater is a separate, petrol-fired affair with it's own gas tank, and its own ignition system complete with coil and condenser, mounted in the boot. Our one doesn't work and we have no intention of trying to fix it - somehow that seems much more dangerous than swing axles and light steering.

Not all Corvairs had petrol heaters. The one I drove used engine heat with a little exhaust heat, just like a 2CV, Beetle or GSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GBJ said:

Those are both mid engined.

 

Your driving style must be odd if you found them difficult to handle.

funny that, i can hold a slide pretty confidently at oulton park with a MX5 , theres nothing odd about that, I just dont like he 'mid' engined cars handle, they have a light front end and as ive said, they suffer from the pendulum effect which is well critiscised within motoring jounralisim so i take it everyone else who finds this has an odd driving style too? Simmlarly if you found you didnt like the way a front engined RWD car drove, i wouldnt say your driving style is odd- its horses for courses - no need to be critical of others driving styles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, barrett said:

The funny thing about the Nader book is that only one chapter is about the Corvair, but it's the one bit everyone remembers. Mainly because, instead of ignoring him, GM embarked on a campaign against him including hiring private detectives to follow him, go through his trash and basically harass him into piping down. The media found out about this, the story gained traction and book sales soared. The private detectives found exactly diddly squat with which to discredit Nader - a 'boy scout' is how he was described. If GM hadn't gone all psycho chances are the book would have sunk without a trace and Corvair sales would have continued to rise and we'd all remember it as that groundbreaking American compact with the incredible engine and beautiful balance... oh, well.

More ironically, the Corvair was essentially put on trial and was subjected to an intense and expensive government-backed safety investigation. After several years of study and countless taxpayers dollars, the independent body responsible for the tests published its report, which concluded the Corvair was no more dangerous than any other American car and was, in fact, much safer than many of its rivals. It remains to this day the only car in history to have been officially branded as 'safe' by the US government...

The heater is a separate, petrol-fired affair with it's own gas tank, and its own ignition system complete with coil and condenser, mounted in the boot. Our one doesn't work and we have no intention of trying to fix it - somehow that seems much more dangerous than swing axles and light steering.

It begs the question why did GM so comprehensively redesign the rear suspension for the 1965 model year if it was such a flawless product? 

Naders book wasn't published for over a year after the October 64 launch of the 65 models, so GM had never heard of the man when they decided they're baby needed a major redesign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jamiechod said:

funny that, i can hold a slide pretty confidently at oulton park with a MX5 , theres nothing odd about that, I just dont like he 'mid' engined cars handle, they have a light front end and as ive said, they suffer from the pendulum effect which is well critiscised within motoring jounralisim so i take it everyone else who finds this has an odd driving style too? Simmlarly if you found you didnt like the way a front engined RWD car drove, i wouldnt say your driving style is odd- its horses for courses - no need to be critical of others driving styles.

Ah, you're a "dab of oppo" kind of chap.

Mid engined cars do not have any "pendulum" effect. That is what you get on rear engined cars.

I love front engine RWD cars. But to say that a mid engined car doesn't handle well because it is mid engined is nonsense. Unless all those F1 cars are crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GBJ said:

Ah, you're a "dab of oppo" kind of chap.

Mid engined cars do not have any "pendulum" effect. That is what you get on rear engined cars.

I love front engine RWD cars. But to say that a mid engined car doesn't handle well because it is mid engined is nonsense. Unless all those F1 cars are crap.

Yea I didn't mean to slate them. Just not for me personally ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2020 at 10:28 PM, GeordieInExile said:

Packaging reasons, no? You said it yourself, even the Twingo with its tiny little engine has compromised boot space at the back. If the engine takes up the full rear compartment then you only have under the bonnet for boot space, and that's no use for a weekly shop. 

I've had a variety of small hatchbacks as hire cars and I reckon the Twingo has the most usable boot - going by volume its about the same size, but wide, long and shallow is much more sensible for most things than a narrow, deep letterbox. Here's a Twingo and an Aygo:

HK65WTE-used-RENAULT-TWINGO-HATCHBACK-0.

NX17SYS-used-TOYOTA-AYGO-HATCHBACK-1.0-V

No way you're getting a week's shopping in the Aygo without stacking it all on top of each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, willswitchengage said:

Gonna fess up that I did read Ralph Nader's book (it is also hideously expensive as it's been out of print for decades). IIRC a further issue with the Corsair was the heating system which had a habit of filling the cabin with fumes - something like it didn't run off a heat exchanger matrix and instead warmed the air directly from the engine block.

It had a cool fanbelt though.

5523f6a6a8e979415faf5e25090831aa.jpg

The Fiat 126 used the air feom the direct cooling of the engine to heat the cabin. Well, that was the idea but it didn't work on mine...

So, the Fiat 126: independent suspension all round, 24 mighty* Italian cuddies to power it in 652cc form, so it should be quite dull but capable in the corners, yes? Only if you don't have to lift off the throttle or have a crest in the middle of the corner too - both cause the swing axle rear suspension to "tuck under" causing a LOT of positive camber on the rear wheels and a very sudden lack of grip/rotation event. Somehow I only spun it once, driving it was like "throwing a dart backwards".

The 2mm head skim probably gave it closer to 30 bhp and combined with new rear shocks and spring clamps to lower the rear suspension (the front leaf spring had already de-cambered itself) and 155/70r12 tyres tamed it to such an extent that I got it to understeer on tarmac (at Canniesburn Toll if you're interested).

Lethal wee shites of cars, but great fun when you're 19!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else that generally makes rear engined cars nowadays more difficult to engineer. There are a lot of demands on the engine that suit being at the front of the car - air conditioning compressors, power steering pumps, radiators/heater matrix and brake servos to name a few. A lot of pipework is needed if the engine is mounted at the rear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2020 at 3:28 AM, jamiechod said:

personally hate rear engined cars, the only one ive had experience with is a mk2 MR2 and a couple of mgtfs- the 'pendulum' effect is not something which is pleasant, give me a mx5 any day- Front engined RWD is so much more controlable! 

Both mid. Nothing is more rewarding to drive then a mid-engined platform, IMO.

Drive them like a FWD hatch and expect ‘issues’.

My 300 BHP MR2 turbo demands your full attention, but that’s something I enjoy. Dunno why so many enthusiasts are scared of the SW20 etc.

’Snap oversteer’ etc doesn’t just happen. 
 

You have to laugh!

 

8072095D-FBFF-4827-A2E5-4BFF51313C0C.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, overrun said:

Both mid. Nothing is more rewarding to drive then a mid-engined platform, IMO.

Drive them like a FWD hatch and expect ‘issues’.

My 300 BHP MR2 turbo demands your full attention, but that’s something I enjoy. Dunno why so many enthusiasts are scared of the SW20 etc.

’Snap oversteer’ etc doesn’t just happen. 
 

You have to laugh!

 

8072095D-FBFF-4827-A2E5-4BFF51313C0C.png

Your entitled to your opinion as am I. I personally didn't like either and have had over 150 cars, just not for me,much prefer front engine RWD 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2020 at 12:08 PM, inconsistant said:

 Why weren't there any rear engined motorbikes?

image.thumb.png.88342287a423602a42d3753ca65e6ab8.png

Honda P50

image.thumb.png.8869fc2235ceedf3e84939e504f0db0c.png

BSA Winged Wheel

image.png.3995b80039c770b0b365bab507441463.png

Wall Auto Wheel

image.png.9be92a88b1459e417b087278d2f30468.png

PowerPak

But are these motorcycles? The Honda was, I think, the only complete rear engined motorcycle sold, the rest are cycle motors added to pre-existing push bikes. Scooters have their engines well back in the frame but the cylinder/crankcase at least is in front of the rear wheel even if the gear box is alongside it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve had a few rear engined cars and found them to be quite interesting.  Credentials are from a couple of tiny Suzuki Whizzkids, through VW Beetles, Type 3 Fastback, 412, a Renault 8 and 2 V8 Tatras.  The second one was sort of semi-mid engined as the driveshafts were about level with the second row of cylinders.

Generally cars have more in common with their class than where the engines are.  The VWs weren’t amazing but then neither were most other very cheap family cars of the time. There were a couple of good front engined cars but then the Renault 8 was a brilliant rear engined car.

They were cheap cars, contemporary tyres had very little sideways grip so it didn’t matter.

The Tatras had a similar feel to large cars of the time.  Some handled ok, others don’t.  Plenty of front engined cars in that class and of that time were a bit crap.

When I look at all the cars I’ve owned, rear engine ones certainly score highly in being good to drive.  The 1961 Beetle with its decambered suspension, camber compensator and Porsche 356 brakes was an absolute hoot.

The Renault 8 had so little grip it was hilarious but it was incredibly predictable in its handling.  A child of 10 could make that thing powerslide around roundabouts.

The Tatra 613 Mi4 was amazing.  It felt absolutely nailed to the road when it cornered and the brakes were like a giant hand slowed you down.  My regular commute was on the B road between Kimbolton and St Neots, usually mentioned in motorbike magazines for its great corners.  That Tatra was great fun.

Just in case you think this is from a viewpoint of not knowing any better, I’ve done serious miles in an Alfasud Sprint (also awesome), an MX5, Porsche 924, a few Jaguars, Peugeot 205, 106 Rallye...

A good car will be good, no matter where the engine is.  A bad one will be bad by exactly the same reasoning 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jamiechod said:

Your entitled to your opinion as am I. I personally didn't like either and have had over 150 cars, just not for me,much prefer front engine RWD 

Of course, mate. I too enjoy FR cars. They are fun in a different way.

Nothing squats and launches like a turbo MR2 IME, and the fact it can kill you if you take the piss, adds to it for me (my mate was the same until kids stopped his ownership).

As car enthusiasts, we like to be engaged in driving and learning to be rewarded. These cars deliver it in spades IMO, the weight directly behind you, in the middle of the car, the turbo spoiling behind your head, the savage old school boost when running 18+ PSI, the almost cartoon-like acceleration.

I love it. Like you say, we all have our opinions - but MR is nothing like RR! ?
 

Also, an NA/NB MX-5, S14, R33, E36 etc etc (I used to have a 360 Volvo 2.3 turbo conversion with a welded diff) are all a riot.

I’m not saying all MR cars are amazing. I had a pedal of a VVC MGF and I didn’t like it. It felt like I was sitting on it, not in it, it made a load of noise (K&N) and didn’t really go anywhere... Not for me, but loads on here rave about them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, overrun said:

Of course, mate. I too enjoy FR cars. They are fun in a different way.

Nothing squats and launches like a turbo MR2 IME, and the fact it can kill you if you take the piss, adds to it for me (my mate was the same until kids stopped his ownership).

As car enthusiasts, we like to be engaged in driving and learning to be rewarded. These cars deliver it in spades IMO, the weight directly behind you, in the middle of the car, the turbo spoiling behind your head, the savage old school boost when running 18+ PSI, the almost cartoon-like acceleration.

I love it. Like you say, we all have our opinions - but MR is nothing like RR! ?
 

Also, an NA/NB MX-5, S14, R33, E36 etc etc (I used to have a 360 Volvo 2.3 turbo conversion with a welded diff) are all a riot.

I’m not saying all MR cars are amazing. I had a pedal of a VVC MGF and I didn’t like it. It felt like I was sitting on it, not in it, it made a load of noise (K&N) and didn’t really go anywhere... Not for me, but loads on here rave about them!

Fair enough. I guess I need to try another mk2 MR2. I did like it just gave me a scare a few times but I was only 18 when I owned it over 10 years ago might get another one if I can find one cheap! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2020 at 11:37 PM, barrett said:

Absolute bollocks I'm afraid. It's amazing how often this old canard gets repeated (so, not having a go at you personally!) but there is precisely zero evidence any Nazi ever died at the wheel of a Tatra, or that it ever got that nickname except decades after the fact. Tatras handle a lot more neutrally than most front-engined cars of the era and were very much vigorously engineered. 

Similarly, it's frustrating how the Corvair is 'remembered' as an ill-handling deathtrap (almoat exclusively by people who've never driven one) when, in fact, it is the ONLY American car I've experienced that actually handles at all - a total joy to drive on twisty roads with a lovely predictable feel. The front end gets a bit light in cross winds, but no worse than lots of much more modern front-engined, rwd cars do. 

A rear engine layout was a real boon in the pre-1970s era because it allowed a compact power unit/drivetrain assembly with none of the complexity of fwd, thùs also allowing a low frontal area in an age when aerodynamics were first seriously being applied to car design, and it isolated intrusive engine noise from the cabin (the Corvair is virtually silent at cruising speeds) and at a time when all heaters were shit/nonexistent the issue of cabin heat was less obvious. The r/r layout fell out of favour because fwd became so much cheaper and more reliable and engines became more refined, which negated the two biggest advantages of the layout. For ultimate handling and low centre of gravity, engine behind the cabin is still the best way to go - vide Lamborghini, Bugatti, Porsche, Ferrari etc etc etc...

There is a fabulous video on YouTube of a Tatra 603 publicity film (though why they'd need one I don't know as normal people couldn't buy one and the high ranking government officials were given them. Again that may be a myth) 

First is shot of the steering being wiggled at very high speed on a dual carriageway with no adverse effects but then there are some great shots of it being tail slid through some narrow cobbled streets with the back end mere centimetres from the ancient stone walls. Admittedly it was being driven by a well known Czech rally driver of the day and maybe they wrote off fifteen cars before they got the shots they wanted but it shows that in the right hands they are good as anything. 

The film turns into a comedy as they get chased by a police motorcycle and drive it through some woods, across a river (without a bridge) up some snowy mountain roads and even roll the thing on a steep grass bank and carry on with no visible damage! It's the best thing on the whole of YouTube. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

Quite a heated debate, which isn't always a bad thing.

I must apologise for the length of this post, but I think it might be interesting to list the pros and cons of various engine/transmission layouts. I apologise again if you disagree, or if I miss something I should include.

I don't believe that there is a one-size-fits-all for car engine/transmission layout. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. I think that one of the biggest issues with the cars available today is that there really isn't the variety that there was up until the end of the 80s. You're pretty snookered if you want a RWD family car, let alone a rear engine one.

Today FWD is seen as the standard 'best' and 'safe' layout for a car. But this is, of course, nonsense.

FWD, with a transverse engine, is an excellent way to maximise space inside a car. It also allows the manufacturer to make the whole power-plant as a unit and shove it in the car in one go. The front is also the best place to put the radiator, so plumbing is simple too. The rest of the vehicle is then available for accommodation and storage. Most of todays cars are basically small vans – and that's what most people seem to want.

But there are issues. Having the engine over the driving wheels does give a higher initial traction, but this diminishes greatly with increased power. There is also torque-steer and power feedback through the steering wheel. Having the engine slightly ahead of the front wheels also adversely affects the cars cornering ability, and with so little weight on the rear wheels stability under heavy braking can be poor, especially on smaller cars where you can enjoy the thrills of fishtailing as the front wheels fight for grip and the rear wheels have too little hold to keep the car in a straight line.

With front engine RWD, the engine and transmission are placed slightly behind the front wheels, and with the weight of the prop shaft and rear axle, you get a much more balanced car which many drivers prefer. But the disadvantages are, of course, reduced space inside the vehicle and lower initial traction on the driving wheels, which can lead to 'interesting' situations should the power be applied to quickly!

Front engine, AWD is an option which is more popular today. The added 'boost' from the rear wheels helps with the traction from the front wheels, and the added weight of the rear drivetrain makes a more balanced car. Disadvantages unfortunately are reduced MPG, extra expense, and still some issues of FWD remain.

Mid engine RWD. The ultimate balanced car? The engine being placed slightly ahead of the rear driving axle allows the front wheels to steer the car easily and quickly. Gone are all the issues of FWD. Traction is improved, braking is more stable, the perfect place to put an engine! Unfortunately your rear passengers have just lost their seats, the luggage area is reduced, where do you put the fuel tank? And, have you ever tried to work on a mid engine car?

Rear engine RWD! With the engine situated behind the rear axle, this layout probably gives the most tractive effort of any car, and even more than the AWD. Accelerate hard and 80%  of the cars weight is transferred to the driving wheels. The steering is light and precise, and during braking the split front-to-back is around 60/40, the most even of any layout. The fuel tank can still be situated under the rear seat and accommodation inside the vehicle can be as good as with FWD. Unfortunately, gone is the van-like ability of the front engine layouts, plumbing is more complex, and the cars, although more agile, are more prone to cross-winds, and will, ultimately, oversteer if driven too fast.

A couple of extra points worth noting about rear engine cars. Many cars in the past have been criticised for snap oversteer due to swing axle suspension. This should not be considered a fault of the layout, but a fault of the suspension design and the use of too much positive camber with it. Also, cars which do not have the engine over the front wheels do not like old hard rubber at the front, as the wheels lock up to easily when braking. But, then again, this is also true of front engine cars and their rear wheels!

Thank you for taking the time to read this!

Gord :-)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Happy Journey I think is the exact translation (I watched it again last night for the umpteenth time). 

How big was the office of Tatra UK? That sounds intriguing. I thought they only built 5 RHD examples. I'd love to know more about that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...