I hate the 911

[arsenalrocks]

the 911 platform is flawed to begin with, no one makes rear engine rwd anymore cause, let's face it, the RR design is just flawed from the beginning. porsche is just doing their best to correct a flawed design, that's all.

in most of the gt3 vs. gt4 showdown, gt4 won by a fairly big margin, simply cause MR > RR.

[arsenalrocks]

the 911 platform is flawed to begin with, no one makes rear engine rwd anymore cause, let's face it, the RR design is just flawed from the beginning. Having your entire engine behind your front axle, is literally the same as a FWD a4, having the entire engine sits in front of the front axle. Porsche is just doing their best and spending a huge amount of R&D to correct a flawed design, that's all. and the consumers are paying for that. just remember the design is based off a beetle.

in most of the gt3 vs. gt4 showdown, gt4 won by a fairly big margin, simply cause MR >>> RR.

[dharo1]

Originally Posted by arsenalrocks

the 911 platform is flawed to begin with, no one makes rear engine rwd anymore cause, let's face it, the RR design is just flawed from the beginning. porsche is just doing their best to correct a flawed design, that's all.

in most of the gt3 vs. gt4 showdown, gt4 won by a fairly big margin, simply cause MR > RR.

Please show me where? Bring me some light.

[Joe250]

Originally Posted by arsenalrocks

the 911 platform is flawed to begin with, no one makes rear engine rwd anymore cause, let's face it, the RR design is just flawed from the beginning. porsche is just doing their best to correct a flawed design, that's all.

Wrong. All layouts have advantages and disadvantages. None are flawed in theory, although execution is ultimately a factor. Of course, to really debate any of this, the criteria should be spelled out first. "Superior" layout for whom and for what purpose. Cost? Ease of service? Ride comfort? High-performance driving by semi-skilled drivers? Outright circuits speeds by professional drivers? The variety of intended goals helps to explain the variety of layouts on the market.

That said, I'm going to assume you mean which layout is best for high-performance driving and racing. Driving legend Vic Elford laid out the advantages of the rear-engine layout:

1. Superior accelerative traction
2. Superior brake distribution
3. Quick turn-in

I would add that the dynamic instability of a rear-engine layout can be used to the driver's advantage, especially in loose/rally/off-road conditions. More weight in the rear means potentially less dive. Larger brakes can be used in the rear and braking force can be distributed more evenly between axles. Squat under acceleration increases traction at the rear when it is needed the most.

The main disadvantage would probably be the pendulum effect if experienced at the wrong time.

Mid-engine has some potential advantages. Like rear-engine layouts, the driver's compartment can be lower than front-engine layouts due to the exhaust not needing to be routed underneath it, giving a lower CoG. A lower polar moment of inertia should yield quicker transition rates. Tire loading while corning should be more equal compared to other layouts, potentially taking the most advantage of available traction and yielding a neutral car at the corning limit.

Driving disadvantages would be less predictability when at or exceeding traction limits, a higher propensity to spin as well as quicker spins. Also, a low PMOI is not desirable during acceleration and braking. All of this adds up to a faster car at the limits but an increased need for a skilled driver. I don't think it is a coincidence that ME cars tend to be pure race cars driven by professional race drivers.

No less an authority than Bob Riley claimed that a front-engined layout is the best possible for a race car BUT he said so due to the layout giving the most amount of room for under-body aerodynamics. For pure race cars, aero needs increasingly trump all other considerations. As road cars increase their dependence on aero for more speed, engine layout may also drop in priority. But for the average enthusiast today, driving on the street is more about mechanical grip most of the time.

Beyond theory, racing history is filled with victories by countless front-engine, rear-engine and mid-engine cars, although at the highest levels most of the victories for the former two layouts came early in the 20th century, with mid-engine layouts pretty much taking over in the '60's. Sports cars and road-based race cars, not so much.

To address your other point, few manufacturers make rear-engine cars but that alone doesn't invalidate the design. Safety regulations, legislation, the threat of lawsuits, low driver skills, costs, unfamiliarity with the layout by most manufacturers, general disinterest in high-performance cars by the average car buyer, and *cough* ignorance of vehicle dynamics even among "car enthusiasts" are all potential factors for the 911 being about the sole torch-bearer of rear-engine layouts these days.

Having owned, driven, and raced (amateur only) a large variety of cars of all different layouts, including a base 996, I find the rear-engine layout my favorite to drive quickly. Porsche has made the most of the layout via engineering, use of premium parts, and by gearing the car towards enthusiasts. That said, it is nearly impossible to compare drive train layouts like-for-like. No one makes a front-engine 911, so driving a 928 and a matching year 911 won't be a fair comparison. Too many things are different beyond just layouts. Even the Cayman is no mid-engine 911. The two cars are built to a different price point for starters and some have argued that the Cayman design tends to be held back for marketing reasons. This means head-to-head tests (like this one) can never "prove" the superiority of one layout vs. another. Drive train layout is a significant factor but one of many.

In conclusion, all drive train layouts have potential merit. The intended application and the execution are arguably the more critical factors. Rear-engine layouts have compelling theoretical advantages and RE cars have backed this up with an impressive history as sports cars and race cars.

[ECAM3]

Originally Posted by dharo1

Please show me where? Bring me some light.

+1 please link to articles (s). Love my GT4 and picked it for personal reasons of mid engine handling/feel but I have never seen it beat a GT3...

[arsenalrocks]

the fact that non of Ferrari, Lambo, Mclaren (where cost is a non-issue and performance and handling is clearly no 1 priority) use the completely flawed RR layout, should tell you a lot.

and the fact of all, i mean all of the single seat racing series like F1 use MR platform also shows that, well, RR just plain doesn't work in terms of racing.

in reality, even the c7/gt-r layout is far more superior than any 911. in the case of c7, the engine is completely behind front axle and the tranny is in front or on top of the rear axle makes it some what of a 'MR' car.

Originally Posted by dharo1

Please show me where? Bring me some light.

[arsenalrocks]

wont beat gt3 cause its down 100hp

give gt4 the same engine/tranny as gt3 no one will pick gt3 period.

Originally Posted by ECAM3

+1 please link to articles (s). Love my GT4 and picked it for personal reasons of mid engine handling/feel but I have never seen it beat a GT3...

[arsenalrocks]

too long to read, but just accept the fact that when money is no objective, every single manufacturers choose to do a true MR car, with 0 exceptions.

clearly, MR platform is far superior than any other layout. even racing motorcycles use MR layout. you don't see motorcycles with their engine sitting behind the rear wheel do you?

Originally Posted by Joe250

Wrong. All layouts have advantages and disadvantages. None are flawed in theory, although execution is ultimately a factor. Of course, to really debate any of this, the criteria should be spelled out first. "Superior" layout for whom and for what purpose. Cost? Ease of service? Ride comfort? High-performance driving by semi-skilled drivers? Outright circuits speeds by professional drivers? The variety of intended goals helps to explain the variety of layouts on the market.

That said, I'm going to assume you mean which layout is best for high-performance driving and racing. Driving legend Vic Elford laid out the advantages of the rear-engine layout:

1. Superior accelerative traction
2. Superior brake distribution
3. Quick turn-in

I would add that the dynamic instability of a rear-engine layout can be used to the driver's advantage, especially in loose/rally/off-road conditions. More weight in the rear means potentially less dive. Larger brakes can be used in the rear and braking force can be distributed more evenly between axles. Squat under acceleration increases traction at the rear when it is needed the most.

The main disadvantage would probably be the pendulum effect if experienced at the wrong time.

Mid-engine has some potential advantages. Like rear-engine layouts, the driver's compartment can be lower than front-engine layouts due to the exhaust not needing to be routed underneath it, giving a lower CoG. A lower polar moment of inertia should yield quicker transition rates. Tire loading while corning should be more equal compared to other layouts, potentially taking the most advantage of available traction and yielding a neutral car at the corning limit.

Driving disadvantages would be less predictability when at or exceeding traction limits, a higher propensity to spin as well as quicker spins. Also, a low PMOI is not desirable during acceleration and braking. All of this adds up to a faster car at the limits but an increased need for a skilled driver. I don't think it is a coincidence that ME cars tend to be pure race cars driven by professional race drivers.

No less an authority than Bob Riley claimed that a front-engined layout is the best possible for a race car BUT he said so due to the layout giving the most amount of room for under-body aerodynamics. For pure race cars, aero needs increasingly trump all other considerations. As road cars increase their dependence on aero for more speed, engine layout may also drop in priority. But for the average enthusiast today, driving on the street is more about mechanical grip most of the time.

Beyond theory, racing history is filled with victories by countless front-engine, rear-engine and mid-engine cars, although at the highest levels most of the victories for the former two layouts came early in the 20th century, with mid-engine layouts pretty much taking over in the '60's. Sports cars and road-based race cars, not so much.

To address your other point, few manufacturers make rear-engine cars but that alone doesn't invalidate the design. Safety regulations, legislation, the threat of lawsuits, low driver skills, costs, unfamiliarity with the layout by most manufacturers, general disinterest in high-performance cars by the average car buyer, and *cough* ignorance of vehicle dynamics even among "car enthusiasts" are all potential factors for the 911 being about the sole torch-bearer of rear-engine layouts these days.

Having owned, driven, and raced (amateur only) a large variety of cars of all different layouts, including a base 996, I find the rear-engine layout my favorite to drive quickly. Porsche has made the most of the layout via engineering, use of premium parts, and by gearing the car towards enthusiasts. That said, it is nearly impossible to compare drive train layouts like-for-like. No one makes a front-engine 911, so driving a 928 and a matching year 911 won't be a fair comparison. Too many things are different beyond just layouts. Even the Cayman is no mid-engine 911. The two cars are built to a different price point for starters and some have argued that the Cayman design tends to be held back for marketing reasons. This means head-to-head tests (like this one) can never "prove" the superiority of one layout vs. another. Drive train layout is a significant factor but one of many.

In conclusion, all drive train layouts have potential merit. The intended application and the execution are arguably the more critical factors. Rear-engine layouts have compelling theoretical advantages and RE cars have backed this up with an impressive history as sports cars and race cars.

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by arsenalrocks

too long to read, but just accept the fact that when money is no objective, every single manufacturers choose to do a true MR car, with 0 exceptions.

clearly, MR platform is far superior than any other layout. even racing motorcycles use MR layout. you don't see motorcycles with their engine sitting behind the rear wheel do you?

Your statements are unqualified, which is always a sign that you can be disproven.

RR is going to provide better traction at take off, especially in low traction environs. It allows for a back seat. Etc. There are definitely considerations where RR is better than MR

....

I personally want a manufacturer to build a one-seater car for a 200 pound male in the drivers seat with a 200 pound flat six buried within the passenger seat so that the car is well balanced in all directions. That would be better than those "cost are no object" 2 seater ferraris and McLarens....

[arsenalrocks]

People thinks 911 is very prestigious and expensive, but that thought is also very flawed.

they started with an avg joe vw beetle, and it takes tons of R&D to make RR platform work (like 4 wheel steering, MR cars like gt4 never needed that stuff). that cost is too much, so vw beetle became FF to save money.

essentially what you are paying is for them to fix an inferior platform, sound wrong but its actually true. kinda like, paying Honda NSX engineers to tune up a civic lol

during races like AMLS, I see the porsche fan club camps with 1980s-1990s even early 2000s 911s, looks so ugly and weak to me. and the fact that its nothing more than an evolved 1940s vw beetle, just makes me laugh every single time.

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

Your statements are unqualified, which is always a sign that you can be disproven.

RR is going to provide better traction at take off, especially in low traction environs. It allows for a back seat. Etc. There are definitely considerations where RR is better than MR

....

I personally want a manufacturer to build a one-seater car for a 200 pound male in the drivers seat with a 200 pound flat six buried within the passenger seat so that the car is well balanced in all directions. That would be better than those "cost are no object" 2 seater ferraris and McLarens....

[Joe250]

Originally Posted by arsenalrocks

People thinks 911 is very prestigious and expensive, but that thought is also very flawed.

they started with an avg joe vw beetle, and it takes tons of R&D to make RR platform work (like 4 wheel steering, MR cars like gt4 never needed that stuff). that cost is too much, so vw beetle became FF to save money.

essentially what you are paying is for them to fix an inferior platform, sound wrong but its actually true. kinda like, paying Honda NSX engineers to tune up a civic lol

during races like AMLS, I see the porsche fan club camps with 1980s-1990s even early 2000s 911s, looks so ugly and weak to me. and the fact that its nothing more than an evolved 1940s vw beetle, just makes me laugh every single time.

You have stated repeatedly that the rear-engine layout is flawed. Please educate us and list these flaws.

[arsenalrocks]

sure, happy to do that:

the no1 biggest flaw is very high rotational inertia which is flat out dangerous.
when you make a turn, the rotating point is your front axles (you steer the front wheel), the engine which is heavy sits way at the back of the car, creating a massive amount of rotational inertia, causing easy oversteer.

during WOT throttle, weight transfers to the back, the rest state 35/65 weight distribution all of the sudden became 10/90, causing significant unstable front end, meaning massive amount of understeer.

in other words, without porsche's R&D $$, you are essentially left with a car that oversteers like crazy and understeers like crazy during turns, granted you get better traction off a straight line.

no wonder no true, expensive racing cars use this platform, its simply stupid to say the least.

Originally Posted by Joe250

You have stated repeatedly that the rear-engine layout is flawed. Please educate us and list these flaws.

[ECAM3]

Originally Posted by arsenalrocks

wont beat gt3 cause its down 100hp

give gt4 the same engine/tranny as gt3 no one will pick gt3 period.

Quite the statement. I'm guessing you probably haven't visited the Porsche forums.

In the off chance you are being serious, then you may want to check out the results of the 2015 TUDOR championship. http://www.imsa.com/articles/porsche...d-tudor-series

[dharo1]

Originally Posted by arsenalrocks

People thinks 911 is very prestigious and expensive, but that thought is also very flawed.

they started with an avg joe vw beetle, and it takes tons of R&D to make RR platform work (like 4 wheel steering, MR cars like gt4 never needed that stuff). that cost is too much, so vw beetle became FF to save money.

essentially what you are paying is for them to fix an inferior platform, sound wrong but its actually true. kinda like, paying Honda NSX engineers to tune up a civic lol

during races like AMLS, I see the porsche fan club camps with 1980s-1990s even early 2000s 911s, looks so ugly and weak to me. and the fact that its nothing more than an evolved 1940s vw beetle, just makes me laugh every single time.

Lol!! You hate RR P-cars!

I have a GT4 in order, delivery this summer. Of course, that one you love.

[Joe250]

Originally Posted by arsenalrocks

...

1. massive amount of rotational inertia, causing easy oversteer.

2. during WOT throttle, unstable front end, meaning massive amount of understeer.

in other words, without porsche's R&D $$, you are essentially left with a car that oversteers like crazy and understeers like crazy during turns, granted you get better traction off a straight line....

So with such "massive" inherent limitations, how has the 911 stayed more or less equal with the mid-engine Cayman & Boxer, considering both have had the benefit of Porsche's R&D money?

[Bimmer6]

Originally Posted by arsenalrocks

sure, happy to do that:

the no1 biggest flaw is very high rotational inertia which is flat out dangerous.
when you make a turn, the rotating point is your front axles (you steer the front wheel), the engine which is heavy sits way at the back of the car, creating a massive amount of rotational inertia, causing easy oversteer.

during WOT throttle, weight transfers to the back, the rest state 35/65 weight distribution all of the sudden became 10/90, causing significant unstable front end, meaning massive amount of understeer.

in other words, without porsche's R&D $$, you are essentially left with a car that oversteers like crazy and understeers like crazy during turns, granted you get better traction off a straight line.

no wonder no true, expensive racing cars use this platform, its simply stupid to say the least.

First, I will start by saying I'm not loyal to a brand and a big BMW fan for now the turbo stuff is pushing me fast. I think your opinion is flawed on the 991 it's the one of the best cars to move around on a track you point the wheel and it dies in that direction. Little to no understeer, and you actually want oversteer on the track slightly to cut the corners without braking. I have tracked M5's and M6's not my M4 yet, but I have had some really aggressive driving it will over steer being pushed by the forced induction.

I wanted the M4 due to being a lighter car than the M5 I sold F10. I tracked the last Gen M3, and it understeers ike crazy but fun I loved the V8. Non Turbo Porsche's will take time to learn how to drive the because they operate at high RPM once you're in the power band it's lights out fun. I started with a 7 speed 991S, and upgrade to a GT3 and it will kill the GT4 no comparison I drove both so not sure what you're reading the GT3 has rear wheel steering that counter steers, and revs to 9000 RPM with a PDK that shift in milliseconds with full traction. The G force will throw you into the window due to the grip it's actuall scary.

You can use launch control on a Porsche over and over until you get sick it will not over heat. BMW will not launch more than two or three times, and I love my M4 which I use for a DD but full track it will not survive the beating. Two cars for different purposes I find BMW now to be actually over powered because you can't put the power down on the pavement. BMW needs to focus on less weight in my opinion, and I hate to say the turbo stuff is here to stay as Porsche is stuck in the emission quagmire which is why I love the GT3 9k baby. But it's not a good DD .....it's too stiff for the road. My opinions from driving the cars in question with them in the garage.

[DieGrüneHölle]

Originally Posted by arsenalrocks

sure, happy to do that:

the no1 biggest flaw is very high rotational inertia which is flat out dangerous.
when you make a turn, the rotating point is your front axles (you steer the front wheel), the engine which is heavy sits way at the back of the car, creating a massive amount of rotational inertia, causing easy oversteer.

during WOT throttle, weight transfers to the back, the rest state 35/65 weight distribution all of the sudden became 10/90, causing significant unstable front end, meaning massive amount of understeer.

in other words, without porsche's R&D $$, you are essentially left with a car that oversteers like crazy and understeers like crazy during turns, granted you get better traction off a straight line.

no wonder no true, expensive racing cars use this platform, its simply stupid to say the least.

What?!

The 911 RSR just won two championships last year in WEC and IMSA. The pinnacle of sports car racing in the world.

Just find it odd that this platform is so worthless, yet it beat every mid-engine and front-engine car racing last year. Cars supposedly built on superior chassis layouts.

[EfEightyM3]

Originally Posted by Blipit_

What?!

The 911 RSR just won two championships last year in WEC and IMSA. The pinnacle of sports car racing in the world.

Just find it odd that this platform is so worthless, yet it beat every mid-engine and front-engine car racing last year. Cars supposedly built on superior chassis layouts.

Plus 1.

And it won 9 out of 17 seasons in American Le Mans GT/GT2 class and had far more wins than any other manufacturer. On top of that, it also has probably tens of thousands of wins in racing history more than he next best.

Every layout has pros and cons. The thing people mention about its flaws really go away when the car is in motion. Chris Harris has said many times there isn't a car that feels more perfect when actually driving.