Talk:Front-mid-engine, front-wheel-drive layout

Model T image

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think the ford Model T image should be included here, as it is rear wheel drive. I'll delete it in a few days. --DoktorRocket 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handling wrong

I made some small, but severe edits to this article because the way it was written, any read would think that a FMF car had optimal handling ability.

1st Claim: The engine behind the rear axles results in "near-ideal" weight distribution. To begin with, there is no "ideal" weight distribution except for under certain conditions. Each manufacturer has it's "ideal" weight distribution; some companies prefer a slight front-heavy car for 50/50 weight distribution under acceleration, while others prefer a slightly rearward weight distribution, for 50/50 weight distribution under braking. This aside, the fact that the FMF layout contains the transaxle in front of the engine negates many of the handling benefits of this "layout".

2nd Claim: The engine behind the rear axles concentrates mass in the centre of the car, resulting in very low polar moment of inertia. This is a loaded statement, and not entirely correct, either. To begin with, "very low" polar moment of inertion is a trait you would associate more with MR or RR layouts. Secondly, cars do not turn around their centre; their focal point is usually slightly in front of their rear wheels, so concentrating mass in the centre of the vehicle does not actually result in a low polar moment of inertia; the lowest PMI is achieved from true MR or RR layouts because the mass of the engine is at the actual focal point of the car's rotation. Concentrating mass in the centre of the vehicle and a 50/50 weight distribution will result in faster turning response and a rear-heavy under acceleration, neutral handling when maintaining a speed, and a front-heavy car high(er) PMI car under braking.

Third... When most think about MF, they think of a reverse FR layout (an RF, if you will). The true title of this article should be Front Midship Front Wheel Drive layout, or FMF, not MF. It is not merely traditional that M(x) refers to a true mid-engine, it is commonly accepted. None of the FMR cars are ever listed as MR, not because of confusion, but because they are of a different drivetrain.

I heavily agree with the third point, somebody needs to change the name of this article to FMF instead of MF. MF would imply that its engine is behind the driver rather than in front. --AyrtonSenna 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RR = Rear engine Rear wheel drive... a good example is the [Porsche 911], the engine literally sits behind the rear axle.

In many FF designs, the engine sits right ON the axle. A [Toyota MR-2] has the engine sitting on top of the rear axle and it is considered a MR.

So when one thinks about it, the definition of mid engine needs to be defined as the engine sits between the front and rear axles, which still complicates MR and FF as generally speaking, the engines will sit on the axles, not being between the front and rear axes, rather being on the axle.

Besides, a MF design would be horrible for handling as the front tires would lose massive traction around turns due to torque steer and the fact that they're trying to pull the car forward (which shifts weight to the rear tires) and turn which increases the traction needs of the front tires, under hard turns the tires would lose traction. This is less than desireable. -- Loquat15 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add one of those nice diagrams ( like in the rear wheel drive ) that shows the axle and engine position? It woulkd things a lot more obvious to someone new to the subject. 145.253.108.22 11:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge or delete

I think this article should be marked for deletion, or merged into the FMR layout. It's the same thing.--User:MacMan2626 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honda vehicles

I'm removing the Honda vehicles from the article, as they're over halfway forward of the front axle centerline. The differential goes under the oilpan, but that's only at the rear of the engine. --Bhtooefr (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The question of whether this should be merged should probably be taken up in another discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-engine, front-wheel-drive layout → Front mid-engine, front-wheel-drive layout – The term "mid-engine" (without the more specific "front" or "rear" qualifiers) to most people means that the engine is behind the driver but in front of the rear axle. The vehicles being described in this article are actually front mid-engine, not rear mid-engine as one would assume by the title. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I think it would make even more sense just to put them all together as sections of "mid-engine", since none of the articles seem to have much to say anyway. Why do we need a separate article just to list a paragraph of information and a list of cars?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

toyota iq

Here's a picture of the engine location. https://www.automobilesreview.com/auto-news/toyota-iq-six-degrees-of-innovation/5578/ As can be seen the crankshaft and the vast bulk of the engine are behind the wheel centres. I don't know who considers it to be an FF vehicle, I suspect someone who isn't into anorak levels of random descriptors of vehicle layout. Greglocock (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]