Ok think about this:

Imagine if Mazda had developed the 8 like this....


-move cabin forward a few inches.
-remove back seats
-put motor in place of back seats


now you have a mid engined sports car with a tiny motor that actually generates power


imagine how responsive the steering would be if you removed the already light engine and put it right behind you. Plus the styling of the 8 with it's short overhangs and relatively short nose would look awesome for a mid engine car if you moved the cab forward just an inch or two.
\

Haha ok i know this is completely pointless and probably a sin to even mention but I am curious if anyone else has had this thought cross their mind.

 

uhhhh NO....its already 50/50 weight distributed

 

it's already 50/50 balanced.

 

its already 50/50

 

lololol

 

this is gonna go straight to the lounge

 

a two seater with more power would be cool though. but wouldn't that be an rx7?

 

the lounge is 50/50 balanced

 

face + palm = this thread

 

you guys forgot to mention the fact that it's 50/50 balanced...

 

I'm not completely sure that 50/50 is actually ideal...

Remember that because the front and rear wheels are being asked to different things during cornering/transitions. They are at different slip angles, different radii lengths, etc.
Considering that the front wheels are forced to do a lot of work in any car, it might be better to have a little less weight up there being tugged around. maybe 45/55 would be better. Also a little rear bias allows for stronger traction under acceleration, and allows for nice, effective nose tuck with throttle lift off.

And yes this should be in the lounge. sorry


Maybe I am just excited to think of a mid engine rotary, a la 787B.....

 

If a equally balanced vehicle isn't ideal then why did they work so hard to make it happen?

 

A production MR rotary... That would be bad ***. I'm sure most of us here love our cars just because it's different because of the type of engine it uses.

How much percent of cars are rotary on the road ? Like 2% or something ? How many cars on the road are MR ? I'm not sure but I know not too many. An MR rotary would stand out even further. It would be something else for us to be proud of.

 

Oh because if a front engine layout (or at least in front of the cabin i mean..) is already determined for the basic design, then of course the engineers want to develop it in a way which would shift weight back and away from the front axle line as much as possible, so a 50/50 for a F/R car is really good, but maybe not quite as ideal as what can be achieved with a M/R vehicle. Remember the radius for the front end is larger than for the rear during a turn, (unless you are already at a significant degree of yaw..) so there must be more force applied to it during transitions for example in order to pull that front weight back and forth. A slightly rearward bias would probably make it feel even more responsive than it already is.

There is a reason supercars/race cars tend to use the M/R layout, and even a fair number of F/R performance cars have less than 50 up front.

Also, even if 50/50 is ideal for a road car, moving a highly concentrated piece of mass, such as a motor, away from the front end completely might improve the cars handling feel/performance even if the total F/R weight distribution remains unchanged after moving the cab slightly forward.

 

Let me rephrase, if Mid rear set up is better than why doesn't every sports cars use it?

 

The Rotary is better and not every sports car uses it.

 

techincally our car is mid-engined becuase the engine is behind the front axle

 

Haha, well obviouly because it is extremely impractical. It makes it impossible to have more than 2 seats ( ok 3 seats for the mclaren F1) and luggage space becomes basically nonexistent usually. It is just too exotic of a layout for most sports cars to use, even though it its probably better for actual handling response and feel/performance.

 

ugghh- the car is already a midship mounted engine.

"zoom's gone nuts" you say? the engine is completely behind the front axle.

so moving it to the rear would only accomplish one thing- moving it to the rear.

of course cooling would be more of an issue and more complicated.

you wouldnt need to move the front seats forward at all. the engine is small enough to fit in the space of the back seats easily. unless you meant an overall shortening of the front end. so yeah then its not an RX-8 is it?

where would you mount the fuel tank since the engine would now be taking up its space?

oh on that 50-50 thing. the car is not 50-50 sitting still. its like 51 1/2-48 1/2. that allows for weight transfer under acceleration which brings the car to 50 -50 (not accounting for fuel usage while driving.

 

ew.... i cant even picture that.

 

I heard it was 52/48...I have no clue though. But yea we are FMR (front mid-engine rear wheel drive)

 

It would be nice if Mazda placed the engine right behind the front axle. Gas tank just before the rear axle. Installed a 1.3L 13B engine.

oh wait...

 

i do believe i became more stupid after reading renesisgenesis' posts.

 

I still like this idea:

 

Why?

Because the idea I proposed is silly? (I already know i'ts silly but kinda interesting)

or because of the correct information I posted about weight distribution and its effect on handling?