Who lost favor for rear engine cars first - Europe or USA?

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

I've always liked rear-engined cars; perhaps it was that Go-Kart I drove to victory in third grade.

There was the Beetle, Corvair, Fiat had a few..............and of course Porsche.

So where did the rear engine car lose favor first? The America's or Europe?

Ever hear of the Tucker?

How about the Mercedes Benz 170H of the late 1930's?

Was it Ralph Nader, or a general rash of conservatism, which made the rear engine car so rare?

Was it the increasing horsepower trend of the 1960's? A trend that started when Benz, Ford and Olds took their engines out from underneath their seats?

Bill Verburg · Bill Verburg's Garage

I think a guy named Ralph Nader did them in on these shores circa 1964

Loved my '66 Corvair what a great ski car for that era

masraum · 10-14-2005, 01:45 PM

VW made rear engined cars until only a year or two ago. Porsche still makes rear engined cars that are sold worldwide.

I believe most rear engined cars went the way of the dodo because of the difficulty of cooling a modern engine and saftey.

We all know that most people are safer in a front engined front driver that understeers like mad than a rear engined car.

Also, most engines are water cooled which is difficult to accomplish with the motor in the back of the car.

The cost of overcoming both of the above is probably the main reason for the rarity of rear engined cars.

But hey, the above is just my opinion.

pwd72s · 10-14-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by masraum
VW

Also, most engines are water cooled which is difficult to accomplish with the motor in the back of the car.

But hey, the above is just my opinion.

Not just your opinion!

carnutzzz · 10-14-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pwd72s
Not just your opinion!

It's really just a bad design guys.

UconnTim97 · UconnTim97's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by carnutzzz
It's really just a bad design guys.

Score one point for us 944 guys......

cowtown · 10-14-2005, 05:39 PM

A bad design so well executed that it's better than anything else.

pwd72s · 10-14-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UconnTim97
Score one point for us 944 guys......

Maybe so. But, would I buy one? Nope.

carnutzzz · 10-14-2005, 06:22 PM

944 = 50/50 weight distro
911 = 40/60 yikes

Enough said really.

Of course, my purchase decision says something too... Not that I have anything against the 944, I like them too, I just prefer the 911...

UconnTim97 · UconnTim97's Garage

Oh,I like the 911 too, but hey us 944 guys have to get our licks in when we can...hehe

btw, nice ride too. I am a big fan of the whaletail

UconnTim97 · UconnTim97's Garage

I gladly submit a great example of a 944

pwd72s · 10-14-2005, 06:59 PM

You may gladly submit anything you like...

UconnTim97 · UconnTim97's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by pwd72s
You may gladly submit anything you like...

thank you, much appreciated

dafischer · 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Verburg
I think a guy named Ralph Nader did them in on these shores circa 1964

Loved my '66 Corvair what a great ski car for that era

I have to agree with Bill. The pre-65 Corvair with a heavy engine in the ass and swing axles was a bad combination, even with the late 64 compensator spring, ala 356 add-on. There were many nasty accidents caused by oversteer and the rear wheel tucking under, resulting in a snap roll.

The fully independent (Corvette style) rear used from 65 to 69 (the end) cured 99% of the problem, but the PR damage was done.

The 66 Corsa (non-stock) that I had in college during the 70's was a real hoot...and taught me the meaning of trailing throttle oversteeer.

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by carnutzzz
944 = 50/50 weight distro
911 = 40/60 yikes

Enough said really.

Not really.......................it was Panorama or Excellence that had a big article on braking recently.

Care to guess the weight distribution with brakes fully applied?

Right, brakes and braking have nothing to do with handling, right?

masraum · 10-15-2005, 11:38 AM

Are most race cars 50/50?? I thought most were closer to 40/60.

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by masraum
Are most race cars 50/50?? I thought most were closer to 40/60.

They are 40/60 because when the brakes are applied weight distribution shifts to 60/40.

I don't know what happens to a 60/40 or 50/50 balanced car when the brakes are appled. Although a review of the Boxster I once read said it was a pleasent experience of constantly shifting from under-steer to over-steer depending on the manuver and course action.

carnutzzz · 10-15-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kach22i
Not really.......................it was Panorama or Excellence that had a big article on braking recently.

Care to guess the weight distribution with brakes fully applied?

Right, brakes and braking have nothing to do with handling, right?

Depends on how you are using the car. Like most drivers, I get my braking done BEFORE the corner, and accelerate through and out.

Curious to read the article. Who the heck is full braking while whipping the wheel around?

There is a reason all serious manufacturers build mid-engined. The only reason the 911 survives is some weird nod to the past.

Dixie · Dixie's Garage

40/60 is better in the corners as well. In racing, a car that tends to oversteers is always faster than one that tends to understeer.

carnutzzz · 10-16-2005, 07:10 AM

Well sure, but I always thought that was more from suspension set-up.

You guys might be on to something here, as the '05 Ferrari 430 also shares about a 40/60 ratio as well...

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/ferrari_f430_spider_2005/16951/style_specs.html?p=ext

I would still argue that 40/60 doesn't tell the whole story. The dynamics of the weight in the rear being behind or in front of the rear axle most certainly is a variable which cannot be ignored.