Where's the best place to put the engine?
up ur moms vagina LOL
As close to the middle as possible, regardless of whether you put it in front or behind the driver.
>>14417879
probably right in the very center of the car, while also driving all four wheels
>>14417879
Rear Engined-Front Wheel Drive
>>14417879
On or somewhere between the front and rear axle. It doenst really matter that much if you have good weight distribution.
>>14417924
I kinda wonder what this would be like desu
>>14418010
It'd be a lot like driving a FR car in reverse
>skids for days
>>14417879
it depends on the application, otherwise every company would put the engines in the same place
rear-Mid engine is probably the best for handling
front-mid is a close second for handling
but front engine designs offer more interior space
>>14418037
no it wouldn't you retard
it would be closer to driving a forklift
>>14417884
>>14418095
Found the FWD GM sedan drivers
>>14417882
Inside her clit
>>14417882
Measuring parameters, and roughing in the mounts. All systems go.
>>14417879
Performance: between the exact middle of the car, and the rear axle line. Make it so it has a 55-60% rear weight distribution, and optimal weight centralisation for that lower polar moment of inertia.
Practicality: in front of the front axle line
>>14417885
>probably right in the very center of the car
No, you want it a little bit to the rear. Depending on application, 55-60% of the weight should be on the rear axle.
>while also driving all four wheels
AWD = added weight, which is bad.
here
>>14420979
That has shittier 50/50 weight distribution though. Neutral handling aside, it's bad for performance, given how you'd actually want a rear weight bias on a RWD car.
On the moon as the gravitational force is 1/6 that of earth so you can accelerate faster.
>>14420992
You get the rear bias you want with areo.
Better handling at low speeds because 50/50, more weight at the rear on high speed because areo.
>>14421135
You don't get rear weight bias with aero.
50/50 doesn't provide better handling at low speeds(or any speed for that matter), it provides more neutral handling. Big difference.
Every single RWD racecar will have a rear weight bias, aero or not. Unless there's rules preventing them to do so, they'll always put weight in the back. You name me any racing series were teams actively try to shoot for 50/50.
FWD on top of transmission and axle.
RWD behind the rear axle.
>>14421179
i bet your girlfriend tells you your wing is a good size and 'cute'
>>14421179
Looks like your right.
why couldn't you add weight to the rear with aero?
I know a splitter on a 50/50 car with no wing is dangerous because it makes the back to lose, why not the same with the wing?
>>14420992
Weight on the drive tires for acceleration.... Unless you're gonna do all the steering with the rear wheels you need to shut your stupid fucking gob.
>>14421218
Read this.
http://automotivethinker.com/chassis/stop-and-weight-a-5050-weight-distribution-is-not-optimal/
A slight rear weight bias causes:
>better acceleration/corner exit
>better braking (thanks to not overloading the front tires)
and most importantly:
>better corner entry
Because the car will have a natural tendency towards slight oversteer, which makes the car easier to rotate (and easier to control by throttle).
>>14421217
>why couldn't you add weight to the rear with aero?
Because weight and aero are two different things. Weight distribution is dependant on your acceleration(it moves around when you accelerate or brake), aero is completely dependant on speed.
>>14417879
wat engine m8?
imagine putting the engine on one wheel, and it drives the opposite corner wheel only. and it's welded diff out the factory. and it's twin turbo. and you have to be under 18 to drive it.
>>14421260
But at speed doesn't areo provide weight?
That's what "downforce" is right?
So you could have a better weight distribution at speed at least.
>>14421260
Fuck your stupid blog post, I don't want my steering going light under acceleration.
>>14420969
>ADDED WEIGHT WHICH IS BAD
can you fuck off, please? go back to jalopnik or the wikipedia articles for cars
>>14420969
>probably right in the very center of the car
>No, you want it a little bit to the rear.
>cars are seesaws
Like this. Assuming you're talking about best performance.
>>14421427
That's Mustang-tier pigfat though.
>>14421432
>pig fat
>0-60 2.2 seconds.
wat?!
>>14421459
>135 kg engine
>carbonfibre tub chassis
>WEIGHS FUCKING 1700KG(3700lbs)
Yeah, pig fucking fat.
>>14421474
we established that 'pigfat' was 4,000lbs and up
>>14421474
If it's heavy, but still tops as the fastest accelerating car on the planet, it doesn't qualify as pigfat.
Fuck, the fact it weights so much and goes so quick is if anything a compliment to the engineers who build the fucker.
>>14417879
>FWD
>gross
>>14417879
4 electric motors at each wheel, providing exactly the desired amount of traction.
And a gas engine generating power because batteries still are shit.
>>14421484
When you're spending close to a million on a carbon fibre tub with wheels and an engine, I think your standards should be a bit higher.
>>14421495
>if it's heavy, but does something fast, it's not heavy
Lipstick on a pig. It's still heavy. Matter of fact, the 928 is closer in weight to a pigfat Veyron than it is to your average 911.
Also, just because it's been measured as the fastest thing, doesn't make it the fastest.
Anyways, only reason it's faster 0-60 than P1/LaF is because it has AWD. It's 0.2/0.4 second advantage compared to LaF and P1 respectively disappear at the 100MPH mark, where it lags 0.2 behind either - and the difference only gets bigger the higher the MPH number. The only reason the Veyron can't compete is because it's older and even more pigfat.
>>14421559
The 918 disengages it's front electric motor at about 150mph in order to prevent it overspeeding. Which results in a big drop of power. If that wan't the case it's very possible that the Porsche would top both the LaF and P1 to 200mph.
I'm sure someone eventually will over ride that and push the Porsche. But until then we won't know what it can truly do.
>>14417879
in bagina
>>14421357
drive a fwd car then
>>14417879
In the engine bay
In the bed.
>>14421261
Its a RR ... DUH
Its doesr drive on magic
>>14422212
ROADKILL
![012816-2016-mv-agusta-brutale-800-f-633x388[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Au4Tgds.jpg "012816-2016-mv-agusta-brutale-800-f-633x388[1].jpg")
between the driver's legs.
>>14420916
You mean 4th gen f-body drivers
>>14421484
>3700lbs two seat roadster not pigfat
>>14425059
Still faster then your shitty corolla
>>14425207
faggot
>>14417879
>not being the engine
>>14421135
>Falling for the 50/50 meme
>Not understanding that weight shifts under acceleration and braking. A MR car with 60-65% weight over the rear is considered currently to be the ideal layout. Increased traction due to increased weight over rear and 50/50 while braking to maximize traction and stability.
>>14417879
FR north south configuration with the gearbox at the rear with the differential so the rear axle has just as much weight as the front.
>think im smoking super-crack?
it was good enough for: porsche 928, ferrari FF, alfa romeo and a few others. and not many cars with get past them unless you have bulk horsepower and a great chassis
>>14426403
volvos, corvettes, maseratis and caterhams too.
quite a diverse list
