There's no such thing as a mid-engine 911. That would be a Cayman. The 1998 Le Mans GT1 is mislabeled as a 911 GT1, as it is mid-engine. By definition a 911 is a short wheelbase all-in-the-rear design. The next 991 may not be a 911 any longer...

 

Very astute observation. But I add... the 911 is unique due to its driving dynamics, at a peak on the original '64 model. The pendulum dynamics are special - they are not a defect, they are a characteristic. The current car still has that, albeit very sanitized. A Boxster/Cayman is a very balanced very agile car, but a 911 dances... If one does not appreciate that, one does not know what a 911 is and I say, does not deserve to own one.

 

Like most thing in engineering, it is all a matter of compromises, there really isn't any right or wrong (once you disregard the very obvious). The rear engine is unusual and, like adias said, is not inherently wrong - it is a defining characteristic that also forces a lot of the engineering choices that had to be made about the car, for example, why isn't the fuel tank in the back? All these choices put together are what lead to the personality of the 911 that we all like. That is not to say that all of these choices were obvious, easy and quick to get to though...

To Mr. Porsche, the choice to put the engine in the back did have some early merit (low center of gravity, helps with the aerodynamics, less exposed to frontal shock, in the right place for acceleration weight transfer, light steering, etc.), but when you think about it, it really took Porsche 25 years to sort it out and make these cars easy (read: predictable at the limit) to drive for the enthusiast. Early cars had a reputation for snap oversteer and I know many who have spun 911's on a track just by lifting the foot, and chickening out in the middle of a turn. I think we can thank the pig-headed engineers at Porsche to have stuck with it and given us such beautifully balanced cars for the last few generations. It is now a defining characteristic of the 911 and I do not see Porsche producing a 911 series car without this.

That being said, if I was a startup and trying to build a car from the ground up, going with a middle engine design would probably cost a lot less to sort out and hence, it would probably be quicker to have decent performance and be earlier to market. With today's tools, it is a lot quicker to come up with fairly successful designs if you stay within proven designs and leverage the technology, just the level of simulation that can be achieved nowadays without ever having rolled a km is just astounding. I also suspect that a non-mainstream design like a 911 would probably take a lot of trial and error to make successful beyond the simulation, just because it is so outside of the norm that most constructors probably don't even have the data to evaluate such a design. Conclusion: middle is easiest.

Now, back to the 'ring, like many said, I think there is too much variation in the tests to make the numbers really relevant beyond maybe a 15-30 second window for an error margin. Being a German company, I can see Porsche somewhat optimizing the cars for the ring but, in thruth, other manufacturers are also doing well now: Pagani, Koenigsegg, even the Corvette is turning very good laps. If these manufacturers had the ring in their backyard, they could probably do even better.

As an engineer I really appreciate the amount of work and dedication it took to go "against the grain" and stick with the rear engine design. Against all odds, they were amazingly successful. And by extension, I am proud to encourage such a mentality by owning one great example of that innovative mindset. It is kind of like owning a Picasso in a sense: truly misunderstood while doing it, but it all made sense in the end...

Just my 0.02,

T.

P.S.: With the GT3 hybrid Porsche now has a 911 with a motor mounted in the front... MMmmmmhhh...

 

some great info. thank you so much guys

 

I don't drive a 911, look at my avatar. Admittedly my knowledge of racing is not as great as some on here, but you do have guys like Rohl and Elford saying that the Cayman is better car than the the 911. I'm sure their racing knowledge is not far behind some of the experts on here. I also noticed that the motor in the 918 is not in the rear. Interesting. I also seem to remember that during the time of the GT1 Porsche was hurting pretty bad in terms of development money. Perhaps Mercedes taught them a lesson because they had more money to spend.

 

You can say whatever you want but you clearly did not read carefully what I said.

I did not say that the 911 all-in-the-rear design is the best there is. I care less if a mid-engine is the best balanced most winning racing machine. At all.

I said the 911 is special. Special to me and clearly not to you. As you said, you do not even have one, but took the time and effort to come here and ***** about it. Quite telling...

BTW... I love Caymans too...

 

I did have a 911 once. I bought a 1980 911SC in 1985. It was very special and I loved it. Also owned a 1954 356 convertible D and a 1969 912. When Porsche built a new mid engine sports car, I had to own one. The handling of the Cayman is truly special.

This statement is not addressed to anyone in particular, but if Porsche were to put the development into the Cayman that has gone into the 911, you might have a car that would seriously challenge the 911 on the race track. According to Panorama, Porsche engineers have suggested this much.

 

I think Porsche selling fewer Caymans/Boxsters than 911's has less to do with the placement of the engine and more to do with the fact that the Cayman is a highly compromised car that is intetionally not as well developed as the 911. Also, it is simply a newly introduced car, and I believe that there are a lot of 911 owners out there who want you to know that they spent big bucks on their sports car. They won't buy the cheaper, "girlie" car. If we went by number sold as an indication of the better car, then the Cayenne and now the Panamera beat all Porsche products hands down.

 

If mid-engined placement allows for better areodynamics, then that is a point in its favor. Porsche will not prove that rear-engined placement is better than mid-engine placement in production racing cars until they give the Cayman a fair shake in racing. Leh Keen has been doing fairly well with the Cayman, so perhaps that is a start. Porsche has shown they can beat mid-engined Ferraris, but I think the guys at Weissach have an edge over the guys in Marranello. It may come down to engineering talent rather than placement of the engine.

 

I am not talking about sales, nor am I talking about the current 911 and its demographic. I am purely talking of it as far as race car development, that given a clean sheet design that there would be benefits to going mid engine. There would also not be benefits to doing that, Porsche uses Front Engine, Mid Engine and Rear Engine layouts there must be some value in each format to their respective cars that Porsche utilized them in. Porsche's rear weight bias is not a liability, in the right hands they can be very difficult to beat by any configuration on a race track.

Porsche also is obviously on to something because they purposely keep the Boxster/ Cayman behind in power in relation to the 911. Despite their parts commonality. People a lot smarter than me have preferred mid engine race cars, and the fastest race cars on planet earth are mid engined. Porsche has proven that as with the GT2 RS, they continue to improve on the rear engined layout!

 

I do agree the Cayman has the potential to be the 'better' car from a pure handling and stability perspective. But I do not care. I do like the pendulum dynamics 911.

 

Great post!

 

Your last comment was about loyalists, and surely Porsche is like any other manufacturer and responds to what the consumer likes to buy, you cannot suggest one thing and extrapolate what makes it important. The loyalists are who bought the Porsche's and kept them in business. Oddly enough, experiments with other layouts come around some of Porsche's most difficult sales periods.

If Porsche hasn't proven anything, they've proven that racing is anything but a clean sheet. Porsche developed the CGT straight from a GT car that was intended for straight up racing, yet have still matched and straight up beat it with a lesser developed 911 variant. By the time you get through aero, ballast and suspension, the affect of those things is by far greater than the engine layout itself.

If Porsche had not stuck it out with the 911 everyone would be saying there is no way a rear engine would be competitive with a mid-engine, or front engine car, yet here they are. Like I said mid-engine is the easiest to work with from a dynamics standpoint and no one has challenged the convention of it in prototype racing as Porsche has in GT racing. Who knows what would happen unless someone tried it and stuck with it?

 

Certainly a good post as you said, Germeezy1. To each his own. This thread started off as a defense of rear engined placement (if rear engine placement is so bad then why does the 911 do so well at the ring and why does the 911 win so often against front and mid-engined cars). It then seemed to develop into a mild argument regarding which is better: mid or rear engined placement. Either can be argued for I suppose. I would never try to convince you or any other Porsche fan that you should give up on rear placement. I bought a Cayman because the handling is so highly praised, and damn, the 917 had a mid-engine!

I jumped in on the side of mid- because even as a lover of 911's for 40 years plus, it was always my understanding that mid- was better for a dedicated racing machine because that's the way even Porsche did it and we all know about the pendulum effect vs. good front/rear balance. Porsche has exploited the rear engine placement to perfection but this doesn't mean it is superior to mid placement. Porsches rear motor cars beat Ferrari mid motor cars, but I think this might have more to do with Weissach talent than rear motor placement. High downforce ground effects may be more important than motor placement in today's prototypes, but there was a time when Porsche and everyone else knew very little about areodynamics. At one time Porsche thought that low downforce, which translated to high top end, was everything. The size and weight of the 917 and 908 motors probably dictated mid-engined placement. However, the aircooled 4 and 6 cylinder Porsche engines were small and lightweight, so the 550, 904, 906, 910 and 907 could probably have easily been rear engined if it offered a handling advantage, and yet they were mid-engined. But then, what do I know? This discussion sure is fun, though.

 

How is the Cayman not as well developed? You can get anything on the interior that you can on a 911. It handles as well in stock form and feels just as good. 99% of the population can't tell the difference.

The 911 just appeals to more people, plain and simple, and it always will. And therefore unless Porsche want's to take a step backwards and sell less cars, the 911 will continue to be the flagship of the brand.

How about we talk about the 918 instead. The Cayman/Boxster are what they are (entry level Porsche's), and will never be anything more. If Porsche were going to develop something to be the flagship, it would not be based on the Cayman.