If the 911's rear motor config is so bad.. Please explain this
#1
06-02-2010, 01:40 PM
If the 911's rear motor config is so bad.. Please explain this
There is many people saying the 911 has a deficient motor config/position and bad weight distribution that restrains the car to be really efficient on a track.
What is it again ? 39% front and 61% rear ?
Yeah, it's not 50/50 mid-engine, for sure.
Well, how this could be possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times
Porsche GT2 RS : 7 min 18 seconds.
That's not fast, that's crazy fast. Not bad for an handicaped car, uh ?
What is it again ? 39% front and 61% rear ?
Yeah, it's not 50/50 mid-engine, for sure.
Well, how this could be possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times
Porsche GT2 RS : 7 min 18 seconds.
That's not fast, that's crazy fast. Not bad for an handicaped car, uh ?
#2
06-02-2010, 01:44 PM
Who says the all-in-the-rear 911 architecture is bad?!? Lots of opinions out in the world but not all matter.
The day PAG decides to change the 911 into a mid-engine design is the day I will stop buying new 911s.
The day PAG decides to change the 911 into a mid-engine design is the day I will stop buying new 911s.
#3
06-02-2010, 01:50 PM
There is many people saying the 911 has a deficient motor config/position and bad weight distribution that restrains the car to be really efficient on a track.
What is it again ? 39% front and 61% rear ?
Yeah, it's not 50/50 mid-engine, for sure.
Well, how this could be possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times
Porsche GT2 RS : 7 min 18 seconds.
That's not fast, that's crazy fast. Not bad for an handicaped car, uh ?
What is it again ? 39% front and 61% rear ?
Yeah, it's not 50/50 mid-engine, for sure.
Well, how this could be possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times
Porsche GT2 RS : 7 min 18 seconds.
That's not fast, that's crazy fast. Not bad for an handicaped car, uh ?
If it were up to porsche, we would never have the answer. And I think we know why they will never do it......
My guess is a faster lap for the theoretical Cayman supercar. Truth is, you have to drive around many of the 911 handling traits. I find them endearing, but things could be greatly improved with the rear engine sitting between the rear wheels, or just in front of them.
They better do something soon to advance the chassis, since BMW isn't likely to put an engine in the trunk of the M3!!
#4
06-02-2010, 02:00 PM
I guess the bigger question would be: What would the result be if there was a Cayman GT2 RS? (all things equal, but a mid engined chassis)
If it were up to porsche, we would never have the answer. And I think we know why they will never do it......
My guess is a faster lap for the theoretical Cayman supercar. Truth is, you have to drive around many of the 911 handling traits. I find them endearing, but things could be greatly improved with the rear engine sitting between the rear wheels, or just in front of them.
They better do something soon to advance the chassis, since BMW isn't likely to put an engine in the trunk of the M3!!
If it were up to porsche, we would never have the answer. And I think we know why they will never do it......
My guess is a faster lap for the theoretical Cayman supercar. Truth is, you have to drive around many of the 911 handling traits. I find them endearing, but things could be greatly improved with the rear engine sitting between the rear wheels, or just in front of them.
They better do something soon to advance the chassis, since BMW isn't likely to put an engine in the trunk of the M3!!
There is a lot of car manufacturers who have the opportunity to bring any car with any motor config.. Still they do not make 7:18 on the Ring.
(wiki link not complete anymore) please check that one:
http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?fID...3&viewThread=y
What about the mighty Porsche Carrera GT ? Isnt a mid-engine car ?
Well, 10 sec slower at 7:28
How can we explain that ?
Last edited by jon8; 06-02-2010 at 02:02 PM.
#5
06-02-2010, 02:00 PM
#6
06-02-2010, 02:02 PM
This topic comes up now and then so here's the explain.
Mid-Engine Vehicles
In a mid-engine configuration the engine is located directly behind the cabin just ahead of the rear axle line. Essentially, the engine is located in the rear seat area. A rare configuration, the mid-engine vehicle is usually associated with high performance automobiles because, among other reasons, the static weight distribution tends to be close to the optimal 50/50 ratio, with the bias being slightly rearward, resulting in superior balance and handling characteristics (Bondurant ‘ Blakemore, 1998).
Rear-Engine Vehicles
In rear-engine vehicles, the motor is located in the rearmost portion, behind the rear axle line. Rear-engine automobiles tend to demonstrate exceptional braking ability due to a greater amount of weight from the engine remaining over the rear tires during braking and as brake force increases dynamic weight force moves forward thus increasingly involving the front tires making them handle the added force. Thus, all four tires are heavily involved during braking instead of just the front tires. Acceleration is also enhanced, as the rearward transfer of weight and the engine weight combine to put maximum downward force on the rear tires resulting in a larger rear tire contact patch that enhances accelerative traction (Bentley, 1998).
In dry conditions under normal driving conditions, the location of the engine does not make much of a difference in terms of driving dynamics. Aside from the mid-engine vehicle’s tendency to yield higher interior noise levels, most drivers will not detect a difference in the way these different vehicles respond to driver inputs. However, as the driving turns more spirited or involved emergency situations requiring abrupt driver inputs, these differences can surface, sometimes to the negative surprise of the driver (ie fish tailing).
Mid-Engine Vehicles
In a mid-engine configuration the engine is located directly behind the cabin just ahead of the rear axle line. Essentially, the engine is located in the rear seat area. A rare configuration, the mid-engine vehicle is usually associated with high performance automobiles because, among other reasons, the static weight distribution tends to be close to the optimal 50/50 ratio, with the bias being slightly rearward, resulting in superior balance and handling characteristics (Bondurant ‘ Blakemore, 1998).
Rear-Engine Vehicles
In rear-engine vehicles, the motor is located in the rearmost portion, behind the rear axle line. Rear-engine automobiles tend to demonstrate exceptional braking ability due to a greater amount of weight from the engine remaining over the rear tires during braking and as brake force increases dynamic weight force moves forward thus increasingly involving the front tires making them handle the added force. Thus, all four tires are heavily involved during braking instead of just the front tires. Acceleration is also enhanced, as the rearward transfer of weight and the engine weight combine to put maximum downward force on the rear tires resulting in a larger rear tire contact patch that enhances accelerative traction (Bentley, 1998).
In dry conditions under normal driving conditions, the location of the engine does not make much of a difference in terms of driving dynamics. Aside from the mid-engine vehicle’s tendency to yield higher interior noise levels, most drivers will not detect a difference in the way these different vehicles respond to driver inputs. However, as the driving turns more spirited or involved emergency situations requiring abrupt driver inputs, these differences can surface, sometimes to the negative surprise of the driver (ie fish tailing).
#7
06-02-2010, 02:08 PM
This topic comes up now and then so here's the explain.
Mid-Engine Vehicles
In a mid-engine configuration the engine is located directly behind the cabin just ahead of the rear axle line. Essentially, the engine is located in the rear seat area. A rare configuration, the mid-engine vehicle is usually associated with high performance automobiles because, among other reasons, the static weight distribution tends to be close to the optimal 50/50 ratio, with the bias being slightly rearward, resulting in superior balance and handling characteristics (Bondurant ‘ Blakemore, 1998).
Rear-Engine Vehicles
In rear-engine vehicles, the motor is located in the rearmost portion, behind the rear axle line. Rear-engine automobiles tend to demonstrate exceptional braking ability due to a greater amount of weight from the engine remaining over the rear tires during braking and as brake force increases dynamic weight force moves forward thus increasingly involving the front tires making them handle the added force. Thus, all four tires are heavily involved during braking instead of just the front tires. Acceleration is also enhanced, as the rearward transfer of weight and the engine weight combine to put maximum downward force on the rear tires resulting in a larger rear tire contact patch that enhances accelerative traction (Bentley, 1998).
In dry conditions under normal driving conditions, the location of the engine does not make much of a difference in terms of driving dynamics. Aside from the mid-engine vehicle’s tendency to yield higher interior noise levels, most drivers will not detect a difference in the way these different vehicles respond to driver inputs. However, as the driving turns more spirited or involved emergency situations requiring abrupt driver inputs, these differences can surface, sometimes to the negative surprise of the driver (ie fish tailing).
Mid-Engine Vehicles
In a mid-engine configuration the engine is located directly behind the cabin just ahead of the rear axle line. Essentially, the engine is located in the rear seat area. A rare configuration, the mid-engine vehicle is usually associated with high performance automobiles because, among other reasons, the static weight distribution tends to be close to the optimal 50/50 ratio, with the bias being slightly rearward, resulting in superior balance and handling characteristics (Bondurant ‘ Blakemore, 1998).
Rear-Engine Vehicles
In rear-engine vehicles, the motor is located in the rearmost portion, behind the rear axle line. Rear-engine automobiles tend to demonstrate exceptional braking ability due to a greater amount of weight from the engine remaining over the rear tires during braking and as brake force increases dynamic weight force moves forward thus increasingly involving the front tires making them handle the added force. Thus, all four tires are heavily involved during braking instead of just the front tires. Acceleration is also enhanced, as the rearward transfer of weight and the engine weight combine to put maximum downward force on the rear tires resulting in a larger rear tire contact patch that enhances accelerative traction (Bentley, 1998).
In dry conditions under normal driving conditions, the location of the engine does not make much of a difference in terms of driving dynamics. Aside from the mid-engine vehicle’s tendency to yield higher interior noise levels, most drivers will not detect a difference in the way these different vehicles respond to driver inputs. However, as the driving turns more spirited or involved emergency situations requiring abrupt driver inputs, these differences can surface, sometimes to the negative surprise of the driver (ie fish tailing).
very interesting, thank you
Trending Topics
#8
06-02-2010, 02:25 PM
However, as the driving turns more spirited or involved emergency situations requiring abrupt driver inputs, these differences can surface, sometimes to the negative surprise of the driver (ie fish tailing).
#9
06-02-2010, 02:33 PM
If I wanted a mid engine... I would have bought one. There are several to choose from. I wanted a car that has character and takes a level of skill to know and drive well. That's part of the fun, that "razor's edge" if you will. I would have loved to have owned an older 993 but being a practical father of two I went with a 997s instead.
#10
06-02-2010, 02:35 PM
There is a lot of car manufacturers who have the opportunity to bring any car with any motor config.. Still they do not make 7:18 on the Ring.
(wiki link not complete anymore) please check that one:
http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?fID...3&viewThread=y
What about the mighty Porsche Carrera GT ? Isnt a mid-engine car ?
Well, 10 sec slower at 7:28
How can we explain that ?
(wiki link not complete anymore) please check that one:
http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?fID...3&viewThread=y
What about the mighty Porsche Carrera GT ? Isnt a mid-engine car ?
Well, 10 sec slower at 7:28
How can we explain that ?
I think that the mistake everyone seems to make is to rely on "The Ring" as some kind of scientific test. My opinion is that it is really a "my dork is bigger than yours" test among manufacturers. The Ring is the most often quoted bunch of numbers amongst forum members, yet it is not a scientific test in the largest areas. The problems include: the ring is huge and has many, many straights (miles of them, in fact). The temps and barometric pressures are different on each test day, and some times are obtained with traffic on the course, whilst others are on a closed day. There is no sanctioning body that conducts the tests and there is no oversight. The car/driver makes the decision on what to report regarding tires and such. No one verifies the cars being stock. I'll stop there, but basically I just blew away the importance of "Ring times". They are cute and fun, as there are lists and lists of those times, but how do we compare times from years apart as well? (current tire technology allows a minivan to keep up with some sports cars from 20 years ago!)
Now, when cars are on same track, same day, same drivers, things shape up differently, don't they?
In C&D, a stock Cayman posted the same (exact) lap times as a stock 911..both S models. Odd, yet true. (barber motorspors park, I believe)
In motor trend, factory Porsche 911 driver Randy Pobst admitted the superiority of a mid engined chassis. (Best Drivers car test) Odd for a guy who makes a living racing the 911 chassis.
In another C&D test a stock 911 gets whomped by a stock M3.
We could also get into the R8 and how many smack downs it has handed out in independent tests around the same track, same day, same drivers. We have tests by R&T, C&D and motor trend that all say the same thing. We can either believe those multitudes of tests, or sit around and read lists of the ring, and claim that every magazine is biased or doesn't know how to drive! My feeling is that porsche will quietly continue to move from 38/62% to 45/55%, whether they keep the engine rearish or not!
One more note of interest that should give some thought: If the rear engine design was so great, why has no one else adopted it? (for racing or street)
#11
06-02-2010, 02:55 PM
In theory, a mid engine, single place car would give the best absolute handling - strangely enough, see most pure race cars... As you depart from this ideal, performance will suffer to some extent.
In practice, I love the practicality of my 997 - outstanding all around performance, plus enough room to carry whatever I need. I do believe that a high powered Cayman would be a phenomenal performing car, but with a significant loss in usability.
In practice, I love the practicality of my 997 - outstanding all around performance, plus enough room to carry whatever I need. I do believe that a high powered Cayman would be a phenomenal performing car, but with a significant loss in usability.
#12
06-02-2010, 09:18 PM
The rear engine is terrible, and you die-hard loyalists are the reason Porsche is stuck with it. A mid-engine 911 wouldn't get so badly stomped by the M3 and GTR which cost significantly less.
#14
06-02-2010, 11:20 PM
I see your point, but I will give an alternative scenario which may be of value.
I think that the mistake everyone seems to make is to rely on "The Ring" as some kind of scientific test. My opinion is that it is really a "my dork is bigger than yours" test among manufacturers. The Ring is the most often quoted bunch of numbers amongst forum members, yet it is not a scientific test in the largest areas. The problems include: the ring is huge and has many, many straights (miles of them, in fact). The temps and barometric pressures are different on each test day, and some times are obtained with traffic on the course, whilst others are on a closed day. There is no sanctioning body that conducts the tests and there is no oversight. The car/driver makes the decision on what to report regarding tires and such. No one verifies the cars being stock. I'll stop there, but basically I just blew away the importance of "Ring times". They are cute and fun, as there are lists and lists of those times, but how do we compare times from years apart as well? (current tire technology allows a minivan to keep up with some sports cars from 20 years ago!)
Now, when cars are on same track, same day, same drivers, things shape up differently, don't they?
In C&D, a stock Cayman posted the same (exact) lap times as a stock 911..both S models. Odd, yet true. (barber motorspors park, I believe)
In motor trend, factory Porsche 911 driver Randy Pobst admitted the superiority of a mid engined chassis. (Best Drivers car test) Odd for a guy who makes a living racing the 911 chassis.
In another C&D test a stock 911 gets whomped by a stock M3.
We could also get into the R8 and how many smack downs it has handed out in independent tests around the same track, same day, same drivers. We have tests by R&T, C&D and motor trend that all say the same thing. We can either believe those multitudes of tests, or sit around and read lists of the ring, and claim that every magazine is biased or doesn't know how to drive! My feeling is that porsche will quietly continue to move from 38/62% to 45/55%, whether they keep the engine rearish or not!
One more note of interest that should give some thought: If the rear engine design was so great, why has no one else adopted it? (for racing or street)
I think that the mistake everyone seems to make is to rely on "The Ring" as some kind of scientific test. My opinion is that it is really a "my dork is bigger than yours" test among manufacturers. The Ring is the most often quoted bunch of numbers amongst forum members, yet it is not a scientific test in the largest areas. The problems include: the ring is huge and has many, many straights (miles of them, in fact). The temps and barometric pressures are different on each test day, and some times are obtained with traffic on the course, whilst others are on a closed day. There is no sanctioning body that conducts the tests and there is no oversight. The car/driver makes the decision on what to report regarding tires and such. No one verifies the cars being stock. I'll stop there, but basically I just blew away the importance of "Ring times". They are cute and fun, as there are lists and lists of those times, but how do we compare times from years apart as well? (current tire technology allows a minivan to keep up with some sports cars from 20 years ago!)
Now, when cars are on same track, same day, same drivers, things shape up differently, don't they?
In C&D, a stock Cayman posted the same (exact) lap times as a stock 911..both S models. Odd, yet true. (barber motorspors park, I believe)
In motor trend, factory Porsche 911 driver Randy Pobst admitted the superiority of a mid engined chassis. (Best Drivers car test) Odd for a guy who makes a living racing the 911 chassis.
In another C&D test a stock 911 gets whomped by a stock M3.
We could also get into the R8 and how many smack downs it has handed out in independent tests around the same track, same day, same drivers. We have tests by R&T, C&D and motor trend that all say the same thing. We can either believe those multitudes of tests, or sit around and read lists of the ring, and claim that every magazine is biased or doesn't know how to drive! My feeling is that porsche will quietly continue to move from 38/62% to 45/55%, whether they keep the engine rearish or not!
One more note of interest that should give some thought: If the rear engine design was so great, why has no one else adopted it? (for racing or street)
The ''ring'' reference is in fact a bit overstated/estimated, but still is one of the most credible and available reference. It certainly questionnable, though. Like everything.
And... i might be wrong on that... i believe the 911 to be one of the trickiest sport car to drive (to get the very best from it..) so i think the car is basically disadvantaged from start, so unless the test driver has extended experience with that kind of car he will get best results from easier to drive cars (i.e. mid-engine).
That's what i like about the Ring laptimes (at least the perception i have of it): they launch their car with the best driver they got and the result speak for itself.
There is hundreds of different results, different weather, etc.. i guess one can make his opinion based on overall comparisons. So.. while not being perfectly precise, accurate and credible... We can see that cars that are doing sub 7:40 laptimes are pretty serious vehicles and no obvious error appears. The day you'll see a stock Toyota Camry doing 7:50 on the Ring, we'll ask ourselves questions.