rear engine versus mid engine?

On 8/29/2013 4:22 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
> On Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:24:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 20, 2013 5:07:58 AM UTC+3, wrote:
>>
>>> What is the demarcation between rear engine and mid engine cars?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I presume a rear engine is when the center of gravity of the engine
>>
>>>
>>
>>> is behind the rear axle.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder if anyone ever made a mid engine 4-5 seater.
>>
>> Production or not.
>
> where would the people in the back sit on either side of the motor?
>
The Toyota Van we used to have had the engine between the front seat
towards the rear. Passengers in the back had a sturdy carpeted bulkhead
to put their feet on. The unfortunate front seat victims err...
passengers ended up stuck in the front ahead of the wheels like a couple
of meat harpoons. This setup would probably work out great in Japan
where weird cars are common. I don't know how it ever got past the docks
in this country.

As an added bonus, the Van had the shortest wheelbase of any Toyota sold
and made the Tercel look like a stretch limo. This is a good thing - if
you had a Tercel.

I highly recommend the early Toyota Van if "danger" is your middle name.

On 8/30/2013 8:40 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 8/29/2013 4:22 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:24:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 20, 2013 5:07:58 AM UTC+3, wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the demarcation between rear engine and mid engine cars?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I presume a rear engine is when the center of gravity of the engine
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> is behind the rear axle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if anyone ever made a mid engine 4-5 seater.
>>>
>>> Production or not.
>>
>> where would the people in the back sit on either side of the motor?
>>
> The Toyota Van we used to have had the engine between the front seat
> towards the rear. Passengers in the back had a sturdy carpeted bulkhead
> to put their feet on. The unfortunate front seat victims err...
> passengers ended up stuck in the front ahead of the wheels like a couple
> of meat harpoons. This setup would probably work out great in Japan
> where weird cars are common. I don't know how it ever got past the docks
> in this country.
>
jim beam says it is not mid-engined.

> As an added bonus, the Van had the shortest wheelbase of any Toyota sold
> and made the Tercel look like a stretch limo. This is a good thing - if
> you had a Tercel.
>
> I highly recommend the early Toyota Van if "danger" is your middle name.

I have driven the Toyota Van/HiAce, and it is a much better vehicle than
the VW Type II - granted, that is not hard to achieve.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 8/30/2013 6:49 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 8/30/2013 8:40 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 8/29/2013 4:22 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:24:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 20, 2013 5:07:58 AM UTC+3,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What is the demarcation between rear engine and mid engine cars?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I presume a rear engine is when the center of gravity of the engine
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> is behind the rear axle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if anyone ever made a mid engine 4-5 seater.
>>>>
>>>> Production or not.
>>>
>>> where would the people in the back sit on either side of the motor?
>>>
>> The Toyota Van we used to have had the engine between the front seat
>> towards the rear. Passengers in the back had a sturdy carpeted bulkhead
>> to put their feet on. The unfortunate front seat victims err...
>> passengers ended up stuck in the front ahead of the wheels like a couple
>> of meat harpoons. This setup would probably work out great in Japan
>> where weird cars are common. I don't know how it ever got past the docks
>> in this country.
>>
> jim beam says it is not mid-engined.

One could also say that the Toyota Van is a ham sandwich although I
can't think of a single reason to do so.

>
>> As an added bonus, the Van had the shortest wheelbase of any Toyota sold
>> and made the Tercel look like a stretch limo. This is a good thing - if
>> you had a Tercel.
>>
>> I highly recommend the early Toyota Van if "danger" is your middle name.
>
> I have driven the Toyota Van/HiAce, and it is a much better vehicle than
> the VW Type II - granted, that is not hard to achieve.
>


This is undoubtedly true. The Toyota felt futuristic and neat to drive.
The Type 2 felt ungainly and mule-like, with an engine straight out of
the 1940s. OTOH, you should plan on being horribly crippled if you're in
a bad crash with either of these ham sandwiches.

On 8/31/2013 2:50 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 8/30/2013 6:49 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>> On 8/30/2013 8:40 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 8/29/2013 4:22 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:24:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 20, 2013 5:07:58 AM UTC+3,
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the demarcation between rear engine and mid engine cars?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I presume a rear engine is when the center of gravity of the engine
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is behind the rear axle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if anyone ever made a mid engine 4-5 seater.
>>>>>
>>>>> Production or not.
>>>>
>>>> where would the people in the back sit on either side of the motor?
>>>>
>>> The Toyota Van we used to have had the engine between the front seat
>>> towards the rear. Passengers in the back had a sturdy carpeted bulkhead
>>> to put their feet on. The unfortunate front seat victims err...
>>> passengers ended up stuck in the front ahead of the wheels like a couple
>>> of meat harpoons. This setup would probably work out great in Japan
>>> where weird cars are common. I don't know how it ever got past the docks
>>> in this country.
>>>
>> jim beam says it is not mid-engined.
>
> One could also say that the Toyota Van is a ham sandwich although I
> can't think of a single reason to do so.
>
>>
>>> As an added bonus, the Van had the shortest wheelbase of any Toyota sold
>>> and made the Tercel look like a stretch limo. This is a good thing - if
>>> you had a Tercel.
>>>
>>> I highly recommend the early Toyota Van if "danger" is your middle name.
>>
>> I have driven the Toyota Van/HiAce, and it is a much better vehicle than
>> the VW Type II - granted, that is not hard to achieve.
>>
>
>
> This is undoubtedly true. The Toyota felt futuristic and neat to drive.
> The Type 2 felt ungainly and mule-like, with an engine straight out of
> the 1940s. OTOH, you should plan on being horribly crippled if you're in
> a bad crash with either of these ham sandwiches.

But it's got FWEEM!

nate

On 8/31/2013 1:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> But it's got FWEEM!

I would hate that to be the last sound I ever heard. That thought is too
horrible to contemplate.

>
> nate

On 8/31/2013 8:06 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 8/31/2013 1:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>> But it's got FWEEM!
>
> I would hate that to be the last sound I ever heard. That thought is too
> horrible to contemplate.

I like fweem, it's a friendly, nostalgic sound.

Only flatmotor I ever had was in a 914 with a Bursch steelpack exhaust
though, that didn't fweem, although it too was a pleasing, happy sound.

Subarus just don't do it for me, the watercooling dampens the fun sounds
a bit, although I might make an exception for a BRZ, damn that is a fun
car. I got to drive one for a few miles, owned by a local shop owner
that specializes in Subies and turbo BMWs. Was actually on my shopping
list but I never got to test drive one prior to purchasing the 335i that
I ended up with as all the local dealers were completely out of stock.
I'm still not sure if I made the right decision, the 335i has waaaaaaaay
more power and torque, has a back seat that's not a penalty box, and a
way nicer looking interior... but the handling!

nate

In article >,
dsi1 > wrote:

> On 8/29/2013 4:22 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:24:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> >> On Saturday, July 20, 2013 5:07:58 AM UTC+3, wrote:
> >>
> >>> What is the demarcation between rear engine and mid engine cars?
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> I presume a rear engine is when the center of gravity of the engine
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> is behind the rear axle.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I wonder if anyone ever made a mid engine 4-5 seater.
> >>
> >> Production or not.
> >
> > where would the people in the back sit on either side of the motor?
> >
> The Toyota Van we used to have had the engine between the front seat
> towards the rear. Passengers in the back had a sturdy carpeted bulkhead
> to put their feet on. The unfortunate front seat victims err...
> passengers ended up stuck in the front ahead of the wheels like a couple
> of meat harpoons. This setup would probably work out great in Japan
> where weird cars are common. I don't know how it ever got past the docks
> in this country.
>
> As an added bonus, the Van had the shortest wheelbase of any Toyota sold
> and made the Tercel look like a stretch limo. This is a good thing - if
> you had a Tercel.
>
> I highly recommend the early Toyota Van if "danger" is your middle name.

The safest vehicle always...


....I mean ALWAYS...


....the one with the driver who stays out of accidents.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On 8/31/2013 2:12 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 8/31/2013 8:06 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 8/31/2013 1:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>> But it's got FWEEM!
>>
>> I would hate that to be the last sound I ever heard. That thought is too
>> horrible to contemplate.
>
> I like fweem, it's a friendly, nostalgic sound.
>
> Only flatmotor I ever had was in a 914 with a Bursch steelpack exhaust
> though, that didn't fweem, although it too was a pleasing, happy sound.

My brother had a beautiful 914. I didn't care for the goofy shift
pattern but I liked it a lot.

>
> Subarus just don't do it for me, the watercooling dampens the fun sounds
> a bit, although I might make an exception for a BRZ, damn that is a fun
> car. I got to drive one for a few miles, owned by a local shop owner
> that specializes in Subies and turbo BMWs. Was actually on my shopping
> list but I never got to test drive one prior to purchasing the 335i that
> I ended up with as all the local dealers were completely out of stock.
> I'm still not sure if I made the right decision, the 335i has waaaaaaaay
> more power and torque, has a back seat that's not a penalty box, and a
> way nicer looking interior... but the handling!
>
> nate

On 8/31/2013 6:51 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> The safest vehicle always...
>
>
> ...I mean ALWAYS...
>
>
> ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents.
>


You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to
bring it down to zero risk. Hanging your feet in front of practically
the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being
crippled. My guess is that a computer controlled car will probably be
the safest automobile ever made.

On 9/2/2013 4:37 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 8/31/2013 2:12 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> On 8/31/2013 8:06 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2013 1:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But it's got FWEEM!
>>>
>>> I would hate that to be the last sound I ever heard. That thought is too
>>> horrible to contemplate.
>>
>> I like fweem, it's a friendly, nostalgic sound.
>>
>> Only flatmotor I ever had was in a 914 with a Bursch steelpack exhaust
>> though, that didn't fweem, although it too was a pleasing, happy sound.
>
> My brother had a beautiful 914. I didn't care for the goofy shift
> pattern but I liked it a lot.

Some would argue that a beautiful 914 doesn't exist (it really isn't
the best looking design)

I actually really liked the shift pattern; it works exactly like the old
3-speed shifters sold for drag racing, both 1-2 and 2-3 are a straight
line motion with your hand because of the spring loading.

nate