View Poll Results: I want my GT2/GT3 engine in:
Front
2
1.29%
Back
51
32.90%
Middle
99
63.87%
I don't care
3
1.94%
Voters: 155. You may not vote on this poll
If mid engine were a possibility in GT2/GT3
10-31-2006, 12:21 AM
#31
Rennlist Member
Don't get me wrong...I loved my 914...other than the GT3, by far the best car I've ever had...but like 38D, when at the limit, and I was being passed...I never knew if it was another car or my own ***.... 
10-31-2006, 02:23 AM
#32
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Near Atlanta, Ga. Peachtree City
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
All you have to do is look at a Boxster for routine maintanence or any engine tuning and you can see for the average guy the rear engine is the obvious choice. It may be a little quirky in the wet or in the hair pin corners but the rest of the time it is a blessing to the owner. Look at the successful mid engine cars and you will find an owner that has a very close relationship with the dealer! A la $$$$.
Give it a rest already. Our cars are what they are. There will be no options offered to anyone.
Give it a rest already. Our cars are what they are. There will be no options offered to anyone.
10-31-2006, 04:14 AM
#33
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am fortunate to have driven a Cayman with 'a lot more' than 420 bhp, it was faster than a 997 GT3 and 997 TT from point to point. A glorious experience, I would have one of these as a sports car, or race one, this was another great Ruf creation.
Many people forget that the 911 is America's sports car as much as a 'vette. It has always been built with the US customer in mind, from the pseudo heraldic badge on the front bonnet to the misericord seats in the back, to the cheap to fix steel body and relatively high ground clearance.
However, I expect the rest of the world would vote in proportionately greater numbers for a 'rear mid engined layout', without the rear seats than the US customers, who had mandated the presence of rear seats all the way back in 356 days, requiring the engine to be hung out the back to make space.
R+C
Many people forget that the 911 is America's sports car as much as a 'vette. It has always been built with the US customer in mind, from the pseudo heraldic badge on the front bonnet to the misericord seats in the back, to the cheap to fix steel body and relatively high ground clearance.
However, I expect the rest of the world would vote in proportionately greater numbers for a 'rear mid engined layout', without the rear seats than the US customers, who had mandated the presence of rear seats all the way back in 356 days, requiring the engine to be hung out the back to make space.
R+C
10-31-2006, 04:39 AM
#34
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by Larry Herman
There is no question that mid-engined is faster. The point is that at full boogie it isn't easier to drive, it's tougher.
and by predictable you mean when you go into a slide and slow the car down even more?
10-31-2006, 09:19 AM
#35
Rennlist
Basic Site Sponsor
Basic Site Sponsor
Originally Posted by icon
so you would rather stick to a slower design because it's more predictable?
and by predictable you mean when you go into a slide and slow the car down even more?
and by predictable you mean when you go into a slide and slow the car down even more?
On a re-think, I guess that as long as the motor is behind me, that's fine. Mid & rear engined cars just have a different flavor to their handling than a front engined car does and I seem to prefer that, even though it makes for a more demanding car to drive at the limit.
__________________
Larry Herman
2016 Ford Transit Connect Titanium LWB
2018 Tesla Model 3 - Electricity can be fun!
Retired Club Racer & National PCA Instructor
Past Flames:
1994 RS America Club Racer
2004 GT3 Track Car
1984 911 Carrera Club Racer
1974 914/4 2.0 Track Car
CLICK HERE to see some of my ancient racing videos.
Larry Herman
2016 Ford Transit Connect Titanium LWB
2018 Tesla Model 3 - Electricity can be fun!
Retired Club Racer & National PCA Instructor
Past Flames:
1994 RS America Club Racer
2004 GT3 Track Car
1984 911 Carrera Club Racer
1974 914/4 2.0 Track Car
CLICK HERE to see some of my ancient racing videos.
Last edited by Larry Herman; 10-31-2006 at 10:03 AM. Reason: additional BS
10-31-2006, 11:21 AM
#37
Three Wheelin'
Once sorted out, the middle is the better place for the engine, IMO. I've driven supervee's, 914's, and a MR2 Turbo, 911s, and corvette's and caterhams. The MR cars were easier to get to 9/10's limit and consistently keep it there, but you had to know what you were doing to get to 10/10's. Their main problem was the second you stepped over it was gone and you had to do some major driving to get it back, much like the rear engine cars. It takes a certain kind of driver to get the rear engine rear wheel drive of the 911 to work. That task is the main reason I like driving my 911 on the limit, it gives more pleasure than the front engine or mid engined cars do. The front engined car's that I've driven always pushed too much for me.
Note to self: I'm with Colin and will never be sharing a room with Larry!
Note to self: I'm with Colin and will never be sharing a room with Larry!
10-31-2006, 12:36 PM
#38
I'm not looking for sarcastic responses but I'm interested in why people think that rear engined 911s have been dominating the racing scene for decades? Modern day F430s and F360s with more horsepower, mid-engine, equivalent brakes and weight, are usually slower around the track. In fact, in most cases, with equivalent horsepower, weight, brakes, and rubber, the rear engined cars do more than fine. Is it just the great Porsche drivers or do chassis dynamics have something to do with it?
Under static conditions the rear engine makes little sense but under dynamic conditions of accelerating, slowing, and turning, the complicated math and physicis may show advantages in managing the four contact patches we're driving on.
Thoughts on how to answer the simple paradox of great racing results versus "flawed" design?
Cheers.
Under static conditions the rear engine makes little sense but under dynamic conditions of accelerating, slowing, and turning, the complicated math and physicis may show advantages in managing the four contact patches we're driving on.
Thoughts on how to answer the simple paradox of great racing results versus "flawed" design?
Cheers.
10-31-2006, 12:55 PM
#39
Rennlist Member
Production class racing success by Porsche has been to a large extent due to their success in interpreting the rules and the huge effort they put into their production programs rather than intrinsic advantages of the rear engine design.
For Prototype class racing, when the rules were favorable, the racing department has raced a mid-engined car, although they could have chosen a rear engined design. I think this says a lot.
Porsche has always gone to great lengths to give their rear engine cars more power to make the rear engine design faster whether for the street or the track. Even in the time they had a racing program with a 914/6 they limited the 914 to a 2 liter engine while the 911 had a 2.5 liter engine.
Very clever marketing has kept their 911 cash cow alive. Nordschleife's comments above are well taken.
For Prototype class racing, when the rules were favorable, the racing department has raced a mid-engined car, although they could have chosen a rear engined design. I think this says a lot.
Porsche has always gone to great lengths to give their rear engine cars more power to make the rear engine design faster whether for the street or the track. Even in the time they had a racing program with a 914/6 they limited the 914 to a 2 liter engine while the 911 had a 2.5 liter engine.
Very clever marketing has kept their 911 cash cow alive. Nordschleife's comments above are well taken.
10-31-2006, 01:04 PM
#40
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim
You cannot make valid comparisons when comparing cars and drivers other than at the top professional level. The Ferrari legend is so mesmerising that a great many hopeless drivers buy them.
In recent years, at Le Mans and in FIA-GT, the 911s have not always had it their way. However, the 911 is the cheapest race car around that is bullet proof, that can be raced for 24 hours non stop. Its much more expensive doing that with a Ferrari, for example. Sometimes a Ferrari wins or something else, but the bulk of the field are the really cost effective 911s. Some years, the only competitive cars in the GT2 class are all 911s. From a racing viewpoint I'd say the fact that the bugs have been worked out of the car and the cost effectiveness of it, make it the first choice of racers who want the most bang per buck.
It is no accident that open wheel cars, Le Mans Prototypes and GT1 cars are all mid engined, yes there are front mid engined cars as well as rear mid engined cars. In the hands of a professional there is no doubt that a mid engined car is faster than one with the engine ahead of the front wheels, like Audi or behind the rear wheels like Porsche. Formula 1 used to have front engined cars, they moved its location to mid rear for dynamic reasons.
It may be that the breakaway characteristics of the modern Porsche make it easier to drive close to the limit than most mid engined cars, after all they have had 40 years to get this right. It wasn't always this way, I can assure you!
You don't need to get involved in any complicated chassis dynamics to answer your question.
R+C
You cannot make valid comparisons when comparing cars and drivers other than at the top professional level. The Ferrari legend is so mesmerising that a great many hopeless drivers buy them.
In recent years, at Le Mans and in FIA-GT, the 911s have not always had it their way. However, the 911 is the cheapest race car around that is bullet proof, that can be raced for 24 hours non stop. Its much more expensive doing that with a Ferrari, for example. Sometimes a Ferrari wins or something else, but the bulk of the field are the really cost effective 911s. Some years, the only competitive cars in the GT2 class are all 911s. From a racing viewpoint I'd say the fact that the bugs have been worked out of the car and the cost effectiveness of it, make it the first choice of racers who want the most bang per buck.
It is no accident that open wheel cars, Le Mans Prototypes and GT1 cars are all mid engined, yes there are front mid engined cars as well as rear mid engined cars. In the hands of a professional there is no doubt that a mid engined car is faster than one with the engine ahead of the front wheels, like Audi or behind the rear wheels like Porsche. Formula 1 used to have front engined cars, they moved its location to mid rear for dynamic reasons.
It may be that the breakaway characteristics of the modern Porsche make it easier to drive close to the limit than most mid engined cars, after all they have had 40 years to get this right. It wasn't always this way, I can assure you!
You don't need to get involved in any complicated chassis dynamics to answer your question.
R+C
10-31-2006, 01:22 PM
#41
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Nordschleife
Jim
You cannot make valid comparisons when comparing cars and drivers other than at the top professional level. The Ferrari legend is so mesmerising that a great many hopeless drivers buy them.
In recent years, at Le Mans and in FIA-GT, the 911s have not always had it their way. However, the 911 is the cheapest race car around that is bullet proof, that can be raced for 24 hours non stop. Its much more expensive doing that with a Ferrari, for example. Sometimes a Ferrari wins or something else, but the bulk of the field are the really cost effective 911s. Some years, the only competitive cars in the GT2 class are all 911s. From a racing viewpoint I'd say the fact that the bugs have been worked out of the car and the cost effectiveness of it, make it the first choice of racers who want the most bang per buck.
It is no accident that open wheel cars, Le Mans Prototypes and GT1 cars are all mid engined, yes there are front mid engined cars as well as rear mid engined cars. In the hands of a professional there is no doubt that a mid engined car is faster than one with the engine ahead of the front wheels, like Audi or behind the rear wheels like Porsche. Formula 1 used to have front engined cars, they moved its location to mid rear for dynamic reasons.
It may be that the breakaway characteristics of the modern Porsche make it easier to drive close to the limit than most mid engined cars, after all they have had 40 years to get this right. It wasn't always this way, I can assure you!
You don't need to get involved in any complicated chassis dynamics to answer your question.
R+C
You cannot make valid comparisons when comparing cars and drivers other than at the top professional level. The Ferrari legend is so mesmerising that a great many hopeless drivers buy them.
In recent years, at Le Mans and in FIA-GT, the 911s have not always had it their way. However, the 911 is the cheapest race car around that is bullet proof, that can be raced for 24 hours non stop. Its much more expensive doing that with a Ferrari, for example. Sometimes a Ferrari wins or something else, but the bulk of the field are the really cost effective 911s. Some years, the only competitive cars in the GT2 class are all 911s. From a racing viewpoint I'd say the fact that the bugs have been worked out of the car and the cost effectiveness of it, make it the first choice of racers who want the most bang per buck.
It is no accident that open wheel cars, Le Mans Prototypes and GT1 cars are all mid engined, yes there are front mid engined cars as well as rear mid engined cars. In the hands of a professional there is no doubt that a mid engined car is faster than one with the engine ahead of the front wheels, like Audi or behind the rear wheels like Porsche. Formula 1 used to have front engined cars, they moved its location to mid rear for dynamic reasons.
It may be that the breakaway characteristics of the modern Porsche make it easier to drive close to the limit than most mid engined cars, after all they have had 40 years to get this right. It wasn't always this way, I can assure you!
You don't need to get involved in any complicated chassis dynamics to answer your question.
R+C
Yes Nordschleife!
One only had to witness, as I did, the quick demise of the front engine Indy car when the mid-engine hit the scene to see the advantages
10-31-2006, 03:27 PM
#42
Burning Brakes
Part of Porsches 911 dominance in endurance racing comes their bullet proof reliability over other manufacturers. Look at this seasons ALMS results and you will see that the mid-engine Ferrari F430 is clearly giving the 996 based RSR a run for its money in terms of pure speed potential around the track.
10-31-2006, 04:24 PM
#43
Cool. Economics is mostly at play for rear engined success at the race track, I can buy that. Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree that reliability is one of Porsche's reasons for success, that's why I bought one. Qualifying times and lap records show that rear engined 911s are fast and reliable as well though.
So many times the intuitive answer turns out to be wrong or there are exceptions. I still think that for cars that weight about 2600lbs with about 450hp and 100's of pounds of downforce (rather than 1000's of pounds of downforce like in F1,prototype), it MAY just be that more polar moment of inertia and more traction to the rear wheels is a better combination. I understand the arguments for mid-engine in F1, prototype, etc. but it is odd that it usually takes more horsepower, more braking, and more rubber to compete with the 911 in the circles the car runs in.
I'll just continue to live in my own "rear-engined production car based" centric world. I like it here...not because it is better, but because driving my GT3 on the track is just too cool for words.
Cheers,
I agree that reliability is one of Porsche's reasons for success, that's why I bought one. Qualifying times and lap records show that rear engined 911s are fast and reliable as well though.
So many times the intuitive answer turns out to be wrong or there are exceptions. I still think that for cars that weight about 2600lbs with about 450hp and 100's of pounds of downforce (rather than 1000's of pounds of downforce like in F1,prototype), it MAY just be that more polar moment of inertia and more traction to the rear wheels is a better combination. I understand the arguments for mid-engine in F1, prototype, etc. but it is odd that it usually takes more horsepower, more braking, and more rubber to compete with the 911 in the circles the car runs in.
I'll just continue to live in my own "rear-engined production car based" centric world. I like it here...not because it is better, but because driving my GT3 on the track is just too cool for words.
Cheers,
10-31-2006, 04:26 PM
#44
The Rebel
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by Cupcar
The GT1 was a "911" but Norbert Singer made it mid-engined for it's purposes, he could have left it rear engined.
Was the GT1 really still a 911 or the first "Cayman"?
Porsche went to a lot of trouble to make it mid-engined, so their must be some benefits to racers as described above.
Was the GT1 really still a 911 or the first "Cayman"?
Porsche went to a lot of trouble to make it mid-engined, so their must be some benefits to racers as described above.
10-31-2006, 05:20 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
I think the conclusion can be drawn that driving a Porsche is fun, no matter which polar moment flavor you happen to have.
I think the main issue here is that, for fear that it may be faster than the 911, the Porsche marketing department does not allow a mid-engine Porsche choice that has the quality engine and gearbox hardware of the GT3.
Like I said though, I'd take it even with the 360 HP Mk1 GT3 engine in a Cayman, the issue for me is I want the quality components not necessarily the speed. I want the dry sump and interchangable ratio gearbox.
Did anyone read I think in EVO magazine where they tested a Cayman around SPA Francorchamps and it smoked on the long sweepers and Porsche said the engine may have been overfilled with oil? I think it was a failure of the "integrated dry sump" to keep up with the lateral G. This would not have been an issue with the true dry sump GT3 engine.
Is this important?
Probably not, but in my mind it is and I won't have a car with the integrated dry sump engine family. Or gearbox family for that matter.
After all the whole Porsche purchase is based on emotion and I get more excited about the chassis and drive line hardware and mid engine than I do the styling and interior.
I think the main issue here is that, for fear that it may be faster than the 911, the Porsche marketing department does not allow a mid-engine Porsche choice that has the quality engine and gearbox hardware of the GT3.
Like I said though, I'd take it even with the 360 HP Mk1 GT3 engine in a Cayman, the issue for me is I want the quality components not necessarily the speed. I want the dry sump and interchangable ratio gearbox.
Did anyone read I think in EVO magazine where they tested a Cayman around SPA Francorchamps and it smoked on the long sweepers and Porsche said the engine may have been overfilled with oil? I think it was a failure of the "integrated dry sump" to keep up with the lateral G. This would not have been an issue with the true dry sump GT3 engine.
Is this important?
Probably not, but in my mind it is and I won't have a car with the integrated dry sump engine family. Or gearbox family for that matter.
After all the whole Porsche purchase is based on emotion and I get more excited about the chassis and drive line hardware and mid engine than I do the styling and interior.