Am I the only one questioning the front engine?

[svassh]

I haven't seen this discussed but if this is replacing their flagship GTM why the switch from mid engine to front?

I assume its simply to decrease the cost hence amount of kits they could potentially target buyers for?

[Ajzride]

Transaxles are expensive and difficult to find. Front engine with a traditional transmission is much more accessible for most builders.

[Erik W. Treves]

Something else you need to consider - even though the engine is in the "front" this doesn't necessary translate to front engine configuration performance - the car is actually more mid engine in weight distribution. I will post the chassis split weights. My coupe for example is "front engine - but is 46.5% front 53.5% rear

[caesarmascetti]

I think the whole mid-engined theme especially in a street car is over-rated. To Erik's point if you can set the engine far enough back you achieve a near perfect 50/50 weight distribution. In addition to that the advantages of a mid engined (behind the driver) design are really only apparent at the race track. IMO give me a "front" mid engined design any day. The car to my eye looks better, and does everything a mid engine (behind the driver car does), the engine and its ancillaries are easier to access and service, visibility is generally better etc....

By the way Ferrari's flagship is the 812 Superfast I believe and that is a front engined car.

[GoDadGo]

I think the whole mid-engined theme especially in a street car is over-rated. To Erik's point if you can set the engine far enough back you achieve a near perfect 50/50 weight distribution. In addition to that the advantages of a mid engined (behind the driver) design are really only apparent at the race track. IMO give me a "front" mid engined design any day. The car to my eye looks better, and does everything a mid engine (behind the driver car does), the engine and its ancillaries are easier to access and service, visibility is generally better etc....

By the way Ferrari's flagship is the 812 Superfast I believe and that is a front engined car.

Amen, I Say Amen Regarding A Front Engine Configuration!

When the Panoz came on the scene 20-Plus years ago I thought it was the coolest thing ever.

https://youtu.be/SCTOT-NyaCc

The new F-9 captures that car's spirit but in its own special way!

[NAZ]

I've owned front engine, mid-engine, and rear engine cars. Mid-engine configurations are overrated for performance and nobody wants to talk about the difficulty working on them. Mid-engine cars don't have a monopoly on weight distribution and unless the car resembles a Formula 1 configuration, it's a PITA to service.

So educate me, why do I need a car with an engine buried deep in the middle under a bunch of panels where it's hard to get at?

[Jim1855]

I think the transaxle cost, when requiring the likes of the Porsche or other high end unit, really needs to be considered. Big bucks and often complex shifting mechanisms resulting in less than desirable shifting feel all need to be considered.

Users are less than happy when a roadster trans needs to come out, they should experience the joys of a rear mid engine unit.

FYI, the new Corvette 8-speed transaxle unit weighs about 335 pounds.

Jim

[q4stix]

Another thing to keep in mind: these cars are really more of mid-front than front engine cars. The weight of the engine and transmission are well behind the front axle line. It's not like a modern FWD car that has all of the weight on top of the front wheels. Mid just refers to the drivetrain inside of the wheelbase so you have mid-front like the F9 and mid-rear like the GTM or non-911 Porsches.

[FFRWRX]

I haven't seen this discussed but if this is replacing their flagship GTM why the switch from mid engine to front?

I assume its simply to decrease the cost hence amount of kits they could potentially target buyers for?

I've questioned the same thing. They are taking a huge step backwards when even the Vette has admitted that the performance was topped out with a front engine design. Look at the C7 and the C8 Corvettes. Close to the same power/weight, and the C8 is a full second faster in 0-60. And this stuff about 50/50 weight distribution is an old wives tale that makes good advertising. If that were true the 911 would absolutely suck on the street or the track. More weight on the rear not only gives better traction for acceleration, but better braking as well. And in a corner, you are braking for the first part of it and accelerating coming out, so the neutral part of the corner where you are just relying on the weight balance of the car is very small.

I can see Factory Five going this way to save on the trans-axle cost; that is a significant part of the build cost. Don't really blame them for that reason. But from a technology and state-of-the-art perspective, it is a step backwards. Like I said, even the Vette finally gave up on the front engine design.

Rick

[VRaptor SpeedWorks, LLC]

The reality of the situation is that just the transaxle for a GTM costs more than a brand new FFR Mk 4 Roadster kit. If you could find a transaxle for the cost of an 818 kit, it would be considered a "really sweet deal".

I don't think FFR has sold more than 100 GTM kits total over the past 5 years. I think this most likely comes down to 2 main issues. The transaxle cost and the amount of bodywork needed. Now look at what 2 things FFR has chosen to focus on with their new F9 flagship. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[caesarmascetti]

I've questioned the same thing. They are taking a huge step backwards when even the Vette has admitted that the performance was topped out with a front engine design. Look at the C7 and the C8 Corvettes. Close to the same power/weight, and the C8 is a full second faster in 0-60. And this stuff about 50/50 weight distribution is an old wives tale that makes good advertising. If that were true the 911 would absolutely suck on the street or the track. More weight on the rear not only gives better traction for acceleration, but better braking as well. And in a corner, you are braking for the first part of it and accelerating coming out, so the neutral part of the corner where you are just relying on the weight balance of the car is very small.

I can see Factory Five going this way to save on the trans-axle cost; that is a significant part of the build cost. Don't really blame them for that reason. But from a technology and state-of-the-art perspective, it is a step backwards. Like I said, even the Vette finally gave up on the front engine design.

Rick

"even the Vette has admitted that the performance was topped out with a front engine design," this was GM Marketing speak for we have to have a mid engined car to keep up with the Jones's. Performance was not topped out GM could have developed it further, as an example look at the Ferrair 812 Superfast has a 789hp V12, in a front mid engined design and does just fine thankyou. No IMO that phrase was right out of GM marketing, to make the Vette more attractive to those "sophisticated" buyers of european cars, not for any other reason. Let's not forget that 911s pre electronic nannies and 40+ years of development were known to be something of a difficult car to handle, many an early 911 especially turbos oversteered off the road.

[Ajzride]

It is important for FFR to understand their primary customer. Most of them are guys who like to build cars, and want something way cooler than they could buy of the lot. Guys buying Cobra, Daytona, and GTM kits are usually not hardcore race guys. There certainly are some, and the 818 probably has higher percentage than the other models due to its entry level pricing, but if you look through the build logs most are street cars. For someone building their own street car, the F9 is plenty cool enough, and much easier to get into with a traditional transaxle than a mid-engine car. If you have enough cash that you are building an all out performance machine (because those aren't cheap) or just don't care about the cost of a transaxle, then there are some pretty high dollar mid-engine kits out there like the SL-C and Ultima that you can build if you really want a mid-engine car for performance reasons.

[NAZ]

It could be argued that the best handling and highest tech race car on the planet is a Formula 1. They typically have a rear weight bias of ~53 – 55 percent for their rear mid-engine configuration. My front engine race car has a rear weight bias of 52% and if I transferred just 12lbs from front to rear it would be right in line with a F1.



Technically, my car could be considered a front mid-engine configuration as the entire engine is setback behind the front axle but most folks would probably not look at it that way and the definitions of front, mid, and rear engine configurations are somewhat fluid.



Weight, both static and dynamic has a significant impact on performance and handling. Not simply the amount of weight but where it’s placed. Whether the engine sits behind the driver or in front of the driver, the static weight can be managed to enhance performance. But there are many other variables that affect handling, braking, and acceleration regardless of if the engine is in front of or behind the driver.



Just so you don’t think I’m a rear mid-engine hater – the new race car I’m building is a rear mid-engine car with the hot exhaust and turbo sitting directly behind my seat.

[FFRWRX]

Performance was not topped out GM could have developed it further, as an example look at the Ferrair 812 Superfast has a 789hp V12, in a front mid engined design and does just fine thankyou. No IMO that phrase was right out of GM marketing, to make the Vette more attractive to those "sophisticated" buyers of european cars, not for any other reason. Let's not forget that 911s pre electronic nannies and 40+ years of development were known to be something of a difficult car to handle, many an early 911 especially turbos oversteered off the road.

Well, the 812 has almost 300HP more than the C8 Vette to get roughly the same acceleration.........that's my point. Performance for the front engine Vette was pretty much topped out. They had to go to huge HP levels for minimal performance increase. Yes, there is some truth to mid engine being sexy compared to a front engine sports car, but there are also laws of physics to back it up. The 911's did have handling issues in the very early days, but not nearly as bad as the stories go these days by people that never drove the early ones.

[caesarmascetti]

Well, the 812 has almost 300HP more than the C8 Vette to get roughly the same acceleration.........that's my point. Performance for the front engine Vette was pretty much topped out. They had to go to huge HP levels for minimal performance increase. Yes, there is some truth to mid engine being sexy compared to a front engine sports car, but there are also laws of physics to back it up. The 911's did have handling issues in the very early days, but not nearly as bad as the stories go these days by people that never drove the early ones.

No the 812s numbers compare to the best in high powered rear mid engined cars (0-60 is 2.6 seconds not roughly the same as a C7), both in overall G and acceleration see the attached article, bolstering my argument that a front mid engined design can perform just as well as a rear mid engined design. The design also allows for ease of maintenance, better visibility in general, classic looks, and even some luggage space. The link below show how it compares to everything from an Avendator, to McClarens . Also note that the "front engined" Ferrari has a 53% rear weight bias which is just about perfect mush like my FFR Roadster

https://www.carindigo.com/ferrari/81...st/performance

[FFRWRX]

I said the 0-60 of the C8 Vette, not the C7. Motor Trend timed it at 2.8 seconds, so yes, I do think that is close to 2.6 seconds. Oh, and guess what Motor Trend got for the 812 0-60...................2.8 seconds. My point was that it is easier to get impressive acceleration with a mid engine car, unless you want to go to huge HP numbers.

We disagree to agree. I'm done.

[Jkviper]

This is a good read, pitting a front mid-engine C7 Corvette vs the rear mid-engine C8 on a road course. Keep in mind the C7 transaxle is in the rear of the car. On the track the rear mid-engine proves quicker by a good margin. Not sure how much the new dual clutch impacts the speed vs. weight distribution but worth a read…

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2...ette-c8-vs-c7/

[Ajzride]

I don't think comparing a C7 to a C8 is a good way to compare the performance limits of a a front-mid versus a rear-mid design. The C7 and pretty much every Corvette model before it was designed first and foremost as a grand tourer. On top of that there would be track focused models.... built on a grand tourer. The C8 is built to be a track monster first and a grand tourer second. Chevrolet completely changed their target market with the C8.

[caesarmascetti]

This is a good read, pitting a front mid-engine C7 Corvette vs the rear mid-engine C8 on a road course. Keep in mind the C7 transaxle is in the rear of the car. On the track the rear mid-engine proves quicker by a good margin. Not sure how much the new dual clutch impacts the speed vs. weight distribution but worth a read…

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2...ette-c8-vs-c7/

huh, yeah and they were on different tires, sort of ruins the comparison especially since the only suspension component that actually touches the ground is the tires, and we all know what a huge difference they can make

[NAZ]

It’s pretty much impossible to find two similar cars to compare that one has a front mid-engine and the other has a rear mid-engine. Comparing two dissimilar cars and then claiming that one has better performance simply because it is a rear mid-engine design is faulty logic. Using that same logic, I could claim that since my car does 0-60 in 1.5-sec, a 2-speed Powerglide transmission makes a car quicker than a car with a transaxle.

The rear mid-engine design certainly has advantages. And disadvantages. Probably its biggest advantages are packaging and weight reduction. The transaxle used in rear mid-engine designs can be made lighter and with a smaller footprint than a conventional drivetrain. Conventional drivetrains contain several components that are either eliminated or combined within one case on a mid-engine transaxle. But any weight placement advantage would be hard to defend on anything other than an ultra-short wheelbase car. And still, the rear mid-engine car doesn’t have a monopoly on dynamic load transfer. Everyone on this site should be a bit familiar with this model car in the attached photo. This is a front engine car transferring 100% of the load to the rear drive tires. Can’t get more load transfer than that!

Mustang.jpg

[AC Bill]

I just hope that FFR doesn't spread themselves to thin, when it comes to their new creation. Investments to bring out this new F9, must be fairly substantial, and very time consuming for Dave Smith, and other FFR staff. They already have a bigger variety than any other kit car company. Expansion can be risky.

I see ERA has discontinued the GT40, to concentrate on their Cobra Roadsters.

[coup in australia]

I think the whole mid-engined theme especially in a street car is over-rated. To Erik's point if you can set the engine far enough back you achieve a near perfect 50/50 weight distribution. In addition to that the advantages of a mid engined (behind the driver) design are really only apparent at the race track. IMO give me a "front" mid engined design any day. The car to my eye looks better, and does everything a mid engine (behind the driver car does), the engine and its ancillaries are easier to access and service, visibility is generally better etc....

By the way Ferrari's flagship is the 812 Superfast I believe and that is a front engined car.

My Aston DB9 Volante ie v12 front engine 50/50

[J R Jones]

It was stated, maybe by Carroll Smith, that a successful race car is the best combination of compromises. Choosing and/or building your own car is much the same.
Imagine a drop down menu, like Summit Racing's, for choosing a complete car.

Engine type
Engine location, Front, Mid, Rear
Cylinder count
Displacement
Transmission type
Transmission gear number
Suspension type F & R
Brake type F & R
Exhaust
Body material
Color
Interior material

Like at Summit, every choice reduces the number of subsequent options available.
Some choices are relatively transparent, and others dictate major aspects of the composition, so selection order is significant.

Driving the choices are one's personal preferences, taste, budget, mechanical ability, (personal)size/weight, brand loyalty, previous experience, curiosity, ambition.

Not on the menu and perhaps not self-actualized, are palpable performance characteristics.
In discussion threads like this, I theorize this last point is not acknowledged, perhaps because of prejudice.

Regardless of the numbers in specification or performance, a front engine car feels different from a mid engine car, or a rear engine car.
If one is self-aware, tactile and experienced, the "engine location" choice should be high on the drop down menu.
jim

[CobraboyDR]

Front-engine, mid-weight:

Cheetah.

[J R Jones]

I raced BP, AS, CP, FA through the seventies and never saw a Cheetah at the track. We raced a GT40 in vintage for several years and occasionally would see a Cheetah, but I never saw one finish a race, I am not sure I ever saw one start a race.
This July at the Road America vintage race, (Vintage Sports Racing #3) Two Cheetahs showed up, a coupe DNS'd but Brian Garcia from IL ran a black BTM Cheetah roadster, or at least a Cheetah body with the tires sticking way outside. He had pole, he gapped the field on the first lap and walked away to the flag, beating two Lola T70s, a Superformance GT40, a Devin and others. The car handled so well, he made it look easy.

GT40 rides_edited.jpg