One occasionally sees vehicles referred to as "front-mid-engined" -- the
Panoz GTs fit that description. Probably in the days before
"rear-mid-engined" was a concept, it was merely considered good weight
distribution.
I agree that the common usage of "mid-engined" to refer specifically to a
layout with the engine between the driver and the rear axle, is not
absolutely logical. But it's easy to see how it arose in juxtaposition to
"front-engined", the dominant paradigm at the time. Actually, if you look at
the meaning of "rear-engined" as applied to classic VWs and Porsches, the
term "front-engined" would only apply to Morgan trikes and Panhards, and
everything else would be mid-engined one way or the other.
on 3/19/02 8:38 PM, Bob D. at bobmgtd@insightbb.com wrote:
> This may sound crazy, but it seems to me that the MG T series cars have the
> engine closer to the middle of the car than the so called modern "mid
> engine" sports cars. I didn't measure, but I bet the tranny even protrudes
> past the center of the car. With the 50-50 weight distribution and the mass
> concentrated in the middle, the T series was clearly way ahead of it's time.
>
> So what is the definition of mid engine anyway? (Food for a thread)
>
> Bob Donahue (Still stuck in the '50s)
> Email - bobmgtd@insightbb.com
> 52 MGTD - NEMGTR #11470
> 71 MGB - NAMGBR #7-3336
> .
>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|