Talk:Rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Safety Issue?[edit]

This tendency is referred to as oversteer and creates potential safety issues in racing applications as well as for ordinary drivers on wet or icy roads, although such behavior is desirable in drifting, a motorsport based on intentional oversteer.

It's hard to agree with this. Most street drivers can't handle oversteer, which is why most cars sold are designed (and adjusted) to push. Even out side of drifting, motorsports has favored the rear-engine setup. -- Mikeblas 13:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read at many places that rear and mid engined cars are hard to drift. I can also say from first hand racing experience that when the back end of a mid engined car comes out, it really wants to spin all the way around. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.33.39 (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2007

What about the 911 (modern and past)?[edit]

Most would content the Porsche 911 (including, but not limited to, the current 997 iteration) is an RR layout, refuting the statement by the article authors that the Skoda 130/135/136 was the last European RR car in production.

If indeed the 911 is to be considered an RMR layout, a citation is necessary, and it should be included the list of RMR cars in the linked RMR article.

There is something wrong with this[edit]

"Further, problems with engine cooling are commonplace. Since the radiator is not at the front of the automobile, it does not benefit from the airflow a front-engine car would readily avail of. Special ducting must be built into the body of the car to facilitate airflow to the radiator, therefore." The above statement seems downright wrong. Some rear and mid engend cars have radiators in the front, such as my MR2 spyder and the Lotus Elise. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.33.39 (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2007

  • Looks to be fixed. The wording was wrong, as some have no radiator, some radiator in rear and a few radiator in front. Telecine Guy (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And This![edit]

"For optimum traction, the engine should be nearest to the driven wheels since the engine is typically the densest/heaviest component of the car."

While the above statement is true is should also be stressed that having the main weight near the front wheels improves steering - especially in snow. It's probably better for the back end to swing out rather than not making the curve at all! 85.22.26.213 00:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive you're confusing traction, which refers exclusively to contact between the driving member and surface, with grip, which refers to the overall frictional hold --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 14:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a bug?[edit]

The old air-cooled bug is an example of this design also isn't it? If so I would mention it as an example since they are familiar to so many people (at least those of us over 30). Kevink707 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


References[edit]

At present, this article has only one reference, which states that the Tata Nano uses this layout.

There are no references at all for the detailed technical discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of the layout that form the bulk of this article. There are also no references for the rather fragmented and disorganized "History" section.

There must be texts on automotive engineering or on physics that can support the statements made. If anyone has access to these texts could he or she please locate and cite supporting documents?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"History" could include "History of handling solutions"[edit]

The wayward handling of rear-engine, rear-wheel drive cars has been documented at least since Wehrmacht officers in occupied Czechoslovakia were ordered not to use Tatras as staff cars. Probably the most notorious car with this layout, the Chevrolet Corvair publicized by Ralph Nader's book Unsafe At Any Speed, initially recommended unconventional tyre pressures to minimize the handling problem. The problem with the Corvair was largely corrected in the second generation by an improved rear suspension design and the inclusion of an anti-roll bar.

BMW first used its semi-trailing arm rear suspension in its rear-engined BMW 600, and continued with it in the similarly configured BMW 700. One wonders to what extent the effects of the layout led them to choose that type of suspension, and what advantage it would have over other possible types at the time.

If anyone has any reliable sources that give some of the history of taming this characteristic, could he or she please include the information and cite the source?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nader was notoriously dishonest in UAAS. There was no handling problem with the Corvair so long as the tires were inflated to the correct pressures, with the front tires having lower pressures than the rear tires. The VW Type 1 and other RR VWs all used lighter pressures in the front tires and experienced no handling problems. Also, IIRC, none of Renault's RR cars (e.g. Dauphine, 8 and 10) had handling problems.
71.173.7.100 (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smart ForTwo[edit]

Is the Smart ForTwo RR or MR layout? My not qualified opinion is that it is RR in which case I think it should be included as a current example on this page. Kevink707 (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose to merge Rear-engine design into this article. All rear-engine design vehicles are also rear wheel drive. All of the content in Rear-engine design is duplicated here. Cornellier (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rear-engine,_rear-wheel-drive_layout&oldid=1199475154"