Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

    For those of you who have built and driven a mid-engine car, can you give a comparison of differences between the longitudinal vs. transverse mid engine configurations.

    It seems to me that the most desired setup is the longitudinal configuration since it most similar to what is OEM in high end mid-engine performance cars. On the other hand, it also seems to be a much more expensive way to go as the transmissions are more expensive and difficult to find.

    As I also understand it, transverse units can include anything from purpose built units (i.e. Fiero, MR2) to adapted front wheel drive units. For the most part, the items in this category are more plentiful and can be had for less money. The down side seems to be they are not as performance capable and can have some disadvantages when it comes to weight distribution and ultimately handling.

    With all that said, I would love to see some real world feed back from those of you who have built using either configuration or perhaps both configurations. What was your experience with regards to cost, durability, performance and handling?

    Is it possible to build a very performance capable car with the transverse setup and with a limited budget? What engine & transaxle combinations do you recommend?

  • #2
    Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

    Lambo had both. The first Lambos had it like Fiero (Transverse)then the longitudinal won out. I wish I went Longitudinal.
    If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

      Originally posted by FunnyWheels
      Lambo had both. The first Lambos had it like Fiero (Transverse)then the longitudinal won out. I wish I went Longitudinal.
      I recall the Miura was transverse, but can't remember if the Jalpa/Silhouette models were transverse. Also, I know the Ferrari 308 and 328 were also transverse. Suprisingly, the Cizeta V16 Moroder was also transverse.

      Why do you wish you went longitudinal? Does it have to do with handling or just a matter of powertrain choices?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

        Nobel cars are all transverse
        http://www.mychimaera.com
        http://www.my240z.info

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

          longitudinal on my fiero 350 v8 with g50 p.t.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

            Originally posted by mlochala
            Originally posted by FunnyWheels
            Lambo had both. The first Lambos had it like Fiero (Transverse)then the longitudinal won out. I wish I went Longitudinal.
            I recall the Miura was transverse, but can't remember if the Jalpa/Silhouette models were transverse. Also, I know the Ferrari 308 and 328 were also transverse. Suprisingly, the Cizeta V16 Moroder was also transverse.

            Why do you wish you went longitudinal? Does it have to do with handling or just a matter of powertrain choices?
            Don't forget the Vector W8 was transverse and its prototype the W2 was a transverse setup also and it went on to hit 240+ back in 1984!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

              Some very nice cars were transverse, as mentioned Ferrari 246, 308, 328 and Mondial (non-T) as well as Jalpa and Miura. I have built both but only longitudinal in tube chassis cars. I have not attempted longitudinal in a former transverse car. As far as front wheel drive adapted to transverse mid engine, that is all Fiero and MR2 was anyway. The driving force behind longitudinal was to get the center of gravity lower and better balance left to right and near equal driveshaft lengths so one is not winding up more than the other. IMHO

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

                I personally feel that the turbo would be easier.

                The handling would be better as well due to a different transaxle.

                I would install headers and a second turbo with intercooler like the F-40.

                Dave

                PS: I may find a cradle and try it myself.
                If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

                  I don't think that a turbo will improve handling.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

                    Originally posted by FunnyWheels
                    I personally feel that the turbo would be easier as the handling would be better as well. I would install headers and a second turbo like the F-40.

                    Dave

                    PS I may find a cradle and try it myself.
                    What engine and tranny combo do you have, Dave?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

                      The turbo doses not improve handling. Only a rookie would make that statement.

                      The engine I would use would still be the Buick V6. I would however have a stronger transmission and jack shafts (Porsche). Header and twin turbos would be nice too. I piked up a bunch of HP by going to a big turbo rather than a Volvo unit I had.

                      Dave
                      If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

                        The advantage to the Long VS trans:

                        Long
                        Better suspension components (longer control arms)
                        Easier packaging of engine and trans
                        Equal length half shafts
                        better thermal control
                        lower cg
                        longer wheelbase (less vulnerable to snap oversteer)

                        Trans
                        requires the use of strut suspension or short upper arm
                        shorter wheel base (more responsive steering)
                        more passenger space

                        The reason why it is more expensive is because there are fewer cars that use the long. trans set up. Transverse is only a matter of taking a front drive car and relocating the drivetrain to the rear as GM did with the fiero and Lotus is doing right now with Toyota drivetrains.


                        just a few off the top of my head
                        Now building in Mooresville NC
                        [url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrianburton[/url]
                        [url]http://profile.imageshack.us/user/AdrianBurton[/url]
                        [url]http://s997.photobucket.com/albums/af91/AdrianBurton/[/url]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

                          If you are OK with 250-300hp and don't mind a 6 cylinder then the Chrysler 300m is a much overlooked, fairly inexpensive longitudinal set up. IMHO. If your budget allows, I think Held was making or planning a Fiero/300m rear cradle.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

                            Originally posted by AdrianBurton
                            The advantage to the Long VS trans:

                            Long
                            Better suspension components (longer control arms)
                            Easier packaging of engine and trans
                            Equal length half shafts
                            better thermal control
                            lower cg
                            longer wheelbase (less vulnerable to snap oversteer)

                            Trans
                            requires the use of strut suspension or short upper arm
                            shorter wheel base (more responsive steering)
                            more passenger space

                            The reason why it is more expensive is because there are fewer cars that use the long. trans set up. Transverse is only a matter of taking a front drive car and relocating the drive train to the rear as GM did with the Fiero and Lotus is doing right now with Toyota drive trains.


                            just a few off the top of my head
                            I agree with everything except the shorter wheelbase. It is the same long or short.

                            Dave
                            If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Longitudinal vs. Transverse Mid Engine Setup

                              Originally posted by bartman
                              If you are OK with 250-300hp and don't mind a 6 cylinder then the Chrysler 300m is a much overlooked, fairly inexpensive longitudinal set up. IMHO. If your budget allows, I think Held was making or planning a Fiero/300m rear cradle.
                              Dave Held did make a set up for he 300M front wheel drive.

                              Dave
                              If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X