[insite]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Unless they have repealed the law of physics in the last few minutes, this is simply a statement not supported by reality.

here's an example: braking. without getting TOO deep into the physics, imagine a shift in weight of 20% toward the front of the car during braking:

a front engined car (60/40 front - rear weight distro) becomes 80/20. the front 2 tires do 80% of the work

a mid engined car (50/50) becomes 70/30. the front 2 tires do 70% of the work.

a rear engined car (40/60) becomes 60/40; the front 2 tires do 60% of the work. maximizing the work done by each tire is one reason that 911s typically have outstanding brake systems.

another example: when a 911 hits the gas and weight shifts rearward over the back tires, the grip achieved generally surpasses that of mid or front engined cars. look at a dragster: engine WAY back over HUGE rear tires. the downside is, of course, that the front gets VERY light....

Originally Posted by Brucelee

As pointed out above, if the rear engine car had any distinct advantages, it would be the design of choice in F1 and all manner of road racing.

F1 cars tend to have weight distributions closer to those of a 911 than to a boxster despite their mid-engine configurations, although aero IS used at speed to overcome this

Originally Posted by Brucelee

C'mon guys, the 911 does well in spite of its design, not because of it.

it has distinct advantages and distinct disadvantages. its disadvantages have been VERY difficult to overcome, but there ARE some advantages.