Talk:Front mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout

message: Look at most cars from the 1930's through the 1950's, the front wheels are right near the front of the car. In the 1960s the front wheels began to be pushed back on cars, with more overhang in the front.
:Agreed. I'm taking out the line about the FM layout appearing recently. DoktorRocket 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Also in older cars

message: Added Infiniti G35
       The AM General HMMWV (aka Humvee) is a "FM" layout, however all wheel drive.
       I should know, I work on the trucks every day... the engine is completely behind 
       the front axle.  If someone would like to add it... go for it, however i am unsure 
       of how many "Example" vehicles should be included... all, most? some? 
       Loquat15   13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: The current version states that "engine's center of gravity is to the rear of the front axle." The Mid-engine_design page states "An engine placed in front of the driver's compartment but fullly behind the front axle line also qualifies as mid-engine".
So...to be considered "front mid-ships," does the ENTIRE engine need to be behind the line of the front axle, or just the center of gravity? I'm inclined to say the former, since by the second definition basically every FR car qualifies. - DoktorRocket 22:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "mid-ships" 

message: This article states that the FMR configuration could be considered a "subcategory" of FR. I would doubt this-considering the engine is still between the axles, it would seem to me to be a part of MR. Or am I mistaken on the definition here? I don't want to edit this without people getting a chance to comment... Bduddy 00:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Subcategory"? 

message: The Front-Mid designation is a questionable one.  When looking at the layout of a powertrain there is a big difference between classical rear engine, mid engine and front engine layouts.  These terms general date back to when engines were longitudinal in most cars.  As such it the location of the engine, axle/final drive and passenger compartments were very much one after the other.
This is a quick example list of layouts.
Classical rear engine, VW Beetle.  The layout is: Passenger Compartment, Axle/final drive, engine.  This layout does allow a portion of the passenger compartment to sit above the axle.  The engine is relatively easy to access at the back of the car.  Historically this layout had good packaging efficiency.  
Classical Mid engine, Porsche 550.  The general layout is passenger compartment, engine, final drive.  This layout is good from a vehicle dynamics point of view but relatively poor for packaging and engine service.  It is important to note that the structure of this layout is different than that of a rear engine vehicle.  
Front engine:  The classical front engine RWD layout is: Engine, passenger compartment, axle/final drive.  The significant element is the engine is in front of the driver.  There is not a significant change to the generic layout of the vehicle if the engine is or is not completely behind the front axle.  Because of this, the term front-mid-RWD doesn't really significantly differentiate the layout from front-RWD.  Furthermore, some vehicles which had both an I6 and I4 engine option could be considered front-mid when equipped with one engine and front-not-mid with the other.  Several BMWs as well as the Jeep Wrangler and possibly Cherokee come to mind.  
As best as I can tell, the front-mid term started as a marketing term.  Sports car enthusiasts have come to believe that the mid-engine layout (rear mid-engine that is) is the best layout.  Marketing groups realized this and coined the front-mid term simply to capture that name association.  As far as vehicle layout the term says little other than we have a classical front-RWD layout with the engine pushed back against the firewall.  
Springee (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really different than front engine-RWD? 

message: Are the Vettes/Maros FMR? I would think the LS engines extend beyond the front.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.144 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Corvette/Camaro

message: Shouldn't the BMW 3 series also be included in the list? JDS2005 (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMW 3 series? 

message: The BMW Z4 photo should be removed as an example of a front mid-engine car.  Although it has characteristics of a front mid layout vehicle, such as a long nose, the motor is actually pushed pretty far forward.  It sits about half way over the front axle line; with half the motor hanging out in front of the front axle.  Anyone who has popped the hood on a Z4 knows this. Sdukeminloodwig3 (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe  the 4 cyl Z4, not available in the us, is a true Front Mid-engine behind the front axle layout, if BMW had a V6 or V8 installed in its place it would also be a behind the front axle layout, the problem is that the inline 6 is quite long and it sticks about 33% in front of the front axle — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Sdukeminloodwig3. From what I've seen, it much closer to 50% in front of the front axle. Even the I4 isn't fully behind the front axle, but I would agree that it would be FMR. However, it seems to me it has more configurations with an I6 than it does with an I4, and unless there's a change in the caption, it would be misleading to list the Z4 as an FMR car. Moogleii (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMW Z4 Photo