Why Is The Porsche 911 Rear-Engine?

[@EngineeringExplained]

If it wasn't super obvious, I wanted this video to explain the logic behind rear-engine placement, rather than history, heritage and tradition of the 911 (I think I just yawned). And while I didn't mention this in the video, I did in the video description "Porsche decided to put the 911's engine in the back, behind the rear axle, way back in the day when the 911 was first designed. Since then, that engine has remained there, and while some might say it's out of stubbornness, there are legitimately wonderful reasons for having a rear-engine car." Again, the focus was to discuss from a performance standpoint why rear-engine sports cars make sense. There are other reasons for rear engine designs, like improving passenger space vs a mid-engine layout. But you don't want a history (nor English) lesson from me, because it would probably be terrible. Hope everyone's having a wonderful day! If you think the shirts I'm wearing would increase your chances of driving a Porsche (who knows, stranger things have happened), I wish you the best of luck wearing it: bit.ly/2BHsiuo.

[@worldtravel101]

Awesome!

[@qwertzqwertz7618]

I would appreciate a video on the negative aspects of rear engines!

[@chrismichaels6912]

The Volkswagen Beetle.

[@jasons7723]

I think a lot more people are asking "why rear engine instead of mid-engine?" rather than front engine. Especially since comparable Cayman/Boxsters are mid-engine with lower spec engines and approach the performance of a 911.

[@briand8090]

What about sports cars that are front engine, AWD, that use an adjustable center differentials? Those can have rear wheel bias without an extra drive line. I think that part of the video confused me.

[@franciscopereziglesias3954]

"hello everyone and welcome! in this video we're gonna be moving my honda S2000 engine to the back..." nice job as always!

[@aaronforward1004]

your dry erase board has taught me more than 4 years in auto tech, and i visually can remember almost every "lesson". text books just cant visually teach the way that your methods do. sincerely, thank you.

[@EngineeringExplained]

Very happy to hear it, thanks for watching!

[@richard-mai]

I once asked you yearsssss ago if you were working at Ferrari yet, but honestly you've become so good at what you do, and have become the best at it to where even large companies reach out to you. Teaching is truly where you shine and more people can benefit from that than if you were to do something else... Keep up the great work! you inspiring figure you...

[@EngineeringExplained]

Thanks for the kind words Richard, I'm loving it and hope to continue as long as folks like you enjoy watching!

[@Carpower123]

Your passion to explain and teach is notable, thanks Jason and wish your the best with your channel!

[@EngineeringExplained]

Thanks!

[@Carpower123]

Jealous?

[@TheVeryHungrySingularity]

Flawless drawing logic

[@liqidvenom]

Also in regards to weight transfer during stopping, most cars even rear engine vehicles have larger equipment up front to carry more of the work . Also modern Porsches benefit greatly with modern stability controls, when I was young a 911 was known to chase it's tail while going off the road

[@DrifterD]

Another great video! Seems like you had a blast drifting through those corners ☺

[@EngineeringExplained]

So fun!

[@qwertzqwertz7618]

Looked quite skilled! I heard it's more difficult to control with a rear engine, compared to the common front engine rwd cars.

[@VicAusTaxiTruckie]

drifting at 20 mph.......

[@Tordogor]

Drifter D i

[@Luca_S_8]

This was a very very nice and detailed video on a topic that most of us take for granted. It was quite a pleasure to discover the ACTUAL benefits of a rear engined vehicle. Great job.

[@Luca_S_8]

THE BOSS I think you misunderstood the point of my comment.

[@another3997]

THE BOSS But that simply isn't true, they don't kill everything on track or on the road. There are very good reasons NOT to have the engine sitting behind the rear axle. Polar moment of inertia, or 'catch it if you can before you end up facing the wrong way'. Without the advent of modern electronic stability and traction control systems, the 911 would be a quaint footnote in automotive history. Mid-engine cars are the "killers".

[@zTheBigFishz]

Yet 911's are fun to drive. They remind me of a sprint kart where all the grip is felt through the rear tires. I've owned two: one air cooled and one water cooled. I'll probably get one more in a few years...base 991.2 would be a sweet spot for a road car. You have to drive to their strengths which is usually late apex, then once the car is just about at the apex, push the go pedal. They will twitch a bit, then that rear bias just hooks up. Really fun, sometimes it's the fastest way around a track, sometimes it isn't.

[@jbrandon302]

Wrong. Watch a review, drive a real car or look up the success of the 911 before making claims like this.@@another3997

[@adarshsingh764]

Yes yes, that is of course a sports car because it's red.

[@makochi3748]

Pepe Le Pew sometimes it gives you +50 hp! 😂

[@WaitingForStorm]

girl you got cute eyes

[@squidwardshouse67]

The engine is in the rear because Porsche makes them thicc

[@crackedemerald4930]

E X T R A T H I C C C A R

[@DFWsCars]

Squidward's House I love the rear engine in my 997, & on newer ones it feels rather balanced.

[@sintas0432]

Finnaly someone speaks sence here

[@fee9687]

Thicc Ayyyyeeefffffff

[@bigden2755]

Because Ferdinand said so......

[@RadioWhisperer]

I'm not 100% sure about this, but its my understanding that 911s were originally conceived to be the sport version if a VW Beetle. Hence the rear engine, etc. I need to look into that more but I could swear I've seen that on the Velocity channel somewhere. Great episode btw, I need to watch the rest of it later. Been an embedded software engineer 37 years but your explanations are clear, concise, and great to watch. Thanks for what you do.

[@DarxusC]

That all makes sense if you're going in a straight line, but seems to conspicuously neglect what happens if you want to turn. To get balance with a rear engine, you're going to need fatter rear tires and skinnier front tires, which, as you say, gives more traction for accelerating / decelerating in a straight line. But less traction for the tires doing the turning. (Where a front engine car can have a 50/50 balance and the same tires at all corners, and turn well.)

[@BRAINFxck10]

That's why they make AWD 911's tho

[@CiderHerrljunga]

​@@BRAINFxck10but why is 911 rwd the fastest production car around tracks?

[@BRAINFxck10]

@@CiderHerrljunga pro drivers, tires, aero, suspension all optimized for a race track but if we're talking average drivers on the street AWD makes an average driver look like a pro

[@CiderHerrljunga]

@@BRAINFxck10 yeah it makes sense in a rear engined car but for most AWD they have front engine, with a ton of understeer, heavier, loose some power.

[@BRAINFxck10]

@@CiderHerrljunga yeah and Porsche puts so much technology in the 911 like rear wheel steering to correct the turn in, being rear engine is not really a problem for them anymore

[@FubukiShiromiya]

I'd love to see the advantages and disadvantages of rear engine compared to mid engine cars.

[@jgbalves]

advantages he already pointed out: More rear weight, better in accelerations more even weight distribution when straight braking, more stable corner entrance Disadvantages: Lift off oversteering. When lifting the front axle gains load, but with lower car overall weight so less lateral load transfer than rear axle.Axle with less lateral load transfer have more grip, so front axle has a lot of grip, rear axle doesn't and the engine tries to go out due to its inertia,. Car rotates more than it should and requires a quite sharp driver to hold the spin.

[@danmartin633]

There are none.

[@colinbowman8816]

​@@danmartin633generally easier access to the drivetrain... maybe not so much in 991+ cars tho 😅

[@jimmesc]

I've been a faithful subscriber for years. I think it's time you invite me along on one of these trips.

[@EngineeringExplained]

Haha, if only that was how it worked! :)

[@TotoGeenen]

Seems like legit logic to me :D

[@fuzz7boy]

Nice explanation of the advantages a rear-engine car holds when accelerating or decelerating in a straight line. However, "less eager to turn" and "higher tendency to oversteer" are definitely not advantages. Those two traits of a rear-engined vehicle were glossed over in this discussion.

[@CiderHerrljunga]

Well if you are the fastest around the track with those disadvantages i dont think they give a shiet 😅

[@SeanS54]

Great video! Although 911s are amazing sports cars there are two "flaws" with a rear engine: 1) turn-in understeer and 2) if the back end comes around it'll be difficult to save (pendulum effect) vs a front engine RWD

[@brianmiller1077]

The left most Red sports car is an ultra rare Red Monte Carlo SS. the right most is some sort of pickup truck. :)

[@EngineeringExplained]

Much consistency

[@James-oo1yq]

Brian Miller Raptor probably? ;)

[@Scorpio1075]

Dodge Ram SRT-10

[@brianmiller1077]

second from right is the Taurus Ranchero concept car :)

[@USWaterRockets]

Pickup trucks with 4WD are rear-wheel biased and don't have a second driveshaft running back up to the front of the truck from the rear axle. This video does not explain why this second driveshaft is needed on a front engine rear biased 4WD car. The transfer case is typically mounted near the front of the truck with a driveshaft powering the rear wheels like a 2WD truck and there is no second driveshaft running all the way from the rear to front like the video suggests.

[@lolakyle8]

Yey, you finally drove the 911!

[@EngineeringExplained]

I had driven a GT3, but never the Carrera S or 4S. What a joy!

[@spankeyfish]

A comparison between the 911 and Cayman would be interesting :)

[@streetndirtfighters5102]

osama?

[@markvicferrer]

Modern 911's have done away with a lot of the design quirks that's inherent to the rear engine design. The short wheelbase ones had high oversteer, which they ironed out by widening the rear tires, then eventually lengthening the wheelbase.

[@mark-kf3md]

I'm interested in the analysis of the rear engine layout which in the case of the 911 is typically 38/62 weight distribution and compare this to mid engine layout like the Lotus Exige (and other mid engine sports cars) which also have a 38/62 weight distribution. It seems weight distribution is the important factor, not hanging the engine out back to get it. You put a lot of emphasis on the positives the 911 of having the engine in back of the rear axle. The lotus has the benefit of a much lower polar moment of inertia while having the same weight distribution which seems in theory to give it all the same advantages you attribute to the 911 without the high polar moment of inertia. This would then avoid the 911's propensity to be difficult to stop the rear end from continuing to spin around due to the engine hanging out the back with that high polar moment of inertia. The lotus on the other hand would be much easier to control and have all the same weight transfer benefit characteristics derived from the 38/62 weight distribution purposefully designed into the car with a much lower polar moment of inertia. It seems to me that since: * Neither Porsche nor anyone else has a patent on hanging the engine out the back behind the rear axle and everyone in racing and high performance sports cars wants every advantage they can get to win and sell more cars. If the 911 layout was truly the best option then they would not be the only ones with that layout. * Why are all the purpose built race cars from Porsche and everyone else largely mid engine (mid rear or mid front) if the 911 layout superior. Don't get me wrong, I have been a Porsche fan for decades I love the 911 and the many of their other products throughout the years. The 550 is one of my favorites. So the question for a Engineering Explained video is: If you compare a rear engine sports car and and a mid engine sports car which are both exceptionally well designed and proven. Both built by top level engineering like Porsche and Lotus, each having the same optimized weight distribution for instance 38/68. Which is better and why. Thanks

[@calbackk]

Nice to see the ice track. I still remember how much fun I had racing my beetle on the ice in Finland in the 70ies.

[@groovymotion5706]

Looks like you had a lot of fun at the Porsche Camp! 😂

[@EngineeringExplained]

Oh my, truly one of the best press events I’ve ever been to. The crew is super passionate and you get lots of seat time. It was a wonderful learning (and playing) experience.

[@groovymotion5706]

Of course, this is at Mecaglisse! Awesome track location, they even have rally stages! :)

[@aussiebloke609]

One thing you missed: while a rear engine layout improves on the possible braking distance, it is also much more unstable under braking - one of the reasons trail-braking was such a no-no in older 911s and 930s (before electronic brake systems compensated for the lack of stability.) Try balancing a pole on your finger. Not too hard, right? Now, add a heavy weight to the top and see the difference.

[@claudiomarangone614]

In my 964, I can trail break without an issue issue… even going in hot. It all depends on the terrain whether it’s an uphill or a downhill…. Doing all the breaking just before the turn in is not always necessary, even while driving near the limit

[@DarthChewie]

I hoped this would explain why the Porsche 911 uses Rear-Engine instead of Mid-Engine. I still think Porsche is purposely holding back the Cayman.

[@eddgrs9193]

It's all about the fans, the 911 has a rabid fan base, they want their 911 with the engine in the back, damn it.

[@DFWsCars]

With Caymans going Turbo & with tunes, I think we’ll see.

[@frankeggers4024]

My third new car was a 1971 Porsche 914. It was the only car with which I have ever spun out and I spun out 3 times with that. At speeds over about 30 mph, on wet, snowy, or icy pavement once the rear end started to move outward recovery was impossible. Other than that it handled beautifully. However, it was the most unreliable car I've ever owned; I could write a book about all the things which went wrong with it including a torsion bar which broke and a cabin heating system which rusted out in 2 years (that was in Minnesota where roads are salted during winter).

[@bill2953]

In theory rear engine Porsches are prone to oversteer but in reality they are difficult to break lose ( this is from experience) unless you lift off in the middle of a g-force corner. Then the rear end will come around which can also be a benefit depending.

[@monsterram6617]

At this point, tradition. There's better places to put the engine, like in the middle. Strange how that wasn't mentioned as one of the options.

[@supreethp9568]

Monster RAM In the car😆

[@tornut24]

Monster RAM Yes, it's quite obvious the Porsche engineers stuck it back there because the Beetle did, and now they have come up with justification for it after the fact

[@James-oo1yq]

Monster RAM Because it's a Front WD vs Rear WD sports car comparison, that's why!

[@SaddisticSpeller]

Timms MC The 911s do but they're mostly useful to put some milk or other small items in, not a lot of room.

[@James-oo1yq]

Timms MC 911s have rear seats, small but useful

[@future62]

This is exactly why I don't understand the fascination with 50/50 weight distribution. When you have that, in braking the front wheels get overloaded. And then in acceleration the rear wheels don't get as much load as they could. I am pretty sure there are FR cars now with more weight out back than front like Ferraris and the like.

[@Alexisasful]

You should be my teacher.... wait ... you are ! :D

[@EngineeringExplained]

Haha thank you! I get a lot of comments that say "You should be a teacher" and think to myself "what is this life I'm living!?" :)

[@Alexisasful]

Engineering Explained You are living a life that most only dream of.. You do what you love, make a living out of it and get to educate other people at the same time :)

[@LeatherCladVegan]

This is legitimately one of the best channels on KZbin. Well done, Jason.

[@CC-sj8hd]

Good stuff. To my knowledge, the only 911’s that are not rear engined are the GT1 and current RSR, both race versions of the road car. I was in Daytona for the Rolex 24 and the RSR absolutely screams. 👍

[@vincentbroms667]

Yes because the engine was in the way for a bigger rear diffuser. So they had to move the engine further to the front to allow for a bigger rear diffuser.

[@SaddisticSpeller]

ZOMBIE GUT kill Yup, Caymans are mid-engined​.

[@CC-sj8hd]

ZOMBIE GUT kill I know.. the RSR will make your ears bleed, it’s great! Haha

[@HeidiandFranny]

Your drive event looks like it was super fun! Our local P-car club hosts a yearly drive on a frozen lake and it is a hoot! We have taken the 3.2 Carrera and the 996TT and that four wheel dive system is great! I think the weight placement traction as you mentioned can be augmented even better with the traction control. But that car drifts so well with it off - so controllable. Lucky duck for hanging out with Porsche! Great video and explanation!

[@stupidassol]

4:45 my God! Look at all of those 911's!!!

[@gord307]

Very good video and well explained too. Today there is an awful lot of uneducated bias towards FWD cars (i.e. FWD is great, everything else is 2nd best, old fashioned, or even unsafe!). People do not stop to think about the dynamics that take place when a car is under power, breaking, or cornering hard. So far as FWD goes, it is possible the worst place to put the engine regarding tractive effort, sharp steering and predictable breaking goes. The mid-engine layouts may give excellent handling, but the engine takes up potential cabin space and makes maintenance much, much more difficult. Front-engine-RWD gives a combination of good balance when cornering, and better stability than FWD when breaking, but lacks decent initial traction. Rear-engine-RWD gives THE MOST traction of any layout, precise and light steering, and good stability during breaking. The cars are, however, more affected by cross-winds, will ultimately oversteer when cornering too quickly, and the boot space is less practical than a FWD hatch. At the end of the day whatever the engine/transmission layout - it is always a compromise. PS - I've spent 20-years enjoying Rear Engine Skodas, and detest every minute I have to spend behind the wheel of a FWD car.

[@seven9766]

So you are trading handling for better straight line acc. and braking?

[@EngineeringExplained]

In a simplistic view, yes, though you can compensate handling with clever things like suspension geometry, rear-wheel steering (for better rotation), tire sizing, etc etc. The GT3 is an exceptionally well-handling vehicle, despite having a large mass behind the rear axle.

[@James-oo1yq]

The 911 has its flaws, like being a bit "understeery" when first turning in, but that can be fixed with more right foot :) the new GT2 RS is 4ws and an absolute monster round the track. So much so that it demolished the so called "Hypercars" round the Nurburgring, cars such as the 950bhp LA Ferrari. Porsche have done miracle's with a far from ideal set-up. Drive one! Then you'll get it!

[@TheWolvesCurse]

James Thom the gt2rs is rearwheel drive. the "common" 911turbos are 4wd though.

[@TheWolvesCurse]

another benefit of the the rearengine is less drivetrainlosses, since you don't have to run a shaft from the front to the back of the car. less rotating masses also increases drivetrain efficiency

[@eddgrs9193]

In theory, you are losing a bit of handling, but that can be corrected with proper driving technique - that's another reason why people love the 911, because it requires mastering the car, it takes a while, but it's so rewarding. A huge advantage of the 911 is that you can brake later and accelerate earlier out of turns. That's how, on racetracks, they always outperform mid engine cars with more horsepower.

[@marwanelattar8299]

One of the best videos ever explaining the secret behind Porsche's favorite engine layout. Thank you for that amazing explanation

[@nelayo4894]

Hi, i gota a topic in which you could maybe enlighten me or make a video about :) considering fuel efficency: 1. is it always best to drive in the highest gear possible (in a manual car) for example my car can drive 50 kph in 6th gear but gets kinda rumbly because its only at 1400rpm (gasoline) and wether this would apply to N/A cars and turbocharged cars alike. 2. Which way to accelerate is more fuel efficent? Full throttle and fast to be in a higher gear sooner because the accelaration phase is shorter, or a long accelartion phase in which you dont accalerate at full throttle? Kind regards nelayo

[@XiaoqiuQIU]

Nelayo Isso 1. Depends on gearbox. Some gearbox has a gear that's 1:1 from input to output. So at this gear the engine is not driving additional gears inside the gearbox, hence less friction. Then engines also have an optimal rev range. So it's really hard to say in general which is best. 2. It's probably difficult to justify either. But when you accelerate very gently, chances are whenever you need to brake unexpectedly, your car is much slower, so you waste less energy in braking, meaning you use less fuel to accelerate at the first place. But then time is also a cost.

[@Finnspin_unicycles]

Highest gear reasonably possible, 50 kph in 6th gear is at least one gear to high. You also want to think about engine lifespan, low Rpm with a lot of throttle is not good for your engine. At lower engine speeds, you have less friction losses in your engine, so you defenitely want to use high gears when possible. Accelerating fast is actually most efficient, as gasoline engines tend to be at their best efficiency when they are at around 90% load. What I am not 100% sure is whether that applies to turbocharged engines too.

[@donkmeister]

1) It depends on the car. My petrol engine is only spinning 2000rpm at 90mph in top gear, and won't even select top gear below 55mph. The most efficient engine speed for a petrol engine is between 2000 and 3000 rpm (at least this was the case 20 years ago, engineering has advanced in the time!). Different cars will do things differently - my car is a barge and doesn't handle very well on twisty roads, but it is a very nice place to be if you need to drive hundreds of miles in a single stretch at high speed. Your car might be a lot of fun on country lanes, but I wouldn't want to drive long journeys at 4000-5000 rpm, it would be noisy and irritating. 2) Interesting question - I honestly don't know but have wondered myself. +Engineering Explained, do this video!!! :-)

[@Oblithian]

1. No it is not always best, we will go to 2 and then come back. 2. As answered above, generally acceleration in lower gears is more efficient due to mechanical advantage in gearing. At higher gears you have less torque so you must dump more fuel in to produce the torque needed to increase the speed (then there's also engine and drivetrain momentum). (Back to 1) So when you are accelerating or will need to accelerate and you are in a high gear, you are wasting a lot of fuel due to the increased load. However, cruising on a flat surface you want a higher gear (eventually there are diminishing returns) because at lower gears your engine's speed must be much higher to maintain that speed (engine speed is related to, though not the exclusive determinate of fuel use). You want to seek the balance point where the engine is spinning as slow as possible, while doing as little work as possible for the given speed (if you plotted them on a line graph you would find an intersect). If you look at torque curves your engine's torque will sharply increase after a certain rpm. If you let the rpms drop too low the torque will be bellow that which is needed to maintain your speed and the engine will stall. If you are "lugging the engine" as described, you are pushing it to the limit of what it can do, and that makes your engine sad, and everyone else angry. Forced induction changes the curves so it will affect where the point of maximum fuel efficiency is , otherwise it is largely the same theory.

[@cutlassrkt]

That makes sense why most front engine awd cars bias power to the front wheels. Great video as always.

[@TommyLGarage]

Would you then say that I should put wider front tires in my f80 M3? People say that it can put more strain on other suspension components. Any thought about that? Great episode as always!

[@iamezza]

You can use it to adjust the balance of the car if you want to. If you want less understeer and more front grip then widening the front tires can do that. If your car is already too oversteery or balanced just as you want it then don't do it.

[@modedchild]

Tommy L Garage it will stress stuff out mostly tie rods but it's not a big deal for the handling you will gain if done properly.

[@TommyLGarage]

diygarage great answer. Thank you !

[@TommyLGarage]

Jerry Tsu agreed. Thank you !!

[@itftcomputers]

Wider tyres up front will make your car handle, accelerate and break WORSE in WET, Ice and snow conditions, but will improve the overall handling and the braking in dry.

[@JustinBone]

I found this interesting, as always, but what I also found interesting is something you briefly spoke on. About two shafts, for RW biased AWD cars. I have a car which is AWD, with a 40% front and 60% rear (under standard conditions) drive bias, yet it only has one shafter going to a rear differential. It can also split as much as 80/20 front and rear and I believe another 80/20 left and right per axle.

[@andypark1694]

I really feel that all of this could be achieved with a mid engine, just much more rounded and a lot less oversteer

[@POVShotgun]

Mid engine cars struggle with space. 911s still have back seats

[@claudiomarangone614]

I drive my 964 hard in the the canyons … All of this over steering talk is out of proportion. If a 911 has the correct tires/ sizes and alignment, oversteering only becomes may become an issue when driving near the limit.. or when you do something to seriously unsettle the balance, like lifting mid turn, high angle, at high speed, (which you shouldn’t do regardless ) because your correcting from maybe taking incorrect line…

[@bz2316]

Very good explanation, thank you. I like my 911, when it comes to turns, it has so much fun.

[@ZzZebzZ]

I don't fully understand what you mean when you say that to get rear bias in a front engine AWD car you need to send a shaft to the rear and another to the front. The Subaru WRX STI for example has a rear bias of 66-33. It accomplishes that with the center differential(s). What am I missing?

[@markporthouse]

ZzZebzZ - rightly said. A front engined car doesn't need to send drive via a shaft to the rear and then drive back to the front via another shaft. The centre differential simply goes at the front near the engine - just like on the 911 the centre differential is at the back near the engine.

[@housepumpinpc3983]

He's thinking about 4 wheel drive trucks with transfer cases. Subaru has been doing 4 wheel and all wheel drive for years like what you said.

[@emporium597]

I've never had an engineering mind. The math alone would cause me to have an aneurism. That said, you make things simple to understand. Good on you. Great work!

[@impact2000]

So we have to divide the two questions: Why does it make sense to put the engine at the rear? and: Why does the 911 has the engine at the rear? So for the past 911 you are absolutely right. But in the present there is only one reason, why the 911 has a rear engine: tradtition and marketing. It´s not allowed to have a mid engine. In the 911RSR Race car e.g. - racing at Le Mans - porsche has turned engine and gearbox, so it now has a mid engine which is much more usefull on a racetrack or on curvy roads. Front-mid-engined cars have other advantages: you can get a weight distribution of 50/50 which is good for cornering and you can put the driver´s seat a lot far in the back wich gives you a better feeling for what´s your rear end doing but not losing the feeling for your frontend. When I drove a 911, I found it would be very light and insensible at the front compared to my TVR or Caterham. Due to the rear engine the 911 also has the fuel tank at the front which makes the steering and the grip at the front very sensitive for the load of the tank (empty-full). Even the Porsche Race drivers are confirming this and complaining about. Regards

[@EngineeringExplained]

Well said!

[@goat9199]

Dear bro: you rich. Kudos.

[@XiaoqiuQIU]

Well said. Also rear engine cars are inherently more unstable in corners and Porsche did try to replace the line with 924/944/964 ones, but failed. So as you said the market forces Porsche to keep the 911 line and perfect it's handling through tons of tech. Also for early 911s they're air-cooled so there's no need for a lot of piping going to the front of the car. I believe at that time the design is simpler hence more robust than a FR car. But with water cooling and the modern crash structure in the front, 911s have a smaller luggage space than many FR sports cars as well. Although it's never the point anyway.

[@impact2000]

@goat9199: Haha, I wish I was. I didn`t own these cars at the same time, but replaced the Tuscan with the Caterham. Meanwhile I sold the Caterham and sized down to a Lotus Elise. If I was rich, I would buy a Porsche Turbo for the German Autobahn. That´s where you can take advantage of it - as EE explained in the Video - and keep the Lotus for the B-roads. But owning a TVR gives you the chance to drive other expensive cars, because a Porsche-owner is very interested in testdriving a TVR and so you can make a deal :-)

[@farnum3297]

wrong, the RSR has the engine in the (rear)middle because of the aeropackage. All other racing 911 are rear engined and they are the most successful race car in the history of motorsport, by far, no contest !

[@geraldfordman7474]

I remember long ago reading about the 911's inherent design flaws both of which you covered well. That being: Rear weight bias and Over steer. I still don't know whether the one I drove was AWD or not( it was a 911 2.7 S. I'm guessing that is was Rear Wheel drive because of the tremendous torque. Throwing it into 2nd gear. was so much fun but watch out for fish tailing and over steer.

[@johnlloyd2390]

The real reason the Porsche 911 is rear engined is because its predecessor, the 356 was rear engined. And the 356 was rear engined because it had a lot more "Volkswagen" in it than Porsche fans will admit. The original Volkswagen, which we now know as the "Beetle," had a rear engine because that was Porsche's way of getting it out of the way for interior space. Mind you, there wasn't much luggage space in the nose because the car was "aerodynamic," in the Chrysler Airflow idiom. Porsche could easily have made the 911 a mid-engined car -- which would be much better for low polar moment of inertia, and thus better handling -- but Porsche fans wouldn't have it. Instead, the company has spent 50 years and countless millions of dollars trying to reduce the extreme rear-weight-bias and pendulum effect. Once all that mass out behind the rear axle starts moving, it's difficult to stop. Today's 911s are decent handling cars, but the early ones could be a terror. Turbocharging, with the attendant turbo lag, only made them worse. To make things even worse, the extreme rear weight bias means there isn't much weight on the front wheels, and thus not much "mechanical" grip. The early 911s in particular had floaty front ends, a tendency to spin and were all but impossible for most people to catch when they did. Worse still, that lightly loaded front end meant the car could also understeer if pushed too hard. Think on it -- a car that can understeer and oversteer at the same time.

[@TheBTRGarage]

That looked like a blast! I haven't raced a Porsche yet, but I have raced a Lotus Elise. Which, is also rear engine rear drive. I must say they drive much different than a front engine/rear drive. The braking is amazing but they don't turn well, you cannot put power down on exit because there is too much rear grip (car just pushes like crazy). I've heard 911's are similar, just have to learn a different style of driving.

[@claudiomarangone614]

Lotus lease is mid engine, the engine is in front of the rear axle not rear engine, behind the rear axle. Big difference

[@Fivestarrs]

911 is just my golf in reverse

[@frankeggers4024]

Based on many years of winter driving when I lived in the snow belt, the coefficient of friction on ice is more likely to be 0.02, NOT 0.2! My first new car was a 1964 Volkswagen. The oversteer made it impossible to corner smoothly at highway speeds; it required constant sawing on the steering wheel. Also, driving when the wind was gusty was very tiring because it required constant quick and large steering movements just to stay in the lane.

[@dr.python]

*DO REAR VS REAR-MID ENGINE*

[@Dangnilo]

I think we all would like the engineering explained behind the addition of neon and/or LED to the many places possible in your car and how much HP and torque that gives you, besides fame and popularity of course. But in all seriousness, we need one of these fun episodes from you. Thanks!

[@swayingGrass]

Will you ever review a minivan again?

[@EngineeringExplained]

We can only hope!

[@TheWolvesCurse]

we only can hope you won't. i guess the number of soccermums in your fanbase isn't high enough to justify that.

[@hambone8826]

TheWolvesCurse People who appreciate engineering will also appreciate the engineering that goes into the design and making of a modern minivan.

[@EngineeringExplained]

+TheWolvesCurse +Hambone I'm assuming the comment is in reference to the fact that I don't take minivan reviews very seriously: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4GrdniYo9ysmck

[@swayingGrass]

They're not serious and is fun really, but honestly they're better than quite a lot of the "serious" ones that I have seen which I don't even know what they're trying to say. And they also bring out things that are left out with sport cars(term used loosely here), in the actual car or in the review, which is always interesting.

[@whoisjohnlamb]

Hey, a video about efficiently operating a standard transmission would be cool. meaning, going over proper times to use high gear in low speed situations such as turning at green lights or something. stuff like that. cheers!

[@jerryrufener9281]

Your video talks about the pro's and con's of front engine vs rear engine not the reason the 911 has the engine in the rear. The original 356 was derived largely from the VW - it used the VW engine. It fundamentally had to be a rear engined car. The 911 was a continuation of the 356 tradition. Even when Porsche went water cooled with the 911 it remained a rear engined car. Porsche tried to go to front engine cars (the 924/928/944's) but they did not sell they were just not popular with Porsche's customer base. The real reason that a Porsche is rear engined is tradition! The real question is: Why was the VW a rear engined car? After all Dr. Porsche was largely responsible for its design.

[@EngineeringExplained]

Thanks for sharing insight!

[@WTFZOMG]

the first front wheel drive car didnt exist during dr. porsche's era. the complicated mechanical systems needed to allow steering and power delivery on the same axles didnt come till much later.

[@waclosh]

Jerry Rufener Porsche stole the idea from Ledwinka who was master engineer for Tatra. He was posessed with air cooled engines, montube-frame and fluent bodylines. Hence the T77 and T603. Porsche took the drawings and scaled them down.

[@waclosh]

Fwd was pretty much developed at that time. Look at 1930's Citroën Traction.

[@GeorgeSPAMTindle]

The VW was a rear-engine design because Dr Porche stole the idea from a Czechoslovakian company named Tatra. Tatra put the engine in the rear of their streamlined vehicle, which is what the Beetle copied, in order to reduce harm to passengers when the car was driven into a tree. Very icy roads a lot of the time in Czechoslovakia meant that this had to be considered. Volvo invented the three-point seat belt, the inertia real seat belt, crumple zones, and a load of other safety devices because they have icy roads, lots of trees, and elk roaming around. Necessity is the mother of invention, Dr Porche was just a thief of inventions.

[@L3uX]

Also, with electric cars like Tesla, specifically Model 3, handling is so good. Design wise you just can’t beat it. You have the weight so low, all between the axles, electronic-instant torque response/traction control (seamless), and then add front motor, you have no drive shaft, no slow mechanical linkages, no shifting or drops in power/traction, and literally perfect transfer of power depending on front/rear drive units’ traction.

[@angelumanzor3083]

Because it’s a glorified beetle. Just kidding lol, I love Porsches. Great vid!

[@robertharvilla4881]

Having the engine in the rear is also great for a cheap and simple car that does well in the snow. Just like the VW Bug. It was my first car, and there were a lot of them still running around in the 70s and 80s. And they never got stuck in the snow like most other cars. They were able to drive in conditions that would strand almost every other car.

[@1SaG]

Allow me to simplify that answer: The 911 is rear-engined because the VW Beetle was rear-engined. :P

[@AM-uk7jv]

I thoroughly enjoy driving rear engined cars. It's vastly different from any other engine configuration, to include the traditional mid engine. Huge advantage of a 911 is that under braking, all 4 tires get more or less equal load, which maximizes braking force, allowing later braking and it makes trail braking easier without feeling sketchy. Disadvantage is that it understeers with throttle application, so one must wait a little longer to get on the gas at corner exit unless they want to end up off road. However, the rearward load transfer ensures that every single one of those ponies make it to the tarmac, and it accelerates like a bat out of hell. From a drag racing perspective, there's a reason why a base 992.1 Carrera 2 can run high 11s, and a lot of it has to do with the 40/60 weight distribution. I would argue that a RWD 911 launches just as hard, if not harder than an AWD car, but without the need to launch it at high revs and feathering the clutch.

[@squidwardshouse67]

The Cayman could so be more superior to the 911 because of that mid engine layout but Porsche holds it back so it doesn't eat into 911 sales. The GT4 was a good car but they detuned the engine in it.

[@farnum3297]

wrong, you missed the video explanation. It's called physics.

[@PaneledPear]

Squidward's House Engine in the middle towards the back would just reduce the rear grip that's known from 911s. The 911 takes full advantage of the RR layout while the Cayman has a traditional sports car MR layout which isn't refined by Porsche as much. The 911 may seem like it lacks front grip, but this video explains exactly what Porsche has been perfecting for so long.

[@vogliounacocacola]

Porsche doesn't want some Porsche models to sell more?

[@BleedForTheWorld]

The 911 still suffers from an incredible amount of over steer under acceleration while turning, much more so than other sports cars like the superior Corvette.

[@matthewmatthew638]

I blame the 911 for the Cayman losing the flat 6 and getting some terrible sounding flat 4 setup, the 981 platform was getting too close to the 991 :(

[@eRic-oy9cu]

Porsche has shown that working with constraints and inherent disadvantages can result in greater creativity and innovation. And that 911 shape is so iconic and charismatic. You love it or hate it and that's what makes it great.

[@bobbyhillhead4205]

And this is what front engine cars are better for drifting stock

[@EngineeringExplained]

Yes, easier to break the rear end free, more traction for the front to properly steer.

[@ivan.457]

This just made me realize how hard it is to come up with new car design If you are an engineer or anything that can do this stuff, be proud of yourself!

[@conanobrien1]

how about mid mounted engine cars? is it just compromise or better?

[@johnbuiatti366]

As a mech. eng. I can tell you that a mid-engine is the ultimate for a "sports car" primarily for two reasons. First and foremost, it minimizes polar moment (the inertia which prevents something from turning on its axis or keeps it spinning if it is already doing so - think of a cheerleaders long baton and with rubber weights on the ends. This is ideal for canyons and race circuits, though not so much if you are trying to fill the car with passengers and cargo. Second, you ideally have 50/50 weight distribution wherein traction in evenly distributed except when accelerating or braking. In the case of braking, the engine is just afront of the rear axle though some does get transfered forward. And in the case of acceleration some gets transferred rearward though not as much as in 911. That weight is neither hung over the rear nor over the front. It is obvious which technology is the ultimate for handling /racing look at F1 where money is no object and just about every other major sports car manufacturered, but don't plan to carry kids and groceries in one of those. Finally, Porsche has been moving the engine forward on their moneymaker (911) on every major revision since back in the day; those cars were dangerous. In a 911, when they began to understeer (back sliding out) those cars required you to gas-it while the normal human reaction would be to let-off. This has been substantially mitigated due to the myriad/combination of traction control, handling electronics and 4-wheel steering that Porsche and all other automakers now put in their cars. Porsche truly makes wonderful cars, I'm not criticizing just attempting to explain differences. I am a convert ever since I went on a ride in 911 GT-3...AMZING. As final note, there are many of us out there that would love to see an apples to apples comparison of an equally powered 911 vs Cayman (mid-engine car). The closest they have gone is the Cayman GT-4. I am keeping an eye out for the GT-4 RS!

[@notaspectator]

It probably is better as John pointed out. I assume that its more difficult mechanically therefore maintenance and you have to keep it shorter than usual. If it was simple, lots of cars would be mid engine , but it wouldn't be cheap.

[@andrasjuhasz7011]

dev4freedom - Toyota MR2s are actually pretty cheap, cheaper than a lot of front engined RWD cars. They are also simpler and more efficient mechanically since they have transversely mounted engines with FWD Celica transaxles(in the other end of the car) meaning you don't have long driveshafts and you don't have to redirect the torque by 90°(this type of drivetrain is also cheaper). It is true, however, that they are a bit more difficult to work on. I think the main reason why it's less common is because they can exclusively be 2 seaters and have very minimal cargo space. People usually prefer to have some cargo space even in their dedicated sports cars.

[@Martin-yl5zb]

Great! Now I understand why a VW beetle has the engine in the rear. Thanks for the explanation.

[@RedDeadSpearhead]

Why are they rear engined? Because 911, and that's all that needs to be said. 911 master race

[@AugustoRallo]

Another thing, the 911 never went mid-engine for weight distribution, they did it for the aero. The 911 GT1 (one of my favourite racing cars ever), was mid engine because it was basically a 962 with some 911 faring. The 911 used in GTE nowadays went "mid rear" in order to use a taller diffuser. It's not what I would call as mid-engine, since they literally just turned the engine and the gearbox around.

[@CRVB7]

Since every other car “push” it’s engine, 911 Pulls.

[@Chriscoronado119]

Keep up the great work Jason. Maybe you could describe the perfect “Jason-mobile”, it’s components and why you’ve selected them. What type of fuel, placement of engine, two wheel steering/ four wheel steering, cylinder layout and count, forced induction, if so, why kind, etc. and why? This would be after explaining the type of car you would want to fit your needs/driving situation. Fuel consumption, power, usability, cost, etc. I think it would be a great thought experiment. Thank you for your great channel.

[@itabiritomg]

Porsche puts the engine in the trunk because.... It is a Volkswagen on steroids!

[@farnum3297]

grow up.

[@ALIENdrifter66]

far num He's right, the 911 and Bettle share the same engine placement and almost the same form, the 911 was intended to be a sports car but that was it, if you see both original cars it's more than clear that the main design is the same. European utility cars ended up switching to FWD and thereforce they became FWEngine but Porsche keept doing RWD and the car had a special driving, that's why they keept the engine layout up to this days

[@itabiritomg]

ALIENdrifter66 the 911 design was based on the bettle design. the original 911 engine was almost identical to the bettle engine. the bettle hás a 4 oposed cyl aircooled the Porsche hás an almost identical engine but with 6 cyl. the suapension layout is the same and the body layout is also very similar. Porsche dumped the air cooled engine design but the resto of the car keeps very similar to the original 911

[@itabiritomg]

i think the engine on the trunk is actually a pretty good idea. this why you have the engine and a very compact package and avoids the extra weight of a heavy driveshaft. also, on acceleration, the weight transfer to tghe hear axle increases the force on back tyres improving the grip. pretty neat.

[@itabiritomg]

if Porsche was to move the engine to the front they d need to completly remake the entire car project changing the iconic body layout, changing suspension, creating a new powertrain... basically a entire new project what makes no economic sense considering the car is a living legenda and still dell alot

[@justaddafan]

The modern RWD 911 and the Lotus Elise both have 40/60 F/R weight distribution providing similar acceleration and braking benefits, but the mid engine placement of the Lotus also has a lower polar moment of inertia. Theoretically, that allows the Lotus to make changes in direction more quickly. This is something you can feel when driving the two cars back to back. The presence of the weight behind the axle of the 911 can be felt as a half step between the input of the steering and the cars reaction that isn't present in the Lotus

[@EngineeringExplained]

Certainly, though an even larger advantage, and what will be felt even more than the moment of inertia, is the fact that the Lotus is a good 1,000 lbs lighter. Even if it had a fairly poor moment of inertia, the low mass helps tremendously with quick turning.

[@justaddafan]

Early 911s were only 300-400 pounds heavier than the Elise, but with the trailing arm rear suspension, they were even more resistant to rotate and then once rotating, almost impossible to catch.

[@viccao8431]

i want to get into mechanical engineering how hard is it?

[@EngineeringExplained]

If you like math problems, it will go smoothly. If you don’t like math problems, it’s pretty rough. It was definitely a challenging degree for me, but there are quite a wide variety of career opportunities post graduation.

[@viccao8431]

Engineering Explained thanks!

[@SufferingAddict88]

Depends on how smart you are. Their isn't really a scale on which you can measure how difficult a subject is, but but generally, it's fairly difficult.

[@Deadlynoxiouss]

kamu tidak akan kuat, biar aku saja....

[@wildankoso]

Salah video woy

[@d0718]

This channel deserves 10m subs

[@EngineeringExplained]

Well thank you! :)

[@AfterDark33]

Why? Because men are stubborn. As (i think James may said) if women had run the company they would have put the engine in the front or the middle. But the stubborn men said “no, we WILL make this work”

[@Finnspin_unicycles]

Yep, that's basically it.

[@theravedaddy]

Actually, i think they said, NEIN! VE VIL MAKE ZIS VERK! ....they should do a hitler video on it

[@pinkvitz7208]

Jeremy Clarkson said that, and the reason they did that actually was because of the 356 being the 911's official successor, they wanted to upgrade the design and engineering of a rear engined car. The beetle wasn't dangerous, nor was the 356. But you're adding extra weight to the back by adding 2 more cylinders

[@JN-ug5ky]

@@theravedaddy funny

[@martialme84]

As a German, i *VERY* much appreciate that you are able to get the name of the brand Porsche out without completely butchering it, as many or most americans sadly are prone to doing. When there is the letter "e" in a German word, we fully expect you to SAY the letter "e". Otherwise we woulda dropped it for efficiency´s sake. (If you are also able to correctly say "folksvahgen", instead of that abomination most other americans somehow manage to craft, i will name you a honorary scholar of the German language.)

[@TheMacFreack]

because beetle... duh

[@sonordrum1000miura]

Love your videos, but this was the first giving out erroneous information. This should have been titled "Potential Advantages of an Otherwise Compromised Engine Placement". As stated by many, there is only one answer to your title "Why Rear Engine"...cause that's where it was on the VW bug that the Porsche cars were derived from. It's otherwise a lousy idea. Biggest error: no mention of the dreaded Drop Throttle Oversteer that sent so many 911s into the ditch or worse. The main thrust of the Porsche engineering dept. over the years has been how to minimize that phenomenon. Basically back in the 60s and 70s if you went into a corner too fast and you let off the gas pedal, the rear end would come flying around. Just a bit dangerous!!! You technically were supposed to give it more gas to transfer more weight to the rear for traction and some power-on oversteer to point you in the right direction, but stomping on the gas when you realize you can't get around the corner doesn't intuitively seem like a good idea.

[@karstenmeinders4844]

Great explanations on the advantages of the rear mounted engine.On the other side, it took Porsche some decades to tame the oversteer behavior

[@Rangertomcat97]

mid engine!

[@TheSoishiro19]

Nice explainations and vidéo as usual. It is a quite "tricky to solve" topic to me, as the "RR" layout has the advantage of efficient breaking and perhaps transmission for AWD... But this weight distribution is a non-sense for dynamic efficency (e.g. cornering at high speed is very touchy, especially on wet surface to my experience, Dunlop Corner on Bugatti Track for those who knows it)... And one more interesting point is that the "new" 991 RSR has changed the engine layout, moving from RR to MR (So rear Engine but ahead to the transmission). That could illustrate the limits reach of the RR configuration compared to the MR cars, finally aprouved by Porsche engineers on this last RSR version. The purists of RR Porsche will be disappointed ;)

[@porsche911toyotasupra2]

10 view and 3rd like

[@EngineeringExplained]

First reply to the fourth comment.

[@Kihidokid]

Engineering Explained first reply to first reply to fourth comment

[@matthewrentz7393]

You gave a good explanation of the benefits of a slight rear weight bias and the packaging benefits. I think the common comparison for the 911's rear engine design being "wrong" is against the mid-engine layout. The issue with the rear-engine design is the yaw moment of inertia not the pitch. When compared to the rear-engine, the mid-engine layout loses a little benefit in the pitch moment of inertia for a big gain in yaw performance. Porsche have done an amazing job over the years evolving the chassis and suspension to keep the 911 a relevant sports car but their high-end super cars (except the 959) are mostly mid-engine for a reason.

[@longkeithdiablo8812]

I was with you til "coefficient between the tyre and the ground". Great explanation of what (Ferdinand) Porsche already knew for 80 odd years, no question the best layout. 👍

[@claudiomarangone614]

The best layout by what metric? For sports car, the best is mid engine . Proven over and over again for multiple reasons

[@longkeithdiablo8812]

@@claudiomarangone614 and yet they made almost the same car for 80 years and people still (and will always) love it. What mid engined road legal sports car are you bringing to the table?

[@MeteCanKarahasan]

​@Engineering Explained 2:45 you said under braking mass moves forward. If the center of gravity is 'below' the turning point which is the wheel hub in the back tyres, I think this will change the torque angle and will force the rear wheels to gain traction instead of the front wheels. What I'm using to rank this is this image placed here. What I've heard is that center of gravity can be found on the line where center of mass crossects the rear tyre connects with the road and the top of the front tyres. If its height is lower than the wheel radius, its inertia gain should be inverse to the the mass inertia of the car. I fancy low center of gravity cars. Please, could you look into that - for research purposes, of course!

[@PorscheRacer14]

Ahhh, you went to the earlier camp. Would have been cool to have seen you out there. These events are always fun to take the new toys out and fling them around.

[@frostys_bushcraft]

There's one thing that always interested me. I've met my share of drivers who claim that "jerking the steering wheel a few degrees" in corners makes the car handle better or should I say - grip better. I don't really see the logic behind this. Is there any?

[@3.2Carrera]

The super low CG of the flat six engine helps a lot with lean out back as well as the transaxle being inline with and directly in front of the engine (as opposed to being stacked). I'm not sure Porsche would have been able to do it otherwise. Also when pulling a Porsche transaxle the actual gearbox component is forward of the rear axle line so that helps a bit too. An interesting engineering analysis would the effect on a rear engine car with a raise in the CG.

[@swat1229]

Should’ve made your generic sports car a Miata. Really great video, I’ve never heard a good explanation as to why rear engine can make sense.

[@dubaidriver9978]

Cool vid Jason, makes sense for track use. Just a remark about AWD, which is not the best alternative (temporary 4x4) - the better one is 4WD, which maintains constant 4-wheel drive, examples with front engines include Subaru Symmetric 4WD, and Audi's Quattro (with some models having RWD-bias).

[@stevereese1943]

Straight line acceleration :D Getting the front wheels to turn when 75% of the weight is on the rear axle can be a challenge

[@thatoneanonyouknow4550]

Maybe make a video like this about traction compared to slip? For instance what kind of power, grip, weight transference, etc would be preferred for front, mid, and rear engine cars.

[@radwan.szabouni]

finally about Porsche !! Nice video ! keep up the good work !

[@rdrg7362]

Marketing is the answer. With the 911, simulations in corners (braking, acceleration, neutral, left/right transitions) would be interesting, not forgetting to mention mid-engine cars.

[@michaelruchala7113]

Red car looks like a top hat with glasses. That's one smart top hat. Great video!!

[@thesniperofcs]

Wonderful skids in the Canadian Sno* . I expect you to mention the mid-engine cars too but it's ok. Thank you 👍🏻👍🏻

[@paulshi5974]

But an FR sports car can donut more easily and rev out all day long in snow, which is also pretty fun XD Anyway, great video as always!

[@PaulDebaecker]

Interesting video! I think it would be interesting to see a comparison between rear-engine and mid-engine.

[@idventure6036]

You missed comparing to the Cayman. I did the Porsche winter exp a few years ago. The Cayman rotates more easy as it is midmounted. However that made it harder to keep it drifting as smaller adjustments made it react faster and you flipped drifting direction to easily. Pendulum 911 or seesaw Cayman.

[@Mike504]

Rwd can be very fun in snow. My 320hp silverado does some great snow drifts, but I can put it into 4wd auto or 4wd and safely get home when roads are bad.

[@DarkClosetOfTheMind]

Great video, I've shared it with my fellow Porsche Club members.