Re: No Subject

[ScharfR@aol.com]

In a message dated 97-01-19 20:45:58 EST, bstrub@silverlink.net (Bernie
Strub) writes:

<< Disregarding past practice (vw bugs, renault dauphines, etc), it is no
 longer done because of crash protection...if you put an engine and
 transmission in fornt of jq public, engineer it to slide underneath in a
 frontal collision, it is much easier to dissipate the crash energy and
 protect the occupants with misc "crushable" machinery.  If you put all that
 stuff in the rear, how would you do this?  I would guess it would be pretty
 expen$ive... >>

Generalizations aside, there have been some outstanding crash test results
produced by cars with rear(ish) engines.  The late, lamentable Pontiac Fiero
offered excellent front crash protection in the U.S. Government's NCAP tests
(35 mph nto a fixed barrier, full frontal overlap).

An engine in the front actually presents some distinct energy management
problems. Given a normal vehicle length ahead of the passenger compartment,
it would probably be easier to design a crashworthy structure _without_ a big
lump of relatively uncompressable iron (or aluminum) sitting it the way.