rear engine versus mid engine?

I agree, and the vinyl covering was even worse... if that was removed it looked OK.

It did look surprisingly much better than the very similarly shaped Triumph TR7.

With a 4-cylinder 914, you could drag race at every stop light if you wanted :)

I kind of miss it today, but I live in DC-land, the car would literally be invisible in a sea of SUVs...

nate

That's true... ...but not very important.

Not necessarily. It depends much more on the qualities of the structure that is in front of you.

Almost certainly.

The Capri would be more my style and my guess is that it could take on a

914 in a drag race. I had the first model body with the 2.0 L engine. It was a little embarrassing because it had nerf bars instead of a front bumper. Evidently that was legal at the time because I never got stopped for it. The ride was a little harsh and the springing was so non-compliant that you could feel the car move sidewards on rough roads. That's OK, I was in my twenties and my body could take it. No so today. That's the breaks.

I don't think that I've seen a single 914 in our town. That's too bad.

I guess that if you live in a world where price is no object, anything is possible.

Not really. You're assuming that in order for the structure to be good, the cost must be high, and that's just not so.

There are lots of high-performance (and not-so-high-performance) mid-engined cars and lots of them are more than adequately structured for a frontal crash.

Having the engine in front of you doesn't guarantee safety in a frontal crash and having the engine beneath or behind you doesn't guarantee tragedy.

I would think that the engine in front makes it harder, not easier, to design a proper crumple zone - assuming safety in a frontal crash is your first priority. I don't doubt that manufacturers think about frontal crashes, but there's lots of other factors that go into design of a car as well (weight distribution, etc.)

nate

This will be the third time that I've tried to make it clear that I'm not talking about the crash worthiness of mid-engined cars. I'm talking about the wisdom of sticking the driver in the front of the car. Are you trolling?

The Fiat X1/9 was a pretty crash worthy mid-engine automobile but it did so at a cost. It had one of the shortest wheelbases of any car sold here but weighted in at over 2200 lbs.

Which is pretty flyweight by today's standards, actually. I think the Lotus Elise may beat that but I'm not thinking of anything else off the top of my head. The googs tells me that the Subaru BRZ weighs over 2700 lbs, and pretty much anything else of any interest likely weighs over

3000 lbs.

nate

The driver in a Toyota Previa was NOT "in front of the car. Even a cursory examination of a picture from the side shows that the driver is still well behind the front of the car. Further ahead than in most vans? Sure. But it's not like the driver's feet were 3" behind the bumper you know...

Actually, its original curb weight was a little less than that, but that's one of the lighter cars sold at that time.

Cars have changed considerably since the 70s. The cars I drove weighed in at around a ton or less. The Alfetta GTV that I had was a real heavyweight at 2400 lbs. These days, there are sports cars that weight over a ton and a half. You would have thought that the cars would have gotten lighter. That's the breaks.

it's actually really sad. But the current state of affairs.

nate

I'm not talking about a Previa. I'm talking about the first series of Toyota vans sold in this country AKA the Toyota Van Wagon.

sold have gotten an alfa gta!

it's all driven by govt mandated "safety" - discretely lobbied for and sponsored by the oil industry. that's how we have cars today, despite considerably improved engine and combustion technology, still averaging the same gas consumption, or worse, than cars from the 70's and 80's.

don't believe me? we could all be driving aluminum/composite cars that are "safer" for very little extra cost. we could all be driving cars with real tubular safety cages, 6 point harnesses and have mandated helmets, for very little if any extra cost. instead, we have cars full of bullshit "safety" features that can actually be hazardous [airbags] and whose increased weights dramatically decrease maneuverability and increase stopping distances.

this kind of cult-mobile?

The Pontiac Fiero did well in crash tests, and was certainly cheap in several ways.

The Toyota Previa/Estima/Tarago/Canarado did move the driver back from the front of the vehicle compared to its predecessor Toyota Van/MasterAce/Space Cruiser/Tarago/Model F, with the former receiving a

3/4 star (out of 5 possible) driver/passenger frontal crash rating from NHTSA.

Sad part is if you wear a helmet while driving on the street, you are violating the law and/or asking for police harassment.

The only features of modern cars I really like are EFI - they really do run better than a pre-emission controls carbureted engine. But one cannot buy a new lightweight car without power steering or brakes that is street legal.

Yep - I have driven one. As I said elsewhere, much better than a VW Type II (although almost as sensitive to cross-winds), but nowhere near the handling, ride quality, acceleration, cargo/passenger space and quietness of a modern minivan.

the latter most definitely. which is completely retarded. we've done a spectacular job in selling $5 polyfoam helmets to kids/bike riders for $50-$300, so why not cars? it's not like it's not real-world safer than having an explosive device in front of your face. and infinitely better in side impacts.

no kidding. i'm shopping for an old toyota pickup right now. so many people are hung up on carbs and eschew fi. fi is much the better system.

power brakes aren't evil. overly-powered brakes can be too sensitive imo, but a correctly proportioned brake booster is fine.

same for power steering. agreed, most of the time it's used by people turning on the spot which is a really bad habit to be in. but if you're a city dweller, you may not have much choice.