If the bump or rut came in a corner that could mean oversteer, or its malevolent cousin, lift off oversteer. You might wonder why a rear engine would cause wheels to tuck under and you’re right, they don’t.That is a trait of the swing axle, the primitive independent suspension system fitted to the Corvair.With the wheel fixed rigidly to the drive shaft, bumps and ruts caused pronounced camber changes, with loss of grip and clear potential for tuck-in. He alleged the car’s wheel could spontaneously tuck under, causing all kinds of grievous accidents. This should not be confused with the 1960 Chevrolet Corvair, the rear engine star of Ralph Nader’s seminal 1965 polemic ‘Unsafe at any Speed’.The flat six powered Corvair was described by Nader as a ‘one car accident’. Little Ralph takes a swing at the CorvairĬrandell was talking specifically about General Motors’ Corsair, a concept car. The argument is more or less exactly the same today. Fewer engine parts are necessary one of the first to go would be the long drive shaft and its bulge in the car floor.’ Noise and engine heat are eliminated from the passenger compartment. Added weight in back gives better traction.
Engine cooling, too, is another problem.What can be said in favor of the rear-engine car? The driver can be moved forward for better visibility. Steering will not be as positive since not enough weight will bear down on the front wheels. The driver is minus the protection of the heavy engine and its frame, it is claimed. In almost all models, the front hood has been retained. 'Even the rear-engine boys recognized this. Then, too, in case of an accident, the heavy rear moves forward, telescoping the car and its occupants.' This means that when not under complete control, the car will have a tendency to turn around and travel backwards, like an arrow shot tail-first. With the heavy motor over the rear axle, the center of gravity of the car is shifted to the rear. ‘What are some of the arguments against the rear-engine design? One of the principal ones is weight distribution. Here’s a 1949 critique of the RR, rear engine rear wheel drive, layout from Bernard W Crandell, writing in the US magazine, Mechanix Illustrated: It’s the unfinished story of promising technology that found itself tragically and possibly terminally tainted after falling in with bad company. It’s a political, not an engineering, misfit.This is not the sorry tale of a fatally flawed idea. The rear engine car was stymied by a couple of unfortunate associations. It turns out we do have a prejudice against rear engine cars, i.e. It’s a chewy conundrum a clash between uncontroversial ‘laws of physics’ and the visible, demonstrable reality of the impossible flourishing in practice. Anyone can understand that.Yet the Porsche 911 - one of the fastest cars on the market, and one of the most enduring in history - has its engine at the back.
Like a sling shot, the heavy engine at the back is always trying to overtake the driver in front. Humanity might struggle perpetually with questions like the meaning of life, but it does know one thing for sure: rear engine cars are bad.