After seeing someone ask for a 924 like body in the 3d mod forum, I remembered that a few front engined Porsches had their transmission at the back of the car.
So, I was wondering if you planned on having a FR layout with the transmission positioned at the back? It would obviously reduce the cargo area, and it would probably be heavier, but it could help us get closer to 50/50 weight distribution on sport cars.
Depending on the development time coming with it, how many cars actually use this approach and thus how profitable it would be to add it to the game. This could just fit into the same thing as why other engine related things donât make it into the game. Would be nice to have more options, but I probably think its too âspecialâ.
Boxers however, will make it by the time Automation v1.0 is released
I think it is a very valid concern.
Rear mounted gearboxes in front engined cars are common practice among front-engined, rear-drive cars. I support this idea, unless Daffy has a concern with the artwork required to do it.
Oh, certainly, that happens very often and should certainly be implemented, great suggestion!
Clearly I donât know how often this is actually happening on FR cars, so if it happens a lot, I would definetly want to support the idea, obviously. Given the comments above, that is actually true, and I would need to read up more on these topics soon!
if weâre talking the same as a transaxle then Alfa used it a bit in the 70âs and 80s on things like the Alfetta / GTV / 75 and the Volvo 300 series used one, so it wasnât only âexoticsâ that had them.
Yup, thatâs what weâre talking about⌠From memory there were a number of designs in Europe using this system in the 70âs and 80âs but with the advent of FWD and AWD as popular choices, the need for this system diminished. I still want to see it in Automation though as (in my humble opinion! 
) the benefit in design choice would outweigh the complexity costs to implement this in-game.
The Corvette C5-C7 have rear transaxles as well as the Corvette based Cadillac XLR
The main reason transaxles are used in front-engine rear-wheel drive cars is for weight distribution. This is something that we cannot control at all in the current game. With that said, I propose an alternative to adding transaxles to the game: a weight distribution slider.
For my example, letâs imagine a front-engine rear-wheel drive car of 55:45 weight ratio. The weight distribution slider works like a quality slider, and goes from +10 to -10, but utility decreases and service costs increase (or costs and production units increase, but I think the former is a more interesting design choice) regardless of which way the slider is tweaked from zero. This allows me to change the weight distribution of my 55:45 weight ratio car to anywhere between 65:35 and 45:55.
One or two clicks on the weight distribution slider would be something simple, such as putting the battery in the trunk instead of the engine bay. Maxing out the slider would represent the car being designed from the platform up to have optimal (from the perspective of the manufacturer) weight distribution, to the point of using a transaxle, a front-mid engine, and shifting the entire passenger cabin forward or back.
A slight rearward weight bias is the current trend in sports car design, and has been for a long time in race cars - having more weight at the back allows the larger rear tires to contribute more to braking force, and also improves traction under acceleration. Hence all the transaxles in high-end sports cars.
Hmm, sounds like a bit of a cheat to me and prob not significantly less complex than implementing transaxles
How is improving a carâs weight distribution at the expense of increasing service costs, production units, and reducing utility a âcheatâ?
Transaxles would be simple to add, yes. But adding a âFront longitudinal RWD with Transaxleâ layout wonât address the underlying issue, which is a lack of a meaningful way to control weight distribution on our cars.
Edit: removed typo
Perhaps cheat is not the right word, but adding a slider, IMO, does not seem to be a satisfying way to address the concern.
I would imagine there would have to be some fairly significant balancing of the function between the costs and the benefits to prevent it from being used indiscriminately but also not to prevent it being used where appropriate. Without this I can fore see a slider being used on all cars or not at all.
Depending on the car it is already possible to get pretty close to 50/50.
Made a typical compact sports car out of the smallest of the 90s coupe body, with a steel chassic, aluminium panels, RWD, an engine that is not too heavy and a proper interior and it is at 51/49.
While a slider could be nice I personally donât really see the point, especially if transaxles are added.
The NIssan GT-R R35 uses a particular transaxle system:
The engine is in the front part, and the gearbox in the rear part (the classic transaxle system), but the GT-R is 4WD.
And the solution of NIssan is put two transmission axis: one from engine to the gearbox, and other from gearbox to the front differential. This system is called ATTESA E-TS AWD system (I think). Pure efectivity:
For example, the Ferrari FF uses other particular system, and consists in a single transmission axis (from the wonderful v12 engine to the rear gearbox), but in the front part of the engine, are ubicated the front gearbox (Yep, 2 gearbox), and are AWD in the first 5 gears (if you changes to the 6th or 7th gear, you doesnât had AWD).
And the Volvo 300 series rear part are very strange with the Variomatik System.
Weight distribution sliders were there in previous updates while the full interior specs were not yet implemented, but proved uneffective.
This is kinda cheating, and you donât have full control on where the battery would be/whether the gearbox is on the front or rear end.
Only the automatic Volvo 300 had that system, it was made by the previous owners of that design, DAF. The manual ones had a standard Volvo 4 or 5 gear gearbox (bolted to the differential housing), with a redesigned shifter.
Weight distribution slider is a good idea. It just needs to be very limited in what it can do instead of letting you swing it whole 10% and of course add to engineering cost so it isnât simply matter of picking best performing setting (costs could scale up the further you go like quality sliders). Just something to help you tweak your car so you can get that bang on 50/50 (or whatever youâre aiming for) without having to make brakes larger/smaller etc. . Just an option.
I think that in the first versions of Automation that you can assembly the engine in the body was used a slider.
They did, so what about them?
Yes, this is the gist of what I meant. It doesnât have to be a whole 10% ( plus/minus, say, 6% would be completely fine with me), as long as we have the ability to adjust weight distribution at the expense of something else.
Maybe it increases the total R&D cost of that model (more engineering time required) while also increasing service costs and production units, for example. Who knows.
I do agree with the sentiment that a âfreebieâ slider where one just arbitrarily moves weight around the car with no penalty has no place in this game.
