Would you call the BB / TR powertrain layout "Weird"?

Unusual, but not weird. Some of the other drivelines featured in that article were kinda weird though.

 

Who wrote that, a high school kid?

Whoever it was is woefully ignorant on the history of the automobile. That list shouldn't even be in the top 50.

 

Top-Ten-ism is a disease.

 

I suppose to the uninformed it could be considered odd, yet for guys like us, we see it everyday so it's nothing really unusual. I think the Saab 900 layout is much more odd then a tr engine. It's funny how the 308s and Dino's where left out of this because they are set up the same way as the tr.

 

It's in embarrassingly poorly written semi-article framed as clown-bait.

It's an all time low for Road & Track.

Matt

 

Road and Track is an SUV mag now. Just a shadow of its former self!

 

I read somewhere that weird is one of those catch-all words that a weak vocabulary uses to explain things it can't. The mid-engine as it was originally intended for the race car puts the gearbox behind the engine. In this layout, it wasn't just weight distribution that helped the car, but it was the gyrational force of that mass (engine/gearbox) right in the center of the car that made it all work. The problem of this configuration in a V12 road car is that it squeezes the passengers' feet together between the two front wheels. So, you have to either stretch the car or find a different solution. This is why the Miura put the engine sideways (and later backward in the Countach) and the Boxer put it on top of the gearbox. I tend to think it was a matter of pride that Ferrari did not put their engine sideways, so as to not mimic the Miura, and came up with their own ingenious layout. It raises the center of gravity of the car a bit, but this makes no real difference to a passenger car.

john

 

It also has to do with centralizing mass, not having any gearbox hanging out behind the rear wheels. The problem with the BB/Tr is it puts heavy pieces up high, negating a benefit of a flat motor.

The CT solution was to put the gearbox between the seats, although your feet are still between the front wheels.

Maybe the real solution is a shorter engine, hence the V8.

How long isa ford motor in a pantera compared to a 12.

But then wouldnt a BMW M1 straight 6 motor be as long as a ferrari 12, and they made it work there. Or are those old ferrari motors particularily long.

If I had to bet, it was early days of mid engined street cars and the optimal solution was not found yet. Ferrari wanted a flat motor for the F1 tie in, and putting the motor on top of the gearbox seemed like a good idea to shorten wheelbase and centeralize mass, two birds with one stone as a flat motor allowed a gearbox under the engine for a shorter wheelbase, but they had not figured out how it would affect other factors.

How did they manage it all in the F50 and enzo are these motors much shorter? What was the layout solution there? For that mater how does pagani make it work in the zonda.

 

The opposing cylinders are offset from each other. The only way to shorten a V engine is via blade and fork connecting rods which are heavy and not suitable for high RPM engines.

 

Like an old Cadillac?

john

 

And like WWII fighter plane engines RR Merlins, Allison V-1710 V-12's.

 

The only length penalty with non forked con rod, is the width of big end of the connecting rod. Not very much.

 

512bbi Boxer 98.4
Enzo 104.3
F50 101.6
Zonda 107.5
2005-6 FGT 106.7
F1 140ish some less, some more

 

Thats motor with transmision?

 

Wheelbases for those cars.

 

They can put the wheels anywhere they like. The overall size of the package is what is important for packaging and the differences between BB/F50 and Enzo are not very big.

 

Shorter wheelbase more agile in theory. But as we see there are a multitude of factors.

 

In general yes but the BB with the shortest WB in the list is also low man in the handling department. The compromises made saw to that.

 

A one hundred and eighty degree V12 (that's what Ferrari calls it) mounted above its gearbox? I think that qualifies as weird and wonderful (that's what the sell is).

I'm not a tech like some of you guys but the fact that Ferrari tweaked the layout to mount it lower in, for example, the F512M, suggests they knew it was weird.

I vote for R&T.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but the title of the piece was "10 of the weirdest ever used". Putting aside the definition of weird for a moment the history of the motorcar includes a lot of much more convoluted engineering than the BB drivetrain.


Lowering it was in response to the negative characteristics of it, not the "weirdness".

Not even close to the top ten.

 

Totally right- the sell was 'strange but wonderful', not 'weird'. And of course, I would never disagree that lowering it was to try and mitigate the inherent flaws....though you could say that was part of the weirdness.

As to top 10, I take the point. Probably not even in the top 50. But it helps to have a Ferrari at the top of your list. R&T has to try and sell magazines/get us to pay attention (and they succeeded). Though that should be no excuse.

 

Well tires compared to other cars on the list are the big differentiator.
Yes putting the motor on top of the transmision put the motor and crank sitting up above the roll axis and negated the benefit of a flat motor and introduced more negative handling comrpmise than the benefits shorter wheelbase.

The biggest handling compromise though was actualy the crap designed for a BMW 6 series tires and attendant alignment to cope with stretchy elastic sidewalls.

Put decent tires on BB and then the seats are the next major impediment. Yes the motor sits high and yes thats an impediment when you broach the limits and leads to liftoff oversteer of epic proportions, but porches have motors in the rear and thats a bigger impediment, which the pirelli P7 worked around.

The TRX tires exascerbate what should be a relatively benign handling quirk, the trx work against steering directness and have crappy grip.

I am always reminded that Nick masons BBLM lapped faster than His F40. A BBLM is still heavier and less powerful than a F40. There is lots of latent ability in the boxer chassis, yes you'll always have to know how to drive it, but these cars are way underated because of the tires.

17 in rims and some decent rubber transform the car, but then you need seats that can hold you in place. Think of a lighter by a few hundred lbs and shorter wheelbase 512M and you get the idea of the potential.

The brakes BTW are pretty good. And yes the transaxle was weak in period because of the design. But BBLMs didnt win races in period because they lacked the power relative to turbo porches and transaxle reliablity was poor, they did not lack in handling.

 

they forgot the porsche 928, engine and clutch in the front, gearbox in the rear. clutch change just in 1,5 hour if all goes fine

 

Like any front engine transaxle Ferrari? From the 275 and Daytona on?



Matt