Front vs. Rear Engine

My 550 has a 50/50 ratio.

Only drive 12 cylinders

 

The 360 is mid engine as opposed to rear engine. The weight bias that you refer to is static, but dynamically it's a benefit -- under braking for example as weight shifts forward, or under acceleration where the weight is over the drive wheels. The idea is also to get the mass as close to the center of the car as possible to allow the car to rotate with a lower polar moment of inertia.

 

50/50 is ideal but like all things it is not a law that a car with 53/47 won't outhandle a car with 50/50 if it has a well enough designed suspension. I've never looked closely at a 550/575 with the bonnet up - how far back is the engine set in relation to the front suspension? Given the car has such a long nose I would assume it's set fairly far back in order to improve weight distribution and to keep the mass of the motor as near to the center of the car as possible.

If you look at the 612, for example - with the bonnet up you'll see that the motor sits behind the imaginary line between the shock towers. This means the 612 is actually a mid-engine car, though you could qualify it as being "front-mid" since the motor is still in front of the driver. I would guess the 550/575 is similar. Some pics of Uday Hussein's stripped 550 would help illustrate where the engine exists in relation to the front suspension..

 

50/50 is the magazine mantra but engineers seem to think the true ideal is closer to 40/60 for a RWD car. Even front engined pure race cars have a rearward weight bias. I think most people run karts (which could easily be set up for 50/50) around 43/57 with driver.

 

Then theres always the best of both worlds....
Front/mid-engined with a gearbox mounted in a rear transaxle.
Like the 612 Scaglietti. Gives you a slight rear bias, like mid-engined, with all
the benefits of a regular front-engined car.