mid engined, rear drive coupe?

[4WheelDrifter]

What about two 500bhp I5T's one in the front and one in the back both with FWD gearboxes??

1000bhp!!

I looked into a twin engine project many years ago. Like Andy says weight is the problem. It's better to have one engine with 1000bhp IMHO. :mischeif:

[stiglet]

It would handle much better no doubt but you would loose the "quattro" chuckability. Would behave more like a lotus than an audi, only with less sophisticated suspension.

If you could lower the whole engine/tranny to make the C of G lower that would make it much better.

[stiglet]

I looked into a twin engine project many years ago. Like Andy says weight is the problem. It's better to have one engine with 1000bhp IMHO. :mischeif:

Is it true with twin engines you have to have a rigid connection between the two engines i.e. a propshaft for safety reasons for it to pass an SVA or something?

[HPmuirt]

It's better to have one engine with 1000bhp IMHO. :mischeif:

You mean like Audi did in 1984. I posted a thread about it ages ago.....Linky. 'Tis a great read, with comments like....

'The biggest problem with the Quattro was not the engine, which was very strong but the weight distribution and the handling'

To call the Sport Quattro a quick fix would be inaccurate because it didn't fix much'

'In the longer term it could only be mid-engined'

'The five-cylinder engine sits amidships, whopping turbo clearly visible, and when you consider that engineers had produced nigh on 1000BHP from these units the potential becomes evident'

1000BHP - Personally speaking, I would give all your rights arms to drive that

Cheers n

Si

[Rusty]

Si, you do plenty well enough with 270bhp, let alone 1000! That's just greedy, there's plenty of ponies to go round so share the love

[Keeper of The Kitten]

Most vehicles that run with two engines inevitably suffer from one being a little more lazy than the other ....I know Monster Tajima did it with his Suzuki hillclimb car but it is quite rare for such machines to perform at their optimum ...as stated, one engine is better.

And in answer to that SVA question, I have some suspicion that you would be expected to connect powertrains or have one not running on the road (there have been other twin engined machines that could theoretically run on the road with two independent drivetrains and usually they were expected to run with one engine off). I can't verify that but it is quite likely.

As a footnote, one of my former bosses, Hiroshi Fushida (now at the helm of the Dome sportscar team), once drove a Can-Am car with four snowmobile engines, two at each end, driving through VW camper transaxles. Originally the front and rear drivetrains were connected but later disconnected, but either way it really wasn't fast enough and with a theoretical pooled output of about 440bhp, was a long way shy of the more conventional machines that ran with single 750bhp V8 engines.

[stiglet]

The problem with twin engines is that you add more weight along with the extra power. Proportionally speaking it is better for straight line performance since you double the power but don't double the weight, however it doesn't do much good to the handling.

I kinda like the way the coupe is front heavy with the weight way out in the front, means you can chuck it into a corner with the confidence that it won't grip and grip and grip, then suddenly snap away into a hedge. A lot of people will disagree but high moment of inertia gives stability, which is good for high speed cornering

[newsh]

I've seen it done years ago in a van, Morris Minor I think

[Error404]

there is / was few years back a renault 5 GT T and a MK3 golf both had two engines