So have I, on a review-request....but it was some years ago, not the current version. No, it is not as silky-smooth as a standard (non-AMG) S-class sedan (very few vehicles are)...but it will handle circles around it. I found that out by experience when I had to make a sudden swerve in the Panamera to avoid an idiot Honda Civic driver who tried to whip a left turn, right in front of me, from the right lane!!!

 

I've seen website quote the entire engine must be behind the front axle.
Whereas your website says only the majority of the engine must be behind the front axle.

Looks like there is NO agreed upon standardized definition.
Hence, it is just a relative thing.
I would not get too "hung over" on terminology and definitions.

 

In a rear mid engined car the engine is not always completely in front of the rear axle either...

The point of classifying the LS500 that way is to illustrate the engine was pushed back to improve handling, which was done at the expense of cabin space

 

S Classes handle plenty well for me.

 

Theoretically, that is true.
However, in all honesty, I have never seen a rear midengined vehicle where the engine was not already in front of the rear transaxle.

It is easy for a front midengine to be partially behind the front axle, because often there is no front transaxle ie differential.
With a rear midengine, it is difficult for the engine to lie halfway above the rear axle, because there is almost always a rear transaxle.
How many rear midengine vehicles has anyone ever come across that is exclusively FWD? None.


Yes, it is a pity that people because so "petty" regarding terminology and definitions.

 

The top spec with active suspension in a turbo S or a base? It's a massive difference.....and the newest one is insane/on its own level. You have to try to latest one to get it



Well then I guess I have a fleet of mid engined cars if that's the standard lol! Got me a mid engined full size truck! Hell yeah! lol! Moving goalposts FTW!

 

Difficult, because there seems to be no international standard on this matter.
Hence, I cannot say you or Steve are right or wrong.

We could devise a 3-point system:
1) Engine entirely in front of front axle.
2) Engine above front axle.
3) Engine entirely behind front axle.

However, Category 2 would have to be further subdivided into:
a) More than 50% in front of front axle.
b) More than 50% behind front axle.


Alternatively, we can devise a simpler 2-point system:
1) Front Engine is >50% of engine in front of front axle.
2) Front Mid-Engine is >50% of engine behind front axle.


Like I say - very "petty" small point not worth arguing about.
The main factor is that presently there is no international standard, hence both you and Steve are right in your own ways...

 

I say we use the example of cars that are actually front mid engined otherwise EVERY RWD car is mid engined. The accepted standard is shock towers vs crank pulley positions btw....

 

I've never even seen that as an agreed standard.
Do you have any links to the SAE Society of American Engineers etc?

Wiki: Mid-engine design - Wikipedia
I would have thought axles are better, because axles are fixed.
Whereas struts can be in different positions and rake at different angles relative to the axle.

 

Yes, for me, too (if I owned one)....but clearly not like a Porsche.

 

Okay then lets view it from the angle of what is commonly associated as mid engine, that being rear/mid and where those engines are located then.



Lets start with the most common options like the C8