When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
so why did the fwd legend use a longitudinal mount (i had 2)?
Because at the time Acura was willing to make the significant investment in the more difficult packaging of doing that without hanging the engine way out in front of the axle. In exchange for the much higher cost, they got a better weight balance and much tighter turning radius in the 2nd gen compared to the 1st (which was transverse).
In short, "because they could". Unfortunately, not enough consumers care about the benefits of that design to justify the costs.
I believe one of the side effects of a transverse, FWD layout that you'll end up with unequal length drive shafts, which increases torque steer. Going with a longitudinally mounted FWD engine squares it all up and keeps both sides equal.
As a side note from up in the thread, I do believe the first Acura Legend was transversely mounted, and they went longitudinal on the second gen.
In a longitudinal mount, the engine's rotational axis is perpendicular to the wheels' rotation. The driveshaft carries this rotation to the rear end, where the differential sends it out at 90 degrees to the drive wheels. This works great if the layout is RWD-based. Not so great for FWD-based, because now the engine's output shaft is behind the front wheels and you have to bring the power back forward.
so why did the fwd legend use a longitudinal mount (i had 2)?
I guess some companies just like to do things differently. Audi is big on this as well. The non-AWD variants of their sedans are actually longitudinally mounted FWD cars. It's why they have the front overhang because the engine needs to be far enough forward that the transmission can split the driveshafts out to the front wheels. I don't believe these have been sold in the US in that configuration, at least not in great numbers. They pretty much just send us AWD cars here. Same configuration, it just also has a driveshaft going to the rear axle as well.
Were the pre-Northstar/Northstar Cadillac V8s this way? Those were FWD.
Yep, Northstar FWD Cadillacs were transverse
Minivans sure are useful. We moved one of our DC offices into a new space and I snagged a couch to use in another office, long, wide could slides right into the Pacifica:
minivans are the ****! they're "not cool" but they're just so good at doing exactly what they're intended to while being super comfy to ride in for awhile... they also typically have a sub 7 sec 0-60 time
The crank is actually part of the engine, so it's always aligned with the engine. But I know what you meant.
In a longitudinal mount, the engine's rotational axis is perpendicular to the wheels' rotation. The driveshaft carries this rotation to the rear end, where the differential sends it out at 90 degrees to the drive wheels. This works great if the layout is RWD-based. Not so great for FWD-based, because now the engine's output shaft is behind the front wheels and you have to bring the power back forward.
In a transverse mount, the engine's rotational axis is parallel to the wheels' rotation. The transaxle simply aligns this directly with the wheel centers and splits it to both sides. This makes for extremely efficient packaging for FWD cars, but also results in the long front overhang. Because if you were going to put the engine between/ partially behind the wheels, you're still bringing the power back forward and should have just done longitudinal in the first place.
Edit: almost forgot your other question. Yes, the majority, if not all, of the FWD Cadillacs, even the V8s, were transverse. The old old boats from the 70s and earlier were longitudinal RWD.
Thank you!!!! I fully understand now. Pretty sure my TL was transverse. It did have a limited slip differential and honesty the torque steer wasn't bad, but that car was fasssst. It was a 6 speed. You could always tell it was FWD. I think my 93 SHOs engine was Transverse too,,, My 97 maxima I'm not sure about but it sure had a sweet V6 and was a 5 speed. Torquey AF unlike that TL. Original VQ and probably the best one.
Thank you!!!! I fully understand now. Pretty sure my TL was transverse. It did have a limited slip differential and honesty the torque steer wasn't bad, but that car was fasssst. It was a 6 speed. You could always tell it was FWD. I think my 93 SHOs engine was Transverse too,,, My 97 maxima I'm not sure about but it sure had a sweet V6 and was a 5 speed. Torquey AF unlike that TL. Original VQ and probably the best one.
Here's the engine:
Yeah your SHO and Maxima would both have been transverse.
so why did the fwd legend use a longitudinal mount (i had 2)?
Lower NVH and smoother shifting, the other major advantage is you can use a real suspension (multi link, equal length shafts, etc) vs struts primarily.
It also packages better for service and you can use stronger transmissions/larger engines more easily. Steering is also able to be mounted ahead of the engine for better feel, you can set the engine further back, and overall package hight is lower.
It's basically just better in all ways and if you are going to suffer a FWD might as well suffer a FWD that is the best it can be.
Last edited by Striker223; Apr 3, 2026 at 03:28 PM.
I guess some companies just like to do things differently. Audi is big on this as well. The non-AWD variants of their sedans are actually longitudinally mounted FWD cars. It's why they have the front overhang because the engine needs to be far enough forward that the transmission can split the driveshafts out to the front wheels. I don't believe these have been sold in the US in that configuration, at least not in great numbers. They pretty much just send us AWD cars here. Same configuration, it just also has a driveshaft going to the rear axle as well.
They have in very limited amounts, mostly for low power models because they are using the "secondary" drive section as the only thing those cars have. The rear output side is where most of the power is supposed to go so you never see much more than a basic 4 used in the cars that omit the rear axle etc.
Example being a 1.8T 4 cyl being the normal max option in a car that can otherwise get up to a 4.2 420hp V8 with the normal drive config that sends 70-85% of the power to the rear.
Last edited by Striker223; Apr 3, 2026 at 03:30 PM.
minivans are the ****! they're "not cool" but they're just so good at doing exactly what they're intended to while being super comfy to ride in for awhile... they also typically have a sub 7 sec 0-60 time
ha ha. 90s Ford Windstar. was my parents. vehicle i got to drive occasionally after getting my license. packed with trouble makers, we tore up a soccer field. few weeks later the engine died. luckily, and thankfully, for my parents, the vehicle was still under warranty and did not have to pay for my bad behavior. forgot about that vehicle.
ha ha. 90s Ford Windstar. was my parents. vehicle i got to drive occasionally after getting my license. packed with trouble makers, we tore up a soccer field. few weeks later the engine died. luckily, and thankfully, for my parents, the vehicle was still under warranty and did not have to pay for my bad behavior. forgot about that vehicle.
The Windstar was fancy stuff, we had a 1987 Ford Aerostar when I was a kid. Looked like this:
But I know what you meant.
