The debate over whether mid-engine is superior to rear-engine is not an open and shut case. Although proponents of either camp would have you believe otherwise. The advantages of mid-engine are en vogue, so I won't repeat them here, but here are some advantages to a rear-engine car that are often dismissed:
Under acceleration, a rear-engine car has an almost absurd traction advantage over any other engine packaging configuration. For example, under acceleration, the 911 has a 74% rear bias, where the Cayman has a 67% bias.
Under braking, a rear-engine car has better weight distribution as well. Again, the 911 has a front rear distribution of 58/42 versus 64/36 for the Cayman.
I'm not nearly well versed enough in vehicle handling dynamics to hammer out a full-blown debate, but I have read very compelling arguments from both sides of the debate. I transisioned from the "mid-engine is the only compelling packaging format" camp to the "maybe the rear-engine format isn't completely insane" camp.
Under acceleration, a rear-engine car has an almost absurd traction advantage over any other engine packaging configuration. For example, under acceleration, the 911 has a 74% rear bias, where the Cayman has a 67% bias.
Under braking, a rear-engine car has better weight distribution as well. Again, the 911 has a front rear distribution of 58/42 versus 64/36 for the Cayman.
I'm not nearly well versed enough in vehicle handling dynamics to hammer out a full-blown debate, but I have read very compelling arguments from both sides of the debate. I transisioned from the "mid-engine is the only compelling packaging format" camp to the "maybe the rear-engine format isn't completely insane" camp.