Why not?!

Okay because I've always been curious every front wheel drive car has the engine in front of the transmission with the axles running behind the motor. Obviously this is not ideal for weight distribution or overhang at the front of the vehicle. Why is there not one with the axles running at the front side of the motor and the motor being closest to the firewall instead of the transmission I'm sure there's a really good reason for this but I've yet to come up with one so if anyone has an answer please tell me. And yes I know I have no punctuation Etc leave me alone

Check out old Saab 900's. The engine is turned around backwards with the pullys against the firewall.   

FWD cars aren’t designed for performance or weight balance.  If they were, they wouldn’t configure them that way.  They would put the engine behind the front axle line.  Look at how well the Fiat X-1/9 and Toyota MR-2 handled with pedestrian FWD drivetrains mounted behind the driver.  Even Pontiac couldn’t screw up the Fiero bad enough to make the mid-engined gains impossible to experience.

They drivetrain is packaged that way in FWD vehicles, to maximize space in the vehicle for the occupants and to make the drivetrain more efficient by reducing components and packing everything as tightly as possible.

In reply to Stefan :

See I would be 100% inclined to agree with you if there were not companies like Mazda out there who do strive for the best possible weight distribution and brag about things such as running twice as much Caster as other front wheel drive cars do because of the steering advantages.

Because along with the weight distribution and weight transfer positives it would also allow stretching of the overall wheelbase of the vehicle without making the vehicle any longer so shorter overhang smoother ride better handling it just sort of seems like a no-brainer to me

KATYB said:

In reply to Stefan :

See I would be 100% inclined to agree with you if there were not companies like Mazda out there who do strive for the best possible weight distribution and brag about things such as running twice as much Caster as other front wheel drive cars do because of the steering advantages.

It is still a passenger vehicle first and that takes priority, so maximizing internal volume at the minimum external volume takes priority.

A reversed solution wouldn't be as good at this. 

A longer wheelbase with no gain in interior volume wouldn't sell well and it has disadvantages in maneuverability.

Theres also something to be said about safety where the drivetrain can be configured to move below the passenger cabin to potentially reduce injuries.

Renault 5 Le Car is arranged exactly as Katyb has postulated, and they were good handlers for wrong wheel drive. Also see cord 810 & 812, with big (very) heavy V8s behind the transaxle. There are a few others. Space efficiency rules, and the transverse engine does that best.

Also, weight transfer.

Engine behind front wheels means accelerating with the front wheels is hard.

In reply to TurnerX19 :

Oh I fully still mean to keep the engine transverse all I mean to do is instead of the axles being behind the engine moving the axles to the front of the engine basically we're only two were talking about moving the axles 8 to 10 in forward from where they currently sit in most front wheel drive cars

In reply to KATYB :

Weight transfer can be fixed by Jess changing the way the engine revs so that it's actually torquing forward when the engine revs and

In reply to KATYB :

And I would think that would allow the bottom of the firewall 2 then be angled into the engine compartment allowing more room for feet. However as was brought up before the safety aspect of things in an accident that is an issue and maybe the biggest reason for why things are set up in the way they are set up

My brain just works weird I've also always had the dream of building and all out track car using an LS and a variation of a 4t80 I think it was mounted longitudally using one output for front wheels feeding a diff and vice versa rot the rear. Off set in the vehicle using fuel tank and driver to balance out the weight. Which sitting next to an engine sounds great until you get into the dangers of it all. 

not all FWD cars had the engine ahead of the transmission. The Fiat 128, the first "modern" front wheel drive car, had the engine shoved off to the passenger side of the engine compartment so the transmission could next to it. While it is tilted forwards, the crank is still inline with the transaxle.

The Mini had the engine directly above the transmission, since they shared the same case, it kind of had to be.

Citroens from the first traction avants and the DS and SM along with most FWD Renaults up until the mid 80's had the rear engine layout just moved forward

The L29 Cord and the Ruxton, America's first production FWD cars had the transaxle ahead of a long straight 8 engine. 

I've worked on and driven both if you have any questions.

The 810 and 812 Cord also used this arrangement with a shorter V8.

KATYB said:

My brain just works weird I've also always had the dream of building and all out track car using an LS and a variation of a 4t80 I think it was mounted longitudally using one output for front wheels feeding a diff and vice versa rot the rear. Off set in the vehicle using fuel tank and driver to balance out the weight. Which sitting next to an engine sounds great until you get into the dangers of it all. 

The gearing would be great for rock climbing.  Not so much for speed.  Unless you used 1:1 ratio rear ends, which I think you can get close to with quick change rear ends.

Its a great idea, it just needs a bit more fleshing out.

I have no answers for you KatyB, but what are you not able to accomplish with the cars on the market now?  ONE advantage of the engine cantilevered over the front of the axle is weight, perfect set up for ice racing.

Dan

I recall reading that the diff is on the front side of the trans (I.E. engine behind axles) in a Scion IQ

In reply to TurnerX19 :

Add Citroen to the list.

Robbie said:

Also, weight transfer.

Engine behind front wheels means accelerating with the front wheels is hard.

This. A front-mid engined FWD car would have a bit of a cornering advantage but the traction under acceleration, and especially off the line, would be terrible - in other words, some forward weight bias is necessary for good forward traction in a FWD car, and handling actually doesn't suffer too badly from having the entire powertrain just slightly ahead of the front axle line, plus the packaging advantages of this layout are huge.

Remember that front-engined RWD cars aren't short of front overhanging weight either, usually the engine is centered on or ahead of the front axle line with the transmission behind, if you work out the engine + transmission's center of gravity it would also land near the front axle line, plus the front of the engine hanging further ahead of the front axle line could easily make up the difference in polar moment of inertia. If the engine is centered behind the front axle line or it's a front-mid engined car then there's a much bigger advantage in weight distribution.

And many FWD cars do torque the engine forward under acceleration, like most Toyotas for example.

Okay, to hit the biggest issues I see with the arguments:

Moving the axles forward 8" probably gets them to about the engine centerline. Moving them enough to actually fit the engine behind the axles is at least double that, probably more. So now for a given wheelbase you've lost almost 2' of cabin length and have a huge empty area in front of the front axle that's wasted. Wildly inefficient in a world where manufacturers are doing everything in their power to maximize interior volume.

Yes, mazda strives for the best possible weight distribution...on their sports car whose primary selling point is its well balanced chassis and handling. On their passenger cars they're striving for the best possible passenger car they can make...with a little bit of attention given to making them drive half decently. That means things like maximizing passenger space then making some minor suspension tweaks so they're nice to drive, not cutting cabin space by 20% to change the weight distribution by a few percent.

I have to wonder about crash tests, including pedestrian impacts.

Seems like having the shorter trans in front of the taller engine would basically make a wedge that could either force the nose of the car to submarine under the object that it hits, or it could drive whatever was impacted up towards the windshield. neither of those sound optimal for protecting the driver. And they'd probably take a pedestrian out @ the knees.