WC>> Now the rear axle on the Corvair is well in front of the engine
 WC>> is it not?

 RW>> No. Both are 6 cylinder engines, both have a transaxle, both have
 RW>> the engine behind the transaxle.

 ml> isn't that saying what wayne is saying? the engine is further from
 ml> the front of the vehicle than the rear tires??

 RW> Wayne didn't know that the Porsche was built similar to the
 RW> Corvair. Or at least that's what I got out of his message. 

i just went and reread it... the only thing i saw in his message was that
he is/was thinking that the engine in the porsche was more on top of the
rear axel or at least closer to it than in the corvair...

 RW> In fact,
 RW> the Corvair could compete with the 912, as it has a 4 cylinder
 RW> engine with similar HP to the Corvair's six. The 911 has a lot more
 RW> HP to work with.

 ml> "behind" indicating away from the front...

 RW> I didn't read it like that...all of us knows that the engine is
 RW> behind the front in a Corvair and a Porsche. Way behind.

i was speaking of behind the axel... trying to make sure that everyone was
using the same reference for "behind"... that reference being the
front of the vehicle and not the "front" of the engine... i've
had too many discussions be crosswise finally whittle down to this exact
thing and it all stemmed from one's reference point... some were using the
engine as the reference point and in the cases we were discussing, the
engine was turned around backwards from how it would have been if it were
mounted in the front of the vehicle thus they were going by the engine's
"front"...

whatever... i don't guess it really matters all that much... does it?

)\/(ark