Why a rear engine buggy

[vanguard]

I've been lusting over a rear engine buggy for months now. I have a few reasons.

1) They seem to perform well in both racing and rock crawling applications.
2) If I were to go through the effort of building a rig it would have to be sufficiently different from what I have and 95% of two seaters are about the same to me.
3) There is something "no compromise" about a rear engine moon buggy. Nobody thinks it's just another jeep.

Having said all that I can't figure out why they perform so well. Typically their motor is way in the back. Doesn't that make it less capable of climbing? Wouldn't you rather have the motor weight over the front wheels so that they have some traction as they hit the level section after a ledge?

What do you guys think about rear engine rigs?

 

[Welderd]

here's my version of "different"

hopefully that engine weight is lower than most front engine buggies?? Don't know you tell me

My thoughts - no experience yet

the weight is further back yes - but typically they are lighter and lower than a front engine buggy. you don't have to deal with the tires steering in the rear for motor placement. then the lighter weight allows water to be added to front tires to equal it out and get it even lower cg than front engine and possibly climb better with less stress on front end (where the $$ is)

they perform better in my opinion for one fact - VISIBILITY. good spotters make good drivers and good spotters are few and far between and you have to trust them. With a rear engine you KNOW you see what you see

 

[6uldv8]

Motor and diff rotations mess with my mind in rear engine rigs.....but I lovem'!

 

[Welderd]

god I hope I got it right!!!

We're gonna fire it up next week just to check before disassembly

 

[EOR MFG]

This is a hard question but it is one I have asked myself several times.

I think the moonbuggy sized rigs work so well because they are able to keep everything so low and light. These machines simply drag there skids over whatever is in front of them. In order for them to be that low and still see the it just makes sense to put the motor in the back.
Water in the tires makes them climb.

But on a different note when I was planning my personal buggy with a big block in the rear I was able to move enough components to the front to offset the transfer of the powerplant to the rear or in my case more midship. So what I am trying to say is weight is weight whether it be fuel coolant batteries exc. But weight that is the summation of several smaller components is easier to package and thus makes desired visibility, ride height and style easier to obtain.

 

[Travis]

I personally do not like moonbuggies, at all. I know they have there place in competition, but I would much rather see a rig that lloks like something. There is no denying that they perform.

My favorite rig ever is probably the S-10 that Skinny built. I would make a few changes, but don't be surprised if my next rig closely resembles that one. Or the new Lovell Ranger.

 

[InDaShop]

No doubt they perform, I just dont like riding with my legs straight out.

 

[vanguard]

Water in the tires makes them climb.

I always forget about this. I wonder if an FJ80 front with longs would hold up to water in the tires?

 

[Jeep Family]

Not just water the trick and mix I have heard but not used is 200# of shot and 5 gallons of water per tire. We aren't talkiing about just a little water here. You have to load those babies up to really make a difference. That mix is for 39 Krawlers. I don't know if it changes for tire size.

 

[Cole]

I think it would be fun to have a Rear engine buggy as long as it was 2 Seater and had a V8.
There was a pretty sick 2 seater in 1 of the first Crawl issues I believe.

 

[wngrog]

There is enough info in this 20 second search to make your head explode on rear/mid engine buggys.

As said above the #1 advantage is visibility. Use of a light motor with a transaxle like the one pictured here is another great way to go.

 

[wngrog]

I always forget about this. I wonder if an FJ80 front with longs would hold up to water in the tires?

Water works. It is awesome. I cannot tell you how increadible the bash buggy was with water. I filled my Krawlers 80-90% full. They had about 225# of water in each tire. That made for right at 350# per corner.

That is not only Birf snapping weight, it is murder on knuckles. When my tires were full of water, I could drive as fast as I wanted. It made stopping harder, but there was not wobble and the power came on just as fast with the water in the tires as without.

When I went to drain them, I could not get the last few gallons out and I could not go over 20 mph without major vibrations. MAJOR, vibrations.

Overall, it is really cool and worth it, but the problem I saw was when JackA broke his front axle on Asylum waterfall (BTG 3.5) and we had to do maintenance and remove that tire. At #350 of dead weight, that is a MAJOR PITA.

Lots of wear and tear. If you are already spanking the local stuff....don't bother.

 

[vanguard]

Great info on the water but that, and the transaxle based buggies aren't really for me. More and more some of the best times I've been having on my trail rides has been going fast. I just redid my suspension for more uptravel (still needs more in front) so I could go faster. If I do build a rig next winter it's going to be something that's comfortable going over 40 mph.

 

[wngrog]

I drove Dustin's rear engine rig that Bender built for him one time out at the Hammers. That rig had excellent visibility out of the front but total dog **** visibility out of the rear. He had mirrors all over it just so he could see what the rear steer was doing.

For a rock racer, I can see the rear engine rig working well.....great visibilty for fast decisions, but I have never seen one that climbs as good as a front engine car. Paule's rig has been known as that best vertical climber in WE-Rock for years. Semi-heavy front engine.

Most of the moon buggy guys buy them, wheel them and then move back to front engine cars. Cambell is the only guy that keeps with the rear engine theme over and over that I can tell.

 

[Cole]

Maybe I should have ran Water in my 47's, might of kept me on all 4!!

 

[wngrog]

Maybe I should have ran Water in my 47's, might of kept me on all 4!!

Nah, that is just bringing my Krawlers and AL rims up to the weight of your combo

 

[P]

I love that rig you posted Nolen... Id love to have something like that .

I really wish I woulda put / designed mine for the rad in the rear but every little thing like that takes more time and more money and Im just plain outta both. I am very happy with how my buggy is turning out and cant wait to drive it. But hell all of us would change something regardless of what rig we bought or built... its just in our nature. laughing1

 

[BamaTJ]

I think rear engine is not practical for lots of trail use because of the motor being right at your ears. I would think buggies are hot in the summer regardless, but I think the rear engine might really cook you. Don't know for sure though, just my thoughts.

 

[vanguard]

Does the reverse cut Atlas solve the problem with flipping the diffs that you get when you run an engine in the rear?

 

[wngrog]

Does the reverse cut Atlas solve the problem with flipping the diffs that you get when you run an engine in the rear?

I have never heard of a reverse cut Altas. Engine....tranny....Tcase all go forward and you reverse it by flipping the diffs....9"'s mostly for ease. Walker E did a 60 one time, but the 9's are the way to go.

Still would not do one. I have never seen one that climbed as good as a front engine. That said, the rear engine Karnivore won the Rock Cross last year and Campbell dominates in his.