In general, where its decided to stick an engine in a car is a pretty huge part of its design and development, and, generally, that means you can’t change it once you start building cars. But the World of Cars is vast and baffling and beautiful, to the point where I suspect it had to have happened at some point, right? I’ve been doing some digging and thinking, and I think it has happened, at least sort of. And, interestingly, there’s one company that seems to have done engine location swaps for the same model – or at least pretty close – more than any other. So let’s dig in.
When I talk about the same model of car that swapped its engine location, I mean cars that are on the same basic platform, not just have the same name, so things like the VW Golf-based Volkswagen New Beetle or the 2011 version of the Beetle do not count, even though they share a name and general look as the original rear-engined Type 1 VW Beetle. Same goes for the modern, front-engined Fiat 500s; like the modern Beetles, they’re an entirely different platform and everything. So those types of cars don’t count.
So what does count? What I’m hoping to find are cars that were designed with, say, a rear engine and then later in production converted to front, or vice-versa. Or went from front to mid-engined. I’m going to exclude cars that went from front- to front-mid, like the Ford Mustang, in some configurations, or subtle shiftings that may take a car from rear- to barely rear-mid, like you could argue the Porsche 911 has. I’m looking for more dramatic location swaps.
Also, it needs to be a production car, even if that production is limited. And the platforms, even if they’re extensively modified, need to at least have started out the same. All that make sense? With that in mind, let’s see what we can come up with.
The Kohlruss Steyr-VWs: So Close
In a lot of ways, these cars are perfect examples of what I’m talking about: a car that started life as a front-engined car, but ended up rear-engined. The problem is that often these were literally the same cars, because the Kohlruss Steyr-VWs were non-running Steyr 50 or 55 (nicknamed the Steyr Baby) models that, after WWII, were combined with leftover wartime VW Kübelwagens to become rear-engined.
I wrote about these years ago, and while there were a number of different variations of this same idea made by various small coachbuilders, the most common seem to have come from Austrian coachbuilder Kohlruss, who took the Baby Steyrs that suffered from engine or gearbox failures – which was many, many of them – and stuck in whole drivetrains from Kubels, effectively transforming a front-engined car into a rear-engined one.
But, while multiple ones were made, this was an aftermarket, desperation change, not real production. It’s conceptually what I’m thinking of, but unless it’s production, I can’t count it.
Do Dual Engines Count? The Citroën 2CV Sahara
This one is a little tricky, because while it definitely is a production (low volume, but whatever) car, and definitely was a front-engined car that was adapted to have a rear engine, the only time that rear engine layout was used was in the same car as the front engine. Yes, the 2CV Sahara is one of the only production twin-engined cars ever, so I’m not sure if this counts.
I mean, maybe it does? Citroën absolutely did the engineering to install their air-cooled flat twin into the rear of the 2CV, and, hypothetically, they could have built a rear-engine/rear drive 2CV with a front trunk if they felt like it, but there wouldn’t have been much point to that. Getting four-wheel drive without having to engineer driveshafts or new gearboxes, though, that was what they were after, and the twin-engine solution did that.
Still, I’m not sure if this counts, because the engine wasn’t moved, it got another instance in the same car, which feels different.
The One Who Did It: Renault
I think the only actual, people-could-have-bought-one examples of a model of car available with the engine in two different locations has to be Renault, with their Renault 5 and the Renault 5 Turbo versions starting from 1980 (one front-FWD economy car, the other a mid-RWD sports car) and then later they did the same basic idea with the two generations of Clio and Clio V6.
For both of these cars, even though the much more powerful mid-engine versions were heavily modified from their origins as a little FWD econobox, they crucially did at least start with the same platform and modify it to work with the mid-mounted engine location. Other similar rallycross-focused cars like the MG Metro 6R4 may look like the little shitboxes they derived from, but, in the case of the MG Metro 6R4, the whole car was built on a was a very racing-focused tube chassis that had nothing to do with the original car.
How did it end up that Renault managed to pull this strange feat off when no other automakers had ever succeeded? Or, maybe more accurately, bothered? I think there’s two reasons Renault felt comfortable trying this.
First, they had a bit of history with drivetrain flipping, as the same drivetrain that powered the old 1947-1961 Renault 4CV went on to power the later Renault 4 from 1961 to 1994, just driving the opposite wheels at the opposite end of the car.
I should mention that Volkswagen did something similar when they flipped their air-cooled flat four around 180° and put it in the front of the Brazilian VW Gol, so this kind of thing wasn’t unheard of, just not terribly common. And, Toyota stuck transverse fours from FWD hatchbacks into the middle of an MR2, GM did something similar with the Fiero, and so on. Still, Renault did it for their high-volume cars, so I think they had some comfort there.
Next is the Renault 21, which came out in 1986, after the R5, but it’s another example of Renault’s unusual comfort with weird drivetrain variants in the same car, because this is one of the incredibly rare cars I can think of that came in a both transverse and longitudinal engine configuration at the same time. It was the Renault 18, which we got in the US as the Eagle Medallion.
The smaller 1.7-liter engine was installed transverse, and the larger 2-liter engine was installed longitudinally, both driving the front wheels. This isn’t the same as a whole location swap, but it’s weird, and I take it as proof that for whatever crazy Gallic reasons, Renault has been uniquely willing to make cars in engine layout variations that seem to make no sense to anyone else.
I feel like I may be missing some other examples of the same models with completely different engine locations, so if you can think of any, let’s put them in the comments, so this page can become a bold and welcome resource for all weary wonderers thinking about this same, vitally important question.
The 2CV Sahara absolutely counts IMO.
It’s possibly a myth, but there’s a story that the Skoda 120 was originally designed to be front engined, but during development Skoda were told to continue using a rear engine layout.
Looking at the design compared to the earlier Skodas it’s certainly plausible
The various pre-RX-7 Mazda rotaries and their piston counterparts might qualify. The early rotary cars were all based on longitudinal front engined cars, and the rotaries are small enough that they might end up front-mid like the RX-7s. It’s not a complete location swap, but it is a change in the location classification.
Where does the Jinker Flapping Wing fit into this? Technically speaking your legs are the engine (a machine with moving parts that converts power into motion). You take off by running from behind it like a glider. You fly it by jumping up and down close to the nose of the aircraft. Same engine rear to front in seconds. Only one model as far as I know.
I know it doesn’t fit the car parameters but why limit yourself to ground travel.
Mercedes, back me up please.
Are you out of your ever joining flapping wing mind?
I don’t disagree I just has to post that. Lol
Can I argue that the early 60s GM Y-bodies were the same *chassis* sold *simultaneously* with the engines in 2 different places??
if you’re referring to the corvair, that was the Z-body, and it unfortunately only shared the roof.
if a metro 6r4/delta S4/205 T16 doesn’t count by reusing the roof, then this can’t.
The 2000-2013 or so Ford Transit (that the US did not get) was available in both front wheel drive and rear wheel drive configurations of the same model. I don’t know if the engine switched orientations tho.
looking at the gearboxes of the V185 (FWD Mk6/7) it appears to still be longitudinally mounted.
still an interesting variance though, similar to the RWD Riviera and FWD Toronado E-body twins.
Ford’s engineers used to brag that they could convert one from FWD to RWD (or vise-versa) in 30 minutes.
I know the FIAT 126p was rear-engined and air-cooled as it was built on the classic FIAT 500 platform, but there was one FSM prototype that had the same drivetrain mounted in the front – the 126NP in 1978 – this article by the Rezerwa Polish 126p club has a good description of it:
https://rezerwa126p-pl.translate.goog/?page_id=22800&_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
It was literally the same drivetrain, just moved to the front, so the car still kindof has the usual 126 vibe, but with a slightly odd face and lengthened front end! They built around 12 prototypes but never produced it as they started working on the Beskid instead (which also never went into production, but check out the FSM Beskid if you’ve never heard of it, it’s a very cool little car!) 🙂
Thanks for sharing this, both prototypes are pretty cool. The original Beskid with the asymmetrical grille is just amazing. And it feels like Renault designers may have glanced at it when developing the Twingo; the W60 prototype, created in 86 by Marcello Gandini, definitely has some striking similarities, despite the futuristic fascia. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he was inspired by the Beskid (espcially considering they were still making prototypes around the time Gandini designed the W60).
The Solo Shuttle Trailer kind of meets the parameters except it’s not a car.
It’s a trailer. Nevermind I guess the “engine” is always in the front, it’s everything else that gets switched around. But the power from the “engine” changes from bottom to top so maybe…. straws, straws, handfuls of straws!
Nevermind.
So this is related, because this is so much about Renault.
Colin Chapman used the drivetrain out of the longitudinal FWD 16 in the back of a Lotus Europa for series 1 and 2 to be a MR car.
Here’s something that might count too: The mid engine Europa chassis is a front engine, RWD Elan spun 180 degrees.
I’m not sure I can think of another EV example (although thr F-150 Lightning makes a decent argument for itself), but the Ford Transit ditches the front engine if you go electric.
You can’t talk about the R5 Turbo without bringing up the Peugeot 205 T16, which brought the same crazy formula to the group B and Paris-Dakar stages.
The spanish built Seat 1200 Sport started as a concept for a NSU sports car designed by Aldo Sessano and based on the rear-engined NSU Prinz platform. NSU abandoned the project and Seat purschased it, then converted it to Front Wheel Drive but let the rear air vents from the original design in the production model. Also there’s no equivalent in Fiat’s lineup
Very good one!
Yes! This was actually the one that started me thinking about this, and I forgot it. I wrote about that car when I visited SEAT’s museum a few years back: https://jalopnik.com/i-was-the-first-american-journalist-to-visit-this-unrea-1796343211
W-why is every image that is supposed to be in that article instead replaced by an advertisement. Every. One. That page is literally just ads with some small amounts of text squeezed around it. Who does that?! I didn’t get to see a single SEAT!
I recall Volkswagen doing a Golf with a huge engine in the rear, Renault R5 style, but I can’t find it now. It was shown as a one-off “concept car”, but was really more just an engineering project.
I do seem to recall them letting at least a few journalists have a look at it, and maybe even drive it.
You’re thinking of the Golf W12! Top Gear drove it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9TjPGY-38M
I assume you’re thinking of the GTI W12? Top Gear tested it (they still have the clip on YouTube), and from what I remember, it was terrible, but in a wonderful way (basically, a Ferdinand Piech Clio V6).
https://www.thedrive.com/news/43303/did-you-know-vw-made-a-gti-with-a-w12-engine
It was called the Golf GTI W12. If you google for that, you’ll find lots of material about it.
That would be a 2007 Volkswagen Golf GTi W12-650, an one-off concept car.
It had the Bentley W12 if I recall – search for Golf W12, its the white 3dr Mk6 car
There has to be a way for the Citroën BX 4TC to be included here.
Never turning an engine from transversal to longitudinal has looked so badass.
I hold that the BX 4TC is the TMNT Shredder of cars: Looks insane, has the goods to be badass, comically bad at its intended purpose…
Don’t know any engine location switches off the top of my head, but I do know of a body swap: The Peugeot 405 ROA is a Peugeot 405 body swapped onto an ancient Iranian-made Hillman Hunter-variant shell (Paykan), longitudinal engine and rear solid axle with leaf springs and all.
It’s one of the most bizarre contraptions I’ve ever come across and it was made all the way up to 2016.
But wait, there’s more! The Renault Sepand K is a Renault 5 body on streched a Mazda 121 shell, where the original R5 engine was switched to a horizontal one from the Mazda 121 donor. This weird chimera of a car was made until 2008 or so.
Isn’t the renault sepand on a Kia Pride chassis?
Yes, it’s on a locally assembled Kia Pride chassis but the Kia Pride itself is also a rebadge of the Mazda 121 / Ford Festiva.
The Ferrari Mondial comes to mind…it originally had a transverse V8 mounted rear mid-engined, but the Mondial T version had the V8 mounted longitudinally rear mid-engined.
As a Mondial owner, can confirm. The T is basically the 348 powertrain, whereas the earlier 8 & QV are the 308/328 power train (they’re essentially the same car underneath).
I don’t think you could technically count it, but I want to remind everyone that the Ford Festiva Shogun exists.
Essentially the same formula as the Renaults. 3.0 V6 SHO engine mid mounted in a FF designed hatch. It was designed by Ford Engineers, seven were built, but I don’t think it was *technically* a Ford product.
It was not, in fact it was so not-blessed by Dearborn that the shop that did build it had to buy a complete Festiva and a a complete Taurus SHO to use as raw material. No crate motors, no bodies-in-white.
Those were built by Chuck Beck that builds the Beck 550 Spyders, to hear Chuck tell it he had a connection at Ford but I haven’t heard him go into more detail than that. He used to bring the original prototype to Caffeine & Octane occasionally, along with his 550, Lister replica and sometimes a motorcycle he built with an Espada V12 in it. Great guy, always willing to talk cars.
+1 came here for the shogun
This has got me thinking – for each major maker, how much time elapsed before they had a production vehicle with each major engine position? E.g. Chevrolet front engine the first ~50 years until the Corvair (rear) and then another ~50 years until the C8 (mid).
Well, the Fiero would probably be the first mid engine GM, so about 25 years to mid engine from rear engine.
I thought of the Fiero, but it’s not a Chevy. I guess different answers whether doing this at the brand-level or the corporate level.
Having a friend who had a Renault Car (translating here for the ‘murcans), I’d say the 5 Turbo wasn’t so much a change of engine location as the addition of an engine. We could never figure out what the hell that thing in the front was supposed to do. Ballast? Still, it was kind of fun downhill. Not so much up.
Can we count classic SAAB 900s versus the SAAB 9-3? Sure, they’re not technically the same model by name or platform, but hey, the engine flipped from backward to forward facing.
The 9-3 was transverse, so it was a 90 degree flip, not 180.
Ah, crap, that’s right.
The Triumph 1500 of 1972 became the Triumph 1500 TC in 1973, TC because, or course, twin SU carburetors. Very little mention, if any, was made of the slightly more radical change. The TC was rwd, the 1500 was fwd. Not a change of engine but fun stuff anyway.
I also nominate the Triumph 1300/Toledo which changed from front engine FWD to front engine RWD over a single model year. Yes only Triumph would dredge up an old RWD setup instead of figuring out how to make their FWD design more cost-effective. On the other hand, the Toledo RWD is a really nice little sedan.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbsid-classic-1974-triumph-toledo-they-did-what-to-the-1300/
And thankfully, they kept the RWD layout for the even more sporting 16-valve Dolomite Sprint.
The vehicle known variously as the Smith Flyer, Briggs & Stratton Flyer, and Auto Red Bug went from having a gasoline engine located as part of a fifth “motor wheel” to having an electric motor mounted at the rear of its main platform. It was street-legal in some jurisdictions at the time of its manufacture, so I’m calling it a car.
“…the MG Metro 6R4 may look like the little shitboxes they derived from…”
Hey! As the former owner of an MG Metro 1300 I… have to admit that my status as “former owner” rather undercuts any objection I might otherwise raise.
Chevrolet Corvette, finally.
Yeah, the C8 might be a wholly different platform than the C7, but I gotta think it counts.
“And the platforms, even if they’re extensively modified, need to at least have started out the same.”
You’re right, was reading among other chores… lost some parts
Yeah, if we want to just talk nameplates, not actual platforms, the Fiat 500 started out front engine/RWD in the 1930s, went to rear engine/RWD in the ’50s, then front engine/FWD in the ’90s, then went electric in the 2020s (still front motor/FWD)
Ford Explorer went from RWD to FWD. Not exactly an engine swap, but do I get partial credit?
And back to RWD.
Rover 75 went from FWD I4 to RWD V8…
I mean if you’re just talking nameplate with no carry over of actual platform, there are a million choices.
Corolla, Pathfinder, Deville, Charger, Maverick, etc.
Yes, exactly, the Explorer didn’t keep the BOF platform when going FWD, that’s for sure.