Journal: The Porsche 911 Was Not Designed Around Its Rear Engine

The Porsche 911 Was Not Designed Around Its Rear Engine

By Sam Livingstone
June 16, 2015

It’s an icon of a design if ever there was one.

I thought everything about the Porsche 911— the original air-cooled ‘proper’ one—must have been written and said before…until I had one for a few days. Sure, being with the car is a bit like living inside a film you’ve seen many times: the first hand experience speaks much of what I’d read and heard of the design. But there were other things too, including a perspective on the Porsche 911’s design that may not have been said before…

Walking around the car reminds of how the appearance of the 911 is ingrained in our mind unlike any other car design, because it is so distinct and we have known it for so long: there are no close references points (possibly the Alpine A110 was, once), and we can’t see the 911 with fresh eyes.

Sure, we know it has an echo of the Beetle, and the 356 that connects them. Yet we tend to forget that, fundamentally, this is a properly unusual-looking car; its core proportions and volumes are utterly unique, and always have been.

It seems very few people recognise that its unique proportions are because the 911 was designed to deliver on prosaic, even familial, function more so than any other sports-car ever: to carry two small people in the back.

No-one ever called it a GT (until the later, larger, water-cooled ones), yet the Porsche 911 is a two-plus-two—a notably unique position for a true sports-car. Because someone at the top of Porsche, presumably, dictated that the 911 would be for more than two people, the engine needed to be mounted behind the rear axle: in order to make space for the rear seats.

But this is not consciously accepted as the unequivocal truth it must be: the idea that the brand was wedded to an engine-in-the-rear philosophy is surely a product of the intervening decades of 911-centric Porsche myopia for which there’s no real evidence; the 911 was preceded by the mid-engine 550, and then followed by the mid-engine 914, the front engined 924, and the front engine 928. The period 904 race car was mid-engined, as were subsequent competition models. The 911 is essentially the second and the last rear-engine Porsche design, reinvented a few times since. Even the first Porsche—what would evolve into the 356—began life as a mid-engined car.

Anyway, this rear seat thing is also why the driver sits higher than other contemporary sports car designs: to allow a driver’s legs to be slightly more bent, which helps to gain some car length for the rear seats. In-turn, this makes the roof as tall as it is and the windshield as far forward as it is, afforded, also, by there being no engine in the front.

As its flat-6 engine is only three-cylinders long, the rear overhang is no more than most front engine sports-cars—but is significantly lower. The back of the flat six is shallower than a luggage-swallowing trunk for a front engined sports car, too.

Whilst people bang on about the car’s rear engine location defining its proportions, it’s more to do with the tall and far-forward windscreen, and the single sweep backwards from that point to the exceedingly low rear-most point, clearing the heads of two tiny rear occupants along the way.

All of this was built within a length 15.7 (40 cm) less than a 2+2 Series 3 Jaguar E-Type, the 911’s closest contemporary competitor in cabin package and performance.

In short, the 911’s proportions are more to do with it being designed to carry children than having its engine in the tail.

This, then, is the 911 design story headline: it is utterly unique and all the more compelling for being a product of clever, rational packaging that places function over form. It’s not a styled car design, it is a designed car design. Taking this to its natural conclusion, lightweight RS versions with no rear seats are arguably less purist designs than the first 2+2 Carrera!

This context to the Porsche design seems like it has been lost forever. But when you first walk up to an early air-cooled 911 with the keys in your pocket, it is likely that the first thing that grabs you is not the context of its distinct proportions but that it is an unusually tiny car.

There is something impressive about the compactness of the early 911 that pictures of it fail to tell: here is a fast car, one that seats the family and some luggage, and yet it’s as narrow as today’s Volkswagen Up! city car and only as long as a modern Golf (but looks and feels even shorter). Memory and reports of it in its contemporary years do not so much speak of the car’s petiteness—all cars were smaller then. 

Things click when you realise that the original 911 is more than a foot shorter, 9 inches (23 cm) narrower, and 661 lbs (300 kg) lighter than today’s 991 C4—a car that, incidentally, is now longer, wider, taller, and heavier than the original front-engined 928 grand tourer.

An early 911 is a car far, far smaller than anything fast today. A Toyota / Subaru GT-86 / BRZ is about 4 in (10 cm) wider, taller and longer. It’s also heavier and, depending on the 911 you’re comparing it to, less powerful.

Inside, the Porsche feels even shorter and narrower than it is. Your feet are closer to the front number plate than anything modern, other than perhaps a Lotus Elise. The lumpen fenders taper forwards, giving the give the impression that the up-right round lamps are almost as close to each other as those of a Mk1 Land Rover, and its hood falls fast just ahead of its low cowl to bring the road right up to you. Glance over your shoulder, and the body appears to end at the base of the nearby rear screen. Driving a 911 is like piloting something someone designed to park in Tokyo—not monster the mountain passes and autobahns of Europe.

Yet, despite all that smallness on the outside, climb in and it’s got lots of cat-swinging space inside: the lack of massive centre tunnel and clear front floor space is enough to play footsy in; the low shoulder and deep, up-right glazing all-round; the compact but useful rear seats that flip to extend the rear parcel shelf into an anything-will-fit-in-if-you-push-hard-enough second boot. It’s a bloody small car, but it’s the opposite of cramped.

Considering just the aesthetic design of the 911, the headline is that most people find it attractive but few would call it beautiful. It’s a design most of us have seen all of our lives, looking at it objectively is impossible; the design signifies so much to each of its audience that we can’t see the wood for the trees.

But there is a simplicity and perfect resolution of form and details. There is elegance and sculpture to it—particularly its side-window and the rear haunches. There is a puppy-like keenness to the face, and, somehow, a planted stance, too. Ultimately, its squat shortness and not-quite-a-grown-up semantic mean that it falls just short of a classic, supermodel-like beauty conferred on the E-Type or Ferrari 275 GTB/4. From some angles, it does have a whiff of ugly ducking about it, though its charm and appeal is firmly down to the 911s not-quite-perfectness.

From a designer’s point of view, the Porsche 911 is a very rich thing, a very fine thing, and a design almost impossible to see with fresh, objective eyes. I enjoyed a few days in one, though, and reckon I’ve realized a few things that have, until now, been untold parts of the 911 design story.

Sam Livingstone is the founder of Car Design Research, a design strategy consultancy that works closely with the creative groups of many automotive OEMs and other organisations. For the past ten years he has also been a tutor at London’s Royal College of Art on the Vehicle Design, and sits on the judging panel of several important design awards: ‘World Car of the Year’; ‘Louis Vuitton Concept Classic’, ‘if Design’ and ‘Scuderia Zagreb’.


You can follow both @Samliv and @CDR_Insights on Twitter.

Image sources:

Tags 911/ Porsche
Join the Conversation
0 0 votes
Article Rating
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Meyer
Bill Meyer(@jack-straw)
5 years ago

Y’all sure get worked up over an article.

Christopher Cook
Christopher Cook(@cc8711194)
5 years ago

The trouble with porsche they look the same.

Sailesh Patel
Sailesh Patel(@saileshrp)
5 years ago

There’s nothing new at all to this author’s perspective, regardless that it reflects the limitations of his professional group. Cab forward is incorrect when the A-pillar angle falls well behind the centre of the front wheels. For a contemporary design that makes great use of space and IS cab forward, one need only look at a smart roadster, which can accommodate 6′ 5″ drivers with ease and hold more luggage than a comparable MINI.

Andrew Schaer
Andrew Schaer(@keyleft)
6 years ago

The Porsche family color is the Scotish Brewster green, the family are also great Airedale dog lovers. The back seat area is probably more for dog use than children , as it is , practically speaking , too cramped for child old enough to responsibily take sport- motoring. We’ve recently seen Wolfgang Porsche’s Brewster green 991 in the issue of “PCA”magazine celebrating the club’s sixtieth anniversary to verify his family’s strong Scotish affinities.

David Schultz
David Schultz(@turbodave)
6 years ago

“Whilst people bang on about the car’s rear engine location defining its proportions, it’s more to do with the tall and far-forward windscreen…”

There’s a bizarre and significant flaw to this article, about the far-forward windscreen. The windscreen is not far forward, in fact the original car’s A pillar is located almost as rearward as a contemporary Mustang. It’s the new 911 that has the forward windscreen, as can be easily seen in the pictures above. The early 911 windscreen is massively rearward compared to the position of the driver, like it is in an old Beetle (where it seems the glass is almost in your face when driving). The early 911 has a classic long-nose proportion almost like front engine cars of the era. The new car has more of a mid-engine type proportion, cab forward and sleek, and in that way actually looks quite different than the old car.

For future reference: articles written about an in-depth analysis of car design maybe shouldn’t be written by someone who doesn’t really understand car design, and is just getting to know the car.

David Schultz
David Schultz(@turbodave)
6 years ago
Reply to  David Schultz

I take it back, the author really should know about car design, as he works for a car design firm and lectures on car design at the Royal College of Art, which is one of the best car design schools in the world. All of which makes this article even more strange…

Patrick Andrews
Patrick Andrews(@patrickandrews911)
5 years ago
Reply to  David Schultz

I don’t think you should take anything back. Remember the author does not work as a car designer.
“It’s the new 911 that has the forward windscreen” Couldn’t agree more. That is what makes it look mis-proportioned.

John Emrich
John Emrich(@jaemrich)
6 years ago

things I put in the back seat of my 84 targa: mother in law and a mountain bike. But not at the same time.

John Emrich
John Emrich(@jaemrich)
6 years ago


Dennis Drenthe
Dennis Drenthe(@denniscavallino)
6 years ago

Yes, you don’t have to dictate us if your knowledge is less. These kind of articles are good for forums and places where you can actually discuss things (classrooms, bars, paddocks), but it’s not the truth. It sounds like it, but it isn’t. It’s a long read, but not worth the time. That’s my complain to Petrolicious too when I did answer the survey. Car journalism needs a lot more then just googling around for your “desk research”. It’s good to have a different view or approach now and then. But then you’ll have to get more answers to sort things out. And after that, you can dictate us, with nice quotes from the people who are more knowledgeable than us readers / fans / petrolisti.

Itza Ckret
Itza Ckret(@75neun11)
6 years ago

I have to agree that lately some of the articles seem to be rather “try-hard” car journalism. As for the 911,well, it’s a 911 for heavens sake. Writing about your personal experience is fair enough. Trying to point out some deep design understanding about the how’s and why’s of the 911 appears to be a pointless exercise.
As mentioned before, there is books upon books about the 911. Don’t need to be a “professional” car designer to read right? 😉

Paul Thompson
Paul Thompson(@valvebounce)
6 years ago

The design process that the 911 went through has been documented in minute detail. There’s no need to theorise why something happened just get the quotes from the people that designed it.

My understanding is that Butzi said he had two requirements from Ferry; he wanted four seats and a fastback. But Butzi thought the two requirements were incompatible ‘my father always wanted a fastback to emphasise the relationship with the 356’. He thought a more elegant shape four seater could be achieved with a stepped rear end. But Ferry insisted on the fastback so what you end up with is a 2 + 2 with practically useless rear seats just like the 356. The result of compromises between the old guard and the new designers.

Niklaus Gingro
Niklaus Gingro(@kingcrowing)
6 years ago

Ok, this article was totally pointless and that headline was totally BS. The 911 is based off the Beetle >> 356 which both had back seats, the original 911 had a much smaller engine therefore giving it way more room for a back seat (even more so for the 4cyl VW Type I and 356). I’m going to stop reading Petrolicious pretty soon if it’s just articles like this.

Michael Banovsky
Michael Banovsky(@banovsky)
6 years ago
Reply to  Niklaus Gingro

As Sam says, “It’s a design most of us have seen all of our lives, looking at it objectively is impossible; the design signifies so much to each of its audience that we can’t see the wood for the trees.”

The headline is accurate, if a bit overreaching. (Porsche considered a number of options before settling on this design.)

From [url=””]Motor Trend[/url]: “Porsche’s engineering department is said to have considered front- and amidships engine placement for its Grand Tourer, but concluded that a proper race car needed rear drive and a rearward weight bias, and that, [b]because mid-engine designs could not accommodate a rear seat[/b] within a package small enough to race, the expedient design for a small company lacking the resources to develop multiple driveline variants was the tried-and-true rear-engine layout.”

As a car design professional, that’s the point Sam was making in the article: the 911 owes as much to its rear seats as it does to its rear engine, and perhaps moreso. M!

Guitar Slinger
Guitar Slinger(@gtrslngr)
6 years ago

Hold yer horses there Mr Banovsky ! Though Mr Gingro’s going a bit [ a whole lot honestly ] over the top in his criticism in essence he is correct , although Mr Livingstone is about half way correct as well . Here’s the 911’s design brief , in brief [ pun intended ]

First the platform was created . Porsche experimented with front and mid engine configurations and then settling for rear engine because [ a moment of baited breath ] They wanted the car to perform 365/24/7 in all conditions as a daily driver not a toy and the rear engine configuration gave the absolute best traction in snow ice and wet .[ still does by the way ] and they wanted a continuous line from the 356 to the 911

Then , and only then after all the mechanical placements were settled was the : in order of design/priority #1 Passenger compartment #2 Luggage etc capacity and then #3 the body designed and finalized

To be honest there are reams of material/documentation/books etc including all the design briefs , sketches etc that spell out the priority and order of the 911’s design to a tee to the point where I was somewhat taken aback by much of Mr Livingstone’s ill informed speculations . Certainly he’s correct that other aspects of the car informed the final design but the fact is , first and foremost , it was the engine placement and the engine placement first , foremost and almost solely that dictated the 911’s final shape

So , had Mr Livingstone written the article from the point of view of here’s the other aspects that were involved in the 911’s final shape he’d of had something here . Unfortunately , from the title right down to all the evidence / justifications he’s given he’s chosen to go straight off the rails and into … [ fill in the blank as you deem fit ]

e.g. Close . Good writing . Bad research . Therefore as we Yanks are prone to say ; No Banana !