I follow an account called Engineering Explained, and he covered a slightly-shill-y breakdown of why Porsche 911s have the engine rear-mounted, like in a Rocket, versus front mounted, like an Exocet or just about every other car that wasn't £150K+ new.
Or if you don't have 8mins, skip right to the bit about grip at the end
Rocket build in Dublin using an ST170 donor. Driven by an ME221 ecu, Jenvey 45s on DanST manifold, DanST backplate and 90mm trumpets. Vroom vroom.
There is a difference between rear engine and mid engine, ideally all the weight should be within the wheelbase. Early 911's where evil handling things, one of the things they did to improve handling was move the rear wheels back about 4 ins, effectively moving the engine further into the wheelbase.
Current build - US AZ 'Old' Sonic 7 kit - 2003 Focus SVT donor. Other recent builds - Furore F1, Arizona Replicar, UK Exocet, UK Sonic 7
I can't see how comparing a Porsche to a Rocket makes any sense at all. The Rocket being a tranny but the Porker flat 6 hangs out back in a 911, (ouch, 911 brings back bad memories). Stupid idea unless you ignore weight shift, but hey with wide enough rear tyres, narrower fronts and enough complexity thrown at the multi link rear sus I think Porsche have re written the law of inertia. It was a good idea to save space in a Beetle but they were not designed to go very fast with less than 25 brake! 964? See the link.
May I suggest the maths guy has not done all his home work.
Now compare Exocet, stick 2 peeps on board and you get 50-50 balance, forgiving, predictable, no snap oversteer, a great drive even though I say so myself!
I follow that account too he does some very interesting stuff. The Rocket doesn’t handle as well or have the balance of the Exocet but it does put the power down well with weight over the driving wheels. I guess it all comes down the millions manufacturers spend on development on how they can make an unbalanced car handle.