NSX-R
(P.S) The guy also said 50:50 weight distribution on a mid-engined car is DIFFERENT from AND INFERIOR to the 50:50 weight distribution on a front-engined car. Go figure.
It depends on a lot of things, but he's both right and wrong. I think he may have been comparing front-engined cars with 50:50 weight distribution to mid-engined cars in general. For example, BMW stands firmly by the front-engined, rear-drive, 50:50 weighted layout. It works great. The Porsche Boxster is mid-engined & rear-drive, but has a ~60:40 weight distribution. It works great, too. Which is better? It depends on what you want from a car, how you drive, and -- mostly -- your ability with each layout.
There are very few mid-engined cars with 50:50 weight distribution. This is because most drive the rear wheels, meaning the entire drivetrain is behind the driver, kind of like a front-wheel drive car turned 180 degrees. This results in a rear-biased weight distribution, usually 40:60, or at least 45:55. This is actually pretty good (NSX, Elise, Boxster), and can result in a predictably handling car.
However, to really acheive 50:50 weight distribution in a mid-engined car, the engine would either have to be right near the center of the wheelbase, or be driving the front wheels (like a conventional rear-drive car turned 180 degrees). That doesn't happen, nor should it. It's silly. The correct wheels are right below the engine -- just drive them!
But as far as the imaginary mid-engined car with 50:50 weight distribution, it should theoretically handle similarly to a front-engined 50:50 car. Assuming the suspension, body, and everything else is the same. What does make a big difference is where the masses lie relative to the center of the car. A car may have 50:50 distribution, but if the primary masses (engine, gearbox, differential) are at or beyond the wheelbase, then the polar moment becomes bigger.
"Polar moment", in simplistic terms, is how resistant an object is to rotation. The bigger the polar moment, the more force it will take to rotate the car, but when it does, it will be harder to control. This why Audi's usually understeer, and old 911's oversteer (a lot). A small polar moment means it is easier to rotate the car, but it's more progressive and easier to control (NSX, Boxster).
http://www.siu.edu/~ritzel/courses/302s/vehicle/vehicledynamics.htm
^ Just in case I can't explain my way out of a paper bag.
This brings us back to the FR/MR discussion. If the FR car has acheived 50:50, it is generally assumed that it will have a high polar moment (engine in front of the dashboard, differential directly on the rear axle) leaving the car handling like a dumbbell (not stupid, it's just got the weights at the outer ends).
The MR 50:50 car, like so many other MR cars, will more than likely have it's engine sitting between the axles, meaning most of it's mass is central (like a spinning top), greatly improving the handling.
In order to make both work identically, both would have to have the wheelbase of an S-class, where both occupants & mechanicals can comfortably sit inside the wheelbase. This, of course, creates many other handling problems (try Jay Leno's Tank Car in GT4 to get an idea).
So, uh, I guess your friend's wrong. 50:50 MR cars don't exist, outside of F1 and LM.
NSX-R
P.S. If what everyone's saying is true, then who can explain why 2005 Toyota Celica base model has better fuel economy than GT-S?
The Celica GT is putting out 140HP, and the GT-S is putting out 180HP. That 40HP difference is not due just to better intake & exhaust systems. There's different camshaft/valve tuning, different ECU's, and a different fuel system. The GT-S engine not only can pull in (and spit out) more air, but has more fuel dumped into the cylinders as well. Not a lot, but enough to show a difference in city driving.
