He didn't say one manufacturer. Effectively (I presume) he's suggesting the formula for the engine be the same across the different series.

It does make sense in today's financial clime. A company like Renault, for instance, wouldn't have to run two different engine design programs to be in both F1 and WRC. Toyota could provide the same engine across series, perhaps making it more equitable to stay in F1.

I would also suggest that, like him or not, Mosely is perhaps privy to information we don't have. This is almost confirmation, IMO, that at least either Toyota or Renault, probably both manufacturers, are indeed considering pulling out of F1. This suggestion in particular seems to favor Renault; being able to run one engine program for both WRC and F1 would no doubt save them a good bit.

You're looking at a "last man standing" game at the moment, one which Ferrari will win. I've said it before - I don't see how *any* manufacturer can justify running a racing program these days, running the losses they're taking. I'd much prefer to have F1 than to NOT have F1 at all, which is what's at stake. You'll never hear that from anyone in F1, because it devalues F1's advertising revenue - but *that's reality*.

Indeed Renault could eventually move GP2 and the 2 Formula Renault series to the same engine with figures somewhere around
F1 = 2.0L Turbo @ 750hp
GP2 = 2.0L @ 500hp
FR3.5 = 1.6L Turbo @ 400hp
FR2.0/F3 = 1.6L @ 200hp

Even if an event like LeMans kept their current regs allowing the world engine with an equivilant turbo boost would surely make it cheaper for privateers to secure a good engine and more attractive for manufacturers.

Having a common engine for those two reduces the overall price, but I don't think it's that simple to turn a S2000 touring car into a S2000-derived WRCar. The rally car is 4WD and has to meet totally different requirements on fast gravel roads compared to a touring car.

Well...not as much as you might think. They have actually come a long way to standardize many of the parts now and effectively, you could simply bolt on the 4WD system (pretty much off the shelf item now) then change your diffs and suspension suitable to rallying and your pretty much there with a rally car! Obviously a tarmac spec car could be even closer.

From what I am reading, the principle seems to be, to create a standard blueprint for the engine in varying Turbo and non-turbo formats which is accessable by all manufacturers. They then build their own version to that set specification.

The key issue is going to be enforcement and I guess that each engine will be inspected by an FIA official on the line then an FIA seal will be added s that no one can start getting very tricky with the internals. As Toyota did back in 94/95 with their "trick" turbos.

I dont doubt the long term logic of all this, but it should be just that....LONGTERM and gradually introduced over time, not Knee-jerk inforcement now, to simply keep a few manfacturers happy today.

The IRC is doing perfectly well with S2000, the WRC coul do the same until 2013 and THEN some new engine rules could be in place having been well tested, thought out and developed. Rather than this 2011 BS being put forward by the Idiot Chandler.....

They can't justify their budgets because there is no link to their production cars. There's no more racing improves the breed, there's no more relevancy.
Car companies don't sell drivers.

I'd rather have no F1 at all than the piece of crap we have today.

No more spec crap. cost cutting measure, or racertainment measure, I say free up the rules and let them get creative.

So I gather you might be interested in F1 implementing something like Group C did in the 1980s? Until a certain someone spoiled that?

Well go and fund them then

Now there's an idea.
Multiple engines-engine specs/chassis/tire manuf. and freedom of electronics but with a restricted amount of fuel (and refueling allowed).

Maybe not for F1; we know that F1 cars can be designed to run on a single tank for the whole race. Best engine regulation would be to give the teams a maximum allowed quantity of fuel, keep refuelling out and then watch them come up with varied solutions.

Freedom of electronics? No thanks. I'd rather see the drivers do the driving.

I don't believe it's possible to bolt-on a 4WD system, even spec one. All S2000 cars are based on FWD production models (only old Toyota Corolla had 4WD production version) and need extensive rebuild to accomodate additional RWD. You may not notice it form outside because IIRC they need to keep luggage compartment floor on the same level as on production car.
If you look at S2000 rally and WTCC touring cars you notice they have very different shapes. S2000 cars are generally smaller and with hatchback bodies while touring cars are usually much larger 4-door sedans (yes, there are exceptions). Rally cars are smaller to have better maneuverability, longer bodies of racing cars give them better aero for higher speeds. So I can't see how a manufacturer will build both rally and racing car based on the same body. Yes, Honda Civic is used in both disciplines but only in FWD guise and it is not very successful either. It is a good base for a competion car but seems to be too long for rallies and too short for racing.

These are American ideas. Throwing out Max alone is not enough. Some idiots from MIT ruining the sport just as well, and they should go too.