Why wasn't there more engine competition in the 1970s?

Ford and Ferrari pretty much cleaned up the decade, with the occasional oddity such as a Matra win in the Ligier, or a flat 12 Alfa in the Brabham. BRM of course were strong at the start of the decade but fell by the wayside and of course Renault came on at the end but really...there wasn't much competition.

Virtually every team had a trusty DFV in the back aside from the flat 12 Ferraris. Did Formula One hold little appeal to car makers at the time, or was there some other reason?

Originally posted by Megatron
Ford and Ferrari pretty much cleaned up the decade, with the occasional oddity such as a Matra win in the Ligier, or a flat 12 Alfa in the Brabham. BRM of course were strong at the start of the decade but fell by the wayside and of course Renault came on at the end but really...there wasn't much competition.

Virtually every team had a trusty DFV in the back aside from the flat 12 Ferraris. Did Formula One hold little appeal to car makers at the time, or was there some other reason?

About as much as in the 60's, I wager. Most teams and privateers were using BRM or Coventry Climax units in the 1.5-liter days. Cosworth took up their slack when the 3-liter rules came around. With a competitive and reliable engine like that, and Ferrari having dismal seasons from 1971 to 1973, some marques would be chased away. The best teams (Lotus, McLaren, Brabham) were able to come up with a good car and not have to worry about the engine. All those little teams and privateers (like LEC and Token) that came and went wouldn't want to risk their already short money on an unknown quantity.

Just my 2 cents,

pc13

In the early '70s you could buy a new Cosworth for 14,000 pounds, a pound
was worth $2.50 in those days equals $35,000. For some reason, I read in
a program at the USGP at Watkins Glen or Autosport it was actually $27,000.
Whatever very cheap by today's standards and you could get 500 racing miles out of it between rebuilds. A good two-car team had at least 6 engines, 2 fresh engines for qualifying and the race, two spares and two at Cosworth
or Nicholson's for rebuild.

In those days the Cosworth was so competitive and practical to deal with
it wasn't worth the risk to try and develop your own engine since you
weren't likely to get any real advantage other than spending money faster.
Ken and Jackie tried the Matra engine and decided to stick with the Cosworth since the Matra neither had the torque or the bhp of the Cosworth and they felt they could be competitive by designing a better chassis. The Matra chassis was excellent because Amon was probably as good or better than anyone at developing a chassis. The engine apparently lacked torque or
as the English say "it couldn't pull the skin off of custard" or something to that effect.

HOWEVER, the sound of the Matra is one of the most glorious sounds you will ever hear! We use to drive up from Washington, D.C. and you could hear the
Matra distinctively more than a mile sooner than even the Ferrari!

The Alfa fat 12 ngine on the other hand was about the size of the Queen Mary so it did not present a very effective package and no distinctive power advantage or endearing characteristics.

To appreciate the scale of the enduring attraction and reputation of the Cosworth DFV family of V8 engines I believe one need do no more than review the breathless reports of the unit's debut race - in the Lotus 49s - the 1967 Dutch Grand Prix.

The quantum hike in performance demonstrated there - with driveability to follow after development - hit the creators of the BRM H16, Gurney-Weslake V12 and Ferrari V12 engines like a well-flung brick....

It really hurt them, and it would go on hurting too.... All that, and manufactured (by Formula 1 standards) in production quantities - and available affordably off the shelf...amazing.

Just look at the numbers of F1 teams involved at the height of the DFV era - 'Formula Ford' wasn't all bad.

If anybody in authority at Ford now recalls those heady days - they must be seeking psychiatric help for investing in the shambolic, half-cock so-called 'Jaguar' programme today. Either throw real money and brains at it - or opt out. They cannot go on - surely - inflicting more harm than benefit upon the image of both Jaguar and Ford? Sir William Lyons was a wise old bird - he steered clear...

DCN

Originally posted by Doug Nye
....If anybody in authority at Ford now recalls those heady days - they must be seeking psychiatric help for investing in the shambolic, half-cocked so-called 'Jaguar' programme today. Either throw real money and brains at it - or opt out. They cannot go on - surely - inflicting more harm than benefit upon the image of both Jaguar and Ford? ...

So is wee Jackie the super salesman or what?

What I am having difficulty with is the Cosworth part of this equation. Has the team there lost the plot altogether? Surely they had the basic nouse to get to the starting blocks with this modern engine (after all, they were producing 'atmo' engines after everyone else went turbo...), so where are they falling short?

David - while reading your post and about the shortcomings of the Matra engine, I got more and more worried. But the smile finally came at your sentence starting "HOWEVER". Yes, how could one mention that engine without mentioning its sweet sound! I'm happy to have heard it and it was fantastic!

Originally posted by David M. Kane
The Matra chassis was excellent because Amon was probably as good or better than anyone at developing a chassis.

I think Matra showed themselves more than capable of producing a good chassis long before Chris Amon joined them.

David Kane:

I agree with yoou that the Matra V12 was ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL to hear!! In my prejudiced opinion, it is second (barely) only to the 1.5 litre Honda V12 of 1964-65. That engine had a shriek that would waken the dead!

Bobbo

The DFV was, as mentioned, a superb racing engine. Along with the Offenhauser, it is one of those designs that did exactly what it was supposed to do and did it well. It was relatively cheap and it was both available and reliable.

Unlike many, I think that the DFV era was a pretty darn good period for GP racing since there was not only variety but real competition beyond the top two or three teams and the possibility that on any given day....

Originally posted by David M. Kane
The Alfa fat 12 ngine on the other hand was about the size of the Queen Mary so it did not present a very effective package and no distinctive power advantage or endearing characteristics.

Would I be right in saying that this was basically just a sports car engine? (this is the one in the back of the Brabhams, yes?).

Also, didn't it have so much torque that Lauda and Watson could use 2nd gear around Monaco and not touch 1st at all...?

Just two snippets I have in my brainbox from years ago that I've never followed up.

Originally posted by Ray Bell

What I am having difficulty with is the Cosworth part of this equation. Has the team there lost the plot altogether? Surely they had the basic nouse to get to the starting blocks with this modern engine (after all, they were producing 'atmo' engines after everyone else went turbo...), so where are they falling short?

Ray - very sadly one cannot compare the Cosworth company of today with the 'Cos-Worth' of their heyday with Keith Duckworth very much in charge of concept and design and Mike Costin wielding the development brief, all in cahoots with a compact team of extremely capable and dedicated fellow-engineers. They were each of them utterly focused and they were able to operate through a period of relative freedom from interested outside main-board Directors and accountants.

Known at the time of its formation as 'Cosbodge & Duckfudge Ltd', the company became a victim of its own success - became the prize satellite of major industry and has since been beset in effect by all the formal industry practises that infers...for which read, no longer run by RACERS.

Unless Ford really open their wallet - in the manner of Fiat-Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz, BMW and - unprovenly as yet - Toyota, I'm convinced they'd be safer keeping out...

Just read Gordon Murray's "50 years of F1 car design" in Autocourse 2000-2001 .

"(The Cosworth engine ) made the cars far more diverse and far more interesting because people were now able to concentrate their time , effort and money on chassis development. So it was a massive - and very positive - turning point in F1 history. All brain power suddenly switched from the engines to the chassis"."

Okay, I understand that technology waits for no boardroom decisions, but what sort of loss did they suffer when Mario Illien and Paul Morgan left?

Apparently Illien was working in the design end of the Cosworth organisation... had he overtaken his principals, perhaps?

Certainly, one has to say that Ilmor have made great strides since those days, despite what must have been a hectic time with changes in money partners, building engines solidly for the two different series and satisfying huge demands for output with two altogether different technologies.

They look good too...

Originally posted by Leif Snellman
Just read Gordon Murray's "50 years of F1 car design" in Autocourse 2000-2001 .

"(The Cosworth engine ) made the cars far more diverse and far more interesting because people were now able to concentrate their time , effort and money on chassis development. So it was a massive - and very positive - turning point in F1 history. All brain power suddenly switched from the engines to the chassis"."

Surely it was really Coventry Climax, ten years earlier, who brought about this change?

Oh, a repeat of the flat plane crank story...

Yes, you're right, Roger.

The main reason for the dominance of the DFV is already mentioned: it enabled teams to focus their money on the chassis, and they didn't have to worry about the enigines, because the DFV's did what they had to do rather well.

However, the history of F1 engines in the 70s is somewhat less onedimensional, than it seems.
In the 60s, everyone tried to come up with a solution to the new 3-litre formula, and this incledud finding an engine. BRM, Ferrari, Honda and Gurney/Eagle/Weslake came with their own bespoke engines, and a couple of years later, Matra did the same. The other teams had to "find" an engine: Cooper at Maserati, Lotus at BRM, McLaren tried Serennisima if memory serves me, and an American Ford engine, and later on BRM. The only team immediately successful was Brabham with the Repco engines.

After the arrival of the DFV, everybody had problems, which could be solved by buying DFVs. So everybody did that, except Ferrari, BRM and Matra. Some DFV teams still looked at alternatives: Lotus tried a turbine engine, and McLaren the Alfa V8 sportscar engine.
But nothing succeeded. Matra and BRM soldiered on with the V12, but without much success, although BRM did enjoy a brief period of sunshine in especially 1971. But this was really in spite of the engine, not as a result of. The strong point of the BRMs were the chassis.

The only team who got it right was Ferrari with the flatV12. As soon as they came with this engine in 1970, it was clear it was a winner. But they only did really start to reap the fruits of this in 1975, because of the usual political problems in Maranello, mediocre chassis, and bad luck. It became clear that if you could make the v12 reliable (as Ferrari could), you had a clear advatage over the DFV. then the others teams reacted: Alfa developed a flatV12, and Brabham used it from 1976 on, and Tecno also tried this route.

I think the V12s would have won in the end, but for the rise of the wingcar. Because of the width of the flatV12s, they could not really be used in a wingcar. As a result the narrower DFVs (and also the Matra V12 as a matter of fact0 got a new lease of life, until of course the break of the turbos.

Something I never really understood is this: why was everybody waiting while it was clear from 1970 on, the flatV12 concept was a winner? Why did everybody wait until the first championship in 1975?

Just lack of money? Or lack of imagination?

If let's say brabham had gone the alfa-route one or two years earlier, maybe they would have won….

mat1

Jackie Stewart and Ken Tyrrell wanted to stay with Matra, but they wanted
to use the DFV, but Matra insisted they use the Matra V-12. They loved the chassis, their record at Matra speaks for itself. So they bought into the Max Moseley and Robin Herd "dream". When that didn't work, they decided only then that they needed to build their own "kit" car, etc.

I was only trying to say that Chris Amon was a great chassis developer. In
fact, he still is doing test driving for Toyota to this day, bet you didn't
know that!

By the way, I only do this for fun, I do NOT consider myself anything but
totally and complete rookie in any and all arenas of knowledge.

Err - what's a flat V12? Is it like a radial rotary in-line 3?

Originally posted by Doug Nye
what's a flat V12

This is one that I don't quite follow either, but over in the Techie Forum, they argue that, unless the configuration of a flat engine is "boxer", it should be called a "flat V". A boxer has opposed pistons whereas a flat V doesn't. Or something.

Originally posted by BRG
This is one that I don't quite follow either, but over in the Techie Forum, they argue that, unless the configuration of a flat engine is "boxer", it should be called a "flat V". A boxer has opposed pistons whereas a flat V doesn't. Or something.

That's my understanding, too. "Flat V" sounds a bit stupid, but it does help to understand the differences!

If by "boxer" and "opposed pistons" you mean that the crankshaft had six throws with two connecting rods attached to each throw, isn't that exactly the configuration of the Ferrari engine?

I must admit, I had never heard of the term "Flat V", although 180 degree V is often used.

Peter Morgan uses a similar description for the Porsche 917 engine (type 912) in his '99 book about the car. He calls it a "180 degree V12" in that case as opposed to a boxer (in which "adjacent pistons [would directly] oppose each other"). I don't recall seeing any mention of it as a "Flat V12"--perhaps that is just a bit simpler to say?

I also seem to remember also that one important characteristic of such an engine is that the volume of internal crankcase air does not change as the pistons move back and forth--a piston decending on one side is always matched by another moving on the upstroke on the other, so the air volume is simply pushed back and forth. The alternative, it seems, is for that same volume to be compressed and then released again during each full crank, which would result in a slightly lower useable power output because of this extra parasitic loss. I want to say the latter is a characteristic of a boxer design (but I may have it all back-a**wards too. Wouldn't surprise me).


Christopher Snow

A flat V12 is a 180 degree V12. A V-configuration in 180 degrees and a boxer is not the same. In a boxer, a throw of the crankshaft is connected to one piston, whereas in a V it is connected to two pistons. A flat v12 can be somewhat shorter compared to a boxer, will be lighter, and you have the advantage concerning the air volume in the crankcase, as Christopher Snow pointed out.
I am sorry if the use of the term "flat V12" did confuse you, but this is what I meant by it.


The F1 engines of the ‘70s of Ferrari, Alfa and Tecno, and also the engine of the Porsche 917, had this configuration. It seemed to be the winning formula, until the advent of the wingcar spoiled the game.

mat1

Originally posted by TODave2



Would I be right in saying that this was basically just a sports car engine? (this is the one in the back of the Brabhams, yes?).

Also, didn't it have so much torque that Lauda and Watson could use 2nd gear around Monaco and not touch 1st at all...?

Just two snippets I have in my brainbox from years ago that I've never followed up.

Yes, the Alfa was "basically a sportcar engine". However, it was pretty powerful, perhaps the most powerful engine of 1977. As with most 12 cilinder engines, fuel consuption was a problem. Besides that, the Brabham mechanics often were upset by engine mounting points which differed considerably between engines.
As stated before, the flat V12 configuration ruled out the engine in the wingcar period. But the Alfa wasn't a bad F1 engine at all.

Originally posted by mat1
A flat V12 is a 180 degree V12. A V-configuration in 180 degrees and a boxer is not the same. In a boxer, a throw of the crankshaft is connected to one piston, whereas in a V it is connected to two pistons. A flat v12 can be somewhat shorter compared to a boxer, will be lighter, and you have the advantage concerning the air volume in the crankcase, as Christopher Snow pointed out.
I am sorry if the use of the term "flat V12" did confuse you, but this is what I meant by it.
mat1

While I accept the explanation I cannot accept the practise - what is 'vee' about a 180-degree horizontally opposed 12... ??? It's simply a mindless engineer distortion of the language I love.

_____ There you go - I have just typed a flat vee.

I drive a ____ol_____o.

I think the argument has no _____alue.

And when I use a flat-vee no reader understands what I mean.

'Flat-vee' simply DOES NOT WORK.

Grumpy of Farnham...

PS - Ferrari 312B, Ferrari 312PB...

I've always just reffered to these engines as a 'flat 12' or a 'boxer 12'.

Vx I reserve for an engine whose angle is less than (or greater than! If that's ever happened!) 180 degrees, not equal to.

My 2 pence.

...and if a vee engine had more than 180 degrees, and was then turned upside down...??

It is a matter of definition.

The term V suggests it is saying something about how the engine looks like, whereas the definition as I use it, says something about how it works.

Boxer? OK with me, but then you have to add is uses the "V-configuration" (there I go again!) of throws and pistons.

To complicate things: Renault has used V-engines which have two pistons on a throw, but on which is a difference in level in the throw itself. If I make myself clear....

How to name that?

mat1

Christpher Snow

He calls it a "180 degree V12" in that case as opposed to a boxer (in which "adjacent pistons [would directly] oppose each other")

mat1

A flat V12 is a 180 degree V12. A V-configuration in 180 degrees and a boxer is not the same. In a boxer, a throw of the crankshaft is connected to one piston, whereas in a V it is connected to two pistons. A flat v12 can be somewhat shorter compared to a boxer, will be lighter, and you have the advantage concerning the air volume in the crankcase, as Christopher Snow pointed out.

Are these two statements not horizontally opposed?

1am in the morning - just watched England v. Kiwis in the 1st Test Match - done a swag of Seaman book captioning, and I read the above.

I burst out laughing aloud - and have just received a rollicking from the management for waking her up.... Isn't TNF wonderful...

DCN

Originally posted by Doug Nye
1am in the morning - just watched England v. Kiwis in the 1st Test Match - done a swag of Seaman book captioning, and I read the above.

I burst out laughing aloud - and have just received a rollicking from the management for waking her up.... Isn't TNF wonderful...

DCN

Roger just pointed me at this wonderful thread....must have been just before I arrived at TNF. I think we should all dig out a golden oldie now and again!

Needs to be read in conjunction with the current Ferrari Flat V12 thread.....

Sorry to butt in while this argument is going 'flat out', but returning to the thread a little, it was mentioned that fuel consumption was a problem, but did not go on to say why it was a problem, and other replies said the handling of the succesful V12 cars was the reason they were mildly succesful.
After the Repco domination and until Renault came along think anything that didn't have a DFV had a V12, other than March Alfas, Mclaren Alfas and the Turbine car.
The problem that these cars had was in order to accomodate the high fuel consumption they were incredibly heavy at the start, thus heavier on tyres, wider or longer, and in some cases didn't use the engine as a stressed member with the associated weight and torsinal stiffness issues.
It would be interesting to get the views on this from someone like Ganley, Oliver, Jacky Ickx, Amon or Gethin who had driven both. Come to think of it perhaps Jumper Jarier is our man.....he drove a Matra-Shadow and a Cosworth Shadow in the same season. What was the story behind that excercise and why did it blow out -the answers might be the answer to the original question.

After a brief spell of being 'on topic', thanks to Huw, I think we've had the disscussion on flat 12 (I agree with Doug on flat v- that would be 'minus engine' ) vs boxer, and as I've understood boxer is a flat engine in which pistons in opposing cylinders travel in opposite directions (they both go outwards or inwards, relative to the crankshaft). IIANM, the name comes from talian, because the piston movement resembles that of a boxer thumping his hands against each other...

P.S. I'm now officiall 'back'- after a few months.

Where would we all be without Nye doing the proof-reading !!

BTW,

If you can't beat them, join them.

Cossie = inexpensive, gets job done

New engine design = very expensive, maybe gets jobs done.

Originally posted by Wolf
After a brief spell of being 'on topic', thanks to Huw, I think we've had the disscussion on flat 12 (I agree with Doug on flat v- that would be 'minus engine' ) vs boxer, and as I've understood boxer is a flat engine in which pistons in opposing cylinders travel in opposite directions (they both go outwards or inwards, relative to the crankshaft). IIANM, the name comes from talian, because the piston movement resembles that of a boxer thumping his hands against each other...

I was sure that people were saying the opposite of that.

Can anybody give me an example of a Flat-12 engine that didn't have a six-throw crankshaft with opposing pistons attached to the same crank throw? I can think of one possibility, but I'm not sure (of anything anymore).

Somebody, on either this thread or the Ferrari V12 one has said that an advantage of the six-throw crank shaft is constant. I'm not sure (again) whether this is true as the piston "descending" from top dead centre will do so at a different increase in speed from its partner returning from bottom dead centre. In any case, wouldn't the crankshaft disturb the serenity of this column of air?

Originally posted by Megatron
Ford and Ferrari pretty much cleaned up the decade, with the occasional oddity such as a Matra win in the Ligier, or a flat 12 Alfa in the Brabham. BRM of course were strong at the start of the decade but fell by the wayside and of course Renault came on at the end but really...there wasn't much competition.

Virtually every team had a trusty DFV in the back aside from the flat 12 Ferraris. Did Formula One hold little appeal to car makers at the time, or was there some other reason?

This is a Berta V8, builded in Argentina by Mr Oreste Berta "El Mago" (The Magician) in his "fortress" of the Alta Gracia, a small city in Cordoba, nearly the circuit "Oscar Cabalen", famous track by the close figths in F-2 within Carlos Reutemann-Ronnie Petersonn-Bob Wollek-Tim Schenken.. in the earlier 70's.



This engines was builded with the purpose to racing in the SP Championship 3 litres class with the Matra's and Alfa Romeo, for the argentine SP car "Berta LR"., but this car was equiped with a Cosworth DFV, and the engine Berta V8 was developed like a Formula 1 engine for the F-1 car Berta BA-01.



The begin was impressive, and the development was follow with great expectatives and hope.., because the test in the dynamometer was register a power of 410 BHP at 10.600 RPM., against the 425 HP of the DFV-Ford in this time..

Mr Oreste Berta builded aprox. 9 or 10 engines like this, betwen 1972 to 1974.





Berta have more talks with Mr Bernie Ecclestone for building aome engines for Brabham...

..And Alpine Too!

Originally posted by Roger Clark

I was sure that people were saying the opposite of that.

Can anybody give me an example of a Flat-12 engine that didn't have a six-throw crankshaft with opposing pistons attached to the same crank throw? I can think of one possibility, but I'm not sure (of anything anymore).

Somebody, on either this thread or the Ferrari V12 one has said that an advantage of the six-throw crank shaft is constant. I'm not sure (again) whether this is true as the piston "descending" from top dead centre will do so at a different increase in speed from its partner returning from bottom dead centre. In any case, wouldn't the crankshaft disturb the serenity of this column of air?

Roger, I hate to disagree with members of Your knowledge, but I think I have gotten it right this time... In boxer engines opposing cylinders are supposed to be in the same cycle (e.g. both move outwards in compression and exhaust cycles, and inwards in intake and expansion cycles).

Here's the link to the Subaru thread ( http://forums.atlasf...&threadid=72468 ), and a link to Uechtel's sketch of both configurations ( http://upload.wikime...3/B6-v6_180.png ).

Originally posted by Repco von Brabham
[B]
Berta have more talks with Mr Bernie Ecclestone for building aome engines for Brabham...

..And Alpine Too!

Interesting. What happened?

mat1

Originally posted by Wolf


Roger, I hate to disagree with members of Your knowledge, but I think I have gotten it right this time... In boxer engines opposing cylinders are supposed to be in the same cycle (e.g. both move outwards in compression and exhaust cycles, and inwards in intake and expansion cycles).

Here's the link to the Subaru thread ( http://forums.atlasf...&threadid=72468 ), and a link to Uechtel's sketch of both configurations ( http://upload.wikime...3/B6-v6_180.png ).

You may be right. I wasn't offering an opinion, just pointing out that there doesn't appear to be unanimity on this matter. For what it's worth, I think "boxer" is a colloquial term which has no well defined meaning in engineering terms. But I could be wrong about that.

So to recap, in the 1970s we ONLY had:

1) The Cosworth DFV
2) The Ferrari F12 (whatever)
3) The Matra V12
4) The BRM V12
5) The Alfa Romeo V8
6) The Pratt & Whitney turbine
7) The Tecno F12
8) The Alfa Romeo F12
9) The 1.5 litre turbocharged Renault V6
10) The Alfa Romeo V12

;)

Originally posted by Stephen W
So to recap, in the 1970s we ONLY had:

1) The Cosworth DFV
2) The Ferrari F12 (whatever)
3) The Matra V12
4) The BRM V12
5) The Alfa Romeo V8
6) The Pratt & Whitney turbine
7) The Tecno F12
8) The Alfa Romeo F12
9) The 1.5 litre turbocharged Renault V6
10) The Alfa Romeo V12

;)

Didn't BRM have two engine projects - their own and a Weslake one.
Didn't the Weslake one show the reason for the DFV's dominance - it cost far more, didn't produce any more power and was bigger.

Apparently the Matra V-12 is very similar to the BRM (same design but nothing interchangeable), not surprising since Matra had been running BRM engines previously.

McLaren ran a Serenissima engine until they got DFVs or was that pre-70? Was the 2nd BRM engine also pre-70?

Originally posted by Peter Morley



McLaren ran a Serenissima engine until they got DFVs or was that pre-70?

That was in 1966, Peter - an emergency "stop gap" as the ex-Indy Ford V8 never lived up to expectations.

Originally posted by Peter Morley


Didn't BRM have two engine projects - their own and a Weslake one.
Didn't the Weslake one show the reason for the DFV's dominance - it cost far more, didn't produce any more power and was bigger.

Apparently the Matra V-12 is very similar to the BRM (same design but nothing interchangeable), not surprising since Matra had been running BRM engines previously.

McLaren ran a Serenissima engine until they got DFVs or was that pre-70? Was the 2nd BRM engine also pre-70?

The THREE Litre Formula which started in 1966 had loads of odd ball engines in the first couple of years; one of which was the Serenissima engine that McLaren used. BRM had the 2 litre V8, the 3 litre H16 and the V12. I thought Weslake built the V12 for Eagle or did he also get involved with the BRM V12 unit in the late 60s as it was originally designed for Sports Car Racing and came into F1 when the H16 was both too expensive and very unreliable.

I think it's Gurney-Weslake engine that was installed in Dan's cars- Weslake engine, but IIANM Dan had enough contribution to it (does anybody know in which way?) to warrant addition of his name to Weslake. There is a letter from Dan scanned and posted on TNF which confirms this designation...

Didn't Gurney -purchase- the engine and design from Weslake ? Hence the name of the engine becoming Gurney-Weslake ? Wasn't it after the purchase that Dan discovered that the engines really delivered ~25hp less than what he was told ?

Best,

Ross

Originally posted by rl1856
Didn't Gurney -purchase- the engine and design from Weslake ? Hence the name of the engine becoming Gurney-Weslake ? Wasn't it after the purchase that Dan discovered that the engines really delivered ~25hp less than what he was told ?
Best,
Ross

Gurney took complete control of the Gurney-Weslake Ford engine, for awhile, when the rocker-covers said Gurney/Eagle.
Weslake built a modified-continuation version of the V-12, for Ford, his book says it dynoed at 525 hp.
Bob