Jump to content


Photo

FVA query


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 806 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 20 October 2012 - 11:29

Quick bit of wisdom from TNF please for an article I'm researching - in late 60s Brian Robinson raced a Lotus Cortina with an FVA engine-I need to know max revs and approximate power please.

Advertisement

#2 bill p

bill p
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 20 October 2012 - 16:15

Quick bit of wisdom from TNF please for an article I'm researching - in late 60s Brian Robinson raced a Lotus Cortina with an FVA engine-I need to know max revs and approximate power please.


From Google/Wikipedia

"The FVA series

The Cortina engine was also the basis for the FVA, an F2 engine introduced in 1966, and developed under the same contract as the DFV, for the new 1.6-litre engine rules. This engine featured 16 valves operated by twin overhead camshafts driven by a train of 9 gears. The metering unit for the Lucas mechanical fuel injection was rotated by gear and belt from the inlet cam, while the exhaust cam drove an alternator on the rear of the head. It produced at least 225 brake horsepower (168 kW) at 9000 rpm. This engine dominated the category until 1971, and was also used in sports car racing in 1.8-litre form as the FVC. The FVA was notable for being part of the same Ford contract that gave rise to the DFV; the cylinder head on the FVA pioneered many of Duckworth's ideas that would be used on the V8 engine."

Edited by bill p, 20 October 2012 - 16:18.


#3 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 806 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 20 October 2012 - 17:30

Thanks- wikipedia usually last resort for me (stuff I do know about is often flawed on there ) but if nobody contradicts this I will use it !

#4 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,165 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 20 October 2012 - 17:58

I seem to recall seeing 205bhp quoted somewhere (in period?). Whatever the dyno figure, the installed figure for a saloon car is likely to have been marginally less than for a single seater (due to the fully enclosed installation and the transmission losses).

#5 Ted Walker

Ted Walker
  • Member

  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:47

A good FVA woulg g ive 225 BHP plus and would rev to over 10000 rpm, Geoff Richardson can now build a brand new FVA that will give upwards of 240 BHP

#6 Jagracer

Jagracer
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 10:31

I think some of the figures quoted here are not quite correct I worked with the FVC engines with several of the Teams that I worked for including Brian Robinson, ( about 6 years) & spent many hours in the Dyno room at Alan Smiths workshops in Derby helping to get our Engine finished on time. The safe maximum revs were 8200 on the FVC & 9000 rpm on the FVA. As to the power we considered we had a good engine if we got 210 BHP. but on average they were around the 200 BHP.

Taking into consideration that this was way back in the very early 70's, as to what can be done now with these Engine's I'm not sure, but 240 BHP. & 10,000 rpm sounds a little optimistic to me plus how reliable would they be ?

Hope that throws some light on this topic Cheers Phil Bradford

#7 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,748 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:58

The power available today reflects a lot of development with cams and heads...

240hp would not surprise me at all.

#8 David Wright

David Wright
  • Member

  • 79 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 October 2012 - 12:27

I think the works Lotus Cortinas were the first to use the FVA engine in 1967.

Alan Mann used the FVA engine in their Escort TC in 1968. They claimed it developed 217 bhp @ 8,500 rpm at the end of the season - less at the start - 208 bhp or thereabouts.


Edited by David Wright, 21 October 2012 - 12:32.


#9 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,165 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 21 October 2012 - 20:57

It is the works (or rather ex-works) 67 Lotus Cortina, CTC14E, that this thread is about.
Subsequent posts make me even more certain 205 was the figure generally bandied around in period and that dyno figure didn't change much from general F2 debut in 66 to Team Lotus Cortina use in 67.
"At wheels" figure would be significantly less, although both the Team Lotus Cortinas and the early Alan Mann Escorts would have had the same "English" diff with smaller losses than an equivalent engine in a later Atlas diff Escort. I guess the short injection stacks of an FVA would lose less in a saloon installation than Webbers (where the inner wing to trumpet distance is too short, especially in an Escort).



#10 sterling49

sterling49
  • Member

  • 10,811 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 21 October 2012 - 21:27

It is the works (or rather ex-works) 67 Lotus Cortina, CTC14E, that this thread is about.
Subsequent posts make me even more certain 205 was the figure generally bandied around in period and that dyno figure didn't change much from general F2 debut in 66 to Team Lotus Cortina use in 67.
"At wheels" figure would be significantly less, although both the Team Lotus Cortinas and the early Alan Mann Escorts would have had the same "English" diff with smaller losses than an equivalent engine in a later Atlas diff Escort. I guess the short injection stacks of an FVA would lose less in a saloon installation than Webbers (where the inner wing to trumpet distance is too short, especially in an Escort).



I saw CTC 14 E and 24E race, did they not start as Twin Cams when racing in '67? I remember Frank Gardner driving ( UVX) in early '68 in Alan mann's team ( and Richard Attwood) and remember that being an FVA with rack and pinion steering............

#11 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,165 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 21 October 2012 - 22:43

UVX(565E) was the Ford Boreham-built car that went to Alan Mann for 68. You must have seen its only appearance with Mann at March 68 Brands. It wasn't used by them again as they (Gardner calling the shots?) didn't like it.
I think we have covered when FVAs were in Cortinas on here before, along with later story of where 14E and 24E went and whether Brian Robinson ever put an FVA in an ex-Team Lotus Mk1 - Team Lotus didn't). I don't recall other than FVAs in the 67 Team Lotus cars but I only keep records of Cortina works cars, not engines, and then mainly the rally cars.

#12 Andrew Fellowes

Andrew Fellowes
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 21 October 2012 - 23:10

Geoff does get 240hp from his new FVAs, I have had one and they are a real gem of an engine.

9,000 is very conservative, and I've been a customer of his since the days of the tin hut on the hill at St Neots.

#13 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 4,567 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 October 2012 - 23:31

In his Cosworth book, Graham Robson points out that Cosworth were hoping for 200bhp on the FVA, but that figure was exceeded easily, with 220 being very much the norm for delivered engines, with more power as the time went on. The data sheet at the back of the book cites 218 bhp, so Ted is on the money for period power, I reckon.
Roger Lund

#14 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 806 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:17

Erudite stuff as ever -I have very distinct memories of Robinson screaming down the straight at Rufforth and being told by the commentator (Johnny Higham- how can I know this when I can't remember last week ?) that the Cortina was FVA powered. Not that I had a clue then. at 16. what that meant..

#15 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 205 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:36

As Keith Duckworth's 'semi-official' biographer (for COSWORTH, THE SEARCH FOR POWER), I can tell you that he was never very interested in publishing claims for peak horsepower. Most of the time his engines 'produced a minimum of ....' - and he was far more interested in reading race-winning stats that bhp claims after that.

AAGR


#16 sterling49

sterling49
  • Member

  • 10,811 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:57

UVX(565E) was the Ford Boreham-built car that went to Alan Mann for 68. You must have seen its only appearance with Mann at March 68 Brands. It wasn't used by them again as they (Gardner calling the shots?) didn't like it.
I think we have covered when FVAs were in Cortinas on here before, along with later story of where 14E and 24E went and whether Brian Robinson ever put an FVA in an ex-Team Lotus Mk1 - Team Lotus didn't). I don't recall other than FVAs in the 67 Team Lotus cars but I only keep records of Cortina works cars, not engines, and then mainly the rally cars.



i saw Frank race this car at Brands, it ended with a black patch over one headlamp as he shunted somebody in the 1st heat..............still a lovely looking car.

#17 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:58

A bit of OT probably... When Ford Escort 1600 RS came about in 1970/71, it was reported as having "120 HP, or 100 less than the racing engine from which it was derived". ( LINK (in Slovenian, I'm afraid... )

But it was a sort of a strange little engine, that one. It had a capacity of 1601 cc, or exactly 1 cc OVER the 1.6 litre limit... Which I always found a bit curious.


#18 sterling49

sterling49
  • Member

  • 10,811 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:18

A bit of OT probably... When Ford Escort 1600 RS came about in 1970/71, it was reported as having "120 HP, or 100 less than the racing engine from which it was derived". ( LINK (in Slovenian, I'm afraid... )

But it was a sort of a strange little engine, that one. It had a capacity of 1601 cc, or exactly 1 cc OVER the 1.6 litre limit... Which I always found a bit curious.



Was it not homologated at 1594c.c. ? It raced in the up to 1600c.c. class at 1594 cc...............when "blown" it was put in largest class to upset point scorers.....................

Edited by sterling49, 22 October 2012 - 09:20.


#19 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 205 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 10:48

Nothing curious about the homologation figure at all - Ford homologated it at 1,601cc (I am looking at the Homologation Papers as I write this), so that it would fall into the over 1.6-litre class, and could therefore be enlarged considerably towards the 2.0-litre class limit. Ford's motorsport boss, Stuart Turner, was not interested in class wins, but in outright victories ....

Where did the 1,594cc figure come from ? Not from the Twin-Cam, either, which was 1,558cc ....

Edited by AAGR, 22 October 2012 - 12:18.


Advertisement

#20 RogerFrench

RogerFrench
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 22 October 2012 - 15:44

Nothing curious about the homologation figure at all - Ford homologated it at 1,601cc (I am looking at the Homologation Papers as I write this), so that it would fall into the over 1.6-litre class, and could therefore be enlarged considerably towards the 2.0-litre class limit. Ford's motorsport boss, Stuart Turner, was not interested in class wins, but in outright victories ....

Where did the 1,594cc figure come from ? Not from the Twin-Cam, either, which was 1,558cc ....


The BDA had exactly the same bore and stroke as the standard Cortina Kent lump, which was, if memory serves, 1598.something.

#21 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 205 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 16:22

The BDA had exactly the same bore and stroke as the standard Cortina Kent lump, which was, if memory serves, 1598.something.


This homologation wrinkle has been discussed many times in the last 42 years. Ford knew this, their rivals knew this, but the notional capacity of 1,601cc was accepted by the RAC and the FIA in 1970 (as I said, I have confirmation from the homologation papers here in front of me).

Such a stratagem was not unique- it's just that Ford/John Griffiths/Stuart Turner thought of it first. It was breaking no rules - though claiming that a larger engine was of smaller capacity to get it into a lower capacity class would have been against the rules. Keith Duckworth of Cosworth, by the way, thought it was a good lark, and often pointed out to people that if the dimensions of top tolerance cylinder bores + top tolerance crankshaft (stroke) throws were computed, then the engine's capacity would be significantly over 1,600cc in any case.

#22 RogerFrench

RogerFrench
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:15

This homologation wrinkle has been discussed many times in the last 42 years. Ford knew this, their rivals knew this, but the notional capacity of 1,601cc was accepted by the RAC and the FIA in 1970 (as I said, I have confirmation from the homologation papers here in front of me).

Such a stratagem was not unique- it's just that Ford/John Griffiths/Stuart Turner thought of it first. It was breaking no rules - though claiming that a larger engine was of smaller capacity to get it into a lower capacity class would have been against the rules. Keith Duckworth of Cosworth, by the way, thought it was a good lark, and often pointed out to people that if the dimensions of top tolerance cylinder bores + top tolerance crankshaft (stroke) throws were computed, then the engine's capacity would be significantly over 1,600cc in any case.


What's more, I knew it too, and remember feeling cheated. It was at a Castrol inter-club Quiz, and I was representing the Wallasey Motor Club against Liverpool Motor Club, and was asked the capacity of the newly-introduced BDA. "1598.xx actual, though homologated at 1601" says I, pleased as Punch. "Wrong" says Ian Titchmarsh, Question Master. 1601 was the only acceptable number. I never did like his commentary after that.....


#23 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,165 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 23 October 2012 - 20:30

1594 was the figure for a 1558 Twin Cam over bored as close as possible to the (1600) class limit. No idea what overbore (20thou, 40 thou?) that actually was.

Unfortunately for Ford,(as I'm sure we must have covered on here before) the 1601 for the 1598 Kent Crossflow block in an RS1600 was thrown back in their face when the (later) Mexico was homologated. It had to be 1601 too - and that screwed any possibility of it becoming the preferred 1600 class Group One tool with an "emissions kit" similar to that later homologated for the RS2000. It even screwed a lot of peoples' hopes to use a "club spec" 1600 crossflow Escort in Group 2 on Internationals. This was later corrected for the Mk2 crossflow (Sport). There was a period when the only 1600 Escort homologated was the (relatively unreliable to the end "in period") TC and some were even driven to use a 1598 crossflow Capri instead.
Great "what ifs" must include what the 1600 Gp1 class would have been like with twin carb "emission kit" Mexicos against the dominant 1600 "Iranian"-carbed Avenger GTs.


#24 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 205 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:28

Whoops - thread drift alert. Do we have to read about irrelevances .... ?

AAGR

#25 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,165 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 October 2012 - 18:32

Seems to me Post 19 is a major contribution to thread drift....
When a specific question is asked here, we do try to give an answer.
(Actually, quite relevant to that question is the fact that no one has mentioned the actual capacity of a "standard" FVA).

#26 Vicuna

Vicuna
  • Member

  • 1,588 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 24 October 2012 - 20:53

My much read book by Michael Twite covering racing cars across the planet in 1969 shows 235bhp for the FVA - it seems any thoughts I had of that being a tad optimistic seem well founded based on what I've read on this thread.

#27 BT 35-8

BT 35-8
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 00:06

From the book '' Cosworth the search for power'' by Graham Robson .

FVA , 1598cc , 218 bhp at 9000 rpm.

Bryan Miller.