28 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

50 years back at the Monaco Grand Prix McLaren drove in the first World Championship race.

I did a lot of research about McLaren, but I have some questions about McLaren.

 

1. When Dennis took over McLaren in the 80s - were there other interests in buying McLaren?

2. Were there any considerations about stopping the team after the death of Bruce McLaren?

3. Why stopped they building costumer cars for IndyCar, F5000, F2 and so on?

4. Were there ever plans to build an own engine?

[Charlieman]

Ooh. Err. 

 

"Were there ever plans to build an own engine?" One can argue that they did. Nicholson McLaren Engines Ltd had enough tweaks for the DFV to identify them from a standard Cosworth. The 3 litre Indy-based Ford engine used by McLaren was their own work. McLaren attempted to distance themselves from engine manufacturers whilst retaining a link.

 

Was anyone interested in buying McLaren before the Marlboro-forced merger with Project Four Racing? It's a funny question because it seems to me that McLaren acted more as a collective in those days than a money making company. A few people had shares in the business which had some value (factory disposal and equipment auctions) but others worked for a well paid hobby or building a chance at a better job. Some people left following the P4 merger; some of them came back. 

 

My understanding is that McLaren was "unbuyable" and that the P4 merger was offered when McLaren couldn't refuse it. If the offer had been declined, more colleagues would have lost their jobs.

 

Does anyone have a record of McLaren company ownerships? McLaren Racing Ltd dates to 1981, presumably part of the P4 merger. In retrospect, this is a huge blunder by Ron Dennis because it cuts McLaren's business and accounting record in two pieces; pre-1981 and post-1981. 

[Michael Ferner]

Project Four didn't buy McLaren, they were merged "at the request" of sponsor McLaren. When Dennis announced plans to enter F1 in 1979, Andrea de Cesaris and Marlboro Italia money were quintessential parts of his business plan. Marlboro HQ didn't want to sponsor three F1 teams (remember, they also had Alfa Romeo dressed up as fag boxes), so they approached McLaren by "asking" whether they would consider a merger with P4. At the end of one of their worst ever seasons in F1, the team had few options but to agree.

[D28]

All interviews with major players at McLaren in 1970, indicate that quitting was not an option, that Bruce would have wanted the team to continue. Eoin Young's  excellent bio, which I assume you've read, covers this in the introduction.

After the horrifying news of June 2, all staff was given the following day off. Teddy Mayer and Phil Kerr arrived at the factory next morning to find the entire work force to a man had shown up. It was what Bruce would have expected, so about 60 people were there.

[PeterElleray]

Surprised you make no mention of Can Am, HistoryFan, as this was by far the most successful programme in McLaren's CV up until 1972, and one for which they did build their own engines, in house, albiet based on a Chevy Big Block bottom end .

 

McLaren customer cars in Can Am and F5000 were almost, but not quite exclusively built under licence by Trojan, something that has been discussed on here recently.

 

McLaren only built two type's of F2 car, the M4 which dated from 1967, and the M21, which was a one off works car to give mileage and experience to Jody Scheckter in 1972, and not sold to customers, although the Trojan T101 F5000 that effectively replaced the M22 F5000 car was based on it.

 

The original F2 M4 programme was itself effectively replaced by the M10 F5000 programme.

 

Indycars were a casualty of the dramatic fall off in the Grand Prix teams' performance (more's the pity)..

 

The one off M25 F5000 car, based on the M23 (and at one time converted back into one) was an interesting idea, although it would not appear to have been a serious attempt to reenter the F5000 customer market.

[HistoryFan]

thanks for all the questions. McLaren has a very interesting history I think.

[PeterElleray]

That's fine, although i think you mean all the answers...

 

My invoice for the research time, cost of reference books, magazine subscriptions etc etc should be in your private email shortly.

 

(i can take Paypal if that helps).

Edited by PeterElleray, 14 May 2016 - 19:55.

[E1pix]

[Lee Nicolle]

Surprised you make no mention of Can Am, HistoryFan, as this was by far the most successful programme in McLaren's CV up until 1972, and one for which they did build their own engines, in house, albiet based on a Chevy Big Block bottom end .

 

McLaren customer cars in Can Am and F5000 were almost, but not quite exclusively built under licence by Trojan, something that has been discussed on here recently.

 

McLaren only built two type's of F2 car, the M4 which dated from 1967, and the M21, which was a one off works car to give mileage and experience to Jody Scheckter in 1972, and not sold to customers, although the Trojan T101 F5000 that effectively replaced the M22 F5000 car was based on it.

 

The original F2 M4 programme was itself effectively replaced by the M10 F5000 programme.

 

Indycars were a casualty of the dramatic fall off in the Grand Prix teams' performance (more's the pity)..

 

The one off M25 F5000 car, based on the M23 (and at one time converted back into one) was an interesting idea, although it would not appear to have been a serious attempt to reenter the F5000 customer market.

As I understand it those engines were alloy big block Chevs. McLaren may well have built their own  spec engines as do thousands of race teams world wide. But they are still Chevs.

[PeterElleray]

Of course they were alloy blocked Big Block Chevy's ! (as my post suggested)

 

I was including them in the mix because an earlier post mentioned that McLaren did their own thing with DFV's and also the original 3 litre version of the Ford Indy engine. (And also because Can Am seemed to get missed out of the original question altogether!)

 

There was at least as much, if not more, McLaren input into the Can Am engines than there was into the Indy derived 3 litre and considerably more than in the Nicolson DFV's.

 

But no, those engines weren't a McLaren design from a clean sheet of paper, nobody said they were. In racing terms the world is still waiting for that, so interesting to reflect on those early ventures into 'hot-rodding' what was avaliable.

[GMACKIE]

As I understand it those engines were alloy big block Chevs. McLaren may well have built their own  spec engines as do thousands of race teams world wide. But they are still Chevs.

That's a bit like saying Hewland were VW gearboxes.

[PhantomRaspberryBlower]

Weren't McLaren's blocks made my Reynolds Aluminium, and so therefore not really Chevy engines?

[Lee Nicolle]

That's a bit like saying Hewland were VW gearboxes.

Some were. Better gear sets etc but still only a VW box. A bit like PPG making a set of gears for a Subaru or a Saloon car.

Hewland did make gearboxes, not rehashed production items.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 15 May 2016 - 03:17.

[Lee Nicolle]

Weren't McLaren's blocks made my Reynolds Aluminium, and so therefore not really Chevy engines?

I would be fairly sure that GM had them made under liscence, those blocks also were in ZL1 Camaros,, which is defenitly a Chevrolet. I suspect there was about a 1000 made. 560 odd Camaros alone.

Remember in those days alloy casting was a very specialised area.  Many of the aftermarket heads made in those days were not watertight.

[Roger Clark]

Wasn't the Indy engine conversion done for McLaren by Traco?

[DanTra2858]

Lee are ALL Holden motors nothing more than a Chev then????

[PeterElleray]

Obviously an interesting area in itself.

 

There is a world of difference between rebuilding a street motor and incorporating aftermarket performance goodies, and designing and building the DFV at the other end of the spectrum. Most of what we have discussed here falls in the middle, towards the higher end of the scale.

 

Since  Cosworth has come up, how do we view the early Cosworths? Is an FVA a Ford engine or a Cosworth? It uses a Ford block.  So does a Lotus TC. Is the 620 Repco engine an Oldsmobile, a Repco, both, or neither?

Edited by PeterElleray, 15 May 2016 - 09:37.

[PhantomRaspberryBlower]

....those blocks also were in ZL1 Camaros

 

Ah, I was wondering if there had been any other applications for those. Of course, if they were a GM commission it tips the balance more towards them legitimately being named Chevrolet.

 

... Is the 620 Repco engine an Oldsmobile, a Repco, both, or neither?

 

Can of worms isn't it? How about the Electramotive/NPTI Nissan V6 turbos? Those later blocks certainly had never been anywhere near a Japanese factory.

 

As for the Repcos - 620s used real US lumps, didn't they? 7-series were Repco blocks, I think. Apologies if it's a little more complicated than that

[PeterElleray]

Nissan v6 is another good example, my understanding of the Repco blocks is the same, but i will need to check Doug Nye's contemporary article on them to refresh that.

 

There's another thread in this isnt't there - unless it's already been done?

[Michael Ferner]

Blocks aren't really that important in engine design. My personal rule of thumb is, he who designed and/or built the head has the naming right to an engine. So, a Repco-Brabham stays a Repco-Brabham, whether it has an Olds, a Buick block or one of its own designs.

[Lee Nicolle]

Lee are ALL Holden motors nothing more than a Chev then????

They are GM Holden engines.

[Lee Nicolle]

Ah, I was wondering if there had been any other applications for those. Of course, if they were a GM commission it tips the balance more towards them legitimately being named Chevrolet.

 

 

Can of worms isn't it? How about the Electramotive/NPTI Nissan V6 turbos? Those later blocks certainly had never been anywhere near a Japanese factory.

 

As for the Repcos - 620s used real US lumps, didn't they? 7-series were Repco blocks, I think. Apologies if it's a little more complicated than that

Very early Repco engines were Buicks, with a lot of mods, not that far down the track they were a Buick based block, in the need there was no Buick though you could see the similarities. It would be interesting to know wether GM actually approved?

Nissan V6 race engines I believe are still based on production infrastructure. But I do stand corrected.

A Ferrari F1 engine though I doubt is!   Nor the current Renault engines either. Though reputedly the BMW turbo engines were stock block.

 

Unfortunatly in this pic all the heat shrouding hides the block.

[Lee Nicolle]

Obviously an interesting area in itself.

 

There is a world of difference between rebuilding a street motor and incorporating aftermarket performance goodies, and designing and building the DFV at the other end of the spectrum. Most of what we have discussed here falls in the middle, towards the higher end of the scale.

 

Since  Cosworth has come up, how do we view the early Cosworths? Is an FVA a Ford engine or a Cosworth? It uses a Ford block.  So does a Lotus TC. Is the 620 Repco engine an Oldsmobile, a Repco, both, or neither?

 FVA and Lotus twin cams are Ford. FVA is a much modified piece used for racing, the Lotus came in Cortinas and Escorts. From memory have Lotus Ford on the cam covers!

 

Interestingly a 410 Sprintcar engine has little to do with Chevrolet but are generally still called Chevs. Still based on the OEM  block and some still have the filter mount pad too. Something quite obsolete in most dry sumped engines. Even on production iron blocks!

A 360 Sprintcar engine are Chev blocks, they may have special part numbers but will still bolt in a road car  presuming the side mounts have not been milled off.  Reputedly some 410 blocks still originally have all the mountings on the side also. I have seen Mopars with them.

[PeterElleray]

Re the Repco, quoting from Doug Nye in "Cars in Profile(1973)": 

 

"The Oldsmobile F85 had been developed as part of an  enormously cosly linerless aluminium engine programme for a 3 1/2 litre Buick "compact"..

 

So was it an Olds engine or a Buick? Or just another GM engine with a badge on it?

 

The BMW was supposedly derived from the F2 unit, in which case the block should have been 'stock', but i vaguely remember the engines i saw during 1985/86 having reinforced blocks ?

 

Lee - i think most of us know that the FVA is a racing engine and that Lotus twin cams were fitted to Escorts and Cortinas (and Lotus'...). Both are based on Ford blocks, but does that make them Fords?

 

Can't find any pictures of the twin cam with Ford on the cam covers though.

Edited by PeterElleray, 15 May 2016 - 23:37.

[Lee Nicolle]

Re the Repco, quoting from Doug Nye in "Cars in Profile(1973)": 

 

"The Oldsmobile F85 had been developed as part of an  enormously cosly linerless aluminium engine programme for a 3 1/2 litre Buick "compact"..

 

So was it an Olds engine or a Buick? Or just another GM engine with a badge on it?

 

The BMW was supposedly derived from the F2 unit, in which case the block should have been 'stock', but i vaguely remember the engines i saw during 1985/86 having reinforced blocks ?

 

Lee - i think most of us know that the FVA is a racing engine and that Lotus twin cams were fitted to Escorts and Cortinas (and Lotus'...). Both are based on Ford blocks, but does that make them Fords?

 

Can't find any pictures of the twin cam with Ford on the cam covers though.

The Buick and Olds engines were different. At this point I cannot remember which the Repco was ORIGINALLY based on. They had different capacities and a different number of head bolts. The one with more bolts was the choice!

Since it was ever only designed as a low performance moderate RPM road engines that is the reason Repco continued to modify them to contain both RPM and horsepower.

Dare I say in reality a Chev would have been a better base,  or even the Ford Windsor. A bit heavier initially but quite probably not by the time all the extra reinforcing was attached to the alloy engine.

Smokey Yunick took a turbo Chev to Indy on a small budget and did not disgrace himself.

 

As for Lotus Ford on the thread of Cars of Australia 24/1/16  Lynton Hemers has a pic there with I feel such.

BUT I cannot find the thread because the useless search on the new improved site! Maybe someone who understands the vagaries may be able to find it.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 16 May 2016 - 00:02.

[Dale Harvey]

The Repco engines were originally based on the Oldsmobile block which as Lee has suggested had more head bolts (6) than the other GM alloy blocks (5).

I have two Lotus Twincams, both with different cam covers. Both have Lotus cast into them but, nowhere does it say Ford and I have never seen one with Ford cast into it.

All of this really has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread.

Dale.

[Ray Bell]

That would be five head studs, not six...

Repco used the Olds block, but there were more Repco engines with the CAC-cast block. Stiffeners they bolted on wouldn't have weighed all that much, Lee.

[PeterElleray]

 

"All of this really has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread."

Dale.

thats what happens when you don't pay up...

[lyntonh]

As for Lotus Ford on the thread of Cars of Australia 24/1/16  Lynton Hemer has a pic there with I feel such.

BUT I cannot find the thread because the useless search on the new improved site! Maybe someone who understands the vagaries may be able to find it.

My post is at ..... http://forums.autosp...6/#entry7422922

 

Lee has a photo at ..... http://forums.autosp...6/#entry7419900