2004 Engines Output, Weight
#1
Posted 27 February 2004 - 09:11
Ferrari 053
880 PS at 18.800 rpm
92 kg
BMW P84
900 PS at 19.000 rpm
89 kg
Mercedes FO 110P
870 PS at 18.400 rpm
94 kg
Renault RS24 (72°)
820 PS at 18.000 rpm
115 kg
Honda RA004E
880 PS at 18.500 rpm
105 kg
Petronas 04A
870 PS at 18.800 rpm
92 kg
Ford CR-6
840 PS at 18.000 rpm
94 kg
Toyota RVX-04
880 PS at 18.800 rpm
93 kg
Ford RS2
840 PS at 18.000 rpm
94 kg
Ford CR-3L
800 PS at 18.000 rpm
97 kg
I think the values represent potential figures, looking back at last years issue the Renault wide V engine was quoted at 840 PS, although it was surely putting out less than that.
Advertisement
#2
Posted 27 February 2004 - 09:23
#3
Posted 27 February 2004 - 09:57
#4
Posted 27 February 2004 - 10:04
#5
Posted 27 February 2004 - 10:08
Originally posted by Sir Frank
This is what AMuS writes in their 2004 Spezial:
Ferrari 053
880 PS at 18.800 rpm
.
.
.
.
Petronas 04A
870 PS at 18.800 rpm
Mmmmmm..... Petronas seems to suffer more reliability problem than Ferrari.....
Hopefully GF would give his best......
#6
Posted 27 February 2004 - 11:01
Originally posted by zfh10
apart from the obvious observation (that these are all stabs in the dark, but we'll ignore that), the Mercedes sure looks like a dog of an engine. Surely the resources of Mercedes can do better than that, especially when you compare that to that pesky little kid over the fence: BMW.
I know you shouldn't put too much in theese figures. About the merc engine i dont agree. If this engine really has 970ps at 18400rpm that is pretty good. Imagine if it could run 18.800. The same with honda if that engine produces 880ps at 18500rpm this is very impressive.
Compared with the bmw engine for the last couple of years. Every time they went up 100rpm they gained approx. 10ps. In other words, if you compare theese three engines then the merc and especially the honda engine is more effective if you compare their ps figures in proportion to their relative rpm figures.
#7
Posted 27 February 2004 - 11:18
The Merc is reputed to have 870 PS, not 970.Originally posted by f1rules
I know you shouldn't put too much in theese figures. About the merc engine i dont agree. If this engine really has 970ps at 18400rpm that is pretty good. Imagine if it could run 18.800.
Unless the rest of your comments still stand even with 870?
#8
Posted 27 February 2004 - 11:18
Originally posted by Schuperman
Mmmmmm..... Petronas seems to suffer more reliability problem than Ferrari.....
Hopefully GF would give his best......
But they don't suffer engine failours. In last few tests the didn't have any problems with reliability, so I think they will be ok.
Don't worry about GF. Last year he had at least 50hp (EJ13) less than Ferrari, so he should be strong (always in top 10) on all races.
This years Sauber engine is lighter and more powerful than in 2003! So that should give some boost to the team.
#9
Posted 27 February 2004 - 11:30
Originally posted by zfh10
The Merc is reputed to have 870 PS, not 970.
Unless the rest of your comments still stand even with 870?
Ups sorry i ment 870, the rest still stands. If we asume an engine gets 10ps more pr 100rpm then the merc engine would have 930 ps at 19000rpm and the honda even more.
#10
Posted 27 February 2004 - 12:01
Honda -
"First of all I am very pleased with the new RA004E engine," Kiuchi said. "We have extended our engine's life, while making it smaller and lighter with a lower center of gravity. As for power, I am confident we will exceed our Suzuka level by the time we get to Melbourne.
From F1 Racing, Honda engines from Susuka last year had been below 100kg and 900+ hp, max rev would be 19100 with a button for extra 200 rpm boost. If that's the case then 105kg and 880 ps is way off....
#11
Posted 27 February 2004 - 12:06
Originally posted by f1rules
Ups sorry i ment 870, the rest still stands. If we asume an engine gets 10ps more pr 100rpm then the merc engine would have 930 ps at 19000rpm and the honda even more.
Bit of a sweeping assumption there - the torque generally drops off at the higher revs so power doesn't increase that much.
The quoted figures for Honda are way off, so I wouldn't put too much faith in any of the numbers.
#12
Posted 27 February 2004 - 12:23
Q&A session with Rubens Barrichello 08/02/04
Saturday at Mugello was a bit of a wash out as far as testing goes, but for Rubens Barrichello it was great to finally get his first drive in the F2004. Barrichello admits he still feels emotional when he first drives a new Ferrari F1 chassis.
Q: Today it was your first day with the F2004 what are your first impressions?
RB: My first impressions are all positive. Sure after only 56 laps it is still too soon to express a definitive judgment but the new car immediately seemed to me reactive and improved related to the previous car in every area. It's always emotional to "ride" in a new Ferrari!
Q: It seems that the 053 have some more power . Have you felt the difference?
RB: It's difficult to say it after so little laps, and with the rain not being able to push to the limit. But for sure the engine seems a lot more powerful.
#13
Posted 27 February 2004 - 12:32
#14
Posted 27 February 2004 - 12:35
Some people have pretty high figures in here, i dont believe for a second that honda rews at over 19000 at this stage this year. Actually i dont believe any team is rewing higher than 19000 at this stage. Perhaps a little bit more in Qual. But ferrari having 915 ps, this year no way
#15
Posted 27 February 2004 - 13:03
What does have a name on it is an article by Schmidt that has an interview with Theissen.
The article says that the BMW engine gained 4kg of weight but is still one of the lightest with just under 90kg. At 18.000rpm instead of 19.000 the peak output drops about 10%, but the lap times suffer, Theissen: "We would be running in a lower rpm range throughout the lap. RPM would drop further at changing gears. The losses can really be felt here."
#16
Posted 27 February 2004 - 13:06
Originally posted by Ghostrider
The Renault can't be that bad. Both lack of power and that heavy, I don't think so.
I agree. Renault has been showing great pace in testing, and if their engine was really that much underpowered their chassis would have to be so much better than everyone else's that it is ridiculous. I don't buy that. IMO AMuS are not to be trusted too much in this anyway, since there's no realistic way they could have reliable figures at this point. For one, in winter testing the engines are worked on all the time and what is actually run in races could be quite different. For example Honda may have used more revs for their lap record runs than they will be able to use reliable in races. IMO these figures are little more than someone's guesses, and I wouldn't put too much weight on them. Once the season is under way and we get some real analysis on them, then I'll start paying more attention.
#17
Posted 27 February 2004 - 13:21
Renault, 820 HP and 115 kg of upright engine...
No way they are going to be competitive having such an engine.
Trulli said that the engine wasn´t stronger or weaker than last year but was more drivable instead.
I don´t think they will go from an 90 kg, over 850 HP and >106 degree engine to that lump.
Should the power difference between the BMW and the Renault engine in 2004 be like an RS6 and a customer Ford HB?....
#18
Posted 27 February 2004 - 13:26
In 1994 Benetton's Ford V8 was seriously down on power to the powerful Renault V10s in the Williams, but did that determine the outcome of the races? Well, if u take into account the superior torque curve of the Ford, then no it did not. In many instances, the driveability of the Ford offset the top output of the renault, especially on twistier circuits where getting useable power down quickly was important. Now I know todays engines don't differ in design nearly as much as those two engines did, but the analogy applies today.
Another thing to consider is what RPM will teams actually race with, since in testing your objective is to break the engines, not to assure finishing. I bet that some will detune from their ultimate pace. It's sort of like investing on the stock market with real money, as opposed to 'pretend' investing, you tend to make different decisions.
Cooper
#19
Posted 27 February 2004 - 13:30
Advertisement
#20
Posted 27 February 2004 - 13:40
BMWs weight has gone up
Ferrari are up to 19k RPM
Sauber have a one step behind engine to start the season, so as many revs and power as last seasons Ferrari.
Honda are revving to 19K and weight down to nearer 90, it was well under 100 last year and lighter for this year.
Same too for Toyota
Renault have more power than that in the new 72-degree engine (more than the 2003 wide angle)
the ford figures appear bit low on power and high on weight,
#21
Posted 27 February 2004 - 13:57
#22
Posted 27 February 2004 - 14:00
Originally posted by scarbs
Phew that listing is a load of rubbish, not at all similar to the suggestions of the engine designers at the launches.
BMWs weight has gone up
Ferrari are up to 19k RPM
Sauber have a one step behind engine to start the season, so as many revs and power as last seasons Ferrari.
Honda are revving to 19K and weight down to nearer 90, it was well under 100 last year and lighter for this year.
Same too for Toyota
Renault have more power than that in the new 72-degree engine (more than the 2003 wide angle)
the ford figures appear bit low on power and high on weight,
Agreed, all you have to do is look at the renault figure and it is obvious that these figures are pulled out of the air. Renault made some good steps in PS near the end of the season was over 850PS. The team and the drivers have reported that the engine is more powerful that last years.
#23
Posted 27 February 2004 - 14:04
Scarbs, I'm not sure what you mean- I thought Sauber was supposed to start the season with the same engine as Ferrari? But when Ferrari get an update, it will take some time before Sauber gets their hands on it.
Does the Petronas-version of the Ferrari engine have the exact same exhaust?
#24
Posted 27 February 2004 - 14:22
Hmm, I'm a bit sceptical of that. I think the real number is likely to be more like 30+ hp rather than 45. Then again, what do I know! It is just that Autosport IMO regularly exaggerates engine hp differences between teams. In the past two years they've exaggerated Renault's gap to the leading engines (sometimes talking about 100hp or whatever, recently a bit less like 70hp, but it is still too much probably; I'd buy the 50hp by Quattroruote any day over Autosport's wild guesses). That's just an example. So, since they normally exaggerate the difference, I think it fairly safe to assume that it is less than 45hp, perhaps that 30+ hp that I suggested. Heck, since BMW was 35hp or so ahead of Merc last year, and considering that they all claim to have kept to their old power levels roughly, that would be in the right ballpark. 45hp isn't an impossible figure though, so we'll see. At least they're not claiming 100+ hp, that would be laughable.Originally posted by Racer Joe
If you believe what was reported in Autosport which just came out yesterday, the Mercedes engine is said to be 45hp down on the top engine, presumably the Bimmer.
What I think will be interesting to see is Merc vs. Renault. Mercedes has had to use limited revs because of reliability issues (whether it is due to the engine itself or vibration problems together with the chassis I don't know), so some sources consider the Renault RS24 as the more powerful engine at the moment. I get the feeling, though, that Mercedes just need more time. When they get reliability they'll pump up the revs and maybe get quite close to Ferrari and BMW.
#25
Posted 27 February 2004 - 14:30
Originally posted by scarbs
Hey scarbs! I picked this from your 2004 preview article:
Reliability over the 800km will need to be matched to power output; after the first 100 or so kilometres the engine actually increases in power, then after a plateau power drops at the end of the engines 800km. Managing this power loss is a major issue for the manufacturers; dropping 1-2% of power by the races end or needing a few litres more oil over a race will cost in lap times and could see late race position changes. At least one major manufacturer is known to have a problem with power output towards the end of 800km.
Would you care to tell us which engine (manufacturer) are you talking about? You see, I fear it is Mercedes, would fit the bill with their history, unfortunately...
#26
Posted 27 February 2004 - 14:39
Originally posted by HSJ
What I think will be interesting to see is Merc vs. Renault. Mercedes has had to use limited revs because of reliability issues (whether it is due to the engine itself or vibration problems together with the chassis I don't know), so some sources consider the Renault RS24 as the more powerful engine at the moment. I get the feeling, though, that Mercedes just need more time. When they get reliability they'll pump up the revs and maybe get quite close to Ferrari and BMW.
Personally, i don't think that Mercedes-Benz has been working for 2 years to produce an engine which is only in Ferrari and BMW's level of horsepower, and i remember saying before launching the MP4-18 back in 2003, that the 18's engine provides almost 930HP which is more powerful than Ferrari and BMW's units, plus the 19's engine has to be more powerful than the 18's; so if Mclaren unleash the full power of their unit i think it'll be more than 930 HP. Let's just hope they'll solve it soon and i feel the 19 is full of speed it's just a matter of getting the car were it has to be in terms of reliability to win the championship.
#27
Posted 27 February 2004 - 14:43
Originally posted by Western
Personally, i don't think that Mercedes-Benz has been working for 2 years to produce an engine which is only in Ferrari and BMW's level of horsepower, and i remember saying before launching the MP4-18 back in 2003, that the 18's engine provides almost 930HP which is more powerful than Ferrari and BMW's units, plus the 19's engine has to be more powerful than the 18's; so if Mclaren unleash the full power of their unit i think it'll be more than 930 HP. Let's just hope they'll solve it soon and i feel the 19 is full of speed it's just a matter of getting the car were it has to be in terms of reliability to win the championship.
The 18's engine never got anywhere near it projected figures. Also that engine wasn't designed for the 1 engine rule.
#28
Posted 27 February 2004 - 14:44
I doubt that's achieveable for a few years, now that the engines are meant to last an entire weekend.
#29
Posted 27 February 2004 - 14:44
Remember, no source should be taken at face value and one must always use one's head to sort out the good from the bad articles. Usually everything claimed should be taken with a grain of salt, except when it makes Kimi look good, in which case it should be blown out of all proportions in importance.
#30
Posted 27 February 2004 - 14:53
Originally posted by eoin
The 18's engine never got anywhere near it projected figures. Also that engine wasn't designed for the 1 engine rule.
How can we know where was the 18's engine level other than it wasn't reliable ? Mclaren has never shown the true potential of the 18, only maybe in the few private tests where no lap times were given.
Yes, that engine wasn't designed for the 1 engine rule, but so did Ferrari and BMW at that season, they developped their 2003 engines to compile with the 1 engine rule and increased it's power, so did Mercedes.
#31
Posted 27 February 2004 - 15:09
Originally posted by scarbs
Sauber have a one step behind engine to start the season, so as many revs and power as last seasons Ferrari.
Come on man! How many times do we have to repeat that Sauber has 2004-spec Ferrari engine and gearbox.
Maybe its a bit down on power (lower rpm), but it's 100% 2004 version!
#32
Posted 27 February 2004 - 15:36
Sauber will have Ferrari 04 engine and 03 gearbox, they will be getting steps after Ferrari, does anyone here beleive Michael and Rubens havent had step already from the launch version...!
They produce their own exhaust airbox and cooling system (rads) from Ferrari data, how much this could affect powerreliability is debateable. But the figures shown above are way too low on power and revs, the unit will not be quite as Ferraris but still absolutely bomba (as Harvey Postethwaite used to say when at Ferrari).....
#33
Posted 27 February 2004 - 15:42
Originally posted by race addicted
Illmor's 300+km's engine were rumoured to rev over 19.000 and produce around 930 hp.
That was the N, the experimental engine that landed in the trashcan.
#34
Posted 27 February 2004 - 15:50
Originally posted by scarbs
The merc engine (or its cam shafts at least) is being killed by vibrations and for unknown reasons (to me at least) losing power over the 800Kms. So possibly its peak power on the dyno would be on a par with better engines but otherwise in a car installation over a race distance its down on revs and hence power.
So it WAS Mercedes. How surprising.
#35
Posted 27 February 2004 - 15:55
Originally posted by Sir Frank
That was the N, the experimental engine that landed in the trashcan.
I seems to remember that it was the P-version which this new q version heavely rely on
#36
Posted 27 February 2004 - 15:55
Originally posted by HSJ
By the way, this thread again shows how no source should be considered fully reliable or above criticism. AMuS may be a very good source most of the time, I don't doubt that, but this time they seem to be off a bit. Just a reminder since TS has been getting a lot of flak lately.
Remember, no source should be taken at face value and one must always use one's head to sort out the good from the bad articles. Usually everything claimed should be taken with a grain of salt, except when it makes Kimi look good, in which case it should be blown out of all proportions in importance.
As I said, there is no name on these figures, but there is a name on all of the articles. So I pretty much take it for granted that the new BMW engine gained 4kg indeed. Theissen admitted that they had to chose between 2 routes, lover revs and output or weight gain. They opted more in the way of weight gain.
I think we both know why I posted this thread ;)
#37
Posted 27 February 2004 - 16:03
Originally posted by scarbs
The merc engine (or its cam shafts at least) is being killed by vibrations and for unknown reasons (to me at least) losing power over the 800Kms. So possibly its peak power on the dyno would be on a par with better engines but otherwise in a car installation over a race distance its down on revs and hence power.
If it is losing power OVER 800 KM mark, what's the problem?
They won't do more than 700 KM during the GP weekend, so does it really matter?
#38
Posted 27 February 2004 - 16:06
Originally posted by davegp3
If it is losing power OVER 800 KM mark, what's the problem?
They won't do more than 700 KM during the GP weekend, so does it really matter?
It happens gradually.....
#39
Posted 27 February 2004 - 16:08
Originally posted by race addicted
It happens gradually.....
And when it starts? At 400KM mark or when?
Advertisement
#40
Posted 27 February 2004 - 16:12
Originally posted by HSJ
Hmm, I'm a bit sceptical of that. I think the real number is likely to be more like 30+ hp rather than 45. Then again, what do I know! It is just that Autosport IMO regularly exaggerates engine hp differences between teams. In the past two years they've exaggerated Renault's gap to the leading engines (sometimes talking about 100hp or whatever, recently a bit less like 70hp, but it is still too much probably; I'd buy the 50hp by Quattroruote any day over Autosport's wild guesses). That's just an example. So, since they normally exaggerate the difference, I think it fairly safe to assume that it is less than 45hp, perhaps that 30+ hp that I suggested. Heck, since BMW was 35hp or so ahead of Merc last year, and considering that they all claim to have kept to their old power levels roughly, that would be in the right ballpark. 45hp isn't an impossible figure though, so we'll see. At least they're not claiming 100+ hp, that would be laughable.
What I think will be interesting to see is Merc vs. Renault. Mercedes has had to use limited revs because of reliability issues (whether it is due to the engine itself or vibration problems together with the chassis I don't know), so some sources consider the Renault RS24 as the more powerful engine at the moment. I get the feeling, though, that Mercedes just need more time. When they get reliability they'll pump up the revs and maybe get quite close to Ferrari and BMW.
I agree. 45bhp down sounds way too much. A figure such as 25bhp is more reasonable. Though autosport really just quoted someone as saying that figure. The story wasn't wrapped around it or anything.
#41
Posted 27 February 2004 - 16:19
Originally posted by HSJ
So it WAS Mercedes. How surprising.
Here we go again..... Merc/Ilmor really likes playing catchup. This is the third year in a row, even discounting 2001 after the beryllium ban? :
#42
Posted 27 February 2004 - 16:21
My question is, when they got the person responsiple for the p81, 82 and 83, why the .... doesn't they just copy the principle and materials of that engine.
My advice to mercedes, get rid of illmor he has done nothing wright the last coupple of years and let Werner take over.
#43
Posted 27 February 2004 - 16:42
Originally posted by f1rules
I seems to remember that it was the P-version which this new q version heavely rely on
http://forums.atlasf...&threadid=54412
Post No36.
The P should have been the engine in the MP4/18, this years engine (should be the Q, I dont know why AMuS writes P, I think its a typo) is the Q.
#44
Posted 27 February 2004 - 16:43
And a great thread it is too! I was going to start one myself, perhaps at the tech forum after reading scarb's comments in the article I quoted, but since you started this thread there's no need for another one.Originally posted by Sir Frank
As I said, there is no name on these figures, but there is a name on all of the articles. So I pretty much take it for granted that the new BMW engine gained 4kg indeed. Theissen admitted that they had to chose between 2 routes, lover revs and output or weight gain. They opted more in the way of weight gain.
I think we both know why I posted this thread ;)
#45
Posted 27 February 2004 - 16:46
Originally posted by f1rules
Not even headhunting the chief engineer of BMW's f1 engine program (werner laurenz) have turned things around.
Laurenz is the figure in place of Morgan (more of an organisator than an engineer), he was not the main character in BMWs engine department but Heinz Paschen.
#46
Posted 27 February 2004 - 16:50
Originally posted by HSJ
I was going to start one myself, perhaps at the tech forum after reading scarb's comments in the article I quoted, but since you started this thread there's no need for another one.
Hmmm, it might be a good idea to start a thread over there as well, those folks are usually quite knowledgable about these things too. I didnt have the face starting this thread with this info there.
#47
Posted 27 February 2004 - 17:16
The McLaren-Mercedes team have boosted their prospects of taking on Ferrari next season by signing up an engine expert from rivals BMW.
The move is a major coup for Mercedes, which has been struggling with engine development in recent years and has fallen a substantial distance behind BMW and Ferrari.
The BMW V10, used by the Williams team, is regarded as the most powerful in F1, and by employing project leader Werner Laurenz Mercedes should discover many of its secrets.
Laurenz has been heavily involved in the design of every BMW engine since the company returned to F1 in 2000.
BMW has refused to confirm that Laurenz is moving to Mercedes, but a source close to McLaren has confirmed to BBC Sport Online that it is the case.
EDIT.
„Werner Laurenz hat sich in der Aufbauphase der BMW Formel-1-Abteilung sehr verdient gemacht und sucht nun nach neuen Herausforderungen," erklärte BMW Motorsport Direktor Mario Theissen am heutigen Morgen im Rahmen des freien Trainings zum Großen Preis von Japan den Abgang seines Leiters der Formel-1-Motorenentwicklung, der durch 49-jährigen Heinz Paschen ersetzt werden wird...
EDIT.
http://www.F1Total.d.../02121709.shtml
#48
Posted 27 February 2004 - 17:38
Originally posted by Sir Frank
Laurenz is the figure in place of Morgan (more of an organisator than an engineer), he was not the main character in BMWs engine department but Heinz Paschen.
You are right
#49
Posted 27 February 2004 - 17:49
Originally posted by f1rules
You are right
Its easy to be right after been tought: http://forums.atlasf...&threadid=49203
#50
Posted 28 February 2004 - 11:38
I meant over the whole of the 800Kms (i.e. from 0 to 800) not when going over 800+. Engines actualy gain power over first few 100Kms as the engine beds in, then power tails off as the tolerances increase through wear, so the cost towards the end of a race woudl be slower laptimes, or perhaps if the engien needs more oil to replace that blown out of the engine as it wears it coudl mean a quite few extra kilos at the start of the race..