624 replies to this topic

[DOF_power]

ferruccio, on Jul 23 2009, 04:55, said:

I agree.

Either allow it to innovate, or let it die. We have more than enough same spec series already existing around the world. F1 should be allowed to be what it is, even if it kills it

F1 should stop trying to become A1GP, GP2, IRL etc

Personally, I want F1 engines to be allowed to rev o 30,000 rpm

Or better still, go back to 4cyl Turbos. 1.5L? Boost pressure policing to limit hp is easier and the teams can still innovate engine and turbo technology all they want. These seem more relevant to the auto industry.

Me too.
Personally I'd like to see TSI V10s revving at 30000 rpms on some alternative fuels, with a proper KERS.
TSI is VW's turbocharged-supercharged-injection engine BTW.

[Wuzak]

DOF_power, on Jul 23 2009, 16:25, said:

Me too.
Personally I'd like to see TSI V10s revving at 30000 rpms on some alternative fuels, with a proper KERS.
TSI is VW's turbocharged-supercharged-injection engine BTW.

There was talk about using turbocompounds a few years back, where instead of running a compressor the turbine added power to the crank.

[ferruccio]

What about electro-magnetic-hydraulic(or whatever it was called) valve actuators, once researched and developed to replace camshafts? They were talked about for F1 and IRL. Another relevant technology for the auto industry. Guess it was too difficult to implement?

[meb58]

I couldn't agree more! ...the USA is in a wee bit of a funk lately...

Tony Matthews, on Jul 23 2009, 05:54, said:

It's got more to do with challange than ability, Henri, the challange set by President Kennedy was what got the Americans, with help from the German war effort - also a challange - to the moon. All the great innovators have challanged themselves, as much as accepted pressure from outside. I'm sure the world is full of very clever people who will never achieve their potential through lack of desire, determination or challange. I'm not being critical of the engineers of any nationality, or any discipline, I think I've stated often enough that I have respect, man, respect, just that it is human nature that most people, engineers or not, will accept the status quo, in this instance, if you can use familiar technology to produce a thin-wall iron block, single cam and two valves per cylider that gives loads of reliable horsepower, why bother with all-ali, four-cam, four valve screamers?

[McGuire]

Henri Greuter, on Jul 23 2009, 21:05, said:

A pushrod indeed. But other then that, that engine was a purebred racing engine in every other aspect than the compromises required by and because of having only two valves and a single cam. It was much more advanced than everytinge Detroit ever made till then (1994) and maybe even up to today.
Had the design been closer to the "Detroit Boat anchors" then the power advantage id had would not ben as large is it eventually was.

Rating the Ilmor 265E on equal terms with a piece of Ditroit Iron, that is an insult to the men of Ilmor who designed and built it and the men who made it work on the track.

Henri

Current NASCAR engines are far more advanced than the pushrod Ilmor. Also, in 1994 there were a number of Detroit production engines more advanced than the Ilmor, starting with the Cadillac Northstar.

As we all know, the Ilmor pushrod engine was a Phase 1, art to parts, 90-day wonder type program. So if we really look at the engine we can see a few problems. If the rules had not been rewritten and Cosworth, Honda, and Toyota had been compelled to build their own pushrod V8s, the Ilmor would have been blown into the weeds. That's just the nature of the game. The Ilmor is an interesting story, but mainly in its politics, not its technology. Technically the engine is sort of clever but it certainly didn't break any new ground, that being the furthest thing from its purpose.

Personally, I find these sorts of comparisons childish and naive. In the "Detroit iron" that competed against the Ilmor at Indy, you of course refer to the Buick V6. The Buick was never designed as a racing engine. It was a production car engine, and in that role it accomplished far more than all the Ilmors of every variety ever built. Tens of millions were manufactured and they were among the most trouble-free engines in history, with a service life in the hundreds of thousands of miles. Ilmor was run out of Champ Car racing by 1999. They couldn't cut it in their chosen venue.

I guess we can start with a coherent definition of "advanced." Race fans just sort of naturally assume that racing engines are more "advanced" than production engines. No, they are simply different and since I understand the difference, I reject the entire assumption. Will an Ilmor Indy engine start at 20 below zero? Hell, no. The main bearings would be ripped right out of the block. If you want to get technical about it (the subject here being technology) the Ilmor will not start at any temperature. Not on its own. It has no starter. A mechanic must bring the starter buggy over or it's not going anywhere. Now, Cadillac had self-starting in 1912, but I suppose that is a little too advanced for Ilmor. Maybe by "advanced" you really mean fussy, specialized, high-maintenance, and hideously expensive.

[Tony Matthews]

McGuire, on Jul 23 2009, 14:22, said:

Personally, I find these sorts of comparisons childish and naive.

That is what I was intimating earlier, there is no sensible comparison.

[McGuire]

Tony Matthews, on Jul 23 2009, 22:26, said:

That is what I was intimating earlier, there is no sensible comparison.

Gearheads tend to equate "advanced" with complicated and "sophisticated" with high component count. That's one way to look at it. Others say the finest word processor ever developed is the pencil, and the best packaging in history is the banana peel.

[Henri Greuter]

McGuire, on Jul 23 2009, 14:22, said:

Current NASCAR engines are far more advanced than the pushrod Ilmor. Also, in 1994 there were a number of Detroit production engines more advanced than the Ilmor, starting with the Cadillac Northstar.

As we all know, the Ilmor pushrod engine was a Phase 1, art to parts, 90-day wonder type program. So if we really look at the engine we can see a few problems. If the rules had not been rewritten and Cosworth, Honda, and Toyota had been compelled to build their own pushrod V8s, the Ilmor would have been blown into the weeds. That's just the nature of the game. The Ilmor is an interesting story, but mainly in its politics, not its technology. Technically the engine is sort of clever but it certainly didn't break any new ground, that being the furthest thing from its purpose.

Personally, I find these sorts of comparisons childish and naive. In the "Detroit iron" that competed against the Ilmor at Indy, you of course refer to the Buick V6. The Buick was never designed as a racing engine. It was a production car engine, and in that role it accomplished far more than all the Ilmors of every variety ever built. Tens of millions were manufactured and they were among the most trouble-free engines in history, with a service life in the hundreds of thousands of miles. Ilmor was run out of Champ Car racing by 1999. They couldn't cut it in their chosen venue.

I guess we can start with a coherent definition of "advanced." Race fans just sort of naturally assume that racing engines are more "advanced" than production engines. No, they are simply different and since I understand the difference, I reject the entire assumption. Will an Ilmor Indy engine start at 20 below zero? Hell, no. The main bearings would be ripped right out of the block. If you want to get technical about it (the subject here being technology) the Ilmor will not start at any temperature. Not on its own. It has no starter. A mechanic must bring the starter buggy over or it's not going anywhere. Now, Cadillac had self-starting in 1912, but I suppose that is a little too advanced for Ilmor. Maybe by "advanced" you really mean fussy, specialized, high-maintenance, and hideously expensive.

You are correct on the Northstar. But why was it banned from the one and only kind of competition that mattered to America: NASCAR? because it was so much more efficient in generating power then the pushrods that, in order to keep the power down, they had to be reduced to a capacity that the average American race fan find suitable enough to put on a lawn mower at the very best?
having said this, the following is a serious request, in what respect is a current NASCAR block more advanced than the Ilmor 265E? I'll be happy to be proven wrong and learn from you in that respect.

You could be right on a second generation of purpose built pushrod engines had they ever come into existance. I have no idea what could have happened then.

If you say that the Buick wasn't designed as a racing engine but only as a production engine: then it was a piece of hardware at the wrong place, at the wrong time. But it appeard for a comparison in an area against an entirely different animal. Since they were so different, built for su different purposes, we are not allowed to compare them, despite the fact they `competed` against another?
Apart from the Buick, I was also thinking about that Chevy V6 contraption of AJ Foyt that ruined the final part of George Snider's career.
The stock thing needed all kinds of benefits to be vaguely competitive, pretty much the basic problem that eventually caused the 1994 Ilmor 265E episode.

As for your rejection. Go ahead. There is a lot of sense in that, I will instantly agree with you on that.
But you bring up comparisons for which racing engines are not built, are not tried for and thus are unfair to compare them with production blocks. Certainly, production engines (including the kind I refer to as Detroit Junk) are capable of things in daily life that a racing engine never ever will be capable of.
But you don't agree with comparing racing engines against production blocks, even if they do meet in the same arena?

Your last paragraph, I do agree with most of that. Compare horses with horses and donkeys with donkeys. But if the Donkey mixes with the horses then I'm not going to judge it differently because it is only a mere donkey pretending to be a thoroughbred.


henrii

Edited by Henri Greuter, 23 July 2009 - 14:05.

[DOF_power]

ferruccio, on Jul 23 2009, 16:07, said:

What about electro-magnetic-hydraulic(or whatever it was called) valve actuators, once researched and developed to replace camshafts? They were talked about for F1 and IRL. Another relevant technology for the auto industry. Guess it was too difficult to implement?

It was Mosley who banned it for racertainment reasons as far as I know.

[Wuzak]

If I undertand correctly, the Dodge V8 used in Nascar is now about 10 years old, and the Toyota about half that.

[DOF_power]

>
^ Costs are not the biggest problem of auto racing.
Irrelevance and indifference from the people are.


That's why Speedcar, A1 GP and Co. keep on dieing and the IRL is in decline.

Can Am might have had Detroit Junk engines, but it was also boasted revolutionary/interesting/hot stuff stuff like movable airfoils, ground effects, turbos and so on.

The big crowds of the 1930s that attended GP races, unmatched to this day, came to see the silver arrows. The rally madness of the 80s was due to the wild Group C cars; ditto for the Group B interest and the wild Group 6 and 7 cars in the 60 and early 70s (that's sportscar-endurance racing and Can Am).

Those Can Am McLarens, Chaparrals, Ford GT40s, Porsche 917s and Ferrari 512s are legends, and still have people interested in them, while their drivers have been forgotten.


Contrary to popular belief, it's really the cars/machines and the tracks/stages that made drivers into superstars/demigods as well as build institutions/legends like Ferrari.
Drivers, team bosses, personalities will always be forgotten as time passes.



All these spec crap/cheapo racing series will never survive, will never be as interesting and will never compare to the those series/formulas that really pushed the envelope like 1930s GP racing, the 1960s and early 70s Group 6 and 7/Can Am, Group B, Group C and IMSA GTP, the old DTM/ITC.

[McGuire]

Henri Greuter, on Jul 23 2009, 23:02, said:

If you say that the Buick wasn't designed as a racing engine but only as a production engine: then it was a piece of hardware at the wrong place, at the wrong time. But it appeard for a comparison in an area against an entirely different animal. Since they were so different, built for su different purposes, we are not allowed to compare them, despite the fact they `competed` against another?

By all means, let's compare them. The most obvious difference is eight cylinders vs. six. This is also the biggest difference in their performance potential: greater valve area, shorter stroke, reduced piston speed for a given displacement. All else being roughly equal, the eight is going to make more power. That's just how it is.

But does this make the eight more "advanced"? Not that I can see. Number of cylinders does not equal sophistication, let alone superiority of design. It simply means more suitable for a specified purpose. For other purposes the six may be superior. (This was part of the genius of the Cosworth DFV: that in this instance eight could be better than 12 or 16.)

The second obvious difference: one was a production engine adapted to racing use; the other purpose-built for racing. Again, does that make one engine more advanced? No, just more suitable for racing.

To me, these are interesting comparisons. Artificial contrasts not so much; aka writer's artifice, yuck. The fact is that the Buick was by design less suited to racing at Indianapolis, not that it was "less advanced," whatever that means. "Detroit Iron" is writer's shorthand at best, not a technical description of any particular informational content.

[Henri Greuter]

McGuire, on Jul 23 2009, 15:54, said:

By all means, let's compare them. The most obvious difference is eight cylinders vs. six. This is also the biggest difference in their performance potential: greater valve area, shorter stroke, reduced piston speed for a given displacement. All else being roughly equal, the eight is going to make more power. That's just how it is.

But does this make the eight more "advanced"? Not that I can see. Number of cylinders does not equal sophistication, let alone superiority of design. It simply means more suitable for a specified purpose. For other purposes the six may be superior. (This was part of the genius of the Cosworth DFV: that in this instance eight could be better than 12 or 16.)

The second obvious difference: one was a production engine adapted to racing use; the other purpose-built for racing. Again, does that make one engine more advanced? No, just more suitable for racing.

To me, these are interesting comparisons. Artificial contrasts not so much; aka writer's artifice, yuck. The fact is that the Buick was by design less suited to racing at Indianapolis, not that it was "less advanced," whatever that means. "Detroit Iron" is writer's shorthand at best, not a technical description of any particular informational content.

I will instantly admit that you bring up points here on which I can agree. I think the comparing to be interesting too.
We shall always keep a different opinion on certain matters I think. But we are closer to agreement than ever before .


Henri

[McGuire]

Henri Greuter, on Jul 23 2009, 22:02, said:

having said this, the following is a serious request, in what respect is a current NASCAR block more advanced than the Ilmor 265E? I'll be happy to be proven wrong and learn from you in that respect.

Where to start? Simply put, in every way. Current NASCAR engines represent the absolute state of the art in every aspect of their development. As of today, the only difference between NASCAR and F1 is DOHC 4V vs. pushrod 2V, and the pushrod 2V layout presents a far more daunting set of challenges. In cam lobe design alone the art has advanced significantly since 1994, and NASCAR engine builders have all the very latest tools and resources at their disposal. That's just one example. Really, what you are asking is how has engine technology progressed since 1994.

[cheapracer]

McGuire, on Jul 23 2009, 21:40, said:

Gearheads tend to equate "advanced" with complicated and "sophisticated" with high component count. That's one way to look at it. Others say the finest word processor ever developed is the pencil, and the best packaging in history is the banana peel.

Riceburners is also a common term too. Had a recent 'discussion' with a Ricey about the difference between a Lexus and a Chev.

Chev 5.7 LS1 - 430lbs, 350+hp, 375lbs torque, 30mpg hwy
Lexass 4.3 3UZ - 470lbs, 300hp, 325 lbs torque, 22 mpg hwy

But the Chev is old tech ****, apparently and of course in the usual manner, so was I for posting verifiable facts.

I think many people know what incredible success Porsche have had in their history but have no idea with what - very simple SOHC, air cooled, 2 valve engines. (Of course earlier with pushrods). I was shocked and dissapointed as a kid when I saw my first 911 engine apart, I was looking through the bits on my Dads bench wondering where the real parts were!!

Australian Sports Sedans was also a free engine formula, once at the top of Oz motor racing with people who could afford any engine competing but all the success was had with Yank V8's including beating the works BMW 320 Turbo (at around the same time as their BMW F1 turbo program too) and Moffats 3.4 Cosworth Capri.

[McGuire]

Wuzak, on Jul 23 2009, 22:27, said:

If I undertand correctly, the Dodge V8 used in Nascar is now about 10 years old, and the Toyota about half that.

Dodge and Ford have new engines this year, while Chevrolet got in its first full season with the R07 last year.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what that means in terms of development. Chevrolet had "the same engine" in NASCAR from 1955 to 2007, or so it could be said, but in those years every single component changed countless times. Only the basic architecture remained constant. The final NASCAR iteration employed a CGI block. It's very different stuff than production hardware or even racing pieces used in other series. Meanwhile, the R07 shares nothing with any other GM production or racing engine.

[DOF_power]

In what body does the LS1 get 30 mpg hwy and with what gearing ?!

[cheapracer]

DOF_power, on Jul 24 2009, 00:21, said:

In what body does the LS1 get 30 mpg hwy and with what gearing ?!

Can I make you a cup of coffee too, maybe clean your house, wash your clothes, blow you?

[cheapracer]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 00:15, said:

. Meanwhile, the R07 shares nothing with any other GM production or racing engine.

Not being a lazy POS and actually having the ability to type things into Google, I came up with this.

http://www.circletra...eads/index.html

http://www.racecar-e...vrolet-r07.html

http://www.superchev...gine/index.html

[meb58]

...if we look at pre WWII racing airplanes we get a similar picture. Those planes were fantastic! Although the war changed many things, the advancement of the fighters eventually surpased that of the racing planes. Folks like to see wild stufff.

DOF_power, on Jul 23 2009, 10:41, said:

>
^ Costs are not the biggest problem of auto racing.
Irrelevance and indifference from the people are.


That's why Speedcar, A1 GP and Co. keep on dieing and the IRL is in decline.

Can Am might have had Detroit Junk engines, but it was also boasted revolutionary/interesting/hot stuff stuff like movable airfoils, ground effects, turbos and so on.

The big crowds of the 1930s that attended GP races, unmatched to this day, came to see the silver arrows. The rally madness of the 80s was due to the wild Group C cars; ditto for the Group B interest and the wild Group 6 and 7 cars in the 60 and early 70s (that's sportscar-endurance racing and Can Am).

Those Can Am McLarens, Chaparrals, Ford GT40s, Porsche 917s and Ferrari 512s are legends, and still have people interested in them, while their drivers have been forgotten.


Contrary to popular belief, it's really the cars/machines and the tracks/stages that made drivers into superstars/demigods as well as build institutions/legends like Ferrari.
Drivers, team bosses, personalities will always be forgotten as time passes.



All these spec crap/cheapo racing series will never survive, will never be as interesting and will never compare to the those series/formulas that really pushed the envelope like 1930s GP racing, the 1960s and early 70s Group 6 and 7/Can Am, Group B, Group C and IMSA GTP, the old DTM/ITC.

[OfficeLinebacker]

DOF_power, on Jul 23 2009, 12:21, said:

In what body does the LS1 get 30 mpg hwy and with what gearing ?!

I am also curious

[OfficeLinebacker]

Wuzak, on Jul 23 2009, 10:27, said:

If I undertand correctly, the Dodge V8 used in Nascar is now about 10 years old, and the Toyota about half that.

They just came out with a new one that is being phased in this year.

[DOF_power]

cheapracer, on Jul 23 2009, 20:08, said:

Can I make you a cup of coffee too, maybe clean your house, wash your clothes, blow you?

Dodging questions now are you ?!

You should know how fuel efficiency is influenced by the mass, the aero drag, gearing, pressure of the tires, etc.

And what are the real dyno numbers ?!

[DOF_power]

meb58, on Jul 23 2009, 20:17, said:

...if we look at pre WWII racing airplanes we get a similar picture. Those planes were fantastic! Although the war changed many things, the advancement of the fighters eventually surpased that of the racing planes. Folks like to see wild stufff.

I wasn't talking about racertainment, I was talking about automotive racing.

Funny since the silver arrows where used to experiment for the Luftwaffe.

[Henri Greuter]

McGuire, on Jul 23 2009, 16:50, said:

Where to start? Simply put, in every way. Current NASCAR engines represent the absolute state of the art in every aspect of their development. As of today, the only difference between NASCAR and F1 is DOHC 4V vs. pushrod 2V, and the pushrod 2V layout presents a far more daunting set of challenges. In cam lobe design alone the art has advanced significantly since 1994, and NASCAR engine builders have all the very latest tools and resources at their disposal. That's just one example. Really, what you are asking is how has engine technology progressed since 1994.

Given my previous sarcastic comments regarding Detroit hardware: No offence meant with the following question..

Is this also valid for redesigning valve location and combustion chamber design in order to get the most optimal possible lay-out possible with the shortest rods possible as well?
(As was done with the 265E)
Is sucn permitted within NASCAR nowadays, to redesign the entire block and cylinder head for such porposes?


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 24 July 2009 - 06:51.

[gruntguru]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 01:50, said:

Where to start? Simply put, in every way. Current NASCAR engines represent the absolute state of the art in every aspect of their development.

Development yes - design no.

In terms of design, Nascar engines cannot and should not be compared to F1. The former was designed decades ago as an optimal solution to a mass production road-car brief. The latter was designed very recently to fit within a totally different set of constraints.

Edited by gruntguru, 24 July 2009 - 07:10.

[ferruccio]

gruntguru, on Jul 24 2009, 08:05, said:

Development yes - design no.

In terms of design, Nascar engines cannot and should not be compared to F1. The former was designed decades ago as an optimal solution to a mass production road-car brief. The latter was designed very recently to fit within a totally different set of constraints.

Agreed.

The similarities end with the fact that they're both V8. Everything else is different including the fact that one is a cross plane crank while the other a flat plane. This fundamental difference alone make both V8s comparatively 'apples and oranges'. The Nascar V8 block doesn't need to double as a chassis either I think

[cheapracer]

OfficeLinebacker, on Jul 24 2009, 02:49, said:

I am also curious

I've heard that.

Since generally your a good Guy I'll do it but heres a tip

GOOGLE


Official Australian Government
http://www.environme...;vehicleid=9437

2003 Holden VY Commodore 'SS' V8 Man sedan 4dr Man Sedan
City Consumption = 13 litres per 100km travelled
Highway Consumption = 7.4 litres per 100km travelled
= 31.5 mpg

http://www.calculate...r100kmtoMPG.htm

Vehicle Specifications
Transmission: Man
Body Style: Sedan
Fuel: Petrol
Vehicle Type: Passenger
Fuel System: Fuel Injection
Engine Displacement: 5.7 litres
Cylinders: 8
Gear Ratios: 6
Seating Capacity: 5
Axle Ratio: 3.46

Edited by cheapracer, 24 July 2009 - 14:09.

[Tony Matthews]

cheapracer, on Jul 24 2009, 12:04, said:

Since generally your a good Guy I'll do it

Now, what about the coffee and the blow-job...?

[McGuire]

ferruccio, on Jul 24 2009, 17:25, said:

Agreed.

The similarities end with the fact that they're both V8. Everything else is different including the fact that one is a cross plane crank while the other a flat plane. This fundamental difference alone make both V8s comparatively 'apples and oranges'.

We can't compare engines if one has a 90 degree crank and the other has a 180 degree crank? Sounds like the classic armchair pronouncement, no offense. You can run them in the same engine with several simple changes. I've seen them racing each other in CART, IRL, NASCAR, and NHRA. I've seen engine mfg'ers running both crank configurations at the same event, Honda to name one.

At the Indy 500 several years ago, the Oldsmobile entries were split roughly 50/50 with 90 degree cranks and flat cranks. At that time, the 90 degree crank was the proven setup while the flat crank was just coming online -- with a few vibration problems, predictably. My good friend Doug Peterson of Comptech, a very savvy engine builder, advised his customer Chip Ganassi to run the 90 degree crank engine, and with it Juan Montoya won the race.

Here a direct comparison was performed and a qualitative choice was made. So what do you mean they can't be compared?

[McGuire]

gruntguru, on Jul 24 2009, 15:05, said:

Development yes - design no.

In terms of design, Nascar engines cannot and should not be compared to F1. The former was designed decades ago as an optimal solution to a mass production road-car brief. The latter was designed very recently to fit within a totally different set of constraints.

No, incorrect. None of the current engines are based on production designs, with Ford being the final holdout. The Dodge and Toyota engines never had any production basis. Toyota has never built built a production pushrod V8 of that type, obviously. Dodge's last production pushrod V8 was the LA series, discontinued. Its first NASCAR engine (in the modern era) was the R5/P7 engine, based on the R5 block -- an entirely different, non-production design.

This is the current Chevrolet R07 NASCAR engine. (R07 = Racing, '07. There were also R99 and R05 engines, never raced.) It shares not one dimension, feature, or component with any production GM engine past or present. For example, its bore centers are 4.500 inches, while the LS and SBC are 4.400". There are 21 head fastener stations per bank, while the SBC has 17. The right bank is offset front, while the SBC is left offset, etc. and so on. Entirely different engine. The cylinder case is compacted graphite, cast in the same foundry in GB as a number of F1 blocks.

Edited by McGuire, 24 July 2009 - 11:23.

[cheapracer]

Henri Greuter, on Jul 23 2009, 15:40, said:

Porche was the first with money at hand to search for something else/better...
See what happened then....


Henri

Yes I did see, Shadow V8, 2 valves and pushrods with turbo, 1200+hp, the most powerful Can Am car ever built - a fact verified recently with the actual car itself.

Next.

Tony Matthews, on Jul 24 2009, 19:12, said:

Now, what about the coffee and the blow-job...?

Sure, would the REAL tony Mathews please stand up?

You'll forever regret that post

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 19:21, said:

Entirely different engine. The cylinder case is compacted graphite, cast in the same foundry in GB as a number of F1 blocks.

Is there anyway to get more info on that please Mac?

I am especially interested in that process.

Edited by cheapracer, 24 July 2009 - 11:32.

[cheapracer]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 19:21, said:

The Dodge and Toyota engines never had any production basis. Toyota has never built built a production pushrod V8 of that type, obviously.

I am not familiar with the NASCAR Toyota V8 in any way but I assure you that Toyota had a all aluminium pushrod V8 in the form of the 70's 3.0L 3V and 3.4L 4V models.

Lovely engine too, very high cam with offset very short pushrods to finger rockers and semi hemi chambers. If anyone knows the old Corolla/Celica 1600/1800 2T/3T engines they will know that hi cam setup.

I have fond memories of them because I slotted them into a few different vehicles such as Holden Commodores and I just opened Wiki to find there was an original 2.6L 1V from 1964 thru to a 4.0L 5V till 1998, which I didn't know.

http://en.wikipedia....Toyota_V_engine

Edited by cheapracer, 24 July 2009 - 11:46.

[McGuire]

cheapracer, on Jul 24 2009, 20:26, said:

Is there anyway to get more info on that please Mac?

Here's something earlier when the engine was first introduced... unfortunately, I didn't go into CGI block casting in this piece. Sort of interesting, requires slightly different thinking in design, core layout, etc. Most all the blocks these days are done by the same couple of foundries in England, including Ford's upcoming Pro Stock engine... oops, spilled the beans slightly. Should be safe to talk about by now.

http://www.hotrod.co...gine/index.html

[cheapracer]

Aww c'mon, you just wrote that for the thread didn't you!!

Thanks..

[McGuire]

cheapracer, on Jul 24 2009, 20:43, said:

I am not familiar with the NASCAR Toyota V8 in any way but I assure you that Toyota had a all aluminium pushrod V8 in the form of the 70's 3.0L 3V and 3.4L 4V models.

I did say "of that type." I am familiar with the Century V engine (not so much as you, we don't see them much here) but obviously it is totally unsuited for NASCAR. Architecture too small, valvetrain and chambers all wrong, etc.

When the Toyota engine was coming together, Lee White told me several interesting stories about the process. First was getting NASCAR approval as Toyota had no production engine and at that time NASCAR had no regulatory framework. He asked them what can we build and they said just don't make it any better than the rest in its key dimensions -- cam height, carb flange height, etc. You know, just don't go outside the existing box. So Lee asks them for the dimensions and they say sorry, we can't give those out. Typical NASCAR. So TRD went out and bought Dodge, Ford, and GM Winston Cup engines, took them apart and reverse-engineeered them for their hard points. They designed the engine within the box and it was approved. This is the origin of all the stories claiming that the Toyota is a copy of the _______ (fill in brand here). Since then NASCAR has done a manufacturer's round table-type thing and developed a set of dimensions called the "engine parameters list."

The second was in designing and tooling the block. They cast their net through Toyota but there was nobody left with any comfort level with cast iron. But fortunately, Lee came up through Ford, working next to the legendary Mose Nowland, who was involved in every Ford racing engine from the DOHC Indy on. So they did it themselves, old-school.

[cheapracer]

cheapracer, on Jul 24 2009, 19:57, said:

Aww c'mon, you just wrote that for the thread didn't you!!

Thanks..

...... But I like your stories here better cause your not towing the line!

Thanks again.

[Henri Greuter]

cheapracer, on Jul 24 2009, 11:26, said:

Yes I did see, Shadow V8, 2 valves and pushrods with turbo, 1200+hp, the most powerful Can Am car ever built - a fact verified recently with the actual car itself.

Next.

No, not next, backtrack a little !!!!

Had it not been for Porsche to demonstrate the potential of the turbo and (blowing off the normally aspirated engines in the dust) then the turbocharged engine within the Shadow had likely never been built to begin with.

and must I be impressed with a blown 8.l liter boat anchor that produced 1200 HP???
The Offy did the same at about the same time with half the amount of cylinders and only 1/3 the capacity.
What's more impressive? 1200 out of 8.1 or 1200 out of 2.65?

OK, I will admit instantly, the Offy would have been undrivable on the roadtracks that Can Am used thus it was impractical for use within Can Am.




OK, now it is time for your next.....

henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 24 July 2009 - 13:13.

[Henri Greuter]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 11:21, said:

No, incorrect. None of the current engines are based on production designs, with Ford being the final holdout. The Dodge and Toyota engines never had any production basis. Toyota has never built built a production pushrod V8 of that type, obviously. Dodge's last production pushrod V8 was the LA series, discontinued. Its first NASCAR engine (in the modern era) was the R5/P7 engine, based on the R5 block -- an entirely different, non-production design.

This is the current Chevrolet R07 NASCAR engine. (R07 = Racing, '07. There were also R99 and R05 engines, never raced.) It shares not one dimension, feature, or component with any production GM engine past or present. For example, its bore centers are 4.500 inches, while the LS and SBC are 4.400". There are 21 head fastener stations per bank, while the SBC has 17. The right bank is offset front, while the SBC is left offset, etc. and so on. Entirely different engine. The cylinder case is compacted graphite, cast in the same foundry in GB as a number of F1 blocks.

McGuire,

Thanks for updating my knowledge on NASCAR engineering.

I'll never call them stock cars anymore....

henri

[McGuire]

Henri Greuter, on Jul 24 2009, 20:54, said:

and must I be impressed with a blown 8.l liter boat anchor that produced 1200 HP???

I would dissuade people from the notion that a BBC Can Am engine is a "boat anchor." Why? Because it has pushrods? At the time it was one of the best racing engines in the world -- and relatively advanced, with a Reynolds 390 linerless aluminum block, a cleverly wave-tuned injection system and the most advanced electronic ignition system then in existence. McLaren Performance in Livonia, MI (no longer connected with the F1 company) was founded to build and service these engines, and on the basis of that expertise became one of the top twenty engine development companies in the world, which it remains to this day. One of the company's specialties is a turbocharged BBC marine racing engine that is world class. Additionally, one of its key people, Frtiz Kayl, spun off his own company, Katech, which is also one of the top engine facilities anywhere. Both these companies do deep, deep R&D for the OEs and racing programs alike, using equipment only a handful of people on this board could even identify. On all types of engines, from pushrod V-twins to DOHV V12s; air, land, sea.

So let's compare the BBC with that magnificent cuckoo clock, the Porsche 917-30 with all its bells and whistles. How was its fuel injection system calibrated? By Mark Donohue, with a rat-tail file on the throttle cam. When you get right down to it, an engine is an engine.

Engine development and technology are not defined by the number of valves in an engine, or what means of valve actuation it happens to employ. All that is for the armchair enthusiast. The basic design configuration is essentially defined by the application, especially in racing where it is expressly specified in the rules. In NASCAR the box is 16V CIB V8; in F1 the box is 32V DOHC V8. Different boxes, but they are both boxes. What it's really about: the level of tools, resources, expertise, and effort brought to bear on the design, development, and refinement of any given engine package to obtain its optimal potential. At the end of the day the type of engine is really neither here nor there. It could be a Wright R3360 TC or an air-cooled Tecumseh, just bring money. Sure, some engines are more interesting and impressive than others to the casual enthusiast, but that is only due to their lack of understanding. The real game is beyond their view, but since they can recognize the obvious bits that's what they key in on. Since the 4V DOHC layout was invented nearly 100 years ago, personally I am pretty much over it. I don't try to pretend it's new or advanced every time I see one.

[cheapracer]

Henri Greuter, on Jul 24 2009, 20:54, said:

No, not next, backtrack a little !!!!

Had it not been for Porsche to demonstrate the potential of the turbo and (blowing off the normally aspirated engines in the dust) then the turbocharged engine within the Shadow had likely never been built to begin with.

and must I be impressed with a blown 8.l liter boat anchor that produced 1200 HP???
The Offy did the same at about the same time with half the amount of cylinders and only 1/3 the capacity.
What's more impressive? 1200 out of 8.1 or 1200 out of 2.65?

OK, I will admit instantly, the Offy would have been undrivable on the roadtracks that Can Am used thus it was impractical for use within Can Am.




OK, now it is time for your next.....

henri

The Porsche didn't blow them off actually, the MC20 faired quite well but sure Porsche's time had come or should we say the time of the turbo had arrived? Mclaren couldn't give the required effort because they had upped their F1 program for 1973 so they quit, business decision - Can Am's loss.

You didn't mention that the 12cyl Porsche 5 litre NA or the 12cyl Ferrari 7 litre engine couldn't touch the Chev boat anchors.

You should be impressed with any engine that produces 1200hp and is actually raced, hell I am.

The Offy would have been completely undrivable on pump fuel actually.

Edited by cheapracer, 24 July 2009 - 14:06.

[McGuire]

Henri Greuter, on Jul 24 2009, 21:15, said:

McGuire,

Thanks for updating my knowledge on NASCAR engineering.

I'll never call them stock cars anymore....

henri

You're more than welcome.

Now, the Buick turbo V6 was a production engine... or production-based, shall we say. New block casting but based on the same architecture and on the same tools -- same bore spacing, primary bolt locations, etc. Basically just a stronger, heavier piece, was called a Stage II block... there were also Stage II heads, all available over the counter and a lot of them are around. Now that I remember, there were two block variations, siamese and non-siamese (just like the production engines). The big-bore/short stroke and smaller bore/longer stroke variations were nicknamed Fat Man and Little Boy; there was little or no difference in their performance, at least in development phase. Menard eventually had some aluminum cases cast but that was a decade later.

There is considerable fudge factor built into the term "production-based." The engines are invariably less stock than the factory lets on. That's just a tradition in both the USA and Europe. Very rare not to run off at least a few HD blocks, if only by scraping the cores for a short run. That trick goes back to Rusell Snowberger's Hupp Comet in '32 at least, and is certainly older than that. The BMW F1 turbo was a stock-block, hahahaha. Sure it was. The Aurora IRL engine was called "production-based" and was essentially identical in layout to the Aurora production V8, but actually it was smaller in every dimension and purpose-designed, mainly by Geoff Goddard at TWR, but sorta styled on the outside to resemble the Aurora/Northstar. There is no place in pro racing anymore for "production-based," ancient history. Purpose-built engines are just easier all around and cheaper in the long run.

[Henri Greuter]

cheapracer, on Jul 24 2009, 14:05, said:

The Porsche didn't blow them off actually, the MC20 faired quite well but sure Porsche's time had come or should we say the time of the turbo had arrived? Mclaren couldn't give the required effort because they had upped their F1 program for 1973 so they quit, business decision - Can Am's loss.

You didn't mention that the 12cyl Porsche 5 litre NA or the 12cyl Ferrari 7 litre engine couldn't touch the Chev boat anchors.

You should be impressed with any engine that produces 1200hp and is actually raced, hell I am.

The Offy would have been completely undrivable on pump fuel actually.

I don't know enough about Can-Am's finals years to debate with you about Porsche competitive, I am fascinated by the 917 but the CanAm version doesn't appeal to me that much though i am kind of interested in the turbo technology on the car.
Why I didn't mention the atma Porsche 12 and atmo Ferrari: easy. 2 valve per cylinder 5 liter against a 2 valve per cylinder 7 liter.
Bit unfair comparison, no way a 5 liter can make up against a 7 liter even if it has some more cylinders and potentially more RPM. Turbocharging wa required to make up for that.
The Ferrari Can Am engine was, if I remember correct a 5 liter by design. I don't think it was suitable to be made that big without complications.
But ferrari was also never really committed to do something serious about CanAm.

I agree with you that the Offy could not have been used on gasoline. Methanol was the lifeline of that engine with those boost levels. You are correct to point that out.

As for racing engines putting out 1200 hp, i am sorry but I can't help being more impressed by such engines the smaller they are in capacity. I know that in the USA the philosophy has that "There is no substitute for CIs" but that is an approach that never got my fascination.
Probably because the loud barking of those big block is so well loved by the majority of race fans. But I am one of few who actually hates the kind of noise that's been made by big blocks. It plays a part why I don't like them and my lack of interest for them.

henri

[Henri Greuter]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 13:55, said:

I would dissuade people from the notion that a BBC Can Am engine is a "boat anchor." Why? Because it has pushrods? At the time it was one of the best racing engines in the world -- and relatively advanced, with a Reynolds 390 linerless aluminum block, a cleverly wave-tuned injection system and the most advanced electronic ignition system then in existence. McLaren Performance in Livonia, MI (no longer connected with the F1 company) was founded to build and service these engines, and on the basis of that expertise became one of the top twenty engine development companies in the world, which it remains to this day. One of the company's specialties is a turbocharged BBC marine racing engine that is world class. Additionally, one of its key people, Frtiz Kayl, spun off his own company, Katech, which is also one of the top engine facilities anywhere. Both these companies do deep, deep R&D for the OEs and racing programs alike, using equipment only a handful of people on this board could even identify. On all types of engines, from pushrod V-twins to DOHV V12s; air, land, sea.

So let's compare the BBC with that magnificent cuckoo clock, the Porsche 917-30 with all its bells and whistles. How was its fuel injection system calibrated? By Mark Donohue, with a rat-tail file on the throttle cam. When you get right down to it, an engine is an engine.

Engine development and technology are not defined by the number of valves in an engine, or what means of valve actuation it happens to employ. All that is for the armchair enthusiast. The basic design configuration is essentially defined by the application, especially in racing where it is expressly specified in the rules. In NASCAR the box is 16V CIB V8; in F1 the box is 32V DOHC V8. Different boxes, but they are both boxes. What it's really about: the level of tools, resources, expertise, and effort brought to bear on the design, development, and refinement of any given engine package to obtain its optimal potential. At the end of the day the type of engine is really neither here nor there. It could be a Wright R3360 TC or an air-cooled Tecumseh, just bring money. Sure, some engines are more interesting and impressive than others to the casual enthusiast, but that is only due to their lack of understanding. The real game is beyond their view, but since they can recognize the obvious bits that's what they key in on. Since the 4V DOHC layout was invented nearly 100 years ago, personally I am pretty much over it. I don't try to pretend it's new or advanced every time I see one.

The boat anchor comment was largely based on the cast iron versions because of their size and weight. specially the `big block versions like the 427 and their varieties by the different Detroit companies...

The 4 valve DOHC is indeed rather old fashioned age wise.

To some extend one could indeed say that the Ilmor 265E was even more innovative than a Quadcam because when it was designed there was given so much detail to minimize the handicaps of only two valves and at the same time get an as optimal as possible combustion chamber that enabled an as opimal gas flown within the cylinder. Certainly at that time it took the 2 valve single pushrod V8 to new levels of efficiency.

Did anything like Ilmor did for the 265E end up in NASCAR ?


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 24 July 2009 - 15:03.

[GrpB]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 13:17, said:

the legendary Mose Nowland, who was involved in every Ford racing engine from the DOHC Indy on. So they did it themselves, old-school.

This goes to the heart of the question. Mr. Nowland's 50+ year motorsports career may include involvment in historic, "old school" projects (glorious successes), but the only difference between his new projects and his old projects is not "technology", it is the tools and materials he has at his disposal to achieve the desired targets. The engineers job is to bump up against the limits of physics, constrained by budget, materials and time. Whether that engineer is working on an F1 engine or NASCAR engine is only relevant in so far as it changes the box in which he has to play.

FEA, CFD, ICE, CAD, Rapid Prototyping, etc. all of the tools that the engineers on either side use are the same. And again, materials are constrained only by the rules or budget, not by for example the suppliers of valve steels who would only sell to F1, or the foundries that can cast CGI blocks that would refuse any other work besides NASCAR blocks. Motorsport engineers the world over use the same tools and have access to the same materials, that their uses are different speaks more to budget, rules and timing than any predisposition on the part of one group of engineers in one series as compared to another. A motorsport conference seminar on the newest analysis package from Ricardo or whoever is not solely populated by F1 engineers in labcoats while the Nascar engineers hang out at the free bar drinking Budweiser and scratching their bellies...

To conjecture a swap of the engineering development teams between NASCAR and F1, and who would do better, is like Fantasy Footbal or anything else that does not include the team dynamic and attitude that is the critical driving force behind any engineering development. Is their pay the same? Is travel the same? Is the scope of the job the same? Doing the calculations and development are relatively straightforward between the two, an engine is an engine is an engine. Are crankshafts, connecting rods, poppet valves etc. so really different that the F1 engineer would look at, say, a NASCAR crank and wonder if perhaps it is a suspension component? Is the question whether NASCAR physics is different from F1 physics???

[cheapracer]

Henri Greuter, on Jul 24 2009, 22:52, said:

Why I didn't mention the atmo Porsche 12 and atmo Ferrari: easy. 2 valve per cylinder 5 liter against a 2 valve per cylinder 7 liter.
Bit unfair comparison, no way a 5 liter can make up against a 7 liter even if it has some more cylinders and potentially more RPM. Turbocharging wa required to make up for that.
The Ferrari Can Am engine was, if I remember correct a 5 liter by design. I don't think it was suitable to be made that big without complications.
But Ferrari was also never really committed to do something serious about CanAm.



henri

Unfair comparison? Hang on those (Porsche and Ferrari) were pure bred racing engines from inception,the best Europe had to offer - the 4.5 Porsche had a very respectable 580hp before they bumped it up to 5.0 - your making excuses for them and the 7 litre Ferrari with 4 cams and 680hp was actually quite fast but I think they got a shock how fast the boat anchors were and how well developed the cars were overall and I think very smartly shy'ed off with no loss of rep suffered.

Recently said of the Ferrari;
"the engine was very reliable and was twenty five years ahead of its time. (in the 1990s) in the FIA GT series, you see cost no-object six and seven liter V12s with the same architecture and rpm bands. It’s the same concept, excepting, of course, the electronic mapping/cartography; amazing, when you think about it.”

[Bob Riebe]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 17:21, said:

No, incorrect. None of the current engines are based on production designs, with Ford being the final holdout. The Dodge and Toyota engines never had any production basis. Toyota has never built built a production pushrod V8 of that type, obviously. Dodge's last production pushrod V8 was the LA series, discontinued. Its first NASCAR engine (in the modern era) was the R5/P7 engine, based on the R5 block -- an entirely different, non-production design.

That is not true.
The original Dodge engine used, this was before NASCAR started trying to force, in a back-assward manner, the makes to use somewhat similar engines, had larger bore spacing than either the Ford or Chevy, so Dodge could use a larger bore that either of the others if it so chose.
NASCAR banned, the "stock" based block forcing Dodge to use something that never saw light of day under the hood of a passenger car.
This was some years back but if I remember correctly this happened not too long after the Mopar sprint car engine was designed so some ideas used in the sprint engine were used in the new "stock car" engine.

[ferruccio]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 12:21, said:

We can't compare engines if one has a 90 degree crank and the other has a 180 degree crank? Sounds like the classic armchair pronouncement, no offense. You can run them in the same engine with several simple changes. I've seen them racing each other in CART, IRL, NASCAR, and NHRA. I've seen engine mfg'ers running both crank configurations at the same event, Honda to name one.

At the Indy 500 several years ago, the Oldsmobile entries were split roughly 50/50 with 90 degree cranks and flat cranks. At that time, the 90 degree crank was the proven setup while the flat crank was just coming online -- with a few vibration problems, predictably. My good friend Doug Peterson of Comptech, a very savvy engine builder, advised his customer Chip Ganassi to run the 90 degree crank engine, and with it Juan Montoya won the race.

Here a direct comparison was performed and a qualitative choice was made. So what do you mean they can't be compared?

To some degree I think you know what I meant but on the other hand you may have missed my point. My fault for any ambiguity. I certainly understand what you're getting at. This is what I said:

Quote

The similarities end with the fact that they're both V8. Everything else is different including the fact that one is a cross plane crank while the other a flat plane. This fundamental difference alone make both V8s comparatively 'apples and oranges'.

I maintain that both cross plane and flat plane V8s are comparatively 'apples' and 'oranges'. Yes, either type can be considered for a race engine but for some race applications one would clearly be the better solution while for others it could be almost 50/50 when the pros and cons are weighed. There is a reason why we do not see cross plane used in F1(and most other single seater series) and there is a reason why Nascar is all cross plane (correct me if I'm wrong)

In many cases, you can achieve similar power targets with either type but each type will exhibit different transient response plus other characteristics/problems. This is unavoidable and thus my 'apples' and oranges' comparison.

You cannot run them in the same engine with 'simple' changes. Depending on the application the difficulty may not be worthwhile. You can try to solve and minimize but can't avoid,

- Difference in rotational masses which affects throttle response. Balancing the car via throttle is important
- Exhaust firing order. Maximizing power via exhaust tuning is more complicated with cross plane. You've got to blend the pulses between banks
- Also packaging. Smaller crankshaft and simpler exhaust means flat plane is easier to package, depending on the application, once again.

So it is not 'simple' in some sense like changing cylinder bank angles slightly where all you have to do is off set the crank pins to compensate.

So it's down to the intended application but each type will still exhibit different running characteristics. As far as winning a race is concerned there is a lot more to it then just the type of engine a team/driver is using though certainly it is a contributing factor. Montoya certainly would not want his fans to think that it was his engine that won the race!

[Bob Riebe]

Here is what happens when a lawn mower engine company decides to go racing.



*
Engine Assembly Includes:
*
Professionally Machined Dual Bearing Briggs and Stratton Blockzilla Block
*
Flowed and Ported
*
Billet Rod
*
Wiseco Piston - .140 to .194 Overbore
*
Billet Head
*
Large Stainless Valves
*
Billet Lifters
*
Billet Cam
*
Dual Valve Springs
*
Billet Side Cover
*
Billet Coil Bracket
*
Billet Fly Wheel
*
Billet Starter Nut
*
Billet Intake
*
.400 to .563 Stroker Crank
*
30 or 32 mm Mikuni Carb*
*
Throttle Cable
*
Air Cleaner
*
Fuel Pump
*
Billet Breather Cover
*
High Output German Coil

$3395.00
*Add $150 for 33 mm Pumper
As has been said, all the "high tech" ideas are really just re-runs of very old ideas. There is nothing new or high tech. about a blower of any sort. The same can be said for valve layout.
I personally find what some old hot-rodders are now doing with very old engines at Bonneville far more interesting and techonlogically advancing that anything in F-1.
I have no love for diesels but the diesels used in the ACO are closer to new tech. than F-1.

[ferruccio]

GrpB, on Jul 24 2009, 17:25, said:

To conjecture a swap of the engineering development teams between NASCAR and F1, and who would do better, is like Fantasy Footbal or anything else that does not include the team dynamic and attitude that is the critical driving force behind any engineering development. Is their pay the same? Is travel the same? Is the scope of the job the same? Doing the calculations and development are relatively straightforward between the two, an engine is an engine is an engine. Are crankshafts, connecting rods, poppet valves etc. so really different that the F1 engineer would look at, say, a NASCAR crank and wonder if perhaps it is a suspension component? Is the question whether NASCAR physics is different from F1 physics???

You are right. An engine is an engine. Likewise engineering is engneering is engineeing. Differentiated only by budget.

You could have been referring to the statement I made earlier,

Quote

The more interesting question for me is, if a team in F1 swapped places with a team in Nascar, which one will get up to speed quicker

If you were, then notice I did not say engineering development. I said 'team' and I honestly did not imply that the F1 team in Nascar will 'get up to speed' quicker. I'm not surprised if the opposite was true. When you have less budget and more restriction the grey cells really work overtime and sweat really starts pouring. The dynamics within a team is so intricate.

Though I work for a single seater team in a same spec series I will admit, like most people I follow F1 and have done so since the 80s. I am honestly appalled by some of the bizarre team mistakes demonstrated in recent times by teams that are supposed to be among the best in F1, which also means supposedly 'best in the world'

It's also rather difficult to judge from the outside how good the team dynamics are in F1, against other series that are somewhat similar to F1. Look at the number of mechanics waiting at the box as the car pits. In most other series we see significantly fewer people taking on more responsibilities. In which case you can immediately see the weakness in the team and often times with direct consequence to race results. I don't follow Nascar but I am always impressed by their pit stops. It's not easy to change the tyres especially when you've got 5 nuts per corner instead a single big one, yet they are able to do it beautifully.

Each of my guys only have one central nut to contend with but they still practice like hell almost daily, in between race weeks. Even with one nut, some teams manage to get them cross-threaded, more often than they should. One mech almost hurt himself when the driver blipped the throttle as he was tightening the nut. A lot of things can go wrong in a team. The good ones consistently have less of it and fortunately they're influenced by team spirit not team budget!