What if a turbos were added to the Grand Am engine formula for CCWS?

[Jag_Warrior]

I've never read the G/A rulebook to really check out the engine formula. I just know that more companies keep adding their name to the list of suppliers.

Other than maybe some compression tweaking to make the engines live longer with turbos, what would be the problem with using engines of this type? How heavy are they? Are they that much heavier than early Cosworths?

Would I rather see CCWS have new "high-tech", purpose built, small displacement, turbo racing mills? Sure I would. I'd like to wake up beside Salma Hayek too. But since neither is going to happen, I think alternative options should be looked at. Just curious what those who know engines think about this.

[pfc_m_drake]

It's an idea that's gotten some play in other places (for another series mind you - not CC). Though I think they were intent on using the engine 'as-is' (in other words, without turbo modification).

I agree with you, it certainly seems like a viable alternative. I'm not sure how the idea would dovetail into the fact that KK and GF now own Cosworth, but it's certainly an idea worth considering. With the current state of affairs, I think almost all ideas merit consideration.

[racer2c]

I think we are more likly to see Cosworth badging on the current 2.65. 'Badgers' could come and go without upsetting the series' health. Maybe, the 'badgers' could supplythe heads if so desired to make like there is some manufacturer involvement.

[NismoZ]

Turbos added to 4+ litre V-8s? I'd guess not. Geez, wasn't BMW getting 1200-1300hp from 1.5 litre 4cyl turbos back in early 80s F-1? Pretty sure. If CC continues in the same direction they don't need even a 2.65 litre V-8. I was wondering if Cosworth might come up with a turbo 4 for the Atlantics, especially if Toyota leaves after this season...maybe "badged" as a Ford?(since Cosworth is already doing aftermarket "tuner" parts for the Focus.) Don't know about the '06 spec, but it makes sense to "pump up" the Atlantic power a bit, in light of the coming A1GP and Pan Am series. Then in '07 CC SHOULD have a lighter road/street chassis anyway, so they might not need even the present 750hp. Power to weight. Can't lower the boost much more as they presently stand, so either go to a 3 litre NA ( :eek: ) or maybe a 2 litre turbo 4 ( :eek: :eek: ) It's a tough decision. I just think keeping the same Cosworth engine AFTER '06 marginalizes CC and makes it a sort of Vintage racing series, and adopting an even bigger, heavier V-8 is going in the wrong direction.

[nrc]

It's a tough decision. I just think keeping the same Cosworth engine AFTER '06 marginalizes CC and makes it a sort of Vintage racing series, and adopting an even bigger, heavier V-8 is going in the wrong direction.

I draw the line at 10 years, that's about how long they ran the Cosworth DFX.

[Jag_Warrior]

Turbos added to 4+ litre V-8s? I'd guess not. Geez, wasn't BMW getting 1200-1300hp from 1.5 litre 4cyl turbos back in early 80s F-1? Pretty sure.

and adopting an even bigger, heavier V-8 is going in the wrong direction.

Yeah, 4.3 liters (give or take) with a turbo. Just as previous versions of the 2.65 were pumping out over 900 horsepower, you can always dial boost back to where you want. These engines put out between 450 and 500 hp now. With a turbo and appropriate mods, 750-800 hp doesn't seem like a stretch.

I'm sure the current engine is closer to what most fans want (myself included). I'm just asking, as this might be a source of sponsors and brand identity for the series. But I'd be shocked if Ford wrote any big motorsports checks (outside of NASCAR) over the next few years.

Like racer2c said, maybe someone else will badge the current engine (along with Ford). And if it comes down to it (with other sponsorship on board), they can run these engines forever. It's just that the spec element is beginning to get old.

[Al Czervik]

Equivelancy (sp??) formulas do not work at the top of any form of motor racing. See Mercedes, Indy 1994, for an example.

Write the spec, let any and all build to the spec, and let the best win.

[Jag_Warrior]

Equivelancy (sp??) formulas do not work at the top of any form of motor racing. See Mercedes, Indy 1994, for an example.

Write the spec, let any and all build to the spec, and let the best win.

You lost me, Al. I don't mean running these engines against the current turbo 2.65's. The 4 liters are race modified production based, built within whatever G/A's rules are.

I agree with you. I'd love to see four or five engine makers (or builders) out there. But I don't think any of our dream engines are going to make the new formula work. No one wants to build ultra-expensive prototypes. I don't think anyone is going to build an exotic Champ Car engine either. Heck, building semi-racey IRL engines has even lost its flavor. If the teams are having to take checks from the likes of Lil Fabio in order to race now, I don't see anyone (outside of Forsythe, Newman and PKV) being able to afford new engines and new chassis (without some major sponsors).

[Al Czervik]

You lost me, Al. I don't mean running these engines against the current turbo 2.65's. The 4 liters are race modified production based, built within whatever G/A's rules are.

I agree with you. I'd love to see four or five engine makers (or builders) out there. But I don't think any of our dream engines are going to make the new formula work. No one wants to build ultra-expensive prototypes. I don't think anyone is going to build an exotic Champ Car engine either. Heck, building semi-racey IRL engines has even lost its flavor. If the teams are having to take checks from the likes of Lil Fabio in order to race now, I don't see anyone (outside of Forsythe, Newman and PKV) being able to afford new engines and new chassis (without some major sponsors).

The GA rules permit various engines/displacements/configurations. There are Lexus 4 cam V-8's, Pontiac pushrod V-8's, Porsche flat 6's, etc. Trying to equalize the various configurations in a sprint race format hasn't worked in the past, and IMHO, wouldn't work in the future.

[Jag_Warrior]

Oh, I see what you mean. Then CCWS could rule to only allow certain configurations, if that's the case.

At this point, I'm for any engine formula which will allow me to still be watching Champ Car races (new, not vintage) when I retire. I figure I've got another good ten years in me... I don't think Pretty Boy Nelson's money is going to hold out that long. :laugh:

[Railbird]

I still like the idea of a production based turbo inline 4.

Lots to choose from and the builders could funnel the necessary mods through Cosworth.

[Methanolandbrats]

I still like the idea of a production based turbo inline 4.

Lots to choose from and the builders could funnel the necessary mods through Cosworth. This is the best idea. It makes so much sense it will probably never happen.

[Accipiter]

I still like the idea of a production based turbo inline 4.


Me too.

[nissan gtp]

I still like the idea of a production based turbo inline 4.

Lots to choose from and the builders could funnel the necessary mods through Cosworth.

yep me too

"big hp" for champ cars, and a little one for atlantics

[Mike Kellner]

I love the production DOHC 4 turbo idea. Short stroke them to about 1.3 liters, and require that the heads and blocks be interchangable with street units, but allow them to be special racing grade. Set a max bore limit of about 8.6 Cm. Outlaw titanium and other exotic materiels. Make them use stuff like iron, steel, and aluminum for moving parts.

Second idea. Since those motors are small, what about turning them sideways like a motorcycle? That would shorten the car behind the firewall, and move the driver's feet and legs back from the nose.

mk

[pchall]

Second idea. Since those motors are small, what about turning them sideways like a motorcycle? That would shorten the car behind the firewall, and move the driver's feet and legs back from the nose.

mk

I've toyed with this in the past, mostly as a way of shortening the wheelbase. It would also turn the engine/gearbox unit into a package similar to what many manufacturers use in their production cars. It would be interesting see how a transverse four could be mounted as a stressed member.

A transverse engine in a formula car is not without precedent, since Honda stuffed a 1.5l V12 into their first F1 car:

http://www.sportnetwork.net/mainadmin/img/1691044351774.jpg

http://www.sportnetwork.net/mainadmin/img/1691044351731.jpg

[Railbird]

Gotta give credit to Kellner for being the one who got me thinking along these lines a while back.

Considering some of the things Kalkhoven has spoken about having in mind for Cosworth I think it would be a natural fit.

[NismoZ]

A transverse stressed member?...how is that done? Who's done it? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just unfamiliar with it. That Honda wasn't stressed was it? Geez if we're going to 1964 to look for "new" stuff, maybe we should demand a gas-electric hybrid formula!

[Mike Kellner]

I don't think PCHall was saying the Honda was a stressed member, but rather was asking how you could do that with a transverse motor installation. That is a good question, and may be the showstopper for that configuration. The stressed member system gets rid of a whole lot of structure, and makes for a lighter, simpler design.

When I think about it, I think the intake side of the head would have to face forward, so the heat of the exhaust pipes wouldn't affect the carbon fiber firewall.

In a conventional layout, the straight 4 would have the advantage of being very narrow, so the top of the motor would fit nocely behind the headrest.

Without the turbo, you would have a 270 - 300 HP motor. Perfect for the ladder series. If the block, heads and internals were the same, except for pistons, and cams, they motor might last all season, being designed for 700+ HP with supercharging. Setting the rev limit a 1000 rpm lower would help a lot too. Long times between overhauls, combined with a common manufacturing and supply chain overhead would make for a reasonable cost ladder series motor.

There is a lot of upside to this idea.

mk

[pchall]

A transverse stressed member?...how is that done? Who's done it? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just unfamiliar with it. That Honda wasn't stressed was it? Geez if we're going to 1964 to look for "new" stuff, maybe we should demand a gas-electric hybrid formula!

I have seen references where the Honda V12 is said to be a "load bearing member" in the car. I've sometimes wondered what might be the exact difference between this and a "stressed member", or if it is just a change in terminology in one of those old time 'brilliant" Japanese tech writer's translations into broken English?

[Peter Venkman]

[QUOTE=Al Czervik]Equivelancy (sp??) formulas do not work at the top of any form of motor racing. See Mercedes, Indy 1994, for an example.

I disagree. The Penske Merc was a case of a stupid Tony George and a brilliant Roger Penske.

Annular inlet area, RPM caps and compression chamber ratio limits work pretty well in ALMS and the dumbed down Daytona Prototypes, not to mention the World Challenge Series.

I'd much rather see innovation and multiple engine designs than a single engine type design, no matter how many manufacturers doing it.

[oddlycalm]

Gotta give credit to Kellner for being the one who got me thinking along these lines a while back.

Considering some of the things Kalkhoven has spoken about having in mind for Cosworth I think it would be a natural fit. Agreed on both points. They do seem interested in broadeing Cosworth's market, and the small displacement engine is the performance market these days. Deciding to make a change at this point doesn't require approval from anyone else. If they want a 1.6L four cylinder, the only people they need to convince are themselves. As others have pointed out, Cosworth doesn't have to be an exclusive supplier, but it does guarantee that there will be a supply.

oc