PDA

View Full Version : Cosworth and sportscars?


coolhand
06-28-05, 12:02 AM
Cosworth might return to top-line sports car racing after an absence of more than a decade. The renowned engine builder, whose F1-derived units were successful in sports cars from the 1970s into the early 1990s, is working on a new twin-turbo V8. The motor is being pitched as an off-the-shelf powerplant that can be fitted into the growing number of LMP1 customer prototypes that will be available next year.

Cosworth Racing, owned by Champ Car boss Kevin Kalkhoven, has yet to release details of a powerplant on which it has been working for some time. Rumor is the engine is based on the IRL Indy car unit it developed for Chevrolet, which is withdrawing from the series at the end of the season

http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=102644
Easy
06-28-05, 10:22 AM
Auto Week forgot about the 2.65 turbo Cosworth that Team Nasamax ran in P1 in 2003 with Bio-Ethanol.

This new project would be based on the Cosworth irl engine.
Jag_Warrior
06-28-05, 10:46 AM
Well, it's about d@mn time! Especially in Europe, I couldn't understand why they were letting others have the market.

Now if Jaguar had any sense (which I know they don't!), they'd contract with Cosworth and put together an ALMS/Le Mans program. Involvement in the unknown Trans Am program does nothing for them.

:thumbup: Cossie!
nrc
06-28-05, 10:53 AM
But wait. Is a real prototype with a crapwagon engine a crapotype or a real prototype? Does the turbo take the curse off of it? Is that why it would be a twin turbo, because one wouldn't provide enough mojo? :gomer:
RusH
06-28-05, 01:11 PM
This bodes well the the AR1 rumer. ALMS and CCWS at Sebring.
Hey, one can still dream. :cool:
Steve99
06-28-05, 02:41 PM
Why start with the crapwagon motor rather than the 2.65L Champ Car engine?
cameraman
06-28-05, 02:47 PM
Why start with the crapwagon motor rather than the 2.65L Champ Car engine?

By starting with an IRL block you would end up with a 3.5L dual turbo V8 instead of a 2.65L dual turbo V8
Easy
06-28-05, 02:47 PM
Why start with the crapwagon motor rather than the 2.65L Champ Car engine?

The 3.0 is based on the 2.65. They can use the extra displacement for sportscar racing. I think they can go up to a 3.4 or 3.6 twin turbo for LeMans. See R8.
extramundane
06-28-05, 04:26 PM
The 3.0 is based on the 2.65. They can use the extra displacement for sportscar racing. I think they can go up to a 3.4 or 3.6 twin turbo for LeMans. See R8.

LMP1 turbo engines can go up to 4.0L. Not sure that the extra .4-.6L would be an advantage, though.
NismoZ
07-01-05, 08:10 PM
So the rumor of a twin turbo Cosworth for the next ChampCar spec makes a little more sense now, as does this new cooperation thing with CC and ALMS. I'd like to believe this one!
Jag_Warrior
07-01-05, 08:41 PM
Auto Week forgot about the 2.65 turbo Cosworth that Team Nasamax ran in P1 in 2003 with Bio-Ethanol.

This new project would be based on the Cosworth irl engine.

They had a Champ Car team lined up too... for about five minutes. They quickly moved from the (too small) 2.65 turbo V8 to the Judd V10, when the little turbo proved to be uncompetitive.

The entire package they first put together, while interesting, was doomed to be uncompetitive. But I bought the Nasamax Reynard-Cossie proto diecast anyway. Cool and rare piece.
Rocketdoc
07-01-05, 08:48 PM
LMP1 turbo engines can go up to 4.0L. Not sure that the extra .4-.6L would be an advantage, though.

It would depend on where those fractional liters lie.

A little longer stroke on a turbo engine can bring in a slightly broader and earlier (lower RPM) torgue level. Something a road racing engine can use.
coolhand
07-01-05, 09:08 PM
They had a Champ Car team lined up too... for about five minutes. They quickly moved from the (too small) 2.65 turbo V8 to the Judd V10, when the little turbo proved to be uncompetitive.

what 750-800 Hp was not enought for ALMS?
Ankf00
07-02-05, 01:32 AM
But wait. Is a real prototype with a crapwagon engine a crapotype or a real prototype? Does the turbo take the curse off of it? Is that why it would be a twin turbo, because one wouldn't provide enough mojo? :gomer:

dunno, what's the diff between this and a grand am powerplant in your opinion ;)

:gomer:

:D
NismoZ
07-02-05, 11:30 AM
I just figure a CW engine tweaked by Cosworth with twin turbos is simply no longer a CW engine and there's nothing to worry about. :)
Easy
07-02-05, 01:41 PM
what 750-800 Hp was not enought for ALMS?


It wasn't pushing anywhere near that. It was a detuned version for endurance racing and turboed and air restricted to ACO rules.

Also, I think bio-ethanol has even less juice than methanol. Could be wrong on that one though.

For reference the R8's crank out around 600bhp. That's where the ACO wants power levels. Not enough for shorter, twistier American tracks but prevents ridiculous top end speeds at LeMans.
pchall
07-02-05, 02:06 PM
It wasn't pushing anywhere near that. It was a detuned version for endurance racing and turboed and air restricted to ACO rules.

Also, I think bio-ethanol has even less juice than methanol. Could be wrong on that one though.

For reference the R8's crank out around 600bhp. That's where the ACO wants power levels. Not enough for shorter, twistier American tracks but prevents ridiculous top end speeds at LeMans.

Nasamax screwed themselves with the small displacement choice. Of course, since bio-ethanol combusts with far fewer BTU than gasoline the rules might have been against them at any displacement.