GRE = Globally Renowned Errata? [Archive]

Enjun Pullr

14th October 2010, 20:47

The notion was credited to Audi's Ulrich Baretzky, and if memory serves the GRE was widely heralded in a RaceCar Engineering issue from July. Of 2008.

Now the first "Global Racing Engines" have seen the light of day. This discussion began in another thread, but is best continued separately.

BMW, Citroen, and Ford introduced their 1.6 L turbocharged racing engines about two weeks ago at the Paris Auto Show. They will compete in WRC (World Rally Cars) next season. They are 300 HP engines.

Delta Wing Lovers rejoice, you now have a tangible alternative. Previously the plan was for installation of a detuned AER MZR-R engine, quoted by Bill Lafontaine of Delta at $150,000 a copy. Of course, the price on the GRE's hasn't been disclosed yet....

Feel free to start another Delta thread if you wish to share these exciting developments. For the real IndyCar world, a little more truth dripped out of Baretzky's GRE today.

We already know that the performance targets for the 2012 IndyCar require 750 peak horsepower: that's full tilt bizzo, on a road course with the planned overtake assist engaged.

There are at least two existing alloy 2.0 L production engine blocks that can handle this stage of tuning, and they have already been proofed in competition in other categories. At WOT (wide open throttle) for 1,000 miles? Not yet, but the engines and the correct architecture exist.

The 1.6 GRE? If they can handle much more than the 300 HP tune, nobody has shown the proof. These are alloy engine blocks designed for light weight commuter cars. I say blammo, the whole GRE concept blows up unless you design and build a bespoke engine block to handle the job. The GRE proposed for Formula 1 in 2013 may look like one of the 300 HP rally car engines, but they will require a complete redesign from the block up.

Until today, we read a lot of enthusiasm for this plan. I'm sure that in another two and a half years, Baretzky will be proud to watch the GRE's race in F1. They have the time and cubic Euro's to make it happen. How many?

Here is what Cosworth had to say, in the course of negotiations about the GRE for F1. And why they are among the stakeholders who are pushing to keep the current V8 formula:

"Cosworth has a particular interest that everything remains the same. The engine builders from Northampton are financially limited. Cosworth believe though, that one can develop with 20 million € a four-cylinder inline engine, as long as there are strict limits on speed and boost pressure, but even this sum to be allocated to their customers. This is no longer with a lease rate of six million euros per year. For financially weak teams would be not good news."

Blame Google for the translation, the link will appear below. Cosworth's estimate is far below the figures tossed out in the article by other builders. That's $28.2 MILLION dollars for the development. Add on costs of mass production, facilities for rebuilds, distribution and tech support, a hefty participation fee to Indycar, and voila: we have our own GRE. In 2013. Maybe they can trim the lease price down from $8.46 MILLION a year?

Wow, this is surprising. Baretzky told Randy Bernard that there were three GRE's ready to go. In some jumpin' little 300 HP pace cars, maybe. Those, we could see next year. If IndyCar can afford them....

Honda has projected a lease price for the 2.4L V6 twin turbo at about $650,000 per year in 2012. If and when a competitor appears, the price goes up according to HPD's Erik Berkman.

There still remains no plan to continue using the V8's beyond 2011, which in my view is a wasted opportunity to introduce variables. At least there would be the prospect of racing two engines with different performance curves, under an equivalency cap. Not gonna happen. Not with a GRE, either.

It remains to be seen if an auto manufacturer will finance an engine program for IndyCar, even if it is based on an existing 2.0 L 4 cylinder turbo race engine. That route eliminates most development costs which have already been devoted by privateers building GM, Ford and Mazda engines.

And now we can guesstimate the cost of a clean sheet of paper design:call it $20M, and I would add at least another $15M to cover the additional expenses mentioned. Argue any of this if you wish, but please bring facts to the table.

It's tiring to read fantasies. There are plenty of other places to find those.

Reality check:

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/formel-1-motor-2013-todt-will-den-vierzylinder-turbo-2786432.html

Hoop-98

14th October 2010, 20:52

The GRE is too big and heavy for the delta concept or practically for the 2012 ICS. Look up the min specs.

rh

Enjun Pullr

14th October 2010, 22:12

Greetings Hoop, nice to hear from you again. It's been an interesting season, hasn't it?

Thanks for that bit, I didn't have enough interest in the GRE to look it up. I presume the three 1.6 engines are roughly the same weight?

Still, it's surpising to learn that they weigh much more than the AER. I think the stripped weight of that engine is in the 175 lb. range, after the block was revised for the 2010 season.

Nice to see that AER got the reliability issues sorted.

Hoop-98

14th October 2010, 22:20

240 is the GRE min, 87mm bore.

rh

Otto-Matic

14th October 2010, 22:22

thanks for posting the link Enjun. Def some food for thought.
so just to clarify (the Google translation is a bit murky to follow on the link),
the new F1 engine forumla will cost manufactors $100 Million??? how is that sustanable? and if those costs get passed along to the teams, wouldn't this be just a huge increase in cost of participation? granted i'm not sure how much $$ the crrent engine formula costs teams (manufact costs passed down included).
Interesting points on the GRE. so all things considered, we're stuck with only Honda in 2012....

Enjun Pullr

14th October 2010, 22:59

Hoop-98

14th October 2010, 23:28

Otto, where the article got confusing to me (aside from the language barrier) is the inclusion of KERS in the discussion. It seemed to me that the manufacturer figures were outlining the cost to meet the regs, i.e. complete new engine program + KERS.

I'm only guessing, but the Cosworth quote and figures indicated to me that they were talking purely about the engine, and did not mention recovery systems.

Hoop, 240 lbs is fat and happy. Which manufacturer did that come from?

“We looked at the block, and decided it was 84 mm bore for example + or - 3 mm, so you could start with an 82 mm bore or you could go up to 87 mm bore. This already shows that you have freedom to make your own type of engine. But this was the main point that we all brought our common sense and knowledge together to this or that, the right dimensions was the discussion. This was a fantastic process; everybody contributed his ideas to make the best out of it, and we believe new manufacturers will find this concept something they will enjoy.”

The group decided to stick with petrol-based engines for now. Audi’s heavy investment in diesel racing engines notwithstanding, Baretzky says the manufacturers agreed that diesel racing engines are not ready for a global format, so the GRE has been designed to accept everything from gasoline to bio fuels.

Durability was another design aspect the group worked towards, with 6000 km (3700 miles) between rebuilds as the target. Compared to the 1200-1400 miles IndyCar teams have between rebuilds today, the GRE can go almost three times longer, which cuts out a number of expensive rebuilds.

Because of the compact size of the 2.0L inline-4, the GRE comes in at 40 pounds under the Honda V-8 (240 pounds for the GRE to 280 for the Honda) ( 70 pounds heavier than the MZR rh)with its turbo system and ancillaries attached. The Honda, at 3.4L, is light to begin with, and Baretzky says the GRE can be made lighter, but reducing weight is expensive and so far, the manufacturers involved have been satisfied with the 240 pound figure.

280 was the min weight for the IRL spec. I would look for the new engine min to be <220 lbs.

The 87mm bore limit at 1600 cc = 67 mm stroke.
The 87mm bore limit at 2000 cc = 84 mm stroke.

For comparison the current f1s are about ~40mm, these will not be high RPM engines as we know them (F1) today. Also there are limits on materials, internal component minimum weights, weight placement etc...For example a 67mm stroke engine at 10,600 has the same piston speed as a F1 today does at 18000 (23.8 M/s)

Of course in F1 they will not be observing actual GRE specs i am sure.

Well my opinion is sure!!

RH

Enjun Pullr

15th October 2010, 03:26

Hoop-98

15th October 2010, 10:45

Well, there's a few things to take on faith...

The GRE weight of 240 lbs. is a Pruett quote of a Baretzky phone discussion on a consensus estimate from 2008 or 2009. It's not the weight of an actual engine.

I haven't found where a manufacturer is building a 2.0 L GRE yet. So even with a sufficient block and head, a considerable amount of additional manufacturing and development would be required to bump the displacement up from the current 1.6 L configurations. For starters, crank and rods as you pointed out. More money.

I'm still pretty sure that the AER weight is for a stripped long block, no ancillaries.

There isn't a projected weight for the Honda V6 yet that I have seen. A reasonable guess is a 20% reduction for the long block, but the weight of added ancillaries will bring it closer to the weight of the NA V8. Two turbos, wastegate, plumbing.

The hard numbers don't matter about the Delta, it's about comparing the actual weight of what is going in the new Dallara.

Well 240 would be an agreed upon spec, I have seen it in several notes. 164 with Turbo is what I hear for the MZR, but there are no official weight standards, so it is all pretty much on faith.

The Honda V8 would weigh about 220 if that was legal (like the 2.65 does), the 3.0 V-10 F1's were under 220 (100 Kg).

The Ford production Eco-Boost 1.6 Liter is 79mm x 81.4 so no idea where the WRC engine would be, but likely longish stroke, tall deck for rod length purposes..

The entire reason for a high minimum weight limit for the GRE is so that production based engines can be used instead of 165 pound bespoke racing engines like the MZR, which has little more than number of cylinders in common with the production based namesake.

For many reasons production based engines have tall decks, and are longer than a race engine would be as well as heavier.

So my "guesses', while informed from research, are leaps of faith. I think your reasonable guess is unreasonable, IMO, no reason for the long block to exceed 200 pounds except for a rule requiring such, you don't take off the amount of weight they are talking about for the new chassis with a 280 pound engine, it will be lighter. The much bigger AER P32t 3.6L V8 weighs 259 complete with twin turbos, I'll stick with my 220 "reasonable" guess.

rh

Enjun Pullr

15th October 2010, 12:13

Thank you Hoop, I had never read that there was a rules specification for minimum engine weight. That's also quite informative to imagine the AER V8 is such a lightweight, even with the turbos.

Mark in Oshawa

17th October 2010, 03:33

Great stuff...Hoop, you have another gearhead who is into the numbers and specs now as much as you are....I congratulate you Sir Puller..you have added something to my education...

Enjun Pullr

17th October 2010, 13:27

Hoop-98

17th October 2010, 15:26

Otto-Matic

17th October 2010, 16:11

Cheers, Mark. I've been trying to get somewhere with this, and sifting through 'what is proposed' versus 'what will make noise' has been an arduous task.

I'm still convinced it can be done. There are some people listening.

I'm with Mark, this has been a great and compelling read.
Enjun, just to clarify, i'm very interested in what your choice of engine/chassis would be. if you were runnign the show for IndyCar and had carte blanche to introduce any regs/specs as you saw fit (clean sheet of paper design) what would you do?
as we've talked a little offline i think you and I are on the same page on a lot of stuff, but you and Hoop have a much better knowledge of the technical aspects than i do.

Enjun Pullr

17th October 2010, 17:05

The it is enticing another engine manufacturer to finance participation in IndyCar.

There are two ways to do that. One is to grab a thick rope, try to lasso a corporate leader and pull him into a committment for a new development program.

It doesn't read like Baretzky has been successful with that approach, even with his own bosses. There hasn't been word one about another V6 either.

And it doesn't read like the existing 1.6 GRE's are a suitable platform for the development required. If somebody points out that a 1.6 WRC block from Ford, BMW or Citroen can handle 750 HP, then maybe there is something to attach the rope to.

The other approach is to work the problem from the opposite end. Establish interest among builders who have suitable engines, and encourage them to pitch the program to their established factory connections. That chops off a major investment in R&D that has already been realized.

It still will require a big check to make the engines compatible, satisfy the IndyCar promotional fee required, and fund production and distribution. But it is a far smaller check, and the request will be made to racing guys. Not to the marketing guys, or execs who do not recognize what is already possible.

Rope? Nope, the thinnest strands of connection exists. Maybe a strand to add next month, we will see.

As for Otto's answer to what I would do if I were king, here's the rough draft:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/421009-indycar-series-grand-theft-automobili

Otto-Matic

17th October 2010, 18:33

Enjun: wow that was a very interesting read.
so basically your a proponate of the 4 Cyl., Turbo. These are all stock block/production based, from what i gather in your article. Sounds like between GM, Ford and the AER mazda there is a number of them around. The GM drag racing version has 1500 Hp!?!

as for chassis I'd love to see a more options aside from the aero kits for the saftey cell. Teams should be ale to build their own cars, but with non-exotic parts for brakes, gearboxes, and other componets.
i think the multi-chassis question is tougher to anwser than the engines. There really isnt a "stock block/production" equivelent to chassis for IndyCar, so how do you get multi manufacters AND keep the costs down?

Hoop-98

17th October 2010, 19:05

I would agree that the MZR-R is viable. But of course ut is in no way a production based engine. As discussed here before, the other 4 cylinders have too many issues (size, weight, piston speeds) to be reliable 700 - 750 HP racing engines (in my somewhat informed opinion).

Now the Touring and WRC cars are going to a NASCAR formula where body kits are hung on a common chassis I believe, so they will be the same but look different.

It is very difficult to get hard data on the new 1600 cc engines but it seems they will be production based, not GRE. At least that is how S2000 worked. Of course, we may start calling anything with 4 cylinders a GRE like, or enhanced GRE etc.

Time will tell and I don't think my want's or wishes will have much to do with it. Sooner or later reality creeps in, at least thats my experience.

rh

Enjun Pullr

17th October 2010, 20:04

As Hoop pointed out, the AER 2.0 turbo is a custom built (bespoke) block based on the Mazda MZR-R.

The Ford Duratec 2.0 L turbo currently being raced is a stock block, the same one that the AER was patterned after. Olsbergs is currently developing their own block as well, and currently builds their own heads. So you can count them as two different engines...or at least I do.

The GM Ecotec is 2.0 L turbo stock block, stock head, modified for high output builds. You can buy a competition block out of Jeg's catalogue for $3500.

The high performance option for the 2011 Buick is a 2.0L turbo. So "the return of Buick turbo to IndyCar racing" doesn't have any marketable cache?

Hell no, nobody has stated that they have built any one of those engines to run on ethanol at WOT for 3 hours at 575 HP. When the builders are given those parameters and asked if it is impossible, they say "hell no".

And like Cosworth, that is the same answer they give when asked if they could afford the project without factory support. I presume that is where AER stands as well.

As for outfitting your own chassis, I think that's where the issue of cost control takes precedence over variety. Example: Kalkhoven has Cosworth build him a gearbox that weighs 20 lbs less than the XTRAC everybody else uses. Should everybody else be allowed to buy one? Can they afford it?

The 'market share' argument was resolved in the ICONIC meetings. Divide the market...for chassis or major components...and the price doubles. That's why additional variety to the new spec will be long in coming.

I'd rather see the variety sooner by allowing teams to continue to run what they own, upgrade to a new engine when available, and a new chassis when they can afford it. That picture looked real to me, nobody else sees it.

For the 2012 spec, an alternative to the Honda V6 is about the best we can hope for. Even if a number of constructors consider building aero kits, there is no guaranteed return on their investment. And no likelyhood that they will look much different from one another.

The 2005 Homestead video...did you watch it? I don't know the whole story, but I think the G Force was abandonded for lack of aero development to remain competitive. When watching the video, I didn't even think to look at the differences. The average fan would never have noticed.

EDIT: SORRY HOOP, I just posted this and have not read yours yet. Hope I didn't step on my d*ck, I'll read yours now.

Hoop-98

17th October 2010, 20:22

Enjun Pullr

17th October 2010, 21:04

That's one of the problems with the whole "GRE" sales pitch. The WRC engines now being road tested are three different blocks. Whether they are stock blocks or not is unclear. If they are, I say B.S. to high output. 300HP, fine.

M Sport was going to use the Citroen 1.6 for the Mini, but received blocks from BMW Motorsport instead. So maybe that's bespoke, and maybe it was reinforced to handle radical builds...fitting the Baretzky philosophy. Or not.

If people want to call the 2.0 L engines like the AER a "GRE", that just makes Baretzky look like a genius. All three of the 2.0's mentioned were around long before he minted the phrase.

Perhaps this Mazda/Ford identity is comfusing me?

http://www.part-box.com/cosworth-ford-duratec-mazda-mzr-c-2213_1349_3128.html

I don't know that AER has ever had anything to do with development work on a GM Ecotec engine. Nor did I suggest it. Cosworth was involved in the original design, I believe.

Hoop-98

17th October 2010, 21:29

The MZR/Duratec 2.0/2.3 are the same engines. The AER P07 was a clean sheet race engine from 2001.

"AER P07 I4
AER’s first clean sheet engine design.
It has a 2.0 litre capacity and turbocharged.
First version designed in 2001 and has been the bench
mark engine for LMP2 cars running in Le Mans,
LMES and ALMS in Europe and the United States."

The AER P70/Mazda MZR-R is a newer generation of race engine.

"MAZDA MZR-R (AER P70)
The all new Mazda MZR-R engine introduced in 2010
represents the state of the art in Turbocharged engine technology. Combining very low mass with a small physical Footprint and
unparallel efficiency the MZR-R is the choice for modern high performance Motorsports."

The Cosworth YD/MZR/Duratec is developed from the production engines.

"MZR/Duratec

Cosworth Performance engine components for the Ford Duratec and Mazda MZR. Cosworth has been modifying Ford four cylinder engines since 1959 and the practice continues with the Ford Duratec/Mazda MZR. The Duratec/MZR was designed as a replacement for the Zetec engine and was developed as joint collaboration with Ford and Mazda. The lightweight engine features a cast aluminum reinforced block and main bearing girdle that help reduce vibration and improve overall rigidity. The Duratec is an excellent, affordable building block for high performance use and perfect for Lotus Seven inspired sports cars, rally cars and racing. It is considered the engine of choice for mid level racing because of the light weight construction and power potential. During an extensive development program, Cosworth has engineered and developed a complete range of performance engine components and engine assemblies designed to provide reliable performance for serious racers and performance enthusiasts. Ranging from forged connecting rods and pistons to complete assembled performance engines, Cosworth Engine Components are engineered for maximum reliable power. "

This engine was used in the last of the atlantics. It is relatively heavy (over 300 lbs) and limited by bore size and RPM potential.

Hope that lessens the confusion.

rh

Enjun Pullr

17th October 2010, 21:48

OK, thanks for the book by the way.

This seems like a semantics discussion to me. Here's what was in Race-car Engineering:

AER technical director Oliver Allan recalls, 'The initial brief was to convert the MZR to a race engine, but we saw some issues with that, the biggest being to get a dry sump into the engine in an economical manner. The compromise that we reached was to have a new design of engine, but one heavily based on the MZR."

The 2.0 Duratec and the 2.0 MZR are the same engine, as you point out. If labeling the R as derivative is a mistake, my mistake.

Darton lists 92 MM sleeves for the Duratec. What bore size Olsbergs uses is not published anywhere I have looked.

Hoop-98

17th October 2010, 22:24

One has to ask, what is heavily based? Valve angle,intake/exhaust arrangement, bore centers, deck height, rod length, etc. I doubt any of those were retained.

MZR/Duratec - P07 "MZR"

http://i51.tinypic.com/2cr6jki.jpg

P70 "MZR-R"

2001 P07

Layout: I4, single Garrett turbo
Displacement: 2.0 L
Valve configuration: 16 valves, DOHC, chain driven
Horsepower: 550+ @ 6100 rpm (43 mm dia. restrictor)
Torque: 457 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm (43 mm dia. restrictor)
Length*: 533 mm
Width*: 484 mm
Height*: 481 mm to cam cover
557 mm to plenum
Weight: 95.5 kgs/210lbs.

MZR-R/P70

Layout: I4, single Garrett TR30R turbo
Displacement: 1998 cc, 90 mm bore x 78.4 mm stroke
Valve configuration: 16 valves, DOHC, chain driven
Horsepower: 500+ hp (42 mm dia. restrictor)
Torque: 442.5 lb-ft (42 mm dia. restrictor)
Length: 512 mm
Width: 410 mm
Height: 552.4 mm
Weight: 74 kgs/163lbs.

The Durarec/MZR is much bigger and heavier than either. I looked it up once for the Atlantic, seems 285 - 315 is what I remember One was pallet weight for shipping.

rh

Hoop-98

17th October 2010, 22:55

More Info

Cosworth Engine Code: YD
Bore: 87.5mm
Stroke: 94.0mm (2.3L) / 83.0mm (2.0L)
Capacity: 2261cc (2.3L) / 1996cc (2.0L)
*Pistons: Forged
*Piston Rings: Tungsten Carbide Carbon Coated Top Ring
*Rods: Forged I-Section
Inlet System: Barrel Port Throttles with Carbon Airbox and Low Loss Air Filter
Cam Cover: Light Weight Cam Cover
Spark Plugs: NGK BR7EFS
*Cylinder Head: Extrude Honed
Camshafts: Cosworth Developed Profiles
*Valve Springs: High Lift
Lubrication System: Dry Sump with Integral 2 Stage Scavenge Pump
Engine Management: MBE Programmable Race Engine Management

"a fully dressed Duratec on a pallet weighs in @ approx 270 lbs"

"The NOS motor that I had freighted to me weighed in at ~270. The motor came 'complete' with: intake, sensors, water pump. No alt., no PS pump, no exhaust.
With: shipping crate, bracing, cardboard."

I knew I had it somewhere, the Zetec is 40 pounds heavier.

rh

Enjun Pullr

17th October 2010, 23:21

That's quite a feat, if the MZR-R is 164 lbs. (including a 20 lb. turbo) and the Duratec is an alloy block which is 100 lbs heavier.

I guess Mr. Allan was sharper with his design than with his description.

So the AER MZR-R at 9,700 RPM, plugged into Uncle Bob's mean piston speed calculator, in 5,000 FPM. Think it gets wound that high?

Hoop-98

17th October 2010, 23:34

Redlined at 8500. So gas loading is more of an endurance concern than engine speed, but obviously not too much of a concern.

http://i52.tinypic.com/6g9dg3.jpg

I think if i wanted a relatively cheap new engine for Indy I would ask AER for a 3/4 slice of the p32. it would be the right size and weight and not so much re-engineering.

From the YD owners manual.

Engine Maximum Engine Speed
20001721 – 2.0L - 205bhp 7700rpm
20001722 – 2.0L - 225bhp 8200rpm
20001723 – 2.0L - 255bhp 8200rpm
20001725 – 2.3L - 220bhp 7200rpm
20001726 – 2.3L - 250bhp 7700rpm
20001727 – 2.3L - 280bhp 7700rpm

rh

Enjun Pullr

18th October 2010, 01:21

I rebuild stock engines, period. And sublet the machine work.

And I have no problem admitting that I am neither technically or financially capable of building an IndyCar engine.

But when I give the broad parameters to people who are, they don't say, "Let me run some brake mean effective pressure spreadsheets and get back to you".

They say, "I am interested in discussing this idea". Me too.

Some really smart people said the notion of building an IndyCar chassis around an I 4 engine was a bad idea, and would not be possible within the criteria of Dallara's chassis design or IndyCar regulations.

That concept has already been discussed and accepted. They already knew it had been done before. I didn't need torsional rigidity spreadsheets to reach the same conclusion before it was verified.

Some things I take on faith, too. From people who already know what can be done.

Hoop-98

18th October 2010, 01:31

I think an I-4 could work just fine, something like the MZR-R. I don't think anything that really resembles a production based small bore/long stroke 4 would make much sense. Not sure I understand the last 2/3 of your post.

rh

Enjun Pullr

18th October 2010, 02:43

You're better at finding numbers, the best I can say about the current weight of the 2010 MZR-R is this from Speed (prolly Pruett):

"With a new, more robust block and cam cover mounting system, it has solved its reliability issues so far in 2010."

Maybe Mr. Allan was a little too sharp with the die grinder on the first go-round.

The 2.0 Ecotec is not badly undersquare with the competition block at 3.400" bore and 3.505" stroke with the de-stroked crank fitted. 2.086 Litres.

At 8500 RPM, that wouldn't live? 9,000 RPM gets it to 5257 FPM. That's with the bore at 86.36 mm, I do not know if anyone is running larger. Darton lists 90mm sleeves.

But I don't know what else is in the book yet, or what has been developed since its 2007 date. I know there is a better twin scroll turbo available than the Hahn kit illustrated.

Hoop-98

18th October 2010, 03:10

Do I think an ecotec at 2.0 and 8500 would live at what power level?

Well let's look at 2 critical stresses, piston speed and gas loading comparatively, I'm including the Cosworth XFE as it is a known endurance type race engine, the V6 is just my imagination as far as B/S and RPM, but should be close.

I'll use a 93x59mm V6.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2rmo968.jpg

So the 2.0 Production engine has to work at far higher loadings and live the same? That seems very unlikely to me. I would guess after about 450 HP it will require so many mods that it would be cheaper to build a new one.

Now that is my opinion, feel free to run it by your friends and see if they have a different understanding. I never learn by being right, so teach me ;)

rh

Enjun Pullr

18th October 2010, 03:47

I don't know Eric Hsu of Cosworth. His comment on this article says he'd like a friend to give him a look at the head off of this locomotive:

http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/1289/inside-the-800-hp-olsbergs-fiestas--update-1.aspx

Here's another turd:

http://www.insideline.com/pontiac/solstice/2009/rhys-millens-pontiac-solstice-gxp-drift-machine.html

Enjun Pullr

18th October 2010, 08:36

The only specific reference I can currently cite is from "Nitrous Oxide Performance Handbook" by Jeff Hartman (2009):

"[The] BMEP practical for sustained operations in conventional gasoline-fueled piston engines without engine failure is 460 to 500 psi, and up to 700 psi with methanol fuel, but that detonation limits become operative as a constraint before mechanical failure.

GM Racing switched to methanol fuel when promoting the then-new 2.0 liter inline-4 Ecotec in drag racing when the target was 800 HP at 8500 plus RPM and torque approaching 475 lb-ft, which would require BMEP approaching 590 psi."

Jeff Hartman is no friend of mine either, but I suspect he copped that from a GM SAE paper 2002-01-3354 that I don't need to buy. My layman's understanding is that the octane ratings of methanol and pure ethanol are quite comparable.

If that information is accurate, and using numbers instead of engines as reality, your calculated BMEP for the 2.0L engine pushing 700 HP @ 8500 RPM is approximately 24% below blammo.

But I learned a little from the exercise, so I thank you for the lesson... whether you wish to challenge Mr. Hartman or not.

Ecotec total height (with dry sump fitted) = 573.7 mm.
Ecotec total length (with 32mm head overhang incl.) = 527 mm
That's 21.7 mm taller, and 15 mm longer than the MZR-R.

Not even half a cigarette, combined.

Competition bare block WITH bedplate installed: 69 lbs. Shipping carton not included.

The current plenum arrangement on the MZR-R is now quite a bit different than the one in your photo. I'll try to attach one I took at Mid Ohio a couple months ago, apologies if I screw it up.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs182.ash2/44551_102045589856586_100001534359107_12991_768190 9_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=12992&id=100001534359107)

Lola B09/86 engine bay, right side.
It's a little busy, but the four black carbon fiber runners are vertical, with the plenum below.

Also worth mentioning is the black A frame chassis reinforcement, which bolts ditectly to the magnesiun gearbox housing at
one point on each side. There are no other structural elemements required aft of the bulkhead, and this car weighs in over 1800 lbs.

Hoop-98

18th October 2010, 15:14

Well I am going a bit more by what people have actually built. Since your search is getting better look up Bruce Wood's explanation on why the XFE couldn't easily have the power upped. Theoretical maximum in "a piston engine" last I looked we were talking about a specific engine that has to last for thousands of miles.

We went through this before jagtech, get back to me when someone builds one or proposes building 1 to meet the actual demands of the proposed environment. You seem to ask for an opinion, then when you don't like it you get a bit fussy. heck, you even change your name. Catch ya on the flip flop

PS, you seem to have forgotten the bellhousing width, always a pain on these engines. Try the GM Marine site for installation drawings.

rh

Turn-In

18th October 2010, 15:55

Now, the YDX in the atlantics series did wind out to 8000rpm for competition spec and ran just around 5000 FPM for piston speed.

The current F1 engines seem to have a FPM of 4600 around 18000 rpm.

Zoom Zoom little motor!

Hoop-98

18th October 2010, 16:03

NASCAR engines have the highest piston speeds out there but they are purpose built race engines. So many factors come into play when making these engines live. Production engines are starting behind, and in my opinion, asking them to live at substantially higher thermal and physical stress limits is impractical.

That's the key here, not can it be done, people can do almost anything. But does it make sense to do it. Can you produce it in quantity, make them live, be reproducible at an affordable price.

If the answer to those questions is yes, then by all means build an Ecotec turbo for 2012. I think when someone starts to answer the questions, solve the problems, they will decide it is a better idea to design a new engine and say it was heavily influenced by the Ecotec :) .

One true test is, if it is so doable, why isn't anyone doing it?

jm2c
rh

Enjun Pullr

18th October 2010, 16:21

The bell housing width (and input shaft length) will be determined by the gearbox design and the chassis wheelbase. These will be obstacles to address when contemplating any alternate engine fitment to the spec package.

The right people were already provided with the Ecotec engine blueprints to identify the block rear mounting pattern and all other dimensions, including the ones previously listed here.

"Meeting the actual demands of the proposed environment" is an excellent descriptor of what I have been doing in conversation with engine builders and others.There haven't been any fussy exchanges, just facts and ideas.

This thread was started about the GRE, suitability questions raised by the announcement of existing examples, and what might be a more pragmatic approach to getting another engine platform in an IndyCar. It's not about me.

After reading this forum for a while before joining, there seemed to be a few people here with thoughts that would be beneficial to the discussion. So I joined in, and did so without using a screen name which might mistake me with an existing contributor, Jag Warrior. If you think that is deceptive, wrong blueprint.

Contrary information and dissenting opinion are essential in finding answers at the right time, and to avoid "group think" results. It would have saved me a lot of free time had an industry expert declared that "kill it before it grows" was a better idea than examining alternatives.

So I will again thank you for providing avenues of research to learn me something, and hope that we both get a good education from someone making noise on a dyno and not in a chatroom.

Hoop-98

18th October 2010, 16:41

Who said kill it, I'm all for it. But my opinion is it will never fly and I give a few reasons why. I am all for diversity, but also a bit of a realist, not trying to be a buzz killer. I did a ton of research on this subject about 18 months ago and have a whole folder called 4cyl racing on my external hard drive. You can get the Duratec and Ecotec mechanical drawings off the marine power and industrial power sites. As far as the bellhousing mounting flange, that's an integral part of the production block.

One would hope that dissenting opinion would be welcome in a forum, not just agreeable ones. So good luck on your project even if i think it has zero chance, I have been wrong many times and learned much from each.

Oh, I do have a few thousand hours in dyno rooms, for whatever that is worth. You may want to attend the AETC;

http://aetconline.com/blog/index.php/schedule/

I have enjoyed it many times, got to meet guys like Duntov, Yates, and it allows a person like myself to listen to lots of ideas and ask questions, have drinks with some sharp folks.

Also the SAE Motorsports Engineering conferences are another enjoyable way for lay persons like myself to meet and learn. I'm not sure when the next one was scheduled. Participating in this was the most enjoyable time I had when I was a SAE employee.

Cheerfully
Hoop98

Enjun Pullr

18th October 2010, 16:49

The last two posts appeared while I was writing, so permit me a breif addendum.

Turn-In, thank you for your contribution. Nascar engines (2006 spec) exceeded mean piston speeds of 5,000 FPM at redline for entended use.

I have been using an F1 approximate of 28 m/sec (5511.8 FPM) as a "bridge too far". For the happy end, the IRL 2003 Chevy V8 (which I believe was the Gen III) came in at 4385 FPM. So basing my vague notions around 5,000 FPM in the previous examples discussed seems within reason.

Hoop, as to your last question: whatever I do, it is always with the assumption that the exercise is a re-invention of the wheel. Sometimes experts are focused solely on their immediate goal, and are not aware of parallel development or consensus. Perhaps Ben Bowlby could speak to this issue.

Mario Ilien will tell you it's a bad idea to build an IndyCar chassis around a semi-stressed four cylinder engine. The same architicture was used by Brabham in 1982. Lola agrees.

I'm not an expert at anything. But there are things on one guy's radar screen that don't register a blip on someone else's. The topic of existing race engines is a perfect example, reflected by responses from the variety of experts who have examined these details for the first time.

Hoop-98

18th October 2010, 16:57

Good luck, the devil lurks in those details...

Enjun Pullr

18th October 2010, 17:00

Yep, you also type a lot quicker than I.

I was sent the Ecotec blueprints by a recognized Ecotec race engine builder. He is one of the people awaiting the Indycar Draft of Regulations before resuming the discussion with his associates.

Other than that, I am in a no-name dropping zone. But thanks for your cheers, and I will relay them to Camking if we ever cross paths.

Hoop-98

18th October 2010, 17:03

I wish them much success!

Otto-Matic

18th October 2010, 18:03

So one of the main questions that I havent seen answered is: is an open wheel series better off going with purpose built engines that perform at higher standards but cost more $$$, or production/stock blocks that are way cheaper but more average performance? is there a compromise? can you adopt GT2 or GT1 regulations concerning engines and make it work for AOWR?

Also Enjun (and Hoop please also tackle this), you didnt really answer my qurestion from before: if you had complete rule over a brand new Formula/Indy-type of series and a clean sheet of paper to make the rules, how would you proceed? Personally, I like the GT2 modification, but this would be cars only doing between 500-600hp.

Hoop-98

18th October 2010, 18:13

2 answers:

I am not convinced that the total cost of modifying a production engine to compete with a purpose built engine would be less. So in my opinion, go with purpose built. The rationale for a production engine is that an OEM would subsidize the cost.

I think the 2.4 V6 is the best option from center of gravity, low height and short length (I think the width is less of a factor for packaging), and can operate at the desired power levels, adjustable power output (that can be done with any engine though), and at moderate stress levels which means longevity and lower cost components (think pistons).

So those are my opinions and why.

Hoop

Enjun Pullr

18th October 2010, 19:20

Otto, I don't know enough about the specifications or equipment used in other categories to devise a master plan for you.

My views are based on making best use of existing resources to re-introduce variables to the competition. Everything about racing is a compromise, and its hard to imagine a time when IndyCar was faced with a more critical set of choices.

Enjun Pullr

18th October 2010, 21:26

It would be nice if there was a starter on board... :s mokin:

Turn-In

18th October 2010, 21:56

Off topic:

Quick Question:

The 8500 RPM that the Cossie YDX is designed for brings it up to 5242 FPM
The 20000 RPM that the CA2006 brings it up to 5216 FPM

How much was Nascar?

I guess this goes off the beaten path, what is the fastest piston speeds of a motor that doesn't say just go for 2 hours and then get rebuild. Something with a little life to it?

Maybe there are plenty, but i always thought F1 speeds were not to be eclipsed too often?

Enjun Pullr

18th October 2010, 22:02

This looked like a decent resource.

Nascar 2006:
5413 FPM at redline of 10,000 RPM
4875 FPM at peak power, 9,000 RPM.

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/comparison_of_cup_to_f1.htm

Otto-Matic

18th October 2010, 22:58

Hoop-98

19th October 2010, 00:14

This looked like a decent resource.

Nascar 2006:
5413 FPM at redline of 10,000 RPM
4875 FPM at peak power, 9,000 RPM.

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/comparison_of_cup_to_f1.htm

Since this is a friendly learning exchange, consider this.

In 2006 Cup engines did not have to live but one race.
Since then they have to live and are "gear limited" to a lower RPM level.
A cup engine At peak HP has a BMEP (working gas pressure) around 200.
Cup and F1 engines have extremely light for their size pistons, possible in part because they are NA and have lower BMEP's (working pressure)than TC engines.
For high pressure high temp engines you have a different piston requirements (heavier, more robust).
Maximum deceleration near TDC yanks pins out of pistons, the weak point often.
Stroke and RPM control average piston speeds.
peak speeds are Stroke, RPM, and Rod Length ratios.
A heavier piston with a worse (lower R/L) has much higher loadings than the opposite,
Peak Torque BMEP's are 10 - 20 pct above peak power BMEP.
As long as lift and thrust exceed weight and drag it may fly, and if you try hard enough it will fly.
A little knowledge is only dangerous if you actually do more than post on the internet.
The Bruce Wood (Ford) thing on the XFE power levels is really good.
Now, interestingly enough, I will head for Huntington Beach..

rh

Hoop-98

19th October 2010, 00:24

Starter, what do you mean by "unobtainium"? can you give me an example or two?
also, if a 2.4 L V6 is made as a purpose built racing engine, conservativley what are we looking at for HP? for Indycar for example...

Beryllium-Aluminum matrix f22 stuff.
As a young MXer we might buy titanium axles or footpegs. When asked what the factory CR's were made of, we replied, unobtanium, you can't get it.

550-575 Oval 700-77h RC or thereabouts.

rh

Enjun Pullr

19th October 2010, 00:42

"Since this is a friendly learning exchange, consider this."

"A little knowledge is only dangerous if you actually do more than post on the internet."

Cheers, mate.

Hoop-98

19th October 2010, 02:23

"Since this is a friendly learning exchange, consider this."

"A little knowledge is only dangerous if you actually do more than post on the internet."

Cheers, mate.
Vice versa...

grungex

19th October 2010, 03:29

Since your search is getting better look up Bruce Wood's explanation on why the XFE couldn't easily have the power upped.

Perhaps you could post a link to support this. The only quote I found was him talking about about twin-turbos and 950 hp.

"The XFE has been a huge success but Cosworth is always looking ahead and XF design chief Bruce Wood has been overseeing plans to increase power in 2009 up to 18,000 rpm and over 950 horsepower when Cosworth builds Champ Car's new XFE-2 V8 Turbocharged engine in company with the introduction of the DP01 spec 2 Champ car."

Hoop-98

19th October 2010, 04:31

Perhaps you could post a link to support this. The only quote I found was him talking about about twin-turbos and 950 hp.

That was a totally bogus misquote, lol...

"The XFE has been a huge success but Cosworth is always looking ahead and XF design chief Bruce Wood has been overseeing plans to increase power in 2009 up to 18,000 rpm and over 950 horsepower when Cosworth builds Champ Car's new XFE-2 V8 Turbocharged engine in company with the introduction of the DP01 spec 2 Champ car."

The real quote:

The XFE has been so successful Wood observes, that it’s worth relying on one of life’s golden rules.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” he remarked. “You’ve got a great starting point and I think it would be folly to throw all that away.”

Cosworth’s discussions with Champ Car about ‘07 soon settled on a few, key areas.

“In the early days of our conversations with Scott and Champ Car we talked about ideas like that, but reasonably quickly we moved away from those ideas,” Wood said. “Where we’re really at now is looking at the big things that are remaining in the spec.

“At the moment we’re at 750 horsepower, and 800 with push-to-pass. What we would like to do is make sure we can use those same specs at the high altitude races. So we are looking at a different compressor wheel for ‘07 that we can package differently.

“The Lola chassis is such that the air filter and the ducting is pretty ugly, but we couldn’t get any more speed out of the turbo even if it was neatly done. But that’s because the car was never designed to have an air filter. With the Panoz it will be an all-new design, so we’ll make sure the inlet is a lot nicer. So we’ll have a different compressor wheel and probably a different compressor so we can run the high altitude races at full spec.”

An increase in power is likely in 2007, but even a small change requires a lot of complementary work.

“Champ Car are talking about increasing the base power to 775 horsepower and 850 on push-to-pass,” Wood said. “We’ve had a good look at what that will take to do, and it’s actually a reasonable amount of work. In the old days we used to have a pre-compressor injection system. It was called a ring of fire. The fuel went through the turbo. We moved those injectors up to the plenum for the XFE so that we could eliminate the maintenance of those injectors. With the decreased boost we have and the lower revs, we would definitely need more fuel in the plenum as a cooling effect to get back up to 850 horsepower.

“People say, you were at 900 and more horsepower in the old days. How can it be a problem to get 850? They forget we were at 900 horsepower at 16,500 rpm and now we’re limited to 12,000 rpm which is very much the durability limit. Any power we can achieve with the boost limit puts so much more gas loading on the engine. It’s not just a question of winding the knob up.

“If we do go for 850 we’ll certainly have to re-piston all the engines and possibly return to pre-compressor injection, but more likely putting extra injectors before the plenum and, as I say, there will be a different compressor wheel. We’ll have to increase the cooling a little bit and we’ll have to increase the fuel pump volume. It used to turn at speeds relative to 16,500 rpm and now it’s turning relative to 12,000, so it simply doesn’t deliver enough fuel for 850 horsepower. So there’s a reasonable amount of engineering work to get to 850 hp.”

Wood adds that he and his engineering team have done enough research over the past few years to be sure that 850 hp is the limit of the current engine configuration if the durability requirements are to be maintained.

“Over the years we’ve tried to keep abreast of what might be possible,” Wood said. “We’ve run a couple of endurance tests recently for no better reason than to see if they could run a bit further. We’ve run a couple of tests to 1,400 miles without problems. In the background, we’ve been data-gathering over the past couple of years to learn more and more about the engine.

“We anticipated that these questions would inevitably come up, sooner or later. Can we make it more powerful, or can we make it last longer? Or both. So we’ve been trying to gather data on what is achievable and we’re comfortable that we can accommodate 850 horsepower, if it’s required. But I think that’s the limit of what we can sensibly do with the engine. I think it would be folly to try to do more than that.”

Cosworth has also been preparing for the switch to the Panoz DP01 in 2007. Wood and Cosworth first worked with Panoz when Tomas Scheckter raced the Chevrolet-badged Cosworth XG IRL engine in Panther Racing’s Panoz chassis. Despite minimal testing Scheckter was always fast with the Chevy/Cosworth V8 and won at Texas in June.

“We were first involved with Panoz when the IRL engine went in the Panoz car. We were introduced to Panoz then, and achieved some good results. We’ve really just started a dialogue with them in the last month or so about what the car will look like,” Wood commented. “We’ve had to be kind of brutal in some respects because we’ve had to say, you musn’t view this as a new engine installation. You have to see it as this is the engine you have install because the cost to change any aspect of the installation for our entire fleet of ninety-plus engines is so big.

“We looked at the cost of just changing the water inlet elbow if Panoz wanted it to come from a slightly different angle. You would have to pay all the tooling for a new casting plus the parts for ninety-three engines and the price was $15,000! So we’ve had to be very clear with Panoz that those kind of things are not in our budget. From their point of view, the engine installation is not a clean sheet of paper. They’ve got to design their car around this engine.

“Having said that, there will be things that can’t be accommodated and we’ll have to find a way to do it. But fundamentally there are hard points on the engine installation that have to be accommodated. And Panoz is entirely understanding about it.

“I think it will be a fine relationship,” Wood added. “It’s a bit further away for us so we’ll be on the phone more, but based on our experience so far with Panoz, it should be a good relationship.”

BTW, Champcar reduced the base power to 725 so as not to increase expense..

elan 02

19th October 2010, 05:33

Thanks Hoop, the feel of the "real quote" is what I loved so much about CC. it is just not like that any more with indycar.man I miss it

Enjun Pullr

19th October 2010, 06:02

More interesting reading for sure grungex, and forgive me for stepping back for a moment from your topic.

Hoop, you pasted an excerpt in post #7 from a July 3, 2010 article by Marshall Pruett with some quotes from Ulrich Baretzky. The entire article is linked below for those interested.

In that same article appears the following quote from Baretzky, discussing his GRE proposal:

“That's the genius thing about it. If you want to have it for a particular series, if you want to have something like 800 hp you can easily do that with a 2L version of the engine; if you need less a powerful Indy Lights engine, you can reduce the boost and lower the power and the torque and with the same engine."

So let's ignore every word written by benign internet posters and look at what Mr. Baretzky says.

Displacement: 2000 cc (122.05 cu. in.) [given]
Bore: 87mm maximum (3.425 in.) [given]
Stroke: 84.22 mm (3.114 in.) [calculated]
Bore/stroke ratio: 1.0344 [calculated]
Peak output: 800 HP [given]
Peak RPM: 9000 [projected by me for data calculation]
Peak torque: 466.84 ft/lbs. [calculated]
Mean Piston Speed: 4671 FPM @ 9,000 RPM [calculated]
BMEP: 576.81 psi [calculated]

Please point out any errors or ambiguity in that data so that I will correct any mistaken conclusions. Based directly on what Mr. Baretzky states he intends to build, that's what is going on the dyno.

Just to be clear, the following statement from the article is in Pruett's words, NOT Baretzky's:

"Durability was another design aspect the group worked towards, with 6000 km (3700 miles) between rebuilds as the target."

Hoop, we have been discussing three alternate 2 L turbos with varying specifications, so any ambiguity introduced to this point is my fault. I do not have dimensional specs for the Duratec RACE build, or the optimum bore and stroke dimensions which an engine builder would select for HIS Ecotec race build.

What I do see is a close similarity between the outline Mr. Baretzky has drawn, and the 2 L turbos referenced which have already been built and raced in other categories.

The initial post in this thread contained the following statement which I wrote:

"There are at least two existing alloy 2.0 L production engine blocks that can handle this stage of tuning, and they have already been proofed in competition in other categories. At WOT (wide open throttle) for 1,000 miles? Not yet, but the engines and the correct architecture exist."

We are talking about an engine for IndyCar, so to me that means the Indy 500 is the priority for all other criteria. IndyCar has stated their intention to limit horsepower to 575 for oval track competition. If a 4 cyl. turbo was proofed to those standards, I would consider that as an acceptable alternative.

IndyCar has further stated that the approximate targets for road course competition will be 650HP with an overtake assist to enable maximum output of 750 HP. There is no indication that the frequency of overtake assist applications will deviate from the current norm. Anybody's guess, but there will not likely be sustained periods of WOT operation at peak power output.

The figures above for Mr. Baretzky's concept engine are beyond the maximums required, even though he states they are achievable. That's a good thing, given the life expectancy he apparently has offered to Mr. Pruett.

What puzzles me is that the somewhat less stringent targets I suggested for existing race engines are viewed as unrealistic in comparison. The general tone of Mr. Baretzky's presentation, regarding cost control and manufacturer participation, does not suggest to me that exotic materials or manufacturing methods will utilized to enable his concept to produce such a powerful, durable result.

IF the existing AER, Duratec or Ecotec racing engines can meet the stated criteria, they will still fall short of Baretzky's promise. But they could be raced against a Honda V6.

As for the AER MZR-R, it has only recently demonstrated consistant reliability as a result of 2010 modifications. If that engine has been proofed at 575 HP WOT for 1,000 miles of running at Indy, no one has stepped up to claim it. Or 650 HP for road course competition, with occasional peaks of 750 HP. Thanks to it's light weight block, the AER may well prove to be a hand grenade when pushed beyond the racing it currently endures.

On the other hand, the Ecotec stock block was over-engineered to be a monster. The Olsbergs Duratec build has proven to exceed the requirements. The question about those two engines is whether they can meet the stated criteria with durability to exceed the 1,000 mile threshold.

Up to this point in the discussion, I don't see the red flag. And I don't see it when compared to Baretzky's criteria, or in any of the correspondence I have received from industry experts who have made preliminary examinations of the material restated here.

Link to Marshall Pruett's article of 7/3/10:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-inside-the-global-racing-engine/

Otto-Matic

19th October 2010, 12:24

Enjun, maybe I missed this in the discussion, but who are the two curreent 2.0 L engines that already exists that you are reffering to?

beachbum

19th October 2010, 12:56

Interesting thread, particularly Hoop's input, which is spot on. Hoop covered "unobtanium" very well. When titanium was new and expensive, it was often given the moniker. But then titanium rods, values, and other hardware started getting cheaper and term was applied to the other very expensive materials or applications of materials, such as carbon fiber wheels, carbon fiber connecting rods, and exotic composite matrix materials.

The GRE concept has some positives, but also some issues. Production based engines aren't designed as load bearing structures, nor are they built for the ultimate in light weight. The result is the Delta Wing solution where additional structure is added to carry chassis loads. Instead of a properly stressed lightweight engine, you have a heavier engine that also needs a heavy (relative to nothing) chassis addition to take suspension loads. The Delta Wing tried to beat this by going to 4 cylinders rather than V6 or V8, but that doesn't gain all that much.

Making HP isn't the biggest issue. As pointed out, making HP and maintaining durability is the problem. A NASCAR engine has to last about 700 miles max. It may be production "based", but it is a pure race engine which allows pretty high piston speeds and loads. But if it had to last 1000 miles or 1500, the RPM limits would probably have to be scaled back as well as other loads such as peak BMEP.

I once worked on 4 cylinder motorcycle race engines. The parts life was very short as the HP levels went up. One factory sprint engine needed new pistons every day as the skirts would collapse. Another production based engine used up valves every couple hours in sprint racing when RPM limits were raised. The same engine in endurance racing would go for many hours if the RPM was dropped about 1000 RPM (from 12,700 to 11,500 - 12,000).

In the race engines, the internals were basically no different that you would find in a pure race engine. Special cranks, rods, pistons, values etc were the norm. The only "production" parts were the castings, and often they were special as well (even if it wasn't quite legal). But the internals were limited somewhat by the stock dimensions, so even if the internal parts cost just as much as a pure race engine, they weren't as sturdy or lived as long.

IMHO, trying to build a pure race engine from a production based platform ultimately doesn't save much beyond original design costs and doesn't result in a package that works as well as a pure race engine. It sounds good from a marketing standpoint, but the result isn't as good as it sounds on paper.

Enjun Pullr

19th October 2010, 17:07

beachbum, I wonder if your motorcycle engine was using inconel valves. That's one example of a material that was once considered as "unobtanium", but is now commonly used.

The rest of your general summary of this thread is pretty accurate, including this statement:

"IMHO, trying to build a pure race engine from a production based platform ultimately doesn't save much beyond original design costs and doesn't result in a package that works as well as a pure race engine. It sounds good from a marketing standpoint, but the result isn't as good as it sounds on paper."

What you are pointing out here, as Hoop has also raised, are some of the ideal design criteria. In my terms:

1) Intended use (power output levels)
2) Durability
3) Weight
4) Cost

That's fine to discuss how things look on paper, and what Baretzky has written down looks pretty good. No doubt that a bespoke engine is the straight line to meeting those objectives. Until you ask somebody to pay for it.

That's exactly where IndyCar is today, with no competitor to Honda. Any number of manufacturers could start a clean sheet design, follow through with manufacturing and development, and fund all the associated costs I laid out in previous posts. None have shown any interest in the job.

Looking at the problem with a more realistic point of view, the question was one of examing engines that had already been developed for racing applications. Does that mean some comprimises might have to be accepted?

Of course it does. Are they close enough to the ideal design criteria to be evaluated for practical application? In the case of the GM Ecotec and the Ford Duratec 2 liter turbos, and based solely on the development work and proof in competition that has already been accomplished, the answer is yes.

AER builds the Mazda/Ford based MZR. So they reinforce a stock block to handle the stress, and perhaps have to weld and re-machine the casting to accept the desired sleeve installation. Perhaps they find the block incapable of handling the stress without the addition of an exoskeleton.

So they build a motor, understand the requirements for durability, and it is as heavy as a stone. Fine, cast a bespoke MZR-R block with criteria far exceeding the stock block manufacture. Probably a cylinder head too. Big money, but it has already been spent. Enough development work has been done to meet their criteria. At ALMS power output levels for the Lola.

What about at peak output of 750 HP for road course racing in IndyCar? What about the rigidity of the lightweight block when it is subjected to some (optimally minimized) external chassis loading during 3 g cornering at Indianapolis? The AER was not designed for that criteria, nor for sustained WOT operation at 575 HP. Maybe it is an acceptable candidate, maybe not.

GM started a factory development program on the Ecotec in 2002. They couldn't kill the stock block and girdle. Upgraded sleeves, reinforced head studs, compression seals around the bores, fine. That's the 69 lb. block (with main saddle) you can buy off the shelf. Drag race criteria is 1500 HP output for 25 passes. With builds at the 500-600 HP level, the engine has raced full seasons in Formula Drift categories. You can drive one every day on the street tuned to 400 HP with no internal modifications required.

Back to post #1, I don't know that any builder has attempted to match the design criteria for IndyCar. So I asked them. Not the guy at the counter at Joe's machine shop, guys who build and race these engines. So we talk.

Is GM going to start a clean sheet program? Not likely. Might they fund adaptation and supply of an existing and relevant product, already developed? Seems more reasonable to me.

If that means a comprimise of accepting a suitable engine that is as heavy as the Honda V6, or even heavier, big freaking deal. Hoop can now make folly of that notion, without having any knowledge of the actual weights for comparison.

Same story for the Olsbergs MSE Ford Duratec. Only they encountered cooling difficulties with the cylinder head, so they cast their own. Better port design now too. And they found that the modifications required to the stock block are more economically resolved by casting their own. So they are doing that too, and the result will be a reduction in cost of the engine.

Is Ford developing a 750 HP race engine out of a 1.6 L EcoBoost for IndyCar? No, they are building 300 HP WRC engines. Same for BMW and Citroen. Different criteria, and no indication that they are working on anything that Indycar can use.

And again, is Ford more likely to fund adaptation and supply of an existing and relevant product which has already been developed? Seems more reasonable to me.

We'll find out as reasonable people continue the discussion. None of them have raised a red flag yet. Not in the real world.

grungex

19th October 2010, 22:47

Hoop-98

19th October 2010, 23:55

Bogus misquote? It's exactly what I found when I searched for "Bruce Woods XFE". If you want to share information, then do so, but don't act like a pompous jerk when you do so -- you're not gaining any friends.

Where is the link to your quote?

The original was on CCWS http://www.champcarfan.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2662&sid=51624774800ea54d05cc1ef985fb6ff6 has a copy.

I think calling the quote on the 2010 Champ Car World Series Website bogus is pretty appropriate. Maybe imaginary, made up would have been better.

"Originally developed in no-holds-barred competition with Honda, Toyota and Mercedes-Benz, the XF was turning more than 16,000 rpm and churning out more than 900 horsepower in 2001 despite a very restrictive boost limit. The current XFE was designed for durability and is limited to 15,000 rpm and required to run 1,200 miles between rebuilds. The XFE has been a huge success but Cosworth is always looking ahead and XF design chief Bruce Wood has been overseeing plans to increase power in 2009 up to 18,000 rpm and over 950 horsepower when Cosworth builds Champ Car's new XFE-2 V8 Turbocharged engine in company with the introduction of the DP01 spec 2 Champ car."

Your breaking my heart about the friend thing.

rh

Enjun Pullr

20th October 2010, 03:41

This is from the AER website:

"MAZDA MZR-R (AER P70)
The all new Mazda MZR-R engine introduced in 2010
represents the state of the art in Turbocharged engine technology. Combining very low mass with a small physical Footprint and
unparallel efficiency the MZR-R is the choice for modern high performance Motorsports."

So much for using any weight or internal specs from the previous incarnations of the MZR-R. The intake plenum was "all new", no telling what else is.

I was looking up the AER P32T twin turbo V8, to see just how "not so much engineering" would be required to morph it into an IndyCar V6.

Not much to see, since about the only bits you could use are maybe the connecting rods,front cover and dry sump pump. New engineering would also include direct injection and possibly changing the compression ratio to make more efficient power production on E100 and at higher boost pressures.

That's a complete clean sheet of paper design. Just like the engines nobody else is building, with the exception of Honda.

Good article from Racecar engineering about the engine, though:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/technology/258147/aer-p32t-v8.html

Hoop-98

20th October 2010, 04:09

Andy, it sounds like we have discussed this to a reasonable ending. The next news will be when the lack of red flags turn into green flags. Personally I don't see it happening but I wait with much interest for further development, just like last year. Best of luck on your mission.

rh

Enjun Pullr

20th October 2010, 04:33

Last year when I started asking questions, criticism and indifference is all there was to be found. Times change. Thanks for the message.

Turn-In

20th October 2010, 13:18

I would imagine a lot is new to this engine compared to prior year. What does it actually have in common with a MZR? I think that it is just the badging. Which is fine for marketing, but technical people may balk that it is an "MZR". There is a reason why it was a clean sheet design when they made the original. The Atlantics motor was based on the MZR and was built up from block and head rather than ground up. But, to make the numbers AER is reliably, there is almost no way you could use a production based MZR motor I would think. Just my 2 cents.

This is from the AER website:

"MAZDA MZR-R (AER P70)
The all new Mazda MZR-R engine introduced in 2010
represents the state of the art in Turbocharged engine technology. Combining very low mass with a small physical Footprint and
unparallel efficiency the MZR-R is the choice for modern high performance Motorsports."

So much for using any weight or internal specs from the previous incarnations of the MZR-R. The intake plenum was "all new", no telling what else is.

I was looking up the AER P32T twin turbo V8, to see just how "not so much engineering" would be required to morph it into an IndyCar V6.

Not much to see, since about the only bits you could use are maybe the connecting rods,front cover and dry sump pump. New engineering would also include direct injection and possibly changing the compression ratio to make more efficient power production on E100 and at higher boost pressures.

That's a complete clean sheet of paper design. Just like the engines nobody else is building, with the exception of Honda.

Good article from Racecar engineering about the engine, though:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/technology/258147/aer-p32t-v8.html