Big Engines

[Edmonton]

Would any of you being in favour of some sort of formula in LMP1 that would allow big(over6L) n/a displacement engines? I would love to see someone run something like a bigblock chevy.

[fia289]

Sure would, a stock block over 6.0L classe would be fun to watch... Just think of the sound !!!!

But it ain't gonna happen... too low tech.

Fred

[b1ackcr0w]

If I had my way there would be nothing else competing

[slicktsax]

well just because an engine is over 6 liters doesn't mean it is low tech. look at the mercedes V12 found in the pagoni zonda. it's 7.3 liters yet i wouldn't call it low tech, would you? the lambo murcielago road car uses a 6.2 liter V12 but that's not low tech. low tech has to do with more of the overall design of the engine rather than the size. after all someone could make a 8 liter pushrod V8 with variable valve timing, direct injection, variable cam. the pushrod design may be low tech but the other features i described aren't so how would u classify that engine? anyway getting back to the subject i think it would be cool to allow bigger engines in the prototype class, could u imagine stuffing an 8 liter Viper V10 in a dallara or a dome? that thing would have killer torque and horsepower with great aerodynamics

[Tim Northcutt]

About 18 months ago, I proposed an LMP1000 class that would have 6.0-8.0 L engines for their power as a privateer class that could be affordable (at least here in the US with all of the sprint car & stocker engine builders that could provide good, cheap power to race teams)...

Kind of like reviving a Can-Am class but making them carry a lot more weight than the LMP1s to balance out the extra displacement

It fell on deaf ears....

To do it and still be fair, I think that anything over the 6.0 L size would have to carry at least 100 kg of extra weight....

[gttouring]

what Deaf ear TN?
i love it! the Chevy crate 572, A 502/502+, the big new Mopars, and big mercedes motors the big Block donovans, a flaconer V12
man oh man LMP1000, now would it only be naturally aspirated? or would one power adder be allowed?

[billnchristy]

it sure would bring back the MkIII in a big way!! What better chassis to put a big block in!!

[pirenzo]

I heard ya loud and clear Tim (well, this time anyway).

6 to 8 litre engines would be awesome.

[Tim Northcutt]

When I originally proposed this formula, I also included 4.0 to 6.0 L engines with superchargers only, because they supposedly aren't as efficient as a turbo due to parasitic drain from the belt drive....

But I think that a whipple twin screw Lysholm-type system would not have that problem, and it would give the car with a blower an advantage on a circuit like Lime Rock or Sears Point....

GTTouring:

You and I have that plan to run the "Blower Caddy" still if I hit the Powerball Jackpot, don't we???

IMO, this LMP 1000 class, along with LMP1 and LMP2, is what racing is all about!!!

Different ways at different costs to find the winner's circle...

it would be awesome!!!

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Tim Northcutt

About 18 months ago, I proposed an LMP1000 class that would have 6.0-8.0 L engines for their power as a privateer class that could be affordable (at least here in the US with all of the sprint car & stocker engine builders that could provide good, cheap power to race teams)...

Kind of like reviving a Can-Am class but making them carry a lot more weight than the LMP1s to balance out the extra displacement

It fell on deaf ears....

To do it and still be fair, I think that anything over the 6.0 L size would have to carry at least 100 kg of extra weight....

As much as I am a big fan of the US big-blocks, before one starts using the "affordable" title take a look at this site from Sonny Leonard, one of the top US Chevy engine builders
http://www.sonnysracingengines.com/

First, there are no crate 8 liter engines, except for the Dodge V-10, plus if you are going to allow blowers, the blown engine will always have an advantage, and cost more $$$.

Look at the prices of the Leonard engines and then look at where the prices of alloy block engines start. or the price to switch from an iron block to an alloy block.(These are drag engines but to switch to a road racing set-up and injectors, is the least of the problems for cost.)
As the engines shown are really "crate" engines, if you want more you spend more to build an engine in an odd size such as 8 liters, will cost extra.

Even Chevy and Ford crate engines that even approach the amount of horse power neccessary are over 500 inches in size.
Plus, do you want these engines to be handicapped with restrictor rules as the current engines are?

If so, these engines will start getting very, very expensive, very, very quickly.

To paraphrase Sonny Leonard--To get more from less ALWAYS costs more than getting more from more.

The engines shown are designed to run unfettered, put restrictors on them and a expesive developement programs finding different cylinder heads and intake maninfolds will have to be undertaken, none of the heads on these crate engines are designed for restricted flow.
From Chevy there are "oval" port heads designed for less radical performance tasks, but as I said finding what works best, is starting from the ground up.

A class that would include Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford and even others such as Cadillac (not the OHC engine) would be great but not if it is throttled and made not cost effective by the engine builder having to rethink everything they know well due to restrictors.

One approach that might work is requiring they use the hot "street oval" type heads, which will make extremely impressive horse power, but will run out of breadth in the expensive high rpm range.

I like this idea very, very much but simply adding inches to an already overly regulated formula, will only make another expensive class where only big dollars win.
Add the weight, fine, but no restrictors, and open up the restrictors on the turbo cars if neccessary.
Bob

Sonny's site seems to have developed a glitch and you may have to click on induction to get to the engine page.

[billnchristy]

How about this then...why do they have to be direct competition for the high tech cars? I would think you would want them to be a bit slower because who the heck would spend a million on a car that gets beat by a 500k car?

1000kg, steel tube/carbon hybrid frame, 6+L Naturally asprirated V engines, No restrictors, sliding weight scale based on engine output, steel brakes, open or closed cockpit...more or less the old SRP rules with big engines.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by billnchristy

How about this then...why do they have to be direct competition for the high tech cars? I would think you would want them to be a bit slower because who the heck would spend a million on a car that gets beat by a 500k car?

1000kg, steel tube/carbon hybrid frame, 6+L Naturally asprirated V engines, No restrictors, sliding weight scale based on engine output, steel brakes, open or closed cockpit...more or less the old SRP rules with big engines.

I would say because then they would be little faster than a unrestricted GTS/1 car and there would be no point in building one; plus it would be very much a cubic dollar format, as Sonny said, trying to force a smaller engine to what a bigger one does. cost big dollars.( Building engines to overcome the sliding weight scale, would mean a team would probably have engines tuned to suit different tracks. Very expensive.)
366 cu. in. engines are not even close to big either, hot rod mags. have printed articles recently stating that unless there is a STRONG reason to keep a Rat Chevy at 427 inches it is rather foolish as a 454 will do every thing the 427 does, 502 will do what a 454 does etc.(and more) weighs less, and costs less to reach a desired output.

You have, in a indirect way pointed to the one problem with using truly big engines; prepared to even standard parameters. they will produce tremendous numbers in torque and horse-power, if they are going to be strangled, so as to not stomp on the former big performers, there is zero reason to use them, which (In my opinion) is the reason they are not allowed.
While they are not really cheap, and are probably more succeptible to being influenced by cubic dollars than some Euro makes, parts are extremely numerous,and bulletproof to exotic, to a degree none here can understand with out reading, recent articles as to, what can be, and is being done by parts suppliers and engine builders.
New ones, are seemingly, popping-up every week, and no racer using them can, very often, be pigeon-holed by an arrogant supplier, or factory. (That is another thing I love about how the US system, usually, works, they care little if it is a X-Chevy, Z-ford, or Q-Pontiac, Block or Head, as long as the make gets mentioned)

I still like the idea of somehow turning the Kasses, Leaonards, Blacks of the US hot rod scene loose on US tracks.
The Chebby vs. Porsche show got a lot of attention in the seventies.
Bob

[Tim Northcutt]

I'd rather go to the sprint car engine builders....

Their engines can be bought for $50,000 or less, depending on the builder, and they have all of the goodies

roller cams

fuel injection

wet sump oiling systems

etc.


I wasn't really wild about the blower formula for the 4.0 - 6.0 L sizes, because I thought that it would give them an advantage...

But going N/A with 6.0 - 8.0 L would work....

and I respectfully disagree with the high cost, Bob....a reputable builder like Ed Pink could build you a 7.0 L alloy block sprinter engine for the $50,000 I quoted, and he has experience with sportscar engines as well...

[skycafe]

Dry sumps don't add that much to cost, and give you a lot in return. Reliable oiling without an intense developement of oil pans with baffles that would work, especially with the potential g forces that a prototype could muster. Also, the wet sump would give a high crank height and thus higher center of gravity, and also give the challenge of having to mate to existing gearboxes. Of course, I would guess that an unrestricted eight litre would also necessitate the development of a somewhat stronger gearbox then may be on the market.

I am curious to get a horsepower figure on a currently resricted 6 litre V8 like the Elan, versus what an unrestricted engine of the same size would offer? Also, where would you peg horsepower if unrestricted breathing, but with some cost limiting features within the power train? Even a somewhat limited tech 6 litre would offer more power potential then something like the Elan under current ACO/ALMS restrictions, wouldn't it? If not, then 6.5 or 7.0 litre would, wouldn't it?

The reasons I ask, this sort of engine would fit into the current state of development of chassis and gearboxes, specifically something like the R&S IIIC, without exensive investments in new technology in chassis or gearboxes or myriad other things, seeming to make a 'varient' class more feasable, but also potentially able to compete within the existing class structure. Have the varients run on power to weight or capacity to weight formula, and as Bob suggested adjust restrictors on the turbo cars up or down to balance it somehow.

If you could name it Can Am, all the better, or American Thunder or Ground Pounders or whatever name may be available and marketable. The ALMS does have power with the ACO and those interests, and certainly a class like this would have appeal at LeMans and the rest of the world, as witnessed by the comments of the LeMans regulars here who really liked the Panoz and R&S at LeMans.

robert

[billnchristy]

yeah thats why i said a semi tube construction like the MkIII just due to costs...if we consider that the chassis will cost around the same as a Riley DP 375k for a roller and 50k for a good motor, say another 50-100k for misc. BS, you could easily get on track for the budget of a decent GA team and have the power and speed all you junkies have a need for!!

Regulating the cars enough to keep it from being a runaway is the biggest problem i can see...unless you just want parades, thats cool i guess...

[skycafe]

Well, there is that old saying "Everybody loves a parade," but I don't reckon that is usable here...

You wouldn't want to enhance the performance of someone who wasn't trying, but at the same time you don't want the take away the performance of someone who is getting it right, even if they are the only ones.

I think any way you would look at it, it would be a private type class (keep Mercedes push rod engines out-that '94 Indy engine technology and thinking would kill the class), so attempts to keep from having to develop entirely new 'everything' would seem to be benificial. Also, I am not trying to revive the Mk. IIIC; a Mk. IIID or a Mk. IV type development would be my thinking (come in line with the aero rules).

robert

[billnchristy]

well, the class could have its own aero rules too right? I dont want to revive it either, but it is a good basis to draw from, cheap, strong, reliable.

[skycafe]

Actually, the aero rules I was thinking about were the ones designed to prevent flight, which I think we would all agree are a pretty good idea.

(An ARCA (I think) car did the spin and fly routine at Daytona yesterday, and debris went into the stands. Fortunatly there was slight injury to only one fan, and she refused treatment. I think any racing fan, no matter what discipline they like most would want to avoid flying race cars. We may all disagree on what is best as far as the kind of cars we like to watch, but these any of these things getting airborne is not a good thing at all).

I think aero-wise a car like this would have to fit into the mix somehow but, heck, who knows, unrestricted 8 litre stock block with low tech aero would probably dominate on the straights, and with a bit of creative driving nobody could pass them under braking into the corners. And it would sound really cool too!

robert

[gttouring]

so being relatively inexpensive LMP's, and more DP in theory this idea can easily go spill over into DP and perhaps this would be the magic formula they need to be super spectacular, not just 'good tight close' racing, the Porsche supercup gives you that too.

But is the Fuel economy what keeps the super big blocks from competing? or is it the reluctance for big blocks? or the lack of manufacturer use ( as if turbo caddillacs andGTP Bentleys really are factory stuff.)

[billnchristy]

I think the fear might be in the escalation that could take place if this kind of class was allowed. Top fuel cars make nearly 8000hp...maybe someone fears this from a sportscar. You know how we all are..."lets put a big block in a Mkiii"...a year later..."what if we put a turbo on that puppy?" next year...more...more...more...isnt this why series die in the first place?

people has proven theyre not content with 500hp, but 550-600hp is ok for some reason. If we up this to 800 what is next?

It is also funny that like you said, there is a very strong connection to this idea and a DP. Everyone agrees that a good, low tech, marginal cost solution is the answer...but we all want a gizzillion horsepower in the thing and its just not practical...cool...not practical.

Lastly, the .2 MPG might be a hinderance too, on the bright side you wouldnt have to ballast the things, they would probably need 50 gal tanks...they would be dogs for the first 30 minutes of the stint and then turn into rocketships for the last half...

might be interesting!!

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by gttouring

what Deaf ear TN?
i love it! the Chevy crate 572, A 502/502+, the big new Mopars, and big mercedes motors the big Block donovans, a flaconer V12
man oh man LMP1000, now would it only be naturally aspirated? or would one power adder be allowed?

GT highlights a difference in opinion and communication that ensues when talking about BIG-BLOCK engines.
A range from six to eight liters is not big block range, it actually covers standard to over-size small block to bottom range for practical big-blocks.

In long stroke small-blocks, with the much higher piston speed, which is not a good thing if not neccessary, in reality any practical car owner would not waste time with any thing much less than eight liters.

The old Reynolds Can-Am engines, which were still in the infancy of the developement of large US engines for racing, weighed 485 pounds, ready to race, whilst achieving 4 mpg.
If one is going to use big-blocks, then use ones with at least the sizes now offered from factories, as crate engines.
The now more standard size big-blocks listed by GT, would weigh, little to no more, and with current elec. inj. probably get at least, another mile per gallon.
It is illogical to putz around with smaller sizes. If one is going to use big-blocks then use what is now considered standard sizes.

nd I respectfully disagree with the high cost, Bob....a reputable builder like Ed Pink could build you a 7.0 L alloy block sprinter engine for the $50,000 I quoted, and he has experience with sportscar engines as well...

ANY US engine builder is fine, Pink is no more or less expensive, in relative terms, than anyone else, and racers will use whom ever they find most accomodating.
If you read the site at Ed Pink Racing Engines you will see they are just as much developers of new US style prod. based engines, as any builder is.
If I remember correctly, it was Ed Pink himself who worked with Donovan to build the first alloy AA/F engine; based on not the new 426 Hemi, but the old 392 Hemi block.
Either way, anyone who looks at using push-rod engines as some econo. form of racing, engine wize, is looking up the wrong tree. They are not nastily expensive, but neither are they cheap, especially if one wants to win.
Cheaper, MAYBE.
Using any form of GARRA type regulation,to control them, would make the whole purpose of using old fashioned, bigger is better, US think, a waste of time.

Bring the Euro turbos up, not the BBs down.
The cost, a drill size larger than the existing hole.

Flying cars?
That is the fault of NASCAR type cars and the aero they created.
When cars were truly based on production shapes, NO ONE seemed worried about flying cars, because they did not fly.
Greenwood hit over 230 mph at Daytona and flew nowhere; any new car should be able to do the same thing, if it does not, do not blame speed for designers ineptitude.

Power?

TA cars have gotten 650 hp out of 311 inches, taking into account increased drag, a 366 should get at least 720hp; and a 488, at least 900 hp, with non-radical tuning.
A 572 Chevy, with oval port heads, which function best below 7,000 rpm, should be able to pull a conservative 950 hp, which would very functional within a rpm range that takes into account the breathing ability of the oval.
port heads.
Said same heads, are comparatively cheap, compared to some of those designed to work at revolutions of 9,000 and higher.
Plus, the torque of BB engines give them a acceleration advantage which I am sure some of you are well aware of.

If Big-Blocks are going to be used, then use BIG blocks.
Bob

[billnchristy]

dont forget though that a T/A engine does it for an hour and a half and sometimes not that long...

I dont think you need to pull 9k to get 7-800hp reliably out of an engine. Remember the big picture is Lemans here...if youre going to last 24 hours you cannot be that stressed...which is why your idea of BIG engines is a good one...the bigger the less stressed...now if you want a 9k 600+ cu in engine that would be a different story...impressive, fast, scary...reliable?

[cybersdorf]

Most recently, a certain new series had the chance, when it wrote its new regulations, to introduce really big, really American engines. It didn't. I wonder why.

Maybe they are just a bad idea?

We have been through this topic so many times, and it just remains to accept a fundamental difference in, hm, ideology between European and American racefans: Europeans will go for "hi-tech & expensive", whereas Americans will go for "big & cheap".

[paul-collins]

I don't think it's "cheap" you're looking for, cy. "Accessible" perhaps. It's the phenomenon that Enzo once sneeringly referred to as "garagiste." American racers are interested in tinkering with their machinery... (Fordillac?)

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by cybersdorf

Most recently, a certain new series had the chance, when it wrote its new regulations, to introduce really big, really American engines. It didn't. I wonder why.

Maybe they are just a bad idea?

Of course just as recently a very similar new series reduced its already small American V-8s, even further, to slow cars already possesing tepid performance, so overseas high tech engines could keep up.

I agree, they should have ignored the low performance euro tech. engines, to accomodate them was, a bad idea.

Bob