View Single Post
Old 1 Sep 2017, 11:54 (Ref:3763419)   #20
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridV8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridV8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umai Naa View Post
Both Erebus and Nissan could have done the same thing.
I guess that's true. What smaller capacity V8s were in the catalogue of the brands at that time?

Never mind, I see there is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_M273_engine 92mm bore (versus the Volvo's 94mm bore)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VK_engine VK45DE with 93mm bore

Clearly the engineers of AMG and Nissan missed a trick.

On the other hand, how were they supposed to know that in the future, one year after the introduction of COTF, that Volvo would be allowed to use a smaller bore compared to the bore size of the pushrod engines, which AMG and Nissan were (presumably) told to match!?

Nissan were, if reports were correct, not even told that AMG were going to be allowed to use a flat-plane crankshaft!?

Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 1 Sep 2017 at 12:01.
V8 Fireworks is offline  
Quote