Radical Engine Changes In IRL's Future?

[GP Racer]

Looks like TG isn't wasting anytime getting to work on his future engine program. -

-From Brian Barnhardt, the Indy Racing League’s VP of Operations, revealed the IRL is considering a switch back to production-based engines when it unveils its new technical package, scheduled to debut in 2007.

General Motors was in favor of the switch, and claimed the discontinuation of the production formula - used by the league between 1997 and 1999 - was the main reason for the escalating costs which eventually prompted the withdrawal of its Chevrolet brand from IndyCar racing.

"We'll make our decision based on input from our current manufacturers as well as potential ones," Barnhart told the Indianapolis Star. One of the “potential” ones may be GM itself, which could be lured back into the series in case an engine formula of its liking is chosen by Barnhardt & Co.

Amidst Barnhart’s major concerns in the shaping of his decision is the cost of making yet another switch - the IRL already changed its current package this year, when it downgraded the engines from 3.5 to 3.0 liters to reduce climbing speeds.

The VP of Operations promised to make a final announcement by May next year, allowing a minimum of 18 months for the manufacturers to build their new power plants for the start of the 07 season...

[Kicking-back]

A sensible move.

ChampCar is protected against manufacturers threatening its future, now it seems IndyCar is doing the same.

Makes sense.

[climb]

Should it bring back to when almost very team won at least a race per year, I'd be very happy abou it.

[GP Racer]

But how many manufacturers have a 3.0 V-8 engine that they could use?

[Team Owner]

Originally posted by GP Racer
But how many manufacturers have a 3.0 V-8 engine that they could use?

Who said it will be a 3.0 litre V8?

[GP Racer]

Ahhhhh, never really thought about that possibility Team Owner!

I guess your talking in the area of 2.5 - 3.0 ltr. 6 cylinder engines then. The V-8s are slowly disappearing in production engines, especially the foreign guys, but most manufacturers have 6 cylinder engines that I'm sure they could be made to work for the IndyCars. It could actually draw in some new manufacturers.

Maybe things aren't as bad as they seem...

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by GP Racer
Ahhhhh, never really thought about that possibility Team Owner!

I guess your talking in the area of 2.5 - 3.0 ltr. 6 cylinder engines then. The V-8s are slowly disappearing in production engines, especially the foreign guys, but most manufacturers have 6 cylinder engines that I'm sure they could be made to work for the IndyCars. It could actually draw in some new manufacturers.

Maybe things aren't as bad as they seem...

In cars that reflect performance, V-8s and larger are the present and future.

Why would Detroit waste time building six bangers that represent grocery getting cars.

Indy rules used to allow anything from 4 bangers up, any new rules had better take this into consideration or what is going on now will not go away.
Bob

[Dakota Hogback]

Originally posted by GP Racer
Ahhhhh, never really thought about that possibility Team Owner!

I guess your talking in the area of 2.5 - 3.0 ltr. 6 cylinder engines then. The V-8s are slowly disappearing in production engines, especially the foreign guys, but most manufacturers have 6 cylinder engines that I'm sure they could be made to work for the IndyCars. It could actually draw in some new manufacturers.

Maybe things aren't as bad as they seem...

If TG wants to keep GM happy with a V-6 based formula, there would have to be an equivalency rule. The Buick-based 3.8 pushrod engine is the only thing they have that could be used. Those never lasted long with a turbo on top of them. Maybe in NA configuration they might survive 500 miles. The smaller 60-degree V-6's are also all pushrod jobs, and there are no performance parts for them that I'm aware of, either from GM or the aftermarket, and I'm not sure those engines would be up to the task anyway. Would they have to go to Saab or Opel to get suitable V-6 mills? Would they be willing to?

The only production-based formula that could include both GM and Honda and keep the techie fans happy would have to use a 4-banger.

[GP Racer]

Originally posted by Dakota Hogback
The only production-based formula that could include both GM and Honda and keep the techie fans happy would have to use a 4-banger.

I'm not sure I see 4 bangers as being the answer for the American manufacturers either. I mean, we don't exactly produce world class 4's, especially in comparison to the Japanese. They have some beautiful smooth, quiet, high-tech engines that are producing insane amounts of HP and torque for their econo-boxes no less, while we still have noisy, push-rod, 4's with no power pushing our cars around.

Maybe by 2007, Detroit will finally have a world class 4 or 6 cylinder that would be ready.

Bob, I'm not sure Gen X would agree with your assesment of performance being only V-8's, as GM had to discontinue it's baby-boomer Camaros and Firebirds due to lack of sales...

[mmciau]

GM have a whole series of DOHC V6 60 degree engines of varying capacities

Mike

[mountainstar]

Originally posted by GP Racer
Ahhhhh, never really thought about that possibility Team Owner!

I guess your talking in the area of 2.5 - 3.0 ltr. 6 cylinder engines then. The V-8s are slowly disappearing in production engines, especially the foreign guys, but most manufacturers have 6 cylinder engines that I'm sure they could be made to work for the IndyCars. It could actually draw in some new manufacturers.

Maybe things aren't as bad as they seem...

I don't know, manufacturers seem to be cramming eight cylinders into anything they can fit it in.

[gttouring]

well i have no idea which way it would go- V6's or turbo 4's seem viable- especially as GM is really scrambling and trying to make an Ecotec motor, their 2 litre 4.
in drag trim it makes oh 1700 hp, with a turbo the size of a small bear.
so i bet if this new formula is adopted by production based engines it could make evryone happy.
but then will GM be behind the 8 ball again- or have they truly given up entirely...
of course by 2006 when evryone's contracts are up, andnot one manufacturer wants to supply, what will IRL do? call JUDD and Ilmor, and cosworth to sell non badged engines?

[mountainstar]

To me the more important issue is not the engines but the manufacturer cash and support. Autosport reported last month that 70% of all IRL teams are "financially propped up by engine manufacturers". Even if that number is not exact, it is clear that the IRL would not look the way it is now without those dollars. Nunn, Rahal and Fernandez would certainly not be around. Penske, Ganassi and Andretti would be iffy or have a reduced commitment. Therefore the car companies have control over this one, that is, if they are interesting in sticking around at all. GM is gone, Toyota is not happy no doubt and based on some recent comments from Honda and the fact that Ilmor is dumping the honda engine after next year because of mercedes ownership, you wonder if that will be the perfect time for them to exit as well.

One issue in regards to the production based engines: By the time you modify such engine and make it usable and reliable enough for 220 mph flat out racing, you could have built a proper race engine for the same amount.

[dubby99]

Production car engines have come along way now and i can't see that being the best alternative for the IRL.

IMHO a prodution car engine will still be expensive to run and i think it will be a bad step for the IRL.

Why?

Because a modern hi tech prodution based engine might not have the durability to last a 500 mile race at over 200 mph let alone the whole weekend.

The goal for any series these days to to have long life engines that can last at least 2 race weekends. So there is no way i can see a production based engine doing that since you have to get at least double the HP out of it to make it run over 200 MPH flat out.

You also have to remember that an IRL engine needs to be small, light and have alot of stiffness incorperated into the engine since the engine block is a stressed member so you don't want to have extra tubing running around the engine which will add to both weight and drag.

So i agree with mountianstar, it will better off using a purpose built racing engine that detuned slightly to give it some durability along the line of what CART first did to cut costs.

[Bob Riebe]

{quote]You also have to remember that an IRL engine needs to be small, light and have alot of stiffness incorperated into the engine since the engine block is a stressed member so you don't want to have extra tubing running around the engine which will add to both weight and drag.[/quote]

A cradle would not hamper the car in any manner. It has been done for decades at Indy with no problems.
There have been too many posts, on too many forums, whining with doom and gloom about the size and weight of stock-block engines, it just isn't so.

Bob

[Snrub]

I don't think the proper power output could be produced from a stock block small displacement n/a 4-cyl. However, I believe all three of the current manufacturers have large displacement 2.4L 4-cyl engines as well as Nissan and Dalmer-Chysler. Ford/Mazda/Volvo have a 2.3L. It would probably be hard to get the right power levels out of those engines with the current rev restrictions.

I don't think gen-x, etc. people have a problem with V8s per say, they just have never seen a V8 car in a form they find appealing. As a result, for some reason many people think 18 second 1/4 mile Civics, etc. are fast. In terms of the need for V8s, mid-sized family sedans are pumping out 240hp from 3L V6s. I'm not sure there's going to be a widespread public desire for 350hp+ V8s in Accord/Camry/Grand Prix.

In terms of a low cost engine racing, isn't that what the current engine formula was created to produce? What other type of racing engine is going to be cheaper?

[mountainstar]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe
{quote]You also have to remember that an IRL engine needs to be small, light and have alot of stiffness incorperated into the engine since the engine block is a stressed member so you don't want to have extra tubing running around the engine which will add to both weight and drag.

A cradle would not hamper the car in any manner. It has been done for decades at Indy with no problems.
There have been too many posts, on too many forums, whining with doom and gloom about the size and weight of stock-block engines, it just isn't so.

Bob [/QUOTE]

Maybe in a 1971 Indycar that'd be fine, but with todays 230 mph nose in the air, butt on the ground, euro formula car rockets I'd say the last thing they need is a boat anchor stock block with a cradle. They tried to get the buick to work for almost 10 years, but the thing blew chunks anytime it ran over 200 miles.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by mountainstar
A cradle would not hamper the car in any manner. It has been done for decades at Indy with no problems.
There have been too many posts, on too many forums, whining with doom and gloom about the size and weight of stock-block engines, it just isn't so.

Bob

Maybe in a 1971 Indycar that'd be fine, but with todays 230 mph nose in the air, butt on the ground, euro formula car rockets I'd say the last thing they need is a boat anchor stock block with a cradle. They tried to get the buick to work for almost 10 years, but the thing blew chunks anytime it ran over 200 miles. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gurney returned to stock-blocks during the hay-days of ground effects.
Al Unser took a Buick to third, finishing not only on the same lap but close to the leaders(the same year the pole was 232), with several others getting a top six finish other years.
Mike Mosely beat the DFX at Milwaukee with a small block Chevy and Rock Moran would have won a road race except for stupid pit maneuvers.
Current small blocks can handle 500 miles of 3,500 pound sedans,plus the heavier dirt champ cars around ovals of up to 1.5 miles, a 1,500 lb. formula car is less, not more of a challenge.
Check you facts, the current alloy small blocks are around 325 lbs., plus or minus 30, depending on the make or set-up.
Bob

[dubby99]

Well Bob you bring up some good points there, but i just can't help but wonder that going to prodution based engines is a step forward for the IRL.

When you bring up the point about nascars using small blocks in 3500 pound sedans going 500 miles but you have to remember they are cast iron blocks.

Correct me if i am wrong but i believe there is a huge difference between an old cast iron prodution based v8 block vs a current based alloy prodution block in terms of relibility and strength IMHO.

Just a quick note that i am not a big supporter of the IRL but when someone is talking about engines in any racing series i love to join in the conversation. So i am not here to stir things up or try to spin things around and make them negative just giving my own opinions if thats all right.

To sum things up stick to a purpose built race engine and try to contain costs.

[Snrub]

A LS1/6 (wet with accessories) is 498lbs whereas the old cast LT1 weighs 600lbs. http://www.geocities.com/jeffguilfoi...neweights.html For those who don't know that's the Chevy 350 (5.7L). Strip the accessories and put on an appropriate intake and exhaust for the application and you're probably 30-40lbs less.

Apparenty the minimum dry weight for an IRL engine sans intake, exhaust, etc. is 280lbs. Champ Car engines weigh 264lbs. Since they didn't specify, I'm assuming that's wet weight with the whole unit. http://www.f1technical.net/article13.html Just for a fun comparison, the street varient Renesis engine (same, but with accesories and manifolds) found in Star Mazda are ~250lbs.

Here's an interesting link: http://www.falconerengines.com/prod05.htm It says 340lbs for the 2002 Chevy IRL engine. It has a blower, so I think that's probably included in the weight. Anyone want an IRL engine in their street car?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Snrub
A LS1/6 (wet with accessories) is 498lbs whereas the old cast LT1 weighs 600lbs. http://www.geocities.com/jeffguilfoi...neweights.html For those who don't know that's the Chevy 350 (5.7L). Strip the accessories and put on an appropriate intake and exhaust for the application and you're probably 30-40lbs less.

Apparenty the minimum dry weight for an IRL engine sans intake, exhaust, etc. is 280lbs. Champ Car engines weigh 264lbs. Since they didn't specify, I'm assuming that's wet weight with the whole unit. http://www.f1technical.net/article13.html Just for a fun comparison, the street varient Renesis engine (same, but with accesories and manifolds) found in Star Mazda are ~250lbs.

Here's an interesting link: http://www.falconerengines.com/prod05.htm It says 340lbs for the 2002 Chevy IRL engine. It has a blower, so I think that's probably included in the weight. Anyone want an IRL engine in their street car?

You had better do more search for weights of bare block and heads of a racing engine.
An LS alloy block weighs 100 lbs. plus or mimus a few, same for an alloy version of the Ford modular.

Yours are weights for the engine as put in street car which means squat for competition purposes.

Do a more indepth search.
Bob

[gttouring]

this argument style comes up often, GenX and "tuner" fans vs. old big block or SBC lovers-pushrod vs.OHC, and turbo vs. NA.
well i am full blown or blown UnV8 person.
I love V8 sounds and the powers available- but 2.0 litres is normal 3.0 is quite sporty, 3.5 litres well this is getting brutish...and 5.7-6.0 litre V8s are simply gigantic nevermind th 8litre V10 in Vipers.
the ferrari V8's and V12's are so sonorous and lovely i can't imagine why more would not involve in this type of motor or flat 4's and 6's
any motr is fine, but i have never works on a carb (other than motorcyles and rejetteing them) and never rodded or done much with a V8 short of a toyota drueing ruotine serivce.
so with this in to account, and seeing the BTCC of the 90's use 2litre motors at 300 HP and WRC at crazy power level and not blowing up, i find it laughable to se passenger SIX Litre V8's squeek out 350 HP
race versions then blowing up at 650 hp??
no no no
NASCAR has proven a 6litre (350,357,358 cu in.) can crank 850 HP at almost 10 K pushrod-carbureted, it is a potnent and viable engine.
but i have driven a turbo 4 cylinder 1.8 litre with 430hp.
i don't see why a rule book can not be written to enjoy more combinations, flat 6 turbo motors at 650 hp, and 4 cylinder at 650 hp, and V8s...
litre limits, turbo pressure limits, weight limits per engine choice (based on dyno reading and test driver times on a track) it can work isn't this what Indy was all about anyway?
the Millers, the Offy's, the Watson roadster, enter the Lotus mid engined cars... turbo V6's and turbo V8's NA V12's
just let them run and let them fight t out...
where can we keep costs down rather than blowing it up? well chassis manufacturers and their developments (IRL has done well with the freezes) spec tyres, and testing limits...
perhaps a move to OEM made engine production blocks, and a Grand-am like list of approved parts (all rods sourced from Pauter, Carillo, cosworth, etc.) pistons from 3 sources, and a-1 or arp hardware, no titanium, and not magnesium, Aluminum and steel... and one engine per weekend, and a rev limit at 15 k...
not DP style, as the inventiveness their has been a bit hampered in the engine department. and bring back roadsters tech and aero now can make these competitive, the Panoz did well.
if Indy and champcar and F1 and A-1 and balh blah blah are to exist some one has to take a risk and bring attention to themselves, and sticking to ONE set of engine ideas is bonkers
if the NHRA turbo Front drive drag Saturn can cut a 6.90 quarter mile and a 500 cube NA V8 NHRA prostock motor can run a 6.90 then whay can't they run on track in a race together?
and why can't INDY run V6's flat 4's inline 4's and V8's duke it out?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by gttouring

if the NHRA turbo Front drive drag Saturn can cut a 6.90 quarter mile and a 500 cube NA V8 NHRA prostock motor can run a 6.90 then whay can't they run on track in a race together?
and why can't INDY run V6's flat 4's inline 4's and V8's duke it out?

For what you said before the quote above, it smells too much of just another spec. series.
I couldn't really care less who is driving the cars, for me all racing is about the cars.
Indy is an exception but the only one.

For the above, the dragsters probably could but it is how they get to the e.t. that is different.
In the tuner class, one fellow entered a Ford with a front-drive V-8 and smoked the smaller cars.
He he did not like using a V-8 but he was out there to win and would do what ever it took.
At Indy it used to be near anything was legal, within displacement limits.
CART and then IRL killed that factor.

There is no reason it cannot go back.
They are too fast? Tough that is the name of the game, no one is forced to drive.
Cheever ran laps, continually, at at over 232 just because he could and had nothing to lose in 1995, if he could do it safely there is no reason others cannot.
Bob

[gttouring]

true about the speeds and safety...
i like the old indy ways... anything legal within displacement, and a safety rev limit of 15K or so....
Champcar now has Buggerall strong engines and are quick V8 and turbo with a nifty passing boost, many can learn from here, and Lemans and even GA...
I have seen many V8 fall to smaller engines, but reallt the cadillac Sixteen should get a running too. and V12's and a few V10s...
a Judd V10 and a champcar with a V8T in an A1GP chassis or a Superfund chassis, well there is possibilities...and how about an AER turbo 4? it has done well versus the audiV8's after being sorted... this is the sort of thing i am talking about Mr. Reibe, and the racing can only get better..
the "spec" portion of what i was talking about is simply to keep less development costs out of the teams, and let anyone try to sell the best wares to who buys them., after all I can sorce Titanium Rods for my nissan engine, at similar costs to Forged aluminum (200 more dollars for the Titanium BTW), as they are both cutom order...so as titanium is out costs should be similar all around- now testing- this is where money is spent IMO...and with open testing to everybody the day before the race (no engine penalties for this day just official praccy and quali) it should keep this down- and speeds, well Fighter jet capsules seem like a good idea for cockpits, so fit them on the Indy cars (it isn't F1) and let them zing 232 or 242 or 252 who cares if they can walk away from the crash, it is all good...

[Snrub]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe
You had better do more search for weights of bare block and heads of a racing engine.
An LS alloy block weighs 100 lbs. plus or mimus a few, same for an alloy version of the Ford modular.

Yours are weights for the engine as put in street car which means squat for competition purposes.

Do a more indepth search.
Bob

I didn't do a search on the stock blocks, I already had the numbers. It's not difficult to estimate approximately what the heads are going to weigh and one can lob them of the figure I gave. I suppose it depends on how "stock block" one wants to go. Is it going to be stock block like when BMW had used 1.5L production engines for F1 that they cranked out 1300hp with, or is it going to be more in the spirit of stock block? If you're going with a large displacement like a 5.7L, it only makes sense to keep things more reasonably stock to control performance.

The 10.3k redline is actually quiet important. It prevents nutso R&D from taking place. As for the Caddy V16, that thing was longer than an entire Indycar.