LMP2 Manufacturers and Engine Suppliers - Page 40

Maelochs · 26 Mar 2015, 15:38 (Ref:3519904)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdave0

Don't forget that Ford has had the ecoboost V6 on the stove as a P2 engine for some time. For US P2 it would be reasonable for HPD to be an engine supplier even if not a chassis supplier - they seem happy to have their engine in Ligiers.

I am not sure how eager Ford will be to support its P2 engine---Just maybe because it will be using a very similar engine in the GT.

I am not sure HPD will have any interest in building a P2 engine when it can only sell to a few TUSC teams. I figure some kind of "Corvette" engine will power most 2017 P-cars, shrunken if needed, but I don't see Chevy giving up that class. if Ford keeps making a P2 EcoBoost, that doesn't leave a lot of customers for another manufacturer--HPD isn't going to cover its costs if it only has one or two teams in the whole world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

I'm sure GM will demand a Corvette body if one wants a GM engine in the back.

Mazda might stick around but only for their 'works' program, cannot see anyone else wanting to run their vacuum cleaner engine.

... I don't expect many new P cars in 2017/beyond, maybe a handful of 'Corvettes' + couple of Mazda + couple of stock bodied P2s, 10 or so in total, 12 would be a lot.

Sadly I agree. Several Chevys, maybe a couple Fords, and a couple full-generics.

JHamilton · 26 Mar 2015, 17:11 (Ref:3519939)

I don't think Chevy will go down the small block route. It has a 1.6L turbo to work from. <--- that is pure speculation.

HORNDAWG · 26 Mar 2015, 17:48 (Ref:3519952)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHamilton

I don't think Chevy will go down the small block route. It has a 1.6L turbo to work from. <--- that is pure speculation.

If it is not a V-8, which I think it will be, then I think it will be the new 'LGX' 3.6l V-6.

L.P.

**joeb** · 26 Mar 2015, 18:05 (Ref:3519956)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHamilton

I don't think Chevy will go down the small block route. It has a 1.6L turbo to work from. <--- that is pure speculation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

If it is not a V-8, which I think it will be, then I think it will be the new 'LGX' 3.6l V-6.

GM seem to actually have a lot of available options these days. Could be the V6 out of the new Caddy GT3, could be based off Indy engine, or even the 1.6L.

Chiana mentioned earlier that the Oaks and Orecas for 2017 will likely be optimized for the stock engine used in the WEC/ELMS, so how that translates into multiple engine choices for IMSA could be an issue.

Maelochs · 26 Mar 2015, 18:12 (Ref:3519958)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeb

Chiana mentioned earlier that the Oaks and Orecas for 2017 will likely be optimized for the stock engine used in the WEC/ELMS, so how that translates into multiple engine choices for IMSA could be an issue.

or ... we will have a field full of Multimatics because only Multimatic is willing to work with TUSC to make different mounting points.

The generics will use the (BoP'd) generic engine, but Multimatic and I'd even bet Dallara (with its new factory in Indiana) might be willing to build just for TUSC. Someone will get a sweet contract from Chevy.

And since it is image-driven, I am willing to bet there is nothing smaller than a V6, simply because most Americans associate V8s with power and I4s with wimpy little foreign cars ... facts nonwithstanding.

If Ford makes its GTE EcoBoost engine available (of which I am not sure) then Ford will have to pay some factory to build a specific bulkhead-back tub. The cost of that plus supporting a special version of the motor for P might be enough to push Ford out.

On the other hand we have no idea if TUSC would allow teams to modify the spec chassis to adapt engines on their own. Riley could team up with some one and do the fabrication just to keep the name around, maybe ... ???

JHamilton · 26 Mar 2015, 18:26 (Ref:3519964)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

If it is not a V-8, which I think it will be, then I think it will be the new 'LGX' 3.6l V-6.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeb

GM seem to actually have a lot of available options these days. Could be the V6 out of the new Caddy GT3, could be based off Indy engine, or even the 1.6L.

Oooooooo... I like that idea.

HORNDAWG · 26 Mar 2015, 18:33 (Ref:3519966)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeb

GM seem to actually have a lot of available options these days. Could be the V6 out of the new Caddy GT3, could be based off Indy engine, or even the 1.6L.

Chiana mentioned earlier that the Oaks and Orecas for 2017 will likely be optimized for the stock engine used in the WEC/ELMS, so how that translates into multiple engine choices for IMSA could be an issue.

The LGX is the engine in the Caddy.
I find it extremely hard to imagine that the 4 constructors would not have plans/options to run a multitude of engine packages. It goes to the market share, and we have seen both Oreca and Ligier want a share of the TUSC market.

L.P.

Deleted · 26 Mar 2015, 18:36 (Ref:3519969)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maelochs

On the other hand we have no idea if TUSC would allow teams to modify the spec chassis to adapt engines on their own. Riley could team up with some one and do the fabrication just to keep the name around, maybe ... ???

You mean mod the Oreca/Oak/third-option without the help of those constructors?

Anyway, there was an article on Autosport today where they said that despite the spec WEC/ELMS engine and limited chassis, there should still be tire war (outside States). Which is contradicting what DSC and (IIRC) S365 said, and I believe the ACO presser as well. Wouldn't be the first time Autosport's making things up without knowledge. But I guess there is still some thin hope.

HORNDAWG · 26 Mar 2015, 18:37 (Ref:3519971)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maelochs

or ... we will have a field full of Multimatics because only Multimatic is willing to work with TUSC to make different mounting points.

The generics will use the (BoP'd) generic engine, but Multimatic and I'd even bet Dallara (with its new factory in Indiana) might be willing to build just for TUSC. Someone will get a sweet contract from Chevy.

And since it is image-driven, I am willing to bet there is nothing smaller than a V6, simply because most Americans associate V8s with power and I4s with wimpy little foreign cars ... facts nonwithstanding.

If Ford makes its GTE EcoBoost engine available (of which I am not sure) then Ford will have to pay some factory to build a specific bulkhead-back tub. The cost of that plus supporting a special version of the motor for P might be enough to push Ford out.

On the other hand we have no idea if TUSC would allow teams to modify the spec chassis to adapt engines on their own. Riley could team up with some one and do the fabrication just to keep the name around, maybe ... ???

It also depends on how the new 2017 chassis/tub is designed/configured.

L.P.

Ephaeton · 27 Mar 2015, 07:36 (Ref:3520193)

Didn't expect that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by racer.com

Miller also confirmed HPD's interest in making a bid to become one of the four nominated constructors for the new LMP2 formula due to begin in 2017.

from http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/11478...m-for-its-lmp2

Rcz · 27 Mar 2015, 08:32 (Ref:3520205)

It just sucks TUSC is going to have two dumb down Proto class, P2 and PC. Despite there being a P3 class.

I really hope TUSC has a back up plan if or when this fails.

I mean really, are they idiots? Just leave the cars alone. What ever happened to appeasing the fans? I know that sometimes the fans are irrational, and you have to make tough choices, but there no reason to waste perfectly good cars. This is just to appease some obscure car makers and rich people in some region far away and not to the benefit of American sport cars.

J Jay · 27 Mar 2015, 14:16 (Ref:3520339)

Something I've forgotten to add from this week's MWM - Graham Goodwin is going to present the ACO's point of view next week (having spoken to senior officials) along with reports from the prologue. I'm hoping it isn't the same sort of rationale that Hugh de Chaunac gave earlier because that left me thoroughly unimpressed.

Coach Ep · 27 Mar 2015, 14:41 (Ref:3520349)

Recap (so far, speculative):

WEC-ELMS-AsLMS
4 chassis constructors
1 engine supplier

TUSC
4 chassis constructors (same ones as in WEC et all)
multiple engine suppliers (no limit to the number as far as I'm aware)

3 chassis constructors seemed to be 'set in stone':
- Oreca
- Onroak (OAK aka Ligier)
- Dallara (NA based remember and great ties with both VAG and GM)

leaving the 4th spot 'up for grabs' for:
- possible joint or individual effort by Coyote/Riley/Multimatic/Core?
- HPD (Wirth)?
- Gibson (fka Zytek)?
- Dome?
- SMP??
- Ginetta???
- other 'wild cards'?

Each constructor is supposed to be able to deal "with global supply options." and "We know enough about the cost associated with all of the design, all of the research, all of the engineering, all of the toolmaking required to create a clean screen prototype and put it into production, then deliver it to its first customers and put a parts supply system in place,” he explained. “The critical mass that each of those constructors has to achieve – and they will each give you a different answer – is somewhere between eight and 12 cars – actively competing." (quotes from Atherton, http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/11475...p2-regulations)

To be honest I don't really see any of the 4th spot candidates being able to support global supplies for approx. 8 cars (or more).

TUSC will most likely see manufacturer influenced bodywork, equalization between WEC and TUSC spec cars will be done thru BoP.

Engine supplier(s)
exclusively for WEC et all:
- VAG (looks to be in pole position)
- Nissan?

additional suppliers for TUSC:
- GM (seem as good as guaranteed)
- Ford?
- Mazda?
- Nissan? (if they loose out to VAG)
- HPD??
- Judd???
- AER???
- other 'wild cards'?

Tires: spec supplier

WEC-ELMS-AsLMS
- probably Dunlop

TUSC
- Continental

feel free to correct/update/add.

HORNDAWG · 27 Mar 2015, 15:32 (Ref:3520375)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Recap (so far, speculative):

WEC-ELMS-AsLMS
4 chassis constructors
1 engine supplier

TUSC
4 chassis constructors (same ones as in WEC et all)
multiple engine suppliers (no limit to the number as far as I'm aware)

3 chassis constructors seemed to be 'set in stone':
- Oreca
- Onroak (OAK aka Ligier)
- Dallara (NA based remember and great ties with both VAG and GM)

leaving the 4th spot 'up for grabs' for:
- possible joint or individual effort by Coyote/Riley/Multimatic/Core?
- HPD (Wirth)?
- Gibson (fka Zytek)?
- Dome?
- SMP??
- Ginetta???
- other 'wild cards'?

Each constructor is supposed to be able to deal "with global supply options." and "We know enough about the cost associated with all of the design, all of the research, all of the engineering, all of the toolmaking required to create a clean screen prototype and put it into production, then deliver it to its first customers and put a parts supply system in place,” he explained. “The critical mass that each of those constructors has to achieve – and they will each give you a different answer – is somewhere between eight and 12 cars – actively competing." (quotes from Atherton, http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/11475...p2-regulations)

To be honest I don't really see any of the 4th spot candidates being able to support global supplies for approx. 8 cars (or more).

TUSC will most likely see manufacturer influenced bodywork, equalization between WEC and TUSC spec cars will be done thru BoP.

Engine supplier(s)
exclusively for WEC et all:
- VAG (looks to be in pole position)
- Nissan?

additional suppliers for TUSC:
- GM (seem as good as guaranteed)
- Ford?
- Mazda?
- Nissan? (if they loose out to VAG)
- HPD??
- Judd???
- AER???
- other 'wild cards'?

Tires: spec supplier

WEC-ELMS-AsLMS
- probably Dunlop

TUSC
- Continental

feel free to correct/update/add.

Dallara is Italian.

https://www.dallara.it/wps/portal/en...Lsh0VATfQe0c!/

L.P.

Coach Ep · 27 Mar 2015, 16:10 (Ref:3520418)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Dallara is Italian.

From the same article in my original post:

Quote:

“So back to the constructor discussion, we’re going to support the decision to limit those to four, with one – at least – one of those four being North American-based.”

Dallara has their Indianapolis base since a couple of years (for the assembly of their Indycars).

Even Oreca qualifies as they have a US location (Charlotte, NC) nowadays as well!

HORNDAWG · 27 Mar 2015, 16:15 (Ref:3520422)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

From the same article in my original post:

Even Oreca qualifies as they have a US location nowadays as well!

Still does not change the FACT that Dallara is Italian and Oreca is French, not a North Americam mfg.

L.P.

Coach Ep · 27 Mar 2015, 16:23 (Ref:3520428)

Surely not, but that's not relevant as the criterium seems to be NA based (and a constructor, not a manufacturer*) - not a matter of nationality.

Keep in mind the difference between constructor and manufacturer being emphasized in the article.

It will all depend on how much twist IMSA/ACO/FIA are gonna give it (and as we all know that can be quite substantial)!

HORNDAWG · 27 Mar 2015, 16:27 (Ref:3520431)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Surely not, but that's not relevant as the criterium seems to be NA based (and a constructor, not a manufacturer*) - not a matter of nationality.

Keep in mind the difference between constructor and manufacturer being emphasized in the article.

It will all depend on how much twist IMSA/ACO/FIA are gonna give it (and as we all know that can be quite substantial)!

Yes it is relevant!

L.P.

Coach Ep · 27 Mar 2015, 16:30 (Ref:3520432)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Yes it is relevant!

You're funny!

Ephaeton · 27 Mar 2015, 16:35 (Ref:3520435)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Yes it is relevant!

The fact that dallara is an italian constructor does not tangent the statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by racer.com

“So back to the constructor discussion, we’re going to support the decision to limit those to four, with one – at least – one of those four being North American-based.”

...given that Dallara is, also, North American-based.

Yet it's a bit void, IMHO, to discuss these fine semantics given that one has to go over the statements with a fine comb, just to realize that the different persons do not communicate 100% congruent material.

Whether or not it really is relevant for the selection of constructor, we'll only know in hindsight

Mal · 27 Mar 2015, 17:41 (Ref:3520469)

DSC has just tweeted that open tyres will be retained in 2017

Deleted · 27 Mar 2015, 17:48 (Ref:3520474)

This may sound weird, but I rather have open tires than open engines. Because tire war is such Rarity nowadays. I mean, of course both would be immensely better, and no stupid chassis restrictions either, but makes FAR it less painful for sure. Of course, I might just be on good mood after seeing the new garages at LM piece

Acid09 · 27 Mar 2015, 18:08 (Ref:3520489)

If they would decide to make it an open engine formula as well things wouldn't actually be too bad.

Sure, four manufacturers still isn't ideal but at least there would be some more variety.

Either way, looks like things are steering away from "total fiasco" to "at least somewhat tolerable".

Coach Ep · 27 Mar 2015, 18:23 (Ref:3520501)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

DSC has just tweeted that open tyres will be retained in 2017

Highly unlikely in TUSC though.

Deleted · 27 Mar 2015, 18:44 (Ref:3520512)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Highly unlikely in TUSC though.

Replace 'highly unlikely' with impossible.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Judd LMP2 engine	Mike_Wooshy	Sportscar & GT Racing	19	3 Feb 2011 22:21
New LMP2 engine - and (more) rule changes	ss_collins	Sportscar & GT Racing	42	4 Oct 2008 14:49
Manufacturers propose new engine regs	Marbot	Formula One	20	20 Oct 2007 12:17
LMP2 engine changes? (merged)	JAG	Sportscar & GT Racing	31	20 Jun 2006 10:20
Engine Suppliers Championship?	Mr V	Formula One	4	29 May 2002 09:46