Zytek Engines P1 vs P2

[davehenrie]

When Zytek first ran their P1 car, it had the Zytek 3.4L ZG348 engine. This later became a P2 engine. Did the P1 variant produce the same horsepower as the P2 version or did P1 rules allow for more power from the same powerplant?
If, so....how much more....thanks
Sheesh...mid decade minutae...only on the Internet eh?

dave henrie

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by davehenrie

When Zytek first ran their P1 car, it had the Zytek 3.4L ZG348 engine. This later became a P2 engine. Did the P1 variant produce the same horsepower as the P2 version or did P1 rules allow for more power from the same powerplant?
If, so....how much more....thanks
Sheesh...mid decade minutae...only on the Internet eh?

dave henrie

This will get you part way there Dave. http://www.zytekgroup.co.uk/Default.aspx?tid=166



L.P.

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

This will get you part way there Dave. http://www.zytekgroup.co.uk/Default.aspx?tid=166



L.P.

yeah, I had waded through that site several times, thanks though. It does give some information about the power changes between 2007 and 2008 when you compare the car profile with an engine pdf. But I can't find anyone who knows if the original P1 ZG competed against 600+hp engines with just a P2 power level.

I'll attempt to answer part of my own question. (This ought to be good)

The 2004 regulations gave P1 engines a 46.3mm air restrictor vs a 44.0mm for a similar sized 3.4L P2 engine. Thats a 6 or 7% increase in size. Now all we need to know is this....
Does a 6% increase in available air equal a 6% gain in peak horsepower? Or does the 6% get cubicly squared or something so that it translate to even more than a 6% gain in peak hp?
(I told you I was only going to ATTEMPT to answer this...lol!!!) btw the restrictor sizes for 2005 were only 3% larger for a P1 car so I would surmise that this did not provide a large enough benefit for the P1 cars to stay with a smaller 3.4L engine.
dh

[SebringMG]

I don't think the Zytek engines ever struggled for power - the capacity increases were mainly for the corresponding increase in torque and an increase in reliability from the resultant max rpm reduction.

But i think you need knighty to fully answer your query regarding restrictor sizes...

[geeteeone]

In Knighty's absence I'll have a go at this, maybe he can confirm if I've got this right:

2008 P2 regulations 3396cc Zytek ZG348:
1 x 42.9mm restrictor (this is the restrictor size I have for 2008 for engines between 3.2 and 3.4 litres)
Restrictor area = 1445mm2
515 bhp (taken from Zytek spec sheet)

2004 P1 regulations 3396cc Zytek ZG348:
1 x 47.3mm restrictor (the engine is under 3.5 litres, so its 47.3mm not 46.3mm)
Restrictor area = 1757mm2
1757mm2 = 1.215% of 1445mm2
=625 bhp

OR

2 x 33.8mm restrictors
Restrictor area = 1795mm2
= 1.241% of 1445mm2
=639 bhp

Therefore very competitive horsepower levels for 2004, but obviously not much torque from such a small engine.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by geeteeone

In Knighty's absence I'll have a go at this, maybe he can confirm if I've got this right:

2008 P2 regulations 3396cc Zytek ZG348:
1 x 42.9mm restrictor (this is the restrictor size I have for 2008 for engines between 3.2 and 3.4 litres)
Restrictor area = 1445mm2
515 bhp (taken from Zytek spec sheet)

2004 P1 regulations 3396cc Zytek ZG348:
1 x 47.3mm restrictor (the engine is under 3.5 litres, so its 47.3mm not 46.3mm)
Restrictor area = 1757mm2
1757mm2 = 1.215% of 1445mm2
=625 bhp

OR

2 x 33.8mm restrictors
Restrictor area = 1795mm2
= 1.241% of 1445mm2
=639 bhp

Therefore very competitive horsepower levels for 2004, but obviously not much torque from such a small engine.

Looks like a very linear relationship between restrictor size and horsepower. 1757 is 21.6% more restrictor area than 1445, 625 is 21.4% more horsepower than 515.

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

Looks like a very linear relationship between restrictor size and horsepower. 1757 is 21.6% more restrictor area than 1445, 625 is 21.4% more horsepower than 515.

Excellent! thanks guys...you have just given me the keys to the kingdom. I'm off to bake a few Zytek sim engines.
dh

[dj choc ice]

Jesus, i had no idea the LMP1 Zytek 3.4 V8 was that powerful, i always imagined the engine was in the ballpark of around 550-580bhp but never in the 620-630bhp region, for a 3.4 V8 that is extremely impressive!

[geeteeone]

That's assuming that my calculations aren't in fact complete rubbish

All things being equal, the restrictors should balance horsepower regardless of engine size. Whether the engine is actually driveable is another matter, as such a small engine wouldn't have much torque and is likely to be very peaky.

The general trend has been a move away from small capacity racing engines to larger ones, witness the Judd going from 4.0 right up to the current 5.5 litres, presumably in a quest for torque as the actual power output would be reasonably similar due to the restrictors.

[geeteeone]

Just to muddy the waters slightly, I've just realised that the Zytek 04S was still running to LMP675 regs in 2004, not the new LMP1, so my restrictor calculations don't really bear any relation to reality, although they would still hold true if the car was a true LMP1.

Does anyone know what the LMP675 restrictors were for a 3.4 litre engine in 2004? I've seen the power quoted as 540bhp, so presumably a little larger than the current LMP2 restrictors.

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by geeteeone

Just to muddy the waters slightly, I've just realised that the Zytek 04S was still running to LMP675 regs in 2004, not the new LMP1, so my restrictor calculations don't really bear any relation to reality, although they would still hold true if the car was a true LMP1.

Does anyone know what the LMP675 restrictors were for a 3.4 litre engine in 2004? I've seen the power quoted as 540bhp, so presumably a little larger than the current LMP2 restrictors.

Yes that whole era is confusing. They Dyson AER B01-60 Lolas fell under the same confusing arrangement. LMP675 competing against the LMP900. Mulsanne Mike has the rules on his site..."IF" I wrote down the proper number, here is what I have.

P675 3.4L would use 1 41.7 restrictor. That is the 675 restrictor but the Zytek ran as a P1 competitor.

What advantages did a LMP675 car get to be on par with the larger class?

And finally one free bonus question thrown in. Do engines like the Zytek ZG408 and the Mugen 4.08L fall in the 4.0L and under class or do they getmoved up to the 4.0 to 4.5L classification?

[Félix]

they're all 3997-3999cc or close...

And I'm not sure I get what you're looking for here... The Zytek was first run in 4 liter form in the Panoz, then in 3.4 reworked form in the IRM-DBA-Reynard-Zytek,etc, then the same 3.4, unrestricted, in the A1 GP (still under 600hp I think), the it reappeared in P1 Zyteks (Arena, LNT Ginetta) as a 4 liter and recently as a 4.5 (still unraced).. It ran with a smaller single restrictor in P675-P2 and never made more than 550 horses, and probably does 620-650 in form. And that's all with inferior torque.

The restrictor means it can't go over 10000rpm by a lot (10000 must be a safe redlien for endurance anyway) in P2 form because it's choked. The P1 4 liter has the same redline (or at least 9k-10k rpm), even though it's bigger because it gets proportionally slightly larger restrictors.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Félix

they're all 3997-3999cc or close...

And I'm not sure I get what you're looking for here... The Zytek was first run in 4 liter form in the Panoz, then in 3.4 reworked form in the IRM-DBA-Reynard-Zytek,etc, then the same 3.4, unrestricted, in the A1 GP (still under 600hp I think), the it reappeared in P1 Zyteks (Arena, LNT Ginetta) as a 4 liter and recently as a 4.5 (still unraced).. It ran with a smaller single restrictor in P675-P2 and never made more than 550 horses, and probably does 620-650 in form. And that's all with inferior torque.

The restrictor means it can't go over 10000rpm by a lot (10000 must be a safe redlien for endurance anyway) in P2 form because it's choked. The P1 4 liter has the same redline (or at least 9k-10k rpm), even though it's bigger because it gets proportionally slightly larger restrictors.

The Zytek 4.5 has been ran in anger!

“The new 4.5 litre engine ran for the first time at Petit, was bloody quick and didn’t miss a beat all week. This is as encouraging for us as leading the race. Zytek have further development in the pipeline over the winter, but what everyone has proved this weekend is the new Ginetta-Zytek 07S will be a force to be reckoned with in 2009.”

L.P.

[geeteeone]

Originally Posted by davehenrie

What advantages did a LMP675 car get to be on par with the larger class?

And finally one free bonus question thrown in. Do engines like the Zytek ZG408 and the Mugen 4.08L fall in the 4.0L and under class or do they getmoved up to the 4.0 to 4.5L classification?

The advantage for LMP675 was just the weight, according to Mulsanne Mike's site the Zytek was running at 708 kg in 2004, some 200 kilos lighter than the LMP1/LMP900 cars.

As Félix said, the Zytek engines fall into the under 4.0 litre restrictor bracket as they are a few cc under. I'm guessing the same is true for the Mugen. BMW used the same trick for the McLaren's engine in 1997, they reduced it by a few ccs to fall into the under 6 litre bracket.

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by geeteeone

The advantage for LMP675 was just the weight, according to Mulsanne Mike's site the Zytek was running at 708 kg in 2004, some 200 kilos lighter than the LMP1/LMP900 cars.

As Félix said, the Zytek engines fall into the under 4.0 litre restrictor bracket as they are a few cc under. I'm guessing the same is true for the Mugen. BMW used the same trick for the McLaren's engine in 1997, they reduced it by a few ccs to fall into the under 6 litre bracket.

Wow, I have some reading to catch up on. Only weight eh? And about those engine sizes...if it's not a 4.08L then why call it a 4.08L? sheesh....I'm just a simple guy without a simple answer.
Thanks all, this has turned into a very informative thread with all the input. Really helpful.
dh

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by davehenrie

Wow, I have some reading to catch up on. Only weight eh? And about those engine sizes...if it's not a 4.08L then why call it a 4.08L? sheesh....I'm just a simple guy without a simple answer.
Thanks all, this has turned into a very informative thread with all the input. Really helpful.
dh

Are you sure that is the right nomenclatue (4.08L)? Are you talking about the 4.0L Mugen MF 408S V8, maybe?



L.P.

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Are you sure that is the right nomenclatue (4.08L)? Are you talking about the 4.0L Mugen MF 408S V8, maybe?



L.P.

Yeah, that's what is confusing me. I see(now this will REALLY confuse things) the MF 458 S has the same format.
The name SUGGESTS it's 4.58L. But checking ultimate carpage website, it shows the MF 458 S V8 has a displacement of 4.488L. Why call it the MF 458 when it should be called the MF 448 or even 449? So....If I search long enough I'll find the ultimate carpage for the 4.0L and it will say it's called the MF 408 S V8 with a displacement of 3.988L(or something close to that.) That's why I asked because the NAME of the engine didn't make sense. Same with the Zytek. The ZG348 would possibly be more ACCURATELY named as the ZG340 or ZG3399.

Whatever the confusion...at least I know what category to look at on those ACO restrictor charts now. Thanks again folks!
dh

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by davehenrie

Yeah, that's what is confusing me. I see(now this will REALLY confuse things) the MF 458 S has the same format.
The name SUGGESTS it's 4.58L. But checking ultimate carpage website, it shows the MF 458 S V8 has a displacement of 4.488L. Why call it the MF 458 when it should be called the MF 448 or even 449? So....If I search long enough I'll find the ultimate carpage for the 4.0L and it will say it's called the MF 408 S V8 with a displacement of 3.988L(or something close to that.) That's why I asked because the NAME of the engine didn't make sense. Same with the Zytek. The ZG348 would possibly be more ACCURATELY named as the ZG340 or ZG3399.

Whatever the confusion...at least I know what category to look at on those ACO restrictor charts now. Thanks again folks!
dh

Mugen MF 408 is a 4.0 V8 or 408, the MF 458 is a 4.5 V8 or 458 same with the Zytek ZG348 is a 3.4 V8 or 348 the 2ZG 408 is a 4.0 V8 or 408. Does that help any?


L.P.

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Mugen MF 408 is a 4.0 V8 or 408, the MF 458 is a 4.5 V8 or 458 same with the Zytek ZG348 is a 3.4 V8 or 348 the 2ZG 408 is a 4.0 V8 or 408. Does that help any?


L.P.

yup! Quoting Homer Simpson..... DOH!

[JAG]

Does anyone know how much power an engine manufacturer can gain with a years development, even with a restrictor.

If you look at WRC motors, they are only 2l turbo's, but over the last dozen years have progressed from around 315bhp in '97, to a current max of around 360bhp (according to a couple of Irish WRC drivers).

Seeing as a basic P1 engine should be putting out at least 600bhp, with scope for virtually unlimited development, would it be reasonable to suggest a top manufacturer could gain 20bhp+ per year, even with a restrictor in place.

[Aslak Vind]

The best powerleap can be achieved implementing direct injection, for some reason its still not normal standard. Only Porsche and AIM do have this in the LMP´s..

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by JAG

Does anyone know how much power an engine manufacturer can gain with a years development, even with a restrictor.

If you look at WRC motors, they are only 2l turbo's, but over the last dozen years have progressed from around 315bhp in '97, to a current max of around 360bhp (according to a couple of Irish WRC drivers).

Seeing as a basic P1 engine should be putting out at least 600bhp, with scope for virtually unlimited development, would it be reasonable to suggest a top manufacturer could gain 20bhp+ per year, even with a restrictor in place.

Don't see how that is possible. As mentioned before direct injection can add about 20 horsepower, but the other power gains can only come with more RPM and the restrictors take care of that. In road cars variable valve timing can add extra horsepower but I don't think it's as effective on a high rev engine. Don't think it's allowed for prototype engines either.

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by Aslak Vind

The best powerleap can be achieved implementing direct injection, for some reason its still not normal standard. Only Porsche and AIM do have this in the LMP´s..

Both Judd and AER have stated they are investigating direct injection, but my guess is they don't have the funding necessary to complete the R&D. Whenever there is a statement about DI, they mention a partner. So if one of the Judd customers stepped up and provided the cash(not likely in these financial times) we'd probably see other DI engines.
dh

[jc_nl]

Originally Posted by davehenrie

Both Judd and AER have stated they are investigating direct injection, but my guess is they don't have the funding necessary to complete the R&D. Whenever there is a statement about DI, they mention a partner. So if one of the Judd customers stepped up and provided the cash(not likely in these financial times) we'd probably see other DI engines.
dh

The AIM engine is exactly that dave, a Judd engine with a external partner providing the funding for the development.

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by jc_nl

The AIM engine is exactly that dave, a Judd engine with a external partner providing the funding for the development.

Yes, you are correct sir. I'm guessing that such a deal might not have happened 'IF' the timing was such that the funding would have been provided now instead of in the past few years. Kinda makes you wonder why the AIM/Creation partnership fell apart. Did Oreca/Matmut offer more $$ and pull AIM away or did the split at Creation mean they did not have enough cash to continue?