F1technical.net

What's more, Cosworth were equally snubbed by Red Bull, who rather opted for an expensive Renault Engine. Well, helluva lot of good that did to Matechitz team.

Conceptual - Once a piston is at top dead centre there really isn't much empty volume. Even a large American V8 head, reworked, trimmed down, using an extra thin head gasket for extra horsepower on the street,can be about 60cc.Actually 60cc is kind of a standard with US - V8 street racers.
http://www.fordforums.com/f497/afd-4v-6 ... buy-127926

Gentlemen,
The last time I checked, the cylinder volume of a piston-engine is defined by cylinder area times length of stroke, hence "volume".

Empty volume at piston's TDC can decide the compression ratio, but not the cylinder volume, unless I missed something fundamental at university.

Good to know.

xpensive wrote:Conceptual wrote:

I know that my first car had a 2.2 turbo (Dodge Daytona) and later their minivans ran with a 2.5 turbo. The engine blocks were identical, the only difference was the heads.

So in that case, there catually IS a .3L increase simply due to the head design.

Sure thing, it those heads somehow changed the bore, stroke or both.

Errrr . . . No. The block WAS externally identical, but the 2.5 version had a larger bore and longer stroke. Think original Chevy V8s - 265 and 283. Externally identical blocks, but different internally, where it counts. Countless other examples are available.

xpensive wrote:Gentlemen,
The last time I checked, the cylinder volume of a piston-engine is defined by cylinder area times length of stroke, hence "volume".

Empty volume at piston's TDC can decide the compression ratio, but not the cylinder volume, unless I missed something fundamental at university.

Yes, it’s the swept volume by the piston(s) from TDC to TDB that people usually refer to as volume or capacity.

Sizes of 60cc etc are combustion chamber dimensions (volume of the space above the piston at TDC)

If you take the cylinder head off a normal road engine and 'skim the head' you will reduce the combustion chamber size (increasing compression) and usually increase power. Alternately if you add a turbo to naturally aspirated engine you should be looking to add a spacer between the head and the block to lower compression.

donskar wrote:

xpensive wrote:Conceptual wrote:

I know that my first car had a 2.2 turbo (Dodge Daytona) and later their minivans ran with a 2.5 turbo. The engine blocks were identical, the only difference was the heads.

So in that case, there catually IS a .3L increase simply due to the head design.

Sure thing, it those heads somehow changed the bore, stroke or both.

Errrr . . . No. The block WAS externally identical, but the 2.5 version had a larger bore and longer stroke. Think original Chevy V8s - 265 and 283. Externally identical blocks, but different internally, where it counts. Countless other examples are available.

I think this happens because the process of designing a new matrix/casting dies for a block is complex and expensive. Maybe they only change internal sandbox.

I imagine a block suitable for 2.5L is very overdimentioned for 2.2L and thus there is a material waste, overweight and a worse heat exchange. There are others advantages.

As donskar says, there are countless examples: I owned a FIAT with a 1.4L engine derivend from the 1.6L. That engine had very low fuel consumption and could handle a lot of right foot beatings without even a failure in 400T kilometres. The engine was then used in the early 90s in the 1.4 Turbo Uno. A little and very light beast that could beat 2.0 cars in the 1/4 mile.

Back on topic, my crystal ball once told me Cosworth was cost efficient. Cosworth won egine tender. My crystal ball was right.

Kudos for that prediction!!

It seems to be a done deal, just as someone predicted last week.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72413

Did I beat you to it

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6001&start=45

Naaah, I said in 2006 that they would be back within soon...*LoL*

Now I wait to see who currently owns Cosworth. I would not put it past some of F1's sharks to silently aquire a controlling interest in the standard engine supplier. Both Briatore and Mateschitz would be good for such a move in my view.

It as been known since months that Renault would support the standard engine move. Renault has all but shut down their F1 engine department and to have it to revive could be the straw that brakes the camels neck for Goshn.

WhiteBlue wrote:Now I wait to see who currently owns Cosworth. I would not put it past some of F1's sharks to silently aquire a controlling interest in the standard engine supplier. Both Briatore and Mateschitz would be good for such a move in my view.

It as been known since months that Renault would support the standard engine move. Renault has all but shut down their F1 engine department and to have it to revive could be the straw that brakes the camels neck for Goshn.

Agreed, VW or Hyundai could purchase Cosworth for around 60mil and rebadge the engines as VW-Cosworth or Hyundai-Cosworth as Ford did in the 90's.

This is peanuts to throwing 300mil a year to run a full F1 team.

Shaddock wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:Now I wait to see who currently owns Cosworth. I would not put it past some of F1's sharks to silently aquire a controlling interest in the standard engine supplier. Both Briatore and Mateschitz would be good for such a move in my view.

It as been known since months that Renault would support the standard engine move. Renault has all but shut down their F1 engine department and to have it to revive could be the straw that brakes the camels neck for Goshn.

Agreed, VW or Hyundai could purchase Cosworth for around 60mil and rebadge the engines as VW-Cosworth or Hyundai-Cosworth as Ford did in the 90's....

Except that badging isn't allowed according to the tender. But as a first step to an assault in some years when cost have settled down it would be a terrific investment by any new automotive company.

For a privateer like Mateschitz it would guarantee that automotives can never screw them again over engine deals.

For the big five it means that they can kiss a new engine formula good bye unless they accomodate the wishes of the Cosworth customers.

When I belive that anthing is possible after this, I would like to take the opportunity to make a notice of my crystal-ball pediction, that we will see six-race 2.6l methanol turbo V8s in 2010 or 2011. Any takers?