F1technical.net

Yeah, the ferrari flat 12's were huge as well.


The flat 4 will be much much smaller and lighter.
It should also fall in the shadow of the fuel tank, where the widest part of the car is.
It even has the luxury of room on top for any other equipment.

I'm not in favour of the flat 4, but i think it can work well with some ingenuity.
From the pic i posted above, it's not much wider than the turbo v6 package from the old days. Though cars were very wide back then.
Just imaging that Mercedes flat 12, but 1/3 of the length. Pretty small package.

BMW, Porsche and Subaru would love to return to F1 if that were the case.

current Subaru Impreza flat four engine (just as reference)

Those who believe in flat engines I would like to answer the question why Ferrari started their turbo V6 engines with 120° and then changed to 90°. The NA engines they have done since then have also much smaller V angles than 120°.

In my view nothing has fundamentally changed in the way F1 cars have been build since 1987 when Ferrari went to 90°. We still have a carbon fibre sandwich monocoque chassis with stressed engine and side pot radiators. We have an aerodynamic floor, front and rear wings. The cars have gone a bit narrower by now and that is prohibitive to a wide engine. The slimmer the rear end the better the rear aerodynamics work. So I fail to see how the small CoG advantage will compensate for an aerodynamic disadvantage. Aero still rules F1.

As a bonus I post a pic of a Ferrari experimental I-4 build in 1984/84 but never raced from Guerneyflap.

A tilted Ferrari turbo-I4, two years ahead of BMW's such, most interesting indeed. By the mounting brackets,
it seems to have been intended to be fully stressed as well, more info on this, anyone?

The shape of things to come perhaps?

WhiteBlue wrote:

alelanza wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:The ignition is actually some degree after TDC and the 12-15° ignition after injection is required to evaporate the fuel and help it cool the compressed air.

I think you have the bolded words all mixed up

Injection starts 20° before TDC
Injection ends 10° before TDC
Ignition happens appr. between 2-5° after TDC

-> ignition 12-15° after end of injection to allow for proper evaporation and ignition in the downstroke.

Why would you go for such a late ignition? and are you saying double ignition or did i misunderstand?

The "late" ignition is to make sure that you have sufficient evaporation due to the comparatively late injection. That is what they have found gives you the most efficient combustion. No, there is only one ingnition normally. Of course one can also go to laser based linear ignition, which is better but more expensive.

The reason why this is more efficient is the maximum use of the the fuel evaporation enthalpy for suppression of knocking. It means you can go leaner even at full power. At port ignition the evaporation happens in the ports and the cooling energy gets lost for the compressed charge. There is also fuel lost which remains on the walls of the intake system. As I have said before the direct spray guided injection gives a massive step in fuel reduction compared to port injection. At part loads it can be up to 20% and at full load I still reckon 5-10% .

Never mind ignition WB, do you have any more info on that gorgeous Ferrari I4?

Only the additional pictures which you find on guerneyflap.com easily. They said it was never raced. One of the consequences of deciding for a V6 was that Ferrari's turbo engines were thirsty. And they obviously had some concerns about 120° not being tight enough so they changed it to the 90° V angle.

I have really hoped for some time that F1 would go for the GRE proposal and do an I-4. It would be a cool move to suck in manufacturers who already make Rally or tin top engines. But the more I look at the marketing side the more I feel that F1 will try to be different. A V4 would be the perfect solution for rigidity, energy efficiency and aerodynamic packaging.

xpensive wrote:Never mind ignition WB, do you have any more info on that gorgeous Ferrari I4?

one has to love the alternator & flywheel clutch size of these engines back then.




I wonder if this engine was maybe based on the Lancis Beta Montecarlo Gr.5 turbo engine, which Lancia won the championship with in 1981.



BMW run a Gr.5 BMW M1 Coupe in the DRM with a 4 cylinder turbo as well around the same time.

How about this?


I4 engine with triflux technology (1 compressor + 2x turbo) patented by Apfelbeck in 1935

for WB
photo of the V4 engine out of the Lancia Fulvia (13° V-angle)


block, head & pistons


Lancia patent for narrow V-engine (1928)

My step father had a Fulvia. Never knew it was such a narrow angled motor. Superb.

My race bike is a 90 deg V4 with 360 degree crank.

V4 is a superb config, stiff, small and sounds sublime.

I only hope that we are not going down a more restricted configuration....let them all be free!

WhiteBlue wrote:The "late" ignition is to make sure that you have sufficient evaporation due to the comparatively late injection. That is what they have found gives you the most efficient combustion. No, there is only one ingnition normally. Of course one can also go to laser based linear ignition, which is better but more expensive.

The reason why this is more efficient is the maximum use of the the fuel evaporation enthalpy for suppression of knocking. It means you can go leaner even at full power. At port ignition the evaporation happens in the ports and the cooling energy gets lost for the compressed charge. There is also fuel lost which remains on the walls of the intake system. As I have said before the direct spray guided injection gives a massive step in fuel reduction compared to port injection. At part loads it can be up to 20% and at full load I still reckon 5-10% .

Which engines use this very late ignition and are more efficient because of it? And yes like in any other engine a retarded ignition reduces knock due to lower pressures/temps, but to my knowledge that always implies reduced power and efficiency, they don't call it limp home mode for nothing.
I still think you're mixing up terms here, what's 'port ignition'? throughout this thread it seems to me as if you've googled a lot of diesel stuff and are either confusing concepts and/or copy pasting has gone out of hand.

I'm fairly confident that Ferrari in their latest 458 Italia V8 going up to 9,000 rpm with direct injection is using spray guided injection with 200 bar Bosch piezo systems. The data fit the spec we know from the Bosch system.

@alelanza
With regard to my research I can assure you that I'm sufficiently intelligent to understand the difference between the diesel and the Otto cycle. I'm more concerned that it takes too much out of my time to explain things multiple times to people who can't be bothered to read the thread and the sources properly and then turn round and make detrimental remarks. Please find out what port injections compared to direct injection means by yourself. You only have to read this thread or google it or look a contemporary F1 V8 under the air box.

Regarding Lancia and Ferrari I-4 engines I have come across the reference that the first Lancia Stratos concept car had an I-4 engine that ran in the Lancia Fulvia and which was made by Ferrari for Lancia. The Rally versions later used Ferrari V6.

1982-1983 Lancia ran the LC1 sports car with a 1.5L TC I-4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancia_LC1 I guess the 1.6L F1 I-4 was a derivative of that engine with slightly higher displacement.

@ 747heavy

The narrow V-angle Lancia V-4 is a similar arrangement to the one that VW and Bentley use in their W12 engines.





It makes for a very narrow engine indeed as all pistons in the Lancia case are in one block. The cam shafts have to be build in full V4 configurations again. The picture shows that the engine had only two valves per cylinder and not the four valves Bentley uses.

It would be fun to see a W4 engine in the mold of the VW/Bentley. So far they have done an 8L W16 (Bugatty) a 6L W12 (Bentley, Audi, Phaeton) and a 4L W8 (Passat). Why not make a 2L W4 which would be slightly reduced to 1.6L to fit into the formula. The sturdier block could be used to boosting with the turbos.

Or maybe a V5?