What will come after the 2.4 V8?

[ringo]

ringo ...I see from where you are coming but tbh .these factors will not make a differnce to the price of the engine..manufacturers do not choose convenient routes recycling avaialble tooling ..they will gear up for what they think will give the solution they look for.
Look eight engines per car ,thats 16 engines per team..you´d hardly start a production line for that sort of order...

Exactly, it's a waste of money investing in tooling for only 16 engines.
Surely you wont build a factory for just 16 engines?
The tooling to make the engines will cost way more than the engine's themselves.

The higher the volume the more feasible the investment in tooling. This is why some companies lose money when they make limited production run vehicles.

If they were making 1000 engines a year, it would make sense to make a completely new design.
As it is the L4 is an opportunity to integrate the F1 engines onto existing lines.
No addition investment required. I'm sure BMW considered this when they decided to use the M12 road car engine in F1. The I4 is an incentive to introduce new and old engine manufactures to the sport. Who knows, honda may return, Mistubishi might step in, toyota etc. All proud of their I4 capabilities.

and the relevance to the product ..is the downsizing nothing else.. which car manaufacturer currently in F1 has a high rev concept 2.4l V8 in his portfolio for
sale to the public...

The V4 isn't necessarily smaller in a turbo charged configuration. It may have to be twin turboed because of the double banks, if it's twin turbo it will be pretty wide. Only If it's mid bank exhaust, will it have a smaller foot print.
It can definitely be relevant, but that's a big move to shift from I4 to V4 as the low cost production car standard.
About the v8, not many car companies have a 2.4 V8, but many have a high revving V8 boasting some adaptation of F1 technology.

[marcush.]

ringo the late PaulMorgan of illmor configured the machinery of their shop to be able to take parts in the size of RollsRoyce Merlin engines...so far for having geared up for only one type engine...I still don´t see this ...if you happen to have a half the length crankshaft ,so be it ..it does not prevent you from anything ..same goes for boring an honing..i don´t think bore diameters will be the same as todays...and these investments are minor really.
so where do you expect to gain really in going the inline route? the whole thing is really straightforward machining acivity ..not really a big difference if the head or block has two three or 4 bores...
As staed before ..the block and headcastings for these small batch engine runs will be more than likely rapid castings so no big deal ther eas well..you just do a sls part and cover it with cermics and burn out the sls part before pouring in the aluminium....

[rjsa]

I completely agree WB.
i4 is the obvious way to go.

Boooooooring.

[rjsa]

Most fearrai's are mid-engined not rear-engined, and they still make very good front engined cars too you know - the 599 gto being the pinacle of it at the moment.

You are splitting hairs. A mid engined car has the engine behind the driver as well. It is just an euphemism to distinguish from some under powered cars with bigger cabin and four seats.

If I would have to make a choice between a 458 Italia (0.54 hp/kg) and a 599 GTO (0.42 hp/kg) I would take the mid engined car with 29% better power to weight ratio and much better fuel economy.

Anyway, the issue here is the future of F1 engines and I for my part applaude the FiA and Jean Todt that they want to bring F1 back into the real world regarding engine trends.

700 bhp engines are never real world, no matter which configurtion they run.

[010010011010]

You are splitting hairs. A mid engined car has the engine behind the driver as well.

This being a technical fourm i dont think correcting someone for getting the basic layout of a car wrong should be considered splitting hairs.
Man up will you, none of us are ALWAYS right.

There is one huge difference between fossil fuels and batteries.
Fossil fuels are converted to extra and damaging CO2 in our atmosphere.
The rare elements used in batteries remain in the batteries available for recycling technology and release zero CO2.

Theres another huge difference between fossil fuels and batteries, an oil driven cars' range doesnt shorten every year after its made. Personally, I'd much rather be driving a 15 year old opel corsa than a 15 year old electric car when it some down to it.

Theres another side to the coin on this whole car engine debate that we havent look at, or just happened to ignore up to now. That is machinery, trucks, ambulances, tractors, what are they going to use? Youd want one hell of a pile of batterys if your thinking they'll be electric

[WhiteBlue]

You are splitting hairs. A mid engined car has the engine behind the driver as well.

This being a technical fourm i dont think correcting someone for getting the basic layout of a car wrong should be considered splitting hairs.

If you are so clever please explain the difference between a rear engined and a mid engined car for the less illuminated.

[rjsa]

You are splitting hairs. A mid engined car has the engine behind the driver as well.

This being a technical fourm i dont think correcting someone for getting the basic layout of a car wrong should be considered splitting hairs.

If you are so clever please explain the difference between a rear engined and a mid engined car for the less illuminated.

Rear Engine:

Mid Engine:

Front Engine:

[xxChrisxx]

There is one huge difference between fossil fuels and batteries.
Fossil fuels are converted to extra and damaging CO2 in our atmosphere.
The rare elements used in batteries remain in the batteries available for recycling technology and release zero CO2.

Just a thought on this, as i've seen your comments in the Nuclear power thread. Where do you think the electricity to make and charge the batteries comes from?. 75% of the UK's energy comes from coal and gas fired plants, the vast majority of the 20odd% of Nuclear generated (CO2 free I might add) comes imported from France.

[WhiteBlue]

You are splitting hairs. A mid engined car has the engine behind the driver as well.

This being a technical fourm i dont think correcting someone for getting the basic layout of a car wrong should be considered splitting hairs.

If you are so clever please explain the difference between a rear engined and a mid engined car for the less illuminated.

Rear Engine: pic
Mid Engine: pic
Front Engine: pic

So you can't even define the difference between mid engine and rear engine by a common definition or in your own words. It appears there isn't really one that would hold water. I fail to see how the same engine in a four seat coupe is called a rear engine and in a two seater a mid engine. They look pretty much the same to me.

How do you call the engine in a Lancia Stratos?



There is practically nothing behind it in the car, yet it sits directly behind the two seats.

[rjsa]

This being a technical fourm i dont think correcting someone for getting the basic layout of a car wrong should be considered splitting hairs.

If you are so clever please explain the difference between a rear engined and a mid engined car for the less illuminated.

Rear Engine: pic
Mid Engine: pic
Front Engine: pic

So you can't even define the difference between mid engine and rear engine by a common definition or in your own words. It appears there isn't really one that would hold water.

No, I'm using images since you fail to know such basic information.

Front engine: on/near the front axle.
Mid engine: between axles
Rear engine: behind rear axle.

[xpensive]

Perhaps there is some linguistic confusion here, in Swedish we call the VW/Porsche concept "Svansmotor" or "Tail engine",
which I think is a more accurate description, what's that in German, "Heckmotor" perhaps?

Front engine and Mid engine are the same however.

[rjsa]

Perhaps there is some linguistic confusion here, in Swedish we call the VW/Porsche concept "Svansmotor" or "Tail engine",
which I think is a more accurate description, what's that in German, "Heckmotor" perhaps?

Could be, but the effect on balance remaind the same. Who ever driven 911s hard enough know.

Front engine and Mid engine are the same however.

[WhiteBlue]

Front engine: on/near the front axle.
Mid engine: between axles
Rear engine: behind rear axle.

This is obviously nonsense as every child will tell you a front engine is in front of the driver or as Ferrari once said it famously "The horses are pulling the cart and not pushing it". Both front and mid engines will typically sit between the axles. If you want to make a definition of a rear engine to sit behind the rear axle it is up to you. But the majority of people will not understand that concept instantly. They just look for the engine being in front or behind the drivers seat.

[rjsa]

Front engine: on/near the front axle.
Mid engine: between axles
Rear engine: behind rear axle.

This is obviously nonsense as every child will tell you a front engine is in front of the driver or as Ferrari once said it famously "The horses are pulling the cart and not pushing it". Both front and mid engines will typically sit between the axles. If you want to make a definition of a rear engine to sit behind the rear axle it is up to you. But the majority of people will not understand that concept instantly. They just look for the engine being in front or behind the drivers seat.

Majority of people are not discussing the future or car racing. Those doing that should grasp the concept.

[WhiteBlue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_engine

Mid engine is obviously a pretty vague concept that can be applied to engines in front and behind the driver according to wikipedia. There are Front mid-engines and Rear-mid engines.

Wiki confirms your view that true rear engines should have their center of gravity behind the rear axle.

This neatly solves the Lancia Stratos riddle for me. It is a Rear-mid engine obviously.

I think I will be forgiven by most people if I refer to Rear-mid engines by rear engines occasionally. There isn't really a compelling logic in the way these definitions are derived if reference is taken from the position of the engine relative to the driver and also from the position relative to axles.