I think that was mainly by virtue of still having a cast iron block whilst everthing else moved onto alluminium
I-4
I-6
V-6
V-8
Box 4
Box 6
Don't know
I think that was mainly by virtue of still having a cast iron block whilst everthing else moved onto alluminium
I am the Stig
It wasn't just an iron block but a heavy one at that. Not quite as bad as the I6 from the Supra. The Toyota motor was famous for how much power the internals could handle. Of course is it really a good thing that a motor can handle over twice it's design power? That basically means the engineers left a lot of weight on the table. I believe the Supra turbo I6 is around 600lbs while the weakest of the LSx motors, the LS1 was 345hp (same as the stock Supra turbo) yet weighted in at under 500lb with flywheel. The LS1 can't handle as much power with out internal upgrades but it doesn't carry so many unneeded pounds either.
Was there ever a racing M3 with an I6?
Life's too short to drive bad cars.
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
I thought the first M3s used a 2L I4.
The racing M3 E36s did use the staright six, didn't they?
And the original E30 M3 actually used a 2.3 litre four cylinder, later upgraded to 2.5 litres.
Lack of charisma can be fatal.
Visca Catalunya!
Yea, so I was wondering purely based on if they learned anything from racing the M1 with future racing I6s.. or if it was just 'don't bother'.
Life's too short to drive bad cars.
Well, wasn't the M1 race engine more or less derived from the ones in the CSLs? If so, it should have been quite well proven by the late 70's and early 80's.
Group A 635CSis also used a similar engine didn't they?
Lack of charisma can be fatal.
Visca Catalunya!
LMP engine though is not just engine, its part of the chassis and carries all the suspension load. Looking at that kind of requirement straight 6 indeed does not make much sense(saying its worst route though is probably overstating it, since an inline 8 will definitely be worse...lol). Its not that I6 is bad for a powerplant, just considering all the requirements for an engine in a modern LMP car that it is definitely not the conventional way to go. It'll be interesting to understand AMR's reasoning for going that route...
I don't think racing(especially nowadays) is the best place to compare layout, displacement and power to determine what is good or bad. With the use of equivalency and restrictor and displacement limits, there is an optimum design you are trying to hit under those constraints. BMW went to a V8 in their M3 GTR in 2001 from the I6 because they needed more displacement to work with the restrictor size and the 3.2 I6 wasn't doing it for them, even though maybe the peak power of the 6 was probably not that far off the 4L V8. Same reason why the racing flat 6 of the 911 got bigger and bigger over the year....
University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
www.fsae.utoronto.ca
In an LMP the engine is not part of the chassis AFAIK, LMPs use carbon tubs, which can eassily accomodate different engines, see for instance the Lolas, which can host a whole variety of engines, ranging from the V12 Aston to the 2.8 Acura twin turbo, the M3 Judd engine or the Toyota 3.4 litre LMP1 engine and in LMP2 guise the 4 litre Nissan V8.
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
They use it as a stress member, if not fully at least partially. The gearbox bolts straight onto the back of the block. If not you'll need a lattice work of tubular or carbon frame around it to carry the load.
Aston Martin AMR-ONE | Racecar Engineering | Race car technology explained
The long and narrow block of the I-6 means AMR needs the trusses on the side of the engine to carry some load.
Compare that to something a bit more bespoke:
Peugeot 908 HDI FAP | Racecar Engineering | Race car technology explained
Porsche RS Spyder Evo - High Resolution Image (5 of 24)
The engine carries all the load between the gearbox and the tub.
For chassis designed with multiple type of engine, chassis bracing is usually needed since the engine may or maynot be designed to the required stiffness, and the pickup points are not necessarily the same. And the gearbox are not necessarily limited to one type.
The fully stressed engine is more "efficient" design, since you are using a part to do more work, you tried to strive for that but it may not work out all the time. AMR having a clean slate design and a bespoke powerplant and not go with something like that is one more reason why its puzzling...
For something with a unstressed motor, you just need to look at a Daytona Prototype:
Riley Mk XX Porsche - High Resolution Image (12 of 12)
Last edited by RacingManiac; 05-10-2011 at 07:46 AM.
University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
www.fsae.utoronto.ca
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)