New engine changes for 2011

[veeten]

The future does not lie in blown small engine, their power delivery DOES NOT EQUAL that of a larger V-8, and fuel mileage on blown engines reduces so at to remove the mileage advantage of using a small engine.
Except for high alltitude engines, the only reason a blower is used is to make up for lacking of small displacement.

Bob

Ah, good ol' Bob. Nice to see he hasn't changed. Much. :

[Breeze]

In the US, Volkswagen offers a 2.0L turbo 4 in the Golf GLI @ 3,200 lb cur weight. It makes 200 HP. They offer a 2.5L NA I5 in the Jetta @ 3,200 lb curb weight. It makes 170 HP. They have the same EPA Fuel Economy estimates.

Modern engine management, fuel injection and turbocharger systems can and do make more power from smaller displacement at equal fuel consumption rates.

There are many more examples in the marketplace. Why more manufacturers aren't simply downsizing engines to equal the output of their NA offerings with BETTER fuel economy escapes me. It must have something to do with ignorance and misperception of the buying public.

[Yankee Racer]

I'm satisfied. They have to do this to get manufactures, since they seem to be hung up over making auto racing road car relevant, and no one's going to make any further developments of an 8-cylinder.

Anything that brings more variety in the engines/manufactures is a good thing. I say bring it on!

Now, when's the meeting where Dallara, Panoz, Zytek, Creation, Swift, etc discuss the 2010 chassis? Come on, IRL, we deserve a multi-chassis series!

[!!WALDO!!]

I'm satisfied. They have to do this to get manufactures, since they seem to be hung up over making auto racing road car relevant, and no one's going to make any further developments of an 8-cylinder.

Anything that brings more variety in the engines/manufactures is a good thing. I say bring it on!

Now, when's the meeting where Dallara, Panoz, Zytek, Creation, Swift, etc discuss the 2010 chassis? Come on, IRL, we deserve a multi-chassis series!

You bring up a Catch-22 situation. Can a series with 30 cars support 5 chassis and engine suppliers? 6 Chassis/Engines per supplier is not enough to pay the bills. In the heyday Lola sold over 50 Chassis per year. Here with cost restrictions it would be 18. So 3 is about the limit of Chassis and Engines unless you get 45 cars then your number can go up.
Many are not concerned with the finances but without them making money then there is no involvement. They must look at it and make a decision before the first car is ever built if this is going to work. Most will get cold feet and the coldest feet will come from the Motor City. Those guys got turned off from anything other than badging after Turbos were not banned in 1967 for 1970.
USAC, Devin and the IRL worked a plan with GM that once 100 Auroras were made then GM made money and all they did was sell the parts. It worked but the Infiniti program failed. Once Toyota and Honda came in the program starting coughing money in large hunks and the eventually got out.
I doubt GM will climb back in unless the field is leveled, same is true for Ford or Chrysler.

Just something to think about.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[Bob Riebe]

In the US, Volkswagen offers a 2.0L turbo 4 in the Golf GLI @ 3,200 lb cur weight. It makes 200 HP. They offer a 2.5L NA I5 in the Jetta @ 3,200 lb curb weight. It makes 170 HP. They have the same EPA Fuel Economy estimates.

Modern engine management, fuel injection and turbocharger systems can and do make more power from smaller displacement at equal fuel consumption rates.

There are many more examples in the marketplace. Why more manufacturers aren't simply downsizing engines to equal the output of their NA offerings with BETTER fuel economy escapes me. It must have something to do with ignorance and misperception of the buying public.

Because people who haul and tow things need torque. Many states in the US are bigger than european countries and unlike what euros think, driving here does not revolve around fwd econo-boxes.
There are a number of four banger and six popper cars out there with respectable performance but they do not have the image or power curve of a large displacement engine.

Now when you are speaking of Indianapolis, there is a reason that the Offy was not replaced with new four bangers, or why the Ilmore push-rod V-8 was not a push-rod V-6.
If four or six cylinders were so great they would have become dominant easily.

[Bob Riebe]

I'm satisfied. ... no one's going to make any further developments of an 8-cylinder

WOW--that is the exact thing I heard in auto mechanics in the mid-seventies.
They REALLY got that one right.

Bob

[Breeze]

Because people who haul and tow things need torque....

Now when you are speaking of Indianapolis, there is a reason that the Offy was not replaced with new four bangers, or why the Ilmore push-rod V-8 was not a push-rod V-6.
If four or six cylinders were so great they would have become dominant easily.

There will always be a need for large displacement engines, no doubt. For manufacturers such as GM, Ford and Dodge who do both trucks and passenger cars, the big haulers are the important in terms of corporate profits, but in terms of sheer numbers, passenger cars outsell.

For that segment, fuel economy is a growing concern. For both segments clean emissions is a concern. The focus has changed from 10-20 years ago and the engines in cars sold in the US will have to be smaller and more fuel efficient without sacrificing the power that Americans demand. Racing is a nice way for a manufacturer to demonstrate their technology and ability to deliver on that promise.

With respect to the changes in engines from the old Offy 4, etc, I'm sure WALDO would be happy to educate us all on the reasons. Incidentally, the 30 some odd year old Offy design was still among the most capable of Indy Car engines when it was "retired". It has been dominant to competitive for a long, long time.

And, for what its worth, the GM Ecotec 2.0L turbo 4 puts down more torque over a wider RPM range than GM's global "state of the art" 3.6L DOHC V6. The VW turbo also makes more torque than the 2.5l NA engine. Torque is not something turbocharged engines have ever really lacked. Yes to NA, but not turbo.

As far as our racing series is concerned, a wide torque band is most important for road and street racing vs oval. With current a leading edge technology small displacement turbo 4's can deliver on that promise. I expect that formula to be the furture for these reasons.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

It seems to meet that engine manufacturers need to address two issues: using non-oil-based energy sources AND emitting fewer particulates and dangerous molecules into the atmosphere.

The first issue is a mission accomplished altough I don't see how that's environmentally conscious.

[Ranger]

The first issue is a mission accomplished altough I don't see how that's environmentally conscious.

Renewable energy.

[ShiftingGears]

The first issue is a mission accomplished altough I don't see how that's environmentally conscious.

Renewable energy.