Let's rank the 1989-2014 engine manufacturers

[zako85]

This is first draft...

Let's create a ranking of engine manufacturer's accomplishments in the post turbo era. I'll start with the easiest ones.


A. The ranking of engine manufacturers by the number of constructor championships won:

1. Renault (12: 1992-1997,2005,2006,2010-2013)
2. Ferrari (8: 1999-2004,2007,2008)
3. Honda (3: 1989,1990,1991)
4. Mercedes (2: 1998, 2009)

B. The ranking of engine manufacturers by the percentage of WCC titles that were contested and won:

1. Renault (52%: 12 out of 23 years of participation)
2. Ferrari (32%: 8 out of 25 years)
3. Honda (23%: 3 out of 13)
4. Mercedes (11%: 2 out of 18)

Note: I didn't count 1998-1999 Renault derived engines since they were entered under different name.

C. The ranking of engine manufacturers by the number of driver championships won:

1. Renault (11: 1992,1993,1995-1997,2005,2006,2010-2013)
2. Ferrari (6: 2000-2004,2007)
3. Mercedes (4: 1998,1999,2008,2009)
4. Honda (3: 1989,1990,1991)
5. Ford (1: 1994)

D. The ranking of engine manufacturers by the percent of WDC titles contested and won:

1. Renault (48% : 11 out of 23)
2. Ferrari (24%: 6 out of 25)
3. Honda (23%: 3 our of 13)
4. Mercedes (22%: 4 out of 18)
5. Ford (9%: 1 out of 11, counting only Cosworth engines up to 1999 as "Ford")

The ranking by the number and percent of poles, podiums, and wins is something that requires a lot more work..

[D-Type]

It would be useful to see how the manufacturers rank in terms of races and podium positions. Given the consistency across the two championships I expect the ranking would be similar. I would forget about counting poles as in itself a pole means nothing - it is merely a means to an end. In any race, be it a grand prix, an olympic race or even an infant school egg-and-spoon race the objective is the same, to win. Grid positions are merely a means to an end not an end in themselves.
Like any form of statistics, it's difficult to provide an absolutely level playing field for comparison. I think the percentage of the number of races, or championships, contested is a better means of comparison than absolute numbers as those that haven't competed in all championships are penalised. On the other hand taking a percentage favours those who quit while they were successful.
Should we also consider the number of starters with a particular engine? I think this would be misleading for several reasons. Some teams will never be in contention no matter what engine they have so including them unfairly penalises their engine suppliers. Engine suppliers don't necessarily supply equal engines to all teams, particulary if the supplier has its own team - in particular the engines Ferrari supplies to other teams comes to mind.

[zako85]

Yes, counting the race wins would be more instructive as a car can take a lot of race wins without winning a championship. Some engines would look a little better. For example, McLaren with Mercedes has won a lot of races, but they got only one constructors championship for all that work. Maybe when I get bored enough..

I must say that Renault had quite a successful run during this last naturally aspirated engine era.

[555-04Q2]

I must say that Renault had quite a successful run during this last naturally aspirated engine era.

Indeed. With the Alonso & Renualt combo in 2005 & 2006 and with the Seb & RBR combo since 2010 to now, their haul of victories has been staggering.

[journeyman racer]

Renault have probably done enough in their history to be ranked second to Ferrari as the best manufacturer in F1 and/or motorsport history.

[rjbetty]

You know, I'd be interested to know what sort of power each manufacturer was kicking out through all the non-turbo years, even for each season. Would anyone be able to have some reliable figures? I have some for a few years below - please correct me!

2001
1.BMW - 840bhp
2.Cosworth - 820bhp
3.Ferrari (works) - 820bhp
4.Petronas/Acer (Ferrari) - 812bhp
5.Mercedes - 810bhp
6.Honda - 800bhp
7.Asiatech - 790bhp
8.Renault - 745bhp
9.European (Ford) - 745bhp (1998 works Ford)


1994 - I lifted these directly off Grand Prix 2 on the PC - based on the 1994 season - is this accurate at all?
1.Ferrari- 810bhp
2.Renault - 790bhp
3.Ford (Works) - 765hp
4.Peugeot - 750bhp
5.Mercedes - 745bhp
6.Mugen-Honda - 735bhp
7.Hart - 725bhp
8.Yamaha - 715bhp
9.Ford (Customer) - 715bhp
10.Ilmor - 695bhp

[zako85]

1994 - I lifted these directly off Grand Prix 2 on the PC - based on the 1994 season - is this accurate at all?
1.Ferrari- 810bhp
2.Renault - 790bhp
3.Ford (Works) - 765hp
4.Peugeot - 750bhp
5.Mercedes - 745bhp
6.Mugen-Honda - 735bhp
7.Hart - 725bhp
8.Yamaha - 715bhp
9.Ford (Customer) - 715bhp
10.Ilmor - 695bhp

In the early 90s it was widely believed that Renault is the best engine. When Honda was still around in 1992, it was assumed that

Renault > Honda > Ford (works) > Ferrari

(in terms of desirability, not HP)

At least, the TV commentators were almost taking this as a given. When Honda quit in 1992, the ranking was believed to be in the same order, but without Honda. One strong hint that confirms that Renault was better than the works Ford was when Briatore's Benetton team bought another team just so they could put the Renault engine into Schumacher's car for 1995 season. As for Ferrari, until the end of 1995, all of their V12 engines were closely related to the one that powered the car that Prost called a "truck" in 1991 (and got fired for this). The heavy, thirsty V12 engine was probably a big reason why Ferrari was struggling in 1991-1995. For 1996 they designed a new V10.

[D-Type]

Have you compiled the figures for race wins and podiums yet? These would provide a useful basis for comparison. Possibly more realistic than championships won.

[jens]

It depends, based on which criterias do we rate the Ferrari V12 engine. In terms of reliability and also drivability (on twisty circuits) it wasn't that good. I think around Monaco perhaps both Renault and Ford would have been preferred?

But in terms of ultimate HP and power it was likely very much up there. Let's remember that Ferrari was very fast at Hockenheim and Monza in 1994-1995, locking out a few front rows too.



In the early 90s it was widely believed that Renault is the best engine. When Honda was still around in 1992, it was assumed that

Renault > Honda > Ford (works) > Ferrari

(in terms of desirability, not HP)

At least, the TV commentators were almost taking this as a given. When Honda quit in 1992, the ranking was believed to be in the same order, but without Honda. One strong hint that confirms that Renault was better than the works Ford was when Briatore's Benetton team bought another team just so they could put the Renault engine into Schumacher's car for 1995 season. As for Ferrari, until the end of 1995, all of their V12 engines were closely related to the one that powered the car that Prost called a "truck" in 1991 (and got fired for this). The heavy, thirsty V12 engine was probably a big reason why Ferrari was struggling in 1991-1995. For 1996 they designed a new V10.

[philipbain]

Life's W12 (possibly pushed out as much as 450BHP, when it worked) and Subaru's Flat 12 for Coloni are worth a mention, as is Porsche's V12 as being some of the worst powerplants of the "atmo" era!

My understanding is that the 1994 Renault V10 was producing as much as 850BHP, this reduced to about 700BHP when the capacity was cut to 3 litres for 1995, though over time the manufacturers clawed back the power and by the end of the V10 era a few examples pushed beyond 950BHP!

[D-Type]

zaco85,
What's happened?
I was expecting you to come back with a count of race wins and podium positions.
Without that data this thread is withering and dying (if not already dead)