Well they were impressive, but 580 - 750 hp.Quote:
Originally Posted by TURN3
http://www.allf1.info/engines/ford.php
rh
Printable View
Well they were impressive, but 580 - 750 hp.Quote:
Originally Posted by TURN3
http://www.allf1.info/engines/ford.php
rh
That goes without saying. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy Drifter
I already have money on Danica winning with a buddy of mine. :)
Seriosly?
Actual $$$$$$$?
How much have you lost over the past 5 years? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DanicaFan
Honestly, Im too afraid to add it up so Im not really sure. :( ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by beachgirl
Hoop...not to sound like I'm undermining you because I know you know your stuff. But the XB and its derivations thru 2000 aren't on this list. I haven't looked into it with proper research, I just remember hearing them talk about it on TV. And more recently, I think before Long Beach last year they had an interview of some of the drivers from the CART era (including TK, Dixon, & Dario). They were talking specifically of the massive neck snapping HP around 950. Not worth an argument...just what I've seen/heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoop-98
Well at least you realize that, which is a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanicaFan
96 was after the downsizing to 3L. In 2005 they were in the 900s. The Ford/Cosworth guys (google Bruce Wood) say they were never much over 850 in CART and they were not hurting on power, rather driveability.Quote:
Originally Posted by TURN3
When you hear terms like massive, neck snapping, disregard any numerical values :)
The 96 F1 s were nowhere near 950, check all the sources you want, 580 on the low end 750 high end, probably most are in the 650 - 720 range that year.
But remember they are hauling 1400 lbs around on the track, not 1775 like Indy Cars.
850 was enough to snap your neck in CART and compared to the 725 after 2003 and 650-670 in Indycar with a turbo-hit, I am sure it was a lot different feel.
From Bruce Wood SAE Article:
"It's a more complete engine than anything we've done before," said Bruce Wood, CART Program Director for Cosworth Racing. The XF's 18% weight reduction is due in part to lighter castings with thinner walls achieved via a patented Cosworth casting process. The 32-valve, 8-cylinder, 2.65-L Ford-Cosworth XF is about 22 kg (50 lb) lighter than the XD engine it replaces. XD - used 1996 through 1999 - was capable of 15,000 rpms. The XF approaches 16,000 maximum rpms, produces more than 634 kW (850 bph), and more than 400 Nom (300 lboft) of torque. "The biggest step forward was more power. It's a double-digit gain," said Wood. "
http://www.crash.net/indycar/feature...reduction.html
Champ car website claiming 950 HP
http://champcar-ws.com/series_tech___dp01_champ_car
According to Champcar in 08 they were running 725 base HP except at altitide where it was 670.
rh
Yeah thats right. I didn't make the association of '96 to the early 2000's...makes sense. I was just looking and you can buy a rebuilt Cosworth XB (listed at 850 hp)!! We should pick that up...except I lost where I found it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoop-98
That interview I was speaking of and them talking about their necks snapping and all that was due exactly as you say...driveability. All points of contention that back then you had to know your stuff to get around a track in one of those.
At any rate, that video does show the differences we all agree are needed in Indycar today.
If you go backwards from Wood's numbers you get ~850 at the peak of XF, dropping down to about 750 the next 2 years with lower boost. XD about 800 and XB Series 2 peaked about 750. In 2002 if you had a boost gauge on a Champcar at sea level you had maybe 2 pounds of boost vs 7.5 in mid 90's.Quote:
Originally Posted by TURN3
I think the main thing is to get the weight down 350 pounds, this will make a much livelier car with 570-625 HP than we ever had in CART on Road courses with manageable oval speeds.
rh