Re: It's that cheap motor thread again.

You seem not to grasp the wording "Regulations".

That depends on -yep : once again- regulations and the physical=20 possibilities. It gets for instance difficult and dangerous to put 200 l=20 of petrol in a race or road-car, let alone the physical difficulties on=20 suspension weight transfer etc.=20

Example: if a turbo-petrol were allowed at Le Mans and the power and=20 tancs would be equivalent to a Formula 1 car, the cars would come into=20 the pits every 20 minutes.

FYI: the actual 24Hr-races are won in the pits.

I know that and that's why your rant diesel>< petrol is hard to=20 understand.

The question today is NA-petrol or turbo-diesel. With the regulations=20 now the petrol engine is by far inferior to a well designed turbo-diesel=20 unit.

There are tricks around it, like adding LPG or butagas at ratio of =B1 2%.= =20 But even with the top RPM set at 5000 RPM, the RPM -range is 4000 RPM=20 which is the double of a race-engine and which reduces the build costs=20 of the engine while augmenting its durability.

Our race-engine (Yamaha R6) "lives" on average less than 200 racemiles.=20 Our first diesel racecar (also the first who competed at the 24Hr of=20 Spa) had a close to standard diesel engine costing a tenth of the=20 comparabel race petrol engine, and lasted without problems for the race.

The fact remains that petrol engines are the way of the future because=20 they are far better controllable, cleaner and that further research will=20 yield a higher return than them than on the out-engineered petrol- engines. The petrol-engine has hit its barrier: maximum piston-speed. As=20 long as actual material are use, read eramics are not yett an option,=20 the barrier stands.=20

New petrol-engines will imho all become turbo-charged in order to lower=20 top RPM, broaden the rev-renge and to become "dual faced": when off=20 turbo they will need around 8-10 l per 100 km, when the maximum power is=20 needed they will consume 30-50 l per 100 km. Turboing a petrol engine=20 makes the fabrication of 500 HP-engine which seem to become "normal" on=20 today's bigger/faster cars a doodle and cutting the fabrication cost of=20 the engine in two.

Tom De Moor

You seem not to grasp the wording "Regulations".

I grasped it but find it a bit stupid to compare a winning btcc diesel to a petrol which was the point of this discussion in the first place. It doesent prove that the deisel was better only that it needed favourable "regulations" to give it a chance which wasnt mentioned with the claim.

That depends on -yep : once again- regulations and the physical possibilities. It gets for instance difficult and dangerous to put 200 l of petrol in a race or road-car, let alone the physical difficulties on suspension weight transfer etc.

Example: if a turbo-petrol were allowed at Le Mans and the power and tancs would be equivalent to a Formula 1 car, the cars would come into the pits every 20 minutes.

Thats because its a fuel race. A real race is a sprint.

FYI: the actual 24Hr-races are won in the pits.

Because its a fuel race. They drive captain sensible cars sensibly for 24 hours compared to a real

I know that and that's why your rant diesel>< petrol is hard to understand.

???? Dont understand this remark.

The question today is NA-petrol or turbo-diesel. With the regulations now the petrol engine is by far inferior to a well designed turbo-diesel unit.

The question today by who? In an artificially arranged unfair advantage turbo non turbo situation then neither is better it just depends on the rather strange rules at the time.

There are tricks around it, like adding LPG or butagas at ratio of ± 2%.

So then you can use non deisel AND have a turbo??????

But even with the top RPM set at 5000 RPM, the RPM -range is 4000 RPM which is the double of a race-engine and which reduces the build costs of the engine while augmenting its durability.

Very debatable and depends on what development and tuning you want to do.

Our race-engine (Yamaha R6) "lives" on average less than 200 racemiles. Our first diesel racecar (also the first who competed at the 24Hr of Spa) had a close to standard diesel engine costing a tenth of the comparabel race petrol engine, and lasted without problems for the race.

BHP per litre comparrison? I expect the R6 did better which is why it wears out faster. Plus it was intended for a light bike which means an average throttle opening much less than when sat in a car.

The fact remains that petrol engines are the way of the future because they are far better controllable, cleaner and that further research will yield a higher return than them than on the out-engineered petrol- engines. The petrol-engine has hit its barrier: maximum piston-speed. As long as actual material are use, read eramics are not yett an option, the barrier stands.

There is absolutely no reason that you cannot turbo a petrol engine with similar results. (Small restrictive turbo that boosts earlier and then gets in the way - just like the deseasel.

New petrol-engines will imho all become turbo-charged in order to lower top RPM, broaden the rev-renge and to become "dual faced": when off turbo they will need around 8-10 l per 100 km, when the maximum power is needed they will consume 30-50 l per 100 km. Turboing a petrol engine

???????

makes the fabrication of 500 HP-engine which seem to become "normal" on today's bigger/faster cars a doodle and cutting the fabrication cost of the engine in two.

Tom De Moor

It seems that Burgerman is arguing about drag racing - and you're talking endurance racing. Hence why you're utterley failing to agree :-)

Close ! :-)

To Burgerman an engine potential is mesured over 10 to 15 seconds. I prefer to have the power a bit longer.

As stated : the only sprint races in my mind are dragraces and some hillclimbs, all the rest is endurance. I fail to see the interest in racing if I have enough breath to complete it without inhaling.

I guess Burgerman would qualify a firecracker as an engine, in some ways it is but for me it's just pyrotechnics: it goes boom, there are some sprankels and then it's gone. Exists allready since the first jets and is called JATO.

Maybe his ultimate engine is such a rocket on its side, 4 (3 or 2) wheels bolted to it.

Tom De Moor

Done that... To me any race without fuel limitations or so long it needs pit stops isnt real racing but a "fuel / economy race.

My 3.5 had about 10.

Thing with rover v8s is that you get really good ones and really crap ones. Its hard to figure out why... Unless its an olde coked up sd1 motor theyre all crap... You can tell by the ticking before you find the oil has turned into/back to coal inside the rocker covers.