Porsche back in Le Mans!

[WhiteBlue]

Its not so much development Toyota is talking about, but the way you can always make more power out of a turbo diesel engine by chucking more fuel at it and inferring that the ACO got their diesel/petro equivalance wrong. I'm in no way endorsing the claim or refuting it, just clarifying it for those who haven't read the quotes.

It's related to the fact that Audi simply changed their fueling strategy to the old school turbo diesel trick of just throwing fuel at it to increase power, and this philosophy dropped their efficiency by 20%. This strategy doesn't hurt Audi, because currently diesel cars get more energy per tankful because of diesel's energy density advantage over gasoline.

I disagree with that view. The diesel energy density balance is more than taken care of by the previous decisions of the ACO. You have to consider the official decision of performance balancing they took two weeks ago. They decided by looking at data gathering from the Audis, the Rebellion and the Toyota performance at Spa to give the petrol engines another three liters of fuel capacity to compensate for the performance advantage they saw from the diesels. So that was a decision clearly based on performance and not on energy density. Hence I maintain my view that Toyota can be happy with the performance levelling of the ACO and have no reason to complain. A potential disadvantage they have is not coming from a lack of politicking but from a lack of development effort.

[langwadt]

snip
Its not so much development Toyota is talking about, but the way you can always make more power out of a turbo diesel engine by chucking more fuel at it and inferring that the ACO got their diesel/petro equivalance wrong. I'm in no way endorsing the claim or refuting it, just clarifying it for those who haven't read the quotes.

It's related to the fact that Audi simply changed their fueling strategy to the old school turbo diesel trick of just throwing fuel at it to increase power, and this philosophy dropped their efficiency by 20%. This strategy doesn't hurt Audi, because currently diesel cars get more energy per tankful because of diesel's energy density advantage over gasoline.

I just looked up the energy density of gasoline and diesel:
diesel hybrid: 58l * 36.9MJ/l = ~2140MJ per tank
gasoline hybrid: 76l * 33.7MJ/l = ~2561MJ per tank

[WhiteBlue]

snip
Its not so much development Toyota is talking about, but the way you can always make more power out of a turbo diesel engine by chucking more fuel at it and inferring that the ACO got their diesel/petro equivalance wrong. I'm in no way endorsing the claim or refuting it, just clarifying it for those who haven't read the quotes.

It's related to the fact that Audi simply changed their fueling strategy to the old school turbo diesel trick of just throwing fuel at it to increase power, and this philosophy dropped their efficiency by 20%. This strategy doesn't hurt Audi, because currently diesel cars get more energy per tankful because of diesel's energy density advantage over gasoline.

I just looked up the energy density of gasoline and diesel:
diesel hybrid: 58l * 36.9MJ/l = ~2140MJ per tank
gasoline hybrid: 76l * 33.7MJ/l = ~2561MJ per tank

Excellent job. It confirms indeed that the ACO adjusted the gasoline hybrid fuel tank capacity for performance leveling reasons and not for energy density reasons. Hence Toyota have no leg to stand on. They need to up their game in engine development if they want to win. If they keep relying on performance levelling they will always be one step behind. Particularly when Audi bring a new engine next year that will not have performance levelling handicaps from previous years.

[Pierce89]

snip
Its not so much development Toyota is talking about, but the way you can always make more power out of a turbo diesel engine by chucking more fuel at it and inferring that the ACO got their diesel/petro equivalance wrong. I'm in no way endorsing the claim or refuting it, just clarifying it for those who haven't read the quotes.

It's related to the fact that Audi simply changed their fueling strategy to the old school turbo diesel trick of just throwing fuel at it to increase power, and this philosophy dropped their efficiency by 20%. This strategy doesn't hurt Audi, because currently diesel cars get more energy per tankful because of diesel's energy density advantage over gasoline.

I just looked up the energy density of gasoline and diesel:
diesel hybrid: 58l * 36.9MJ/l = ~2140MJ per tank
gasoline hybrid: 76l * 33.7MJ/l = ~2561MJ per tank

Excellent job. It confirms indeed that the ACO adjusted the gasoline hybrid fuel tank capacity for performance leveling reasons and not for energy density reasons. Hence Toyota have no leg to stand on. They need to up their game in engine development if they want to win. If they keep relying on performance levelling they will always be one step behind. Particularly when Audi bring a new engine next year that will not have performance levelling handicaps from previous years.

Well its nice to know the Vasselon was full of sh!t.

[langwadt]

snip
Its not so much development Toyota is talking about, but the way you can always make more power out of a turbo diesel engine by chucking more fuel at it and inferring that the ACO got their diesel/petro equivalance wrong. I'm in no way endorsing the claim or refuting it, just clarifying it for those who haven't read the quotes.

It's related to the fact that Audi simply changed their fueling strategy to the old school turbo diesel trick of just throwing fuel at it to increase power, and this philosophy dropped their efficiency by 20%. This strategy doesn't hurt Audi, because currently diesel cars get more energy per tankful because of diesel's energy density advantage over gasoline.

I just looked up the energy density of gasoline and diesel:
diesel hybrid: 58l * 36.9MJ/l = ~2140MJ per tank
gasoline hybrid: 76l * 33.7MJ/l = ~2561MJ per tank

Excellent job. It confirms indeed that the ACO adjusted the gasoline hybrid fuel tank capacity for performance leveling reasons and not for energy density reasons. Hence Toyota have no leg to stand on. They need to up their game in engine development if they want to win. If they keep relying on performance levelling they will always be one step behind. Particularly when Audi bring a new engine next year that will not have performance levelling handicaps from previous years.

well it quickly become a matter of comparing apple and oranges, it would nothing short of magic if Toyota had managed to
get the same efficiency from a high revving NA gasoline V8 as Audi gets from a slow revving V6 diesel with turbo

it is next to impossible to say if the ~20% difference is from less development or an inherently less efficient engine configuration

[WhiteBlue]

well it quickly become a matter of comparing apple and oranges, it would nothing short of magic if Toyota had managed to get the same efficiency from a high revving NA gasoline V8 as Audi gets from a slow revving V6 diesel with turbo

it is next to impossible to say if the ~20% difference is from less development or an inherently less efficient engine configuration

Nobody requires Toyota to run a NA engine. They can design a petrol turbo, but they apparently do not want to do this even for 2014, which appears to be stupid. Hence my assessment that they do only a half assed attempt not worth of the manufacturer status they have. I reckon that the Japanese board is not fully behind this and do not grant a sensible budget for the Cologne LMP1 project. Those guys can probably do better if given the right kind of resources.

One could speculate why this is done the way it is done. A possible explanation is that the Japanese just want to keep Vasselon's people sharp and on their toes until they have decided how to proceed in the mid term in the highest motor sport categories and their development deficit in the downsized road car market. compare this link Perhaps they will make an attempt at a turbo engine when the GT500 goes turbo in 2015 or 2016. They would get more bang for their yens invested in some serious engine re design then.

[langwadt]

well it quickly become a matter of comparing apple and oranges, it would nothing short of magic if Toyota had managed to get the same efficiency from a high revving NA gasoline V8 as Audi gets from a slow revving V6 diesel with turbo

it is next to impossible to say if the ~20% difference is from less development or an inherently less efficient engine configuration

Nobody requires Toyota to run a NA engine. They can design a petrol turbo, but they apparently do not want to do this even for 2014, which appears to be stupid. Hence my assessment that they do only a half assed attempt not worth of the manufacturer status they have. I reckon that the Japanese board is not fully behind this and do not grant a sensible budget for the Cologne LMP1 project. Those guys can probably do better if given the right kind of resources.

One could speculate why this is done the way it is done. A possible explanation is that the Japanese just want to keep Vasselon's people sharp and on their toes until they have decided how to proceed in the mid term in the highest motor sport categories and their development deficit in the downsized road car market. compare this link Perhaps they will make an attempt at a turbo engine when the GT500 goes turbo in 2015 or 2016. They would get more bang for their yens invested in some serious engine re design then.

the point of all the equalizing is that there is a real choice so you get can a mix of engine types

[WhiteBlue]

the point of all the equalizing is that there is a real choice so you get can a mix of engine types

That is true for the 2013 regulations. But I would disagree with regard to the 2014 LMP1 regulations. They are specifically made for engine efficiency. By your own post you seem to agree that a NA petrol will not be competitive in the efficiency stakes. This leads me to the conclusion that the ACO will balance performance only between diesels and petrol powered cars. So if Porsche comes with a more efficient turbo petrol than Toyota's NA petrol Toyota will be screwed.
Link to the story from 17.04.2013

"Es ist kein Reihen-Sechszylinder und auch kein Boxer", verrät er. Viele Beobachter aus der WEC-Szene gehen davon aus, dass Porsche auf einen Zweiliter-Vierzylinder-Turbo setzen wird.
Translation: "It is no inline six and not a flat engine", he revealed (development boss Wolfgang Hatz). Many observers of the WEC scene feel that Porsche will bet on a two liter 4-cylinder turbo.

also compare this opinion apparently based on some insider sources.

My sources are indicating the new porsche LMP1 engine is a small capacity turbocharged gasoline direct injection item, in the region of 1.8 to 2.2 litres capacity........so this does tally with my other post on the other Porsche thread that VW do pay Porsches pay cheques and the engine project is relevant to VW's direction on road car engines, which are small capacity 3 and 4 cylinder turbo gasoline engines..the engine is not a flat-6........from what I hear the engine will be the same as Audis new DTM engine, so a 4 cylinder I4.......they are all VAG companies, so it makes sense to share some comonality

This would indicate an I4 along the lines of the world engine which would be another reason for Porsche to not go to F1 if the sources are correct. It sounds increasingly likely IMO.

[marcush.]

on eurosport LeMans coverage -german commentary -we just had an interview with porsches head of development Mr Hatz who confirmed a dual hybrid /KERs system for their 2014 contender and obviously a petrol engine...When asked about the engines layout and capacity he clearly stated the car follows the concept of downsizing as demonstrated by their current developments for their Panamera (twin turbo replacing big swept volume) culminating in the statement the new powertrain would represent future developments to be seen in Porsches series products...

Could be anything really ...a V8 twin turbo ,flat 4 ,i4 ,even a v6turbo... but we will soon know more as extended testing is scheduled for july this year on several racetracks ..No ways one could hide the sound ..?

I still rub myself at Hatz` former statement of not an inline 6 and not a Boxer engine...He did not say flat engine and technically speaking a flat engine is not necessarily a Boxer...
so this leaves us with V8 ,V6t ,V4 and I4 layout plus a range of feasible bank angles for the V engines from say 60 up to 180°...

[xpensive]

...
Could be anything really ...a V8 twin turbo ,flat 4 ,i4 ,even a v6turbo... but we will soon know more as extended testing is scheduled for july this year on several racetracks ..No ways one could hide the sound ..?

This will be interesting marcush, didn't you mention something about a 2-liter V8 in the pipeline?

[marcush.]

Panamera twin turbo is actually a 3l v6 engine for 2013...
So it looks like only the hypercar 918 is bound to v8 power for the near future...

Still I´m absolutely sure about the flat 4 engine in development at Weissach .It was already rumoured for this year as the engine for Cayman and Boxster...

[WhiteBlue]

I still rub myself at Hatz` former statement of not an inline 6 and not a Boxer engine...He did not say flat engine and technically speaking a flat engine is not necessarily a Boxer...
so this leaves us with V8 ,V6t ,V4 and I4 layout plus a range of feasible bank angles for the V engines from say 60 up to 180°...

I think you are kidding yourself. No boxer really means no flat engine. The downsizing confirmation is a clear indication that we can expect a turbo engine with six cylinders or less. Realistically we can expect a V6, V4 or an I4 were in the final shoot out. My bet is they will go for a four cylinder. Btw. Porsche will make an announcement of their 2014 drivers tomorrow.

[Tommy Cookers]

...He did not say flat engine and technically speaking a flat engine is not necessarily a Boxer...
so this leaves us with V8 ,V6t ,V4 and I4 layout plus a range of feasible bank angles for the V engines from say 60 up to 180°...

recently I found myself posting somewhere that all flat 12s eg 917 had 6 crankpins and so could be called 180deg V12s
and all flat 8 engines eg 908 had 8 crankpins and could not be called 180deg V8s
(also the same applies with 6, 4, and 2 cylinders)

now I'm thinking whether anyone made a 180 deg V8
there was a British flat 8 Anderson F2 engine in 1952, it had only 2 main bearings
surely a 180 deg V8 or V6 or V4 is inconceivable for the subject of this thread ??
unless never to be sold for road use with (full-time) manual shift ? (because of poorly-spaced firing intervals)
with a 180 deg V6 or 4 cyl there is also primary frequency moment imbalance
neither fully cancellable by any practicable balance shafts nor well isolatable by engine mounting

btw the talk of the VR-4 layout reminds me that Lancia made millions (4,6 even 8 cyl) 1919-1976 and won the 1972 'WRC' etc

[marcush.]

Isn´t it feasible to create a v4 with tweaked crankpins to cancel out the vibrations-?
Honda VFR1200 engine has split crankpins -28° offset.

[xpensive]

Don't forget the Tecno 180 deg 8, derived from the 3.0 F1 flat12.