2014 2.4 V8 NA

[FW17]

Last year the V8 engines were around 780 hp with an unknown amount of fuel. The new formula of 1.6 l V6 was forced upon all
competitors for this year.

I was wondering if the V8's were allowed with upgraded/unlimited KERS and the same 100 kg/hr fuel flow how far behind the turbos behind the tubo's would they be? will it be a situation as in 2009 cars when KERS was introduced and proved to be not much of a performance gain?

Also we would not be having the discussion about sound as at least part of the grid would have been on NA engines

Reasoning behind this comes from is the TS040 has a 1000 hp from a V8 and unlimited KERS running a tighter fuel restriction surely this would have been possible with the F1 engines too!

[timbo]

Turbo increases thermodynamic efficiency. I don't think it would be possible to hit the same performance with both total fuel and fuel flow limits being the same.
I haven't read much about Toyota's technology, maybe the fuel flow limit is different, also, the car is heavier, so they probably can get more recovery during braking.

[theloniousmonk]

The engines would be quieter. Not as quiet as the turbos perhaps, because there's no turbine in the exhaust to muffle sound.

The ts040 engine produces 520hp. 480 comes from the kers. Which it could sustain for 16.8s per le mans lap. Assuming 100% efficiency.

Anyway, the v8s had a peak consumption of 160kg/hr. So multiply the HP of the v8 (780 apparently) by 0.625. And you get ~490hp.

[FW17]

If the TS040 has 520hp running at 89.5kg/hr that would equate 580 hp running at 100 kg/hr which is about 40hp less than the turbo engine
But with the engine just weighing 95kgs and no intercooler to worry about the packaging advantage would have been an interesting race between turbo and NA technologies.

[PlatinumZealot]

Yeah the lower weight might had offset of the fuel consumption... I think the engines could have also incorporated an "GU-H" unit, similar to the Prosche 919.

[FW17]

Yeah the lower weight might had offset of the fuel consumption... I think the engines could have also incorporated an "GU-H" unit, similar to the Prosche 919.

ERS H contributing almost a 100 hp in self sustaining mode seems to be a monster

but in a NA engine it will be all the more beneficial without it having to aid in spooling of the turbo

[Cold Fussion]

They don't have unlimited KERS running, the TS040 gets 6MJ a lap. You could just as easily have more power From the current F1 engines if you had a more powerful mug-k, you'd just run out of energy faster.

[FW17]

suggested unlimited KERS as a BOP between turbo and NA cars

[beelsebob]

Note, any V8 that gets the same fuel efficiency as the current V6s would end up being roughly as loud as the current V6s, as it has to burn fuel with the same efficiency, so it would make very little difference to the noise level.

[yener]

Exactly,

But what if they get rid of the turbo and flowlimiter with the 1.6 engines? Think the engine would make more noise and they would have the same amount of power as they do have now. Correct me if im wrong.

[beelsebob]

Exactly,

But what if they get rid of the turbo and flowlimiter with the 1.6 engines? Think the engine would make more noise and they would have the same amount of power as they do have now. Correct me if im wrong.

Of course not – they'd have much much more power... and they would make more noise.

[yener]

Why? Would they have much more power? It would be a decrease of 0.8 liters and 2 cilinders compared to the 2004's v8 engine.

How much more power in terms of BHP and laptime sec/% would it have?

[Cold Fussion]

Exactly,

But what if they get rid of the turbo and flowlimiter with the 1.6 engines? Think the engine would make more noise and they would have the same amount of power as they do have now. Correct me if im wrong.

Of course not – they'd have much much more power... and they would make more noise.

Why would they have more power? The Na v8's with roughly 780 Hp had roughly 325Hp per liter, for a 1.6 liter engine that amounts to 520 hp, down from the roughly 600 Hp the current. For a non turbo 1.6 to have the same power as the current 1.6L engines, they would probably have to spin faster than 20,000 rpm.

[mrluke]

Number of litres or cylinders is almost irrelevant on a turbo engine providing you have the finances to have it cope with the high boost and resulting loads. If you removed fuel flow limit for this year's engines you would exceed the 80s bhp levels. Forced induction engines make more power more of the time than an na, that's why turbos were banned in the first place.

[beelsebob]

The key is not how much fuel you get in, it's how much fuel you get to burn. That's what high compression ratios and in general lots of air lets you do - burn the fuel super efficiently.