Motorsports What Ifs Thread

Suggestions? Mine would be an engine size limit on turbo cars.

However I think the Mcalaren Chev dominance may have played a part in the implosion, Ford and others never really got any kudos that might have encouraged greater efforts. If Ford stock-block engines, perhaps a 351 with Gurney-Weslake heads like the Honker had, had a win in 1966-67 then perhaps Ford might throw a touch more effort into Can-Am and keep the series a bit more interesting for a bit longer.

There are three problems with this:

1) Limiting the turbo engines won't stop Porsche from bringing out the 917/10, they'll just develop the flat-16 engine they designed for it instead if they can't get the horsepower they want out of the turbo engines;

2) The Honker was a piece of shit of a car (Mario Andretti referred to it as the worst car he ever raced because it was horribly off the pace and its handling was absolutely diabolical) that never had any business racing in the first place, which is why after it Ford went with McLaren chassis with their engines in the back. There really isn't a way of redeeming the Honker or the F3L;

3) It doesn't do anything to deal with the explosion in costs that the Can-Am series suffered in its later years. The Shadows and the Chaparral 2J were technically brilliant but like the 917/30 cost bonkers amounts of money to race, and when the energy crisis hits those cars will simply not be viable to race because of their costs.
 
) Limiting the turbo engines won't stop Porsche from bringing out the 917/10, they'll just develop the flat-16 engine they designed for it instead if they can't get the horsepower they want out of the turbo engines;

The flat 12 5.4l developed about 650hp, a flat 16 might make 870hp which is hefty but perhaps not overwhelming for the big American V8s. However iirc the long engine would have problems with crank and camshaft whip, certainly other long thin engines did/do and I believe the porsche 16 did as well in testing.

) The Honker was a piece of shit of a car (Mario Andretti referred to it as the worst car he ever raced because it was horribly off the pace and its handling was absolutely diabolical) that never had any business racing in the first place, which is why after it Ford went with McLaren chassis with their engines in the back. There really isn't a way of redeeming the Honker or the F3L;

It's not the Honker I'm interested in, its the 351/377 with Weslake alloy heads. Iiuc in 1966 the Traco 365 Chev was the hot setup with a touch over 510hp and in 1967 Maclaren bought engine building in house where their 358 Chevs made about 540hp. In this environment the 351/377 would be competitive if properly shaken down in a well prepared car although the T70 was probably done by 1967 and the T160 wasn't ready.

Ive got nothing on the costs.
 
On 7th April 1968 Jim Clark races in the BOAC 1000 km sportscar race at Brands Hatch instead of driving in the Deutschland Trophäe Formula Two race, for Lotus, at the Hockenheimring.

(On the fifth lap of that race, run in bad conditions, Clark's Lotus 48 veered off the track and crashed into the trees. He suffered a broken neck and skull fracture, and died before reaching the hospital. The cause of the crash was never definitively identified, but investigators concluded it was most likely due to a deflating rear tyre.)
 
On 7th April 1968 Jim Clark races in the BOAC 1000 km sportscar race at Brands Hatch instead of driving in the Deutschland Trophäe Formula Two race, for Lotus, at the Hockenheimring.

(On the fifth lap of that race, run in bad conditions, Clark's Lotus 48 veered off the track and crashed into the trees. He suffered a broken neck and skull fracture, and died before reaching the hospital. The cause of the crash was never definitively identified, but investigators concluded it was most likely due to a deflating rear tyre.)
cool but the 70's were so horribly murderous (with 1982 on top of them) he may still die later... and horrifically with that, beheaded burned alive cut in two crushed by a fire extinguisher or a pole...
 
Some say he was another Senna, in 1986 Ferrari was restructuring with a project which lead to the 640/641, so he would have to wait a while.

while Ferrari did not won any race that year the car would have been good enough for Bellof to win, Villeneuve 1981 style. The car was mediocre but still better than 1981's.

https://www.statsf1.com

that website is awesome. I tracked a couple of 1986 races Bellof may have won in place of Johansson.
 
One thing that has tickled my fancy is the 1967 rule changes for Sport Cars; whereby 5 litre cars could race if 50 had been built, and this rule was changed in April 1968 for the 1969 season. When it was dropped to 25 Porsche built 25 917s to homologate them, and Ferrari finding their 312p 3 litre prototype was uncompetitive also built 25 512s.

Zhist02_2.JPG


WI the FIA said that 25 cars was the minimum requirement back in 1967? Ferrari had already built 3 (1/2?) 330 P4s, plus a number of P3s and large engined customer cars. possibly enough that another small batch of P4s, perhaps with the 4.2l Can Am engine instead of the 312p they could have had enough P4s to race in 1968 as 5 litre cars. I think they would have flogged the 5 litre GT40s.
 
Enzo sold Ferrari to Fiat in order to get the money for the 512.

After wasting money on the uncompetitive 312p and not trying to call all of the P2/P3/P4 and 4/4.4 litre cars part of the same production run to get close to 50.

In a related note, the Lola T70 was homologated, were there 50 5 litre coupes built? Or did they include all sorts of engine sizes and Can Am cars as well?
 
Most American sixes of the time were bigger than 3.75 liter/227 cid. These ranged from 200 cid/3.3 liter Ford, 225 cid/3.7 liter Mopars, 230 cid/3.8 liter Chevy/Pontiac, 232 cid/3.8 AMC, Ford 240/4.0, Ford/Chevy/GM 250/4.2, to 258 cid/4.2 AMC. I don't see a place for multi-cams in US racing. Besides, you can get a ton of horsepower from most of these. Mexico VAM (AMC affiliate) built over-bored versions for their local market. Depending on when you start the series, Buick had their v6 198/3.3 and 225/3.7 from 1962 to 1966. Base the rules on the B Sedan rules with a 4.0 liter/245 cid limit. Go racing.

The displacement limit comes from 6 is 75% of 8. The displacement limit for A Sedan is 5.0 Liters. Hence the 3.75. Consider the Chevy inline six. Same bore centers as the small block. Punch the block out to 4.0" and destroke to 3" gives 3.75 Liters. Think of it as a 6 cylinder Z-28. Thicker cylinder walls on the AMC allows you to go to 4". The 199 already has a 3" stroke. Plus it originally was built with a full twelve counter weight crank. The idea comes from a timeline I was working in which John DeLorean is hired by AMC as the assistant to Dave Potter in engine development. The timeline starts circa 1961 when design work on a new inline six begins. The design settles on a family of four and six cylinder inlines ranging from 2.2 to 4.9 liters. Cylinder bores 3.75" to 4". Strokes 3" to 4". Block leaned over at 25°. The block design is adaptable to diesel. The Big difference in comparison to US sixes at the time is the cam is installed high in the block allowing very short pushrods. Tuned production engines with redlines of 6000rpm. Race engines going to 7500 or more. Crossflow heads. The design bleeds over into Twin Cam V-8. Then in 1970 the insurance industry along with the Federal Government crack down on the performance market following a horrific accident involving members of the Mustang and Camaro car clubs after the season ending race at Laguna Seca. A Mustang hits a bus coming back from a church outing killing cloce to 20. The government limits displacement and engine type based on weight. This forces the US manufactures. To change product lines. If they want to build a smaller performance car ( ie Mustang etc) is must be a six cylinder.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The displacement limit comes from 6 is 75% of 8. The displacement limit for A Sedan is 5.0 Liters. Hence the 3.75. Consider the Chevy inline six. Same bore centers as the small block. Punch the block out to 4.0" and destroke to 3" gives 3.75 Liters. Think of it as a 6 cylinder Z-28. Thicker cylinder walls on the AMC allows you to go to 4". The 199 already has a 3" stroke. Plus it originally was built with a full twelve counter weight crank. The idea comes from a timeline I was working in which John DeLorean is hired by AMC as the assistant to Dave Potter in engine development. The timeline starts circa 1961 when design work on a new inline six begins. The design settles on a family of four and six cylinder inlines ranging from 2.2 to 4.9 liters. Cylinder bores 3.75" to 4". Strokes 3" to 4". Block leaned over at 25°. The block design is adaptable to diesel. The Big difference in comparison to US sixes at the time is the cam is installed high in the block allowing very short pushrods. Tuned production engines with redlines of 6000rpm. Race engines going to 7500 or more. Crossflow heads. The design bleeds over into Twin Cam V-8. Then in 1970 the insurance industry along with the Federal Government crack down on the performance market following a horrific accident involving members of the Mustang and Camaro car clubs after the season ending race at Laguna Seca. A Mustang hits a bus coming back from a church outing killing cloce to 20. The government limits displacement and engine type based on weight. This forces the US manufactures. To change product lines. If they want to build a smaller performance car ( ie Mustang etc) is must be a six cylinder.

You said stock block. So, I listed the stock engines of the time. None of these engines, save the Ford 240, can go to 4" bores without changed cores for the bores, walls too thin. The small block Ford sixes and the Mopars can't do 4" bores without siamesed bores. However, I would expect V6 variants of V8s to appear ASAP. Hmmm, a Cammer or Cleveland Ford 240 with a lighter weight block and crank would be interesting.
 
Mark Martin doesn't get his penalty at Richmond and wins the 1990 championship.

Bobby Allison doesn't have his career ending crash and retires after 89'.

Ricky Craven is great and doesn't get fucked over at Hendrick

Jeff Gordon at Roush

Legit Kenny Wallace cup career.

Rob Moroso lives and is at Gibbs.

Tony stays in IndyCar.

Terry Schoonover lives and is at Morgan McClure.

Ernie Irvan at Yates.
 
You said stock block. So, I listed the stock engines of the time. None of these engines, save the Ford 240, can go to 4" bores without changed cores for the bores, walls too thin. The small block Ford sixes and the Mopars can't do 4" bores without siamesed bores. However, I would expect V6 variants of V8s to appear ASAP. Hmmm, a Cammer or Cleveland Ford 240 with a lighter weight block and crank would be interesting.
That was one thing I was implying that the factory's could cast special duty blocks with thicker cylinder walls. Plus it's not really required that you need to maximize the bore to stroke ratio to meet the displacement issue. The AMC 199, 232 and 258 all have 3.75 bores on 4.380 bore centers. Thicker walls when cast as special duty would allow the bore to go to 4.000 without siamesed cylinder walls. The GM is already at 3.875". I would not be surprised if GM had special duty blocks already in service for commercial applications.
As an aside in in about 1979 when the 258 block casting was lightened the engineers took out to much material to start with. The blocks and heads would literally break apart when clamped for the initial machining operations. Once we had the know worked out engineers from the Big Three came in to find out how we did it as they were having the same problems
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The thick Mexican VAC 282 cid blocks can't get to 4.0, they started around 3.875. Hotrodders tried. Look for Jeep Strokers. You will need need new cylinder walls cast into blocks. Otherwise, pistons will break through the cylinder walls. The GM blocks are the same. That's why they are called thin wall casting. No need to go to 4.00". Just use more stroke.

The issue with the 258, and new 4.0 Jeep blocks was a bad series of head castings.

GM Brazil raced Opalas with a special 350-S
 
Isn't 6 cylinder racing inherently shit when V8s are available in the same cars?

Although I've couched that as a question it really should be taken as a statement, like the 11th commandment : thou shalt not race 6 cylinder cars that have a V8 option.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
You are definitely coming from a North American position. I once thought the same, until I bought a Datsun 240Z. A good, well balanced six is wonderful! If you look at IMSA/SCCA racing in the 1970's and 80's, you will see classes with engine displacement based upon valve train design in relation to displacement. Sixes with multi-cam heads competed with larger OHV V8's quite well.

Besides, the high pitched wail of a high revving six sounds sooo much better than the deep rumble of a V8!:winkytongue:
 
You are definitely coming from a North American position.

Australian actually.

. I once thought the same, until I bought a Datsun 240Z.

There is no V8 240Z, and thats my point. To race a 6cyl version of a car that comes from the factory with a v8 is to deliberately choose to race a car that is slower than it could be. To race competitive 6cyl against V8s is cool, it makes for exciting racing that chages character on different teacks and different distances. But the 6cyl should be the fastest version of the car.
 
After wasting money on the uncompetitive 312p and not trying to call all of the P2/P3/P4 and 4/4.4 litre cars part of the same production run to get close to 50.

In a related note, the Lola T70 was homologated, were there 50 5 litre coupes built? Or did they include all sorts of engine sizes and Can Am cars as well?

Those early 70's Le Mans cars were so beautiful. Porsche 917, Ferrari 512, Ford GT-40, Lola T-70, they were sleek, aerodynamic wonders straight out of a comic book. Michel Vaillant wet dream, really. The Ferrari 512, although a loser compared to Porsche, is my favorite one. Sleek and brutish at the same time. first cars to reach 200 miles per hour (or more) in Le Mans straight line.
 
Those early 70's Le Mans cars were so beautiful. Porsche 917, Ferrari 512, Ford GT-40, Lola T-70, they were sleek, aerodynamic wonders straight out of a comic book. Michel Vaillant wet dream, really. The Ferrari 512, although a loser compared to Porsche, is my favorite one. Sleek and brutish at the same time. first cars to reach 200 miles per hour (or more) in Le Mans straight line.

My favourite Le Mans car is the Ferrari 330 P4, for exactly the reasons you state; it is a work of art as well as a technological marvel of exquisite elegance.

I'm a big fan of Can Am cars for the same reason, but giving away some elegance in favour of some brutishness. I love the 612 Ferrari Can Am car, and the Australian Matich SR4, which never actually got to the US to race.

Ferr%2520612P_000.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg
 
Top