NASCAR and Formula 1 V8 engine comparison.

[Peter7307]

Click on the link below to read an interesting technical comparison between the NASCAR and Formula 1 V8 engines.

Worthy of note are the two BMEP numbers at peak torque and the minimal variance between them.

Comparing NASCAR Cup engines to Formula One engines, by EPI Inc.

Enjoy the read.

Cheers , Pete.

[Old Tele man]

...sling a light weight around fast (Cup) or sling a heavy weight around slow (NASCAR), both impose materials limits.

...it's rpm vs. torque, or brute-force vs. finesse'.

[bgd73]

I have seen this thread differently posted...it is always interesting.

As both crankshafts are goofy, the nascar is simply a bigger engine made. they both have shared journals and completely retarded.



here is the f1 crank. it is appealing to me as it is close to a benz...except, it shares journals. I drew a benz v8 crank once, it looks similar this, excpet where there is shared journals it is a benz, no middle main bearing between them. That would be the most powerul v8 in the world...like 3 main boxers to four cylinders.




here is the common v8, this one is bimmer.

benz crankshaft v8 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

above is my benz v8, now strangely showing up in a world wide web search as the only. I made the first few frames of the animation. it is more amazing than my imagination to look at. Note there is no counterbalancers, it is self balancing like a real 3 main boxer...in fact if you can decipher it, you can see two 3 main boxer cranks, and how I put them together...all self balanced. all cylinders have an exact match mirrored in the rotation. This, in theory, is the worlds greatest engine never made.

[Frank Lee]

That is very interesting- thanks Pete!

Now whoever spouts off about the inherent superiority of OHC, multi-valve, this-n-that, etc. vs. old-school OHV should look that over and maybe reconsider.

Personally I prefer OHV for most automotive applications. There are maintenance, packaging, and cost benefits. I believe the motoring press of the '70's, '80's, and '90's was too critical of the domestics for their reluctance to embrace OHC and DOHC; IMHO the motoring press was too myopically focused on track times, much to the detriment of what users need out in the REAL WORLD. Additionally I think they put too much emphasis on the latest "gee whiz" tech; while that is fine and dandy and interesting, that tech is not always the most appropriately applied out on the street. Since it's been years since I cancelled all my subscriptions to that drivel, I don't know what their reaction has been to GM's Vette "old school" engine winning global engineering awards and generally proving to be an outstanding performer on many levels.

[rgathright]

Originally Posted by bgd73

As both crankshafts are goofy, the nascar is simply a bigger engine made. they both have shared journals and completely retarded.

Why does this crank not have any oil holes in it? I thought that helps reduce friction where the rods meet the crank.

The other crank you shared "the consumer V8" does have oil holes.

On another note, I have been a long critic of pushrod V8 muscle because of their refusal to move to DOHC. The Ford Mach1 (4 valve) and Dodge 4.7L V8 made me a true believer in the higher power per liter of the more efficient overhead cam.

Could we make a comparison between GM and Dodge being bankrupt and Ford still firing on all cylinders because of their incorporation of overhead cams? I certainly think so.

Yeah, I know I am out of line here.

[Frank Lee]

I doubt OHC is more efficient.

Easier to make it work at high rpms, yes.

[tasdrouille]

You forget VVT Frank.

[Frank Lee]

I haven't forgetten it. I don't know why it hasn't been incorporated into OHV setups, because it's possible and it has been looked at.