Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

94 Mercedes motor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    There is far more to the engine than simply short pushrods.
    "I would really like to go to NASCAR. I really enjoy NASCAR and if I could be there in a couple of years that's where I'd want to be." - Jeff Gordon (after testing a Formula Super Vee)

    Comment


    • #17
      Spike thank you. I think I understand now. Production based versus purposed based. Buick/Menard was not effected by USAC . But Penske , Brayton were penalized by USAC .Reduction in boost .

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by raschu75 View Post
        Spike , comments on your post. The Buick/Menard V-6 was used until new chassis and engine package by IRL starting in 1997. The Brayton engine was a V-8. My recollection is Menard had to run the V-6 because of contract issues with Buick. Not sure what the announcement of the IRL had on the development of the Brayton V-8. Also Brayton was supplier of the Olds aurora V-8 starting in 1997. Not sure if it was similar to the Brayton V-8.
        Lots of info here:

        http://forix.autosport.com/8w/penske...reenfield.html

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RS2 View Post

          What? Everybody Except the Ameican big three and Toyota had OHC V8 engines. GM and Toyota had both OHC and OHV.
          Ford's Modular OHC V8s debuted in late 1990 in the 1991 Lincoln Town Car. In spring 1991, the 1992 Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis came out with the same engines.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by carl_fisher_78 View Post
            I've read Beast, but now I'm drawing a blank on something related to the rules. Was there anywhere within USAC's rules that required the block to be "stock" or "production" based, or was it simply a matter of limiting cubic inches and boost based upon pushrod vs overhead cam? Any exact info would be greatly appreciated.

            And also, just to clarify, I'm not asking what the "intent" of the rules were or who it was supposedly written to help - but more of what they exactly allowed (or didn't allow)


            First of all, to do the people involved within the poject proper credits, we should refer to the engine as the Ilmor 265E, not as the Mercedes. Lots of work on the engine was done under the Ilmor flag, without Mercedes being involved yet. And this M-B involvement was pretty much financing, no technical assistance.

            As for what was allowed: Everything!!!! As long as a single, non overhead camshaft was used to activate only two valves per cylinder.


            I would describe the 265E as a purebred racing engine, optimized to the max for the lone restriction it had: no DOHC but 2-valvePushrod. And it came ito existence once the rules on pushrod engines being relaxed and clean sheet of paper for start being allowed. The purpose of the engine was to use the advantage of both the larger capacity and the higher boost level but at the same time eliminate all weaknesses that found their origin in the stock block heritage of the earlier attempts. use the opportunity to go to a V8 instead of a V6 and all gains that brought.
            One of the things that the engine had because of this freedom was that the cam was located as high in the engine as possible in order to reduce the length of the pushrods to make them lighter and more sturdy, reducing the flex at high rpms.



            That engine was as much an optimized racing engine using technology principles as found on a small-block Chevy as the then used Ilmor 265D (the 2.65 liter Quadcam raced in the other races of the season) was an optimised racing engine using principles and features that could be found on the Northstar.

            I could try find more descriptions to point out that the 265E was an all-out true to the bone racing engine, though fitted with an inferior principle of valve activation but the eventual version as used was as optimal as could be achieved with the knowledge of that moment. And only because of the requirements of stock origins being lifted, the project was given the go-ahead because only because of that, the resulting engine could maximise the extra capacity and boost levels yet at the same time in theory have a better reliability because of less stressed components.
            The 265E only shared principles with stock block (=Detroit) V8s but as for how it was built, it was state of the art as much as was possible within the limitation of needing to be 2valve pushrod

            Comment


            • #21
              The ultimate NASCAR Motor.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by RS2 View Post
                The ultimate NASCAR Motor.


                No !!!!!!!!!!

                in 1994:

                NASCAR used atmo engines, the 265E one was turbocharged.
                NASCAR used a single carburettor, the 265E had multipoint fuel injection.


                Comparing the 265E because of that centered singlestick activiating two valves instead of DOHC with a NASCAR p ............. p is an insult to the 265E.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by RS2 View Post

                  What? Everybody Except the Ameican big three and Toyota had OHC V8 engines. GM and Toyota had both OHC and OHV.
                  The GM Northstar engine (for Oldsmobile and Caddilac) was available starting in 1991...
                  “America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed.” - Eleanor Roosevelt

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    That is what I wrote. GM had both.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RS2 View Post
                      That is what I wrote. GM had both.
                      In fact, it has always been my impression that when IRL went over to 4.0 atmo based engines with production heritage, the rules had been written with the Northstar et al in mind as being the foundation for any GM project(s), no matter the name. Oldsmobile eventually being the nominated brand to give the engine a name.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by AZOPENWHEEL View Post
                        At the time, both purpose-built and stock-block pushrod engines were allowed 55 inches of boost versus 45 inches for other IndyCar engines. After the 1994 500, the rule was changed again (twice) cutting the boost on purpose-built pushrod engines with the second cut making the Mercedes and similar purpose-built pushrod engines as uncompetitive. However, the Menard engine program, which was a stock-block-based pushrod engine, was not affected by this change and the boost level remained at 55 inches. They ran the engine in 1995 and 1996 before the new IRL engine specs.
                        That's accurate. Shortly after the 1994 race, USAC said the 209 purpose-built pushrod engines would go down from 55 inHG to 52 inHG of boost for the 1995 race. At that juncture, Penske/Ilmor (and presumably the similar Menard project) still felt that was sufficient to keep it competitive. Considering that they believed that they had not yet achieved the 265E engine's full potential in May 1994, with another year of development - despite only 52 inHG - they'd still be the class of the field in 1995. The traditional "stock blocks" stayed at 55 inHG, and the quadcams were 45 inHG (no changes).

                        Then about six weeks later in August 1994, TG announced the formation of the IRL. Along with the announcement came new regulations for 1995 and 1996. The 209's were down to 48 inHG for the 1995 race, and not allowed at all in 1996. The cars/engines to be allowed in the 1996 race were basically a rules freeze from the 1995 race. The 1996 race would be run basically on 1995 rules...all cars/engines permitted in the 1995 race would be permitted in 1996....with the expressed exception of the 209's, which were banned outright.

                        At that point, with only 48 inHG, the 209's were deemed unable to overcome that disadvantage. They'd be uncompetetive and all the camps that had them (Penske/Ilmor, Greenfield) or were at various stages of developing them (Menard, Cosworth) pulled the plug. IIRC, around that time, teams themselves were getting antsy about the costs of needing two engines to get through a season...a quadcam for the CART races, and a 209 for Indy.
                        Last edited by Doctorindy; 11-08-2019, 02:56 PM.
                        Doctorindy.com

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Doctorindy View Post

                          That's accurate. Shortly after the 1994 race, USAC said the 209 purpose-built pushrod engines would go down from 55 inHG to 52 inHG for the 1995 race. At that juncture, Penske/Ilmor (and presumably the similar Menard project) still felt that was sufficient to keep it competitive. Considering that they believed that had not even yet achieved the 265E engine's full potential in May 1994, with another year of development - despite only 52 inHG - they'd still be the class of the field in 1995. The traditional "stock blocks" stayed at 55 inHG, and the quadcams were 45 inHG (no changes).

                          Then about six weeks later in August 1994, TG announced the formation of the IRL. Along with the announcement came new regulations for 1995 and 1996. The 209's were down to 48 inHG for the 1995 race, and not allowed at all in 1996. The cars/engines to be allowed in the 1996 race were basically a rules freeze from the 1995 race. The 1996 race would be run basically on 1995 rules...all cars/engines permitted in the 1995 race would be permitted in 1996....with the expressed exception of the 209's, which were banned outright.

                          At that point, with only 48 inHG, the 209's were rendered deemed unable to overcome that disadvantage. They'd be uncompetetive and all the camps that had them (Penske/Ilmor, Greenfield) or were at various stages of developing them (Menard, Cosworth) pulled the plug. IIRC, around that time, teams themselves were getting antsy about the costs of needing two engines to get through a season...a quadcam for the CART races, and a 209 for Indy.



                          All of this increased my respect for Peter Greenfield to give his engine another go in '95, despite the setbacks of massively reduced boost.

                          I still wonder, if the money and all brainpower needed had been made available, if the 265E development had been continued for one more year if it still would have been powerful enough to still stand a chance that year. That engine had still so much untapped potential in '94.
                          Imagine the chaos for Team Penske had they used '95 chassis (PC24) with a second generatiom 48 Inch265E engine. Then they might have had been entirely lost as of why the chassis didn't work!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Indyote View Post
                            Imagine the chaos for Team Penske had they used '95 chassis (PC24) with a second generatiom 48 Inch265E engine. Then they might have had been entirely lost as of why the chassis didn't work!
                            It's all hypothetical, but if they were having problems in the 95 chassis, they probably would have installed the 'second generation' 48-inch 265E in a 94 Penske chassis...since they had data from May 1994 they could at least use as a baseline. We will never know.
                            Doctorindy.com

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Doctorindy View Post

                              It's all hypothetical, but if they were having problems in the 95 chassis, they probably would have installed the 'second generation' 48-inch 265E in a 94 Penske chassis...since they had data from May 1994 they could at least use as a baseline. We will never know.
                              So true, so true.
                              I agree on your comment about using a '94 PC23 chassis. But the funny thing was that they tried to do that with in '95 already with a Merc Quadcam to compare that car with the primary '95 PC24's. But then that didn't work eiter, neither did the Bettenhausen Motorsports entered cars.
                              It was confusing enough as it was.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sweaty Teddy View Post

                                The GM Northstar engine (for Oldsmobile and Caddilac) was available starting in 1991...

                                1964:


                                The-Cammer.jpg


                                Ray-Brock-1964-Galaxie-SOHC-427.jpg

                                Comment

                                Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X