Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I remember reading the somewhat winding story about that connection a while back, but seem to remember it involves the Honda family and some drama/espionage. bit boring really.

Mugen was founded by Soichirio Hondas son. They damn near won a WDC in the Jordan with Frentzen of all people.

lolwut?

McLaren have had heeeaps of different engine suppliers.

Tidbit: Chrysler/Lamborghini almost ended up as an engine supplier, and the team built a modified MP4/8 to test their 3.5 V12 in

Yes kiddies. They started with all sort sof oddball stuff. Got good with the DFV's, spent huge amount of TAG money to get Porsche to build the V6 motors from 83 - 87, then went Honda, Ford, Peugeot, Merc.

^I was just reading about that (good old wiki). More tidbits: they went with Peugeot instead, but after a year of poor performance changed to the mercedes engines.

Interesting reading

Yes- Went from a 3.5L Ford-Cosworth V8 in '93 to a Peugeot V10 for '94; Which my McLaren history book tells me made 100hp more (740) from the same capacity than the V8 did.

Bollocks I say. Everyone was down on the Ford motor. But the packaging advantages and the massive torque made up for the hp deficit. Not that it was ever what the French made it out to be. In any case the engine McLaren ran was to an older spec than the one in the Benetton. True story.

Edited by djr81

If you count a total of 42 points as 'not finishing a race'

not a good season tho

The point wasnt really whether or not the motor somehow once or even twice hung together for the length of a GP. Really McLaren went from belting everyone with a Honda motor to being thereabouts competitive with a second string Ford to being hopeless with the Pug. It got worse in the first year with the Merc - even the fat boy special they made for Mansell was hopeless.

Edited by djr81

1!

Exactly. If they were really up on power and reliable do you think the team would have binned them? The Peugeot motor was unloved at McLaren, tolertated/suffered at Jordan until they got the Mugen (at the time it was effectively a factory Honda engine but out the back of the factory through the family ties at Mugen)and Prost never went anywhere.

Hey, I was just stating the bare fact that the Pug 3.5 V10 made (as far as McLaren's own information indicates) 100hp more than the same displacement Ford V8.

It's not like I'm some Peugeot motah fan-boy.

(a quick look at the wiki link reveals a grand total of zero GP's won via Pug power)

Hey, I was just stating the bare fact that the Pug 3.5 V10 made (as far as McLaren's own information indicates) 100hp more than the same displacement Ford V8.

It's not like I'm some Peugeot motah fan-boy.

Nah and Im not either. Just trying to point out you shouldnt confuse PR bullsht with reliable engineering. There is much more to an engine install in an F1 car than horsepowers on a dyno. Honda had to learn that. Ron Tauranac showed TWR (of all people) that with the Yamaha in the Arrows. Not that it needed proving but the Renault motor has also proved it over the last few years.

If you want to see a good motor have a look at some of the massive aluminium Chevs McLaren used in the M8's and later. Or the Repco motors in the Brabhams. And yes I am an MRD/Ralt fanboy.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I think you're really missing the point. The spec is just the minimum spec that the fuel has to meet. The additive packages can, and do, go above that minimum if the fuel brand feels they need/want to. And so you get BP Ultimate or Shell Ultra (or whatever they call it) making promises to clean your engine better than the standard stuff....simply because they do actually put better additive packages in there. They do not waste special sauce on the plebian fuel if they can avoid it. I didn't say "energy density". I just said "density". That's right, the specific gravity (if you want to use a really shit old imperial description for mass per unit volume). The density being higher indicates a number of things, from reduces oxygen content, to increased numbers of double bonds or cyclic components. That then just happens to flow on to the calorific value on a volume basis being correspondingly higher. The calorific value on a mass basis barely changes, because almost all hydrocarbon materials have a very similar CV per kg. But whatever - the end result is that you do get a bit more energy per litre, which helps to offset some of the sting of the massive price bump over 91. I can go you one better than "I used to work at a fuel station". I had uni lecturers who worked at the Pt Stanvac refinery (at the time they were lecturing, as industry specialist lecturers) who were quite candid about the business. And granted, that was 30+ years ago, and you might note that I have stated above that I think the industry has since collected together near the bottom (quite like ISPs, when you think about it). Oh, did I mention that I am quite literally a combustion engineer? I'm designing (well, actually, trying to avoid designing and trying to make the junior engineer do it) a heavy fuel oil firing system for a cement plant in fricking Iraq, this week. Last week it was natural gas fired this-that. The week before it was LPG fired anode furnaces for a copper smelter (well, the burners for them, not the actual furnaces, which are just big dumb steel). I'm kinda all over fuels.
    • Well my freshly rebuilt RB25DET Neo went bang 1000kms in, completely fried big end bearing in cylinder 1 so bad my engine seized. No knocking or oil pressure issue prior to this happening, all happened within less than a second. Had Nitto oil pump, 8L baffled sump, head drain, oil restrictors, the lot put in to prevent me spinning a bearing like i did to need the rebuild. Mechanic that looked after the works has no idea what caused it. Reckoned it may have been bearing clearance wrong in cylinder 1 we have no idea. Machinist who did the work reckoned it was something on the mechanic. Anyway thats between them, i had no part in it, just paid the money Curiosity question, does the oil system on RB’s go sump > oil pump > filter > around engine? If so, if you had a leak on an oil filter relocation plate, say sump > oil pump > filter > LEAK > around engine would this cause a low oil pressure reading if the sensors was before the filter?   TIA
    • But I think you missed mine.. there is also nothing about the 98 spec that supports your claim..  according to the fuel standards, it can be identical to 95, just very slightly higher octane number. But the ulp vs pulp fuel regulations go show 95 (or 98), is not just 91 with some additives. any claim of ‘refined by the better refineries’ or ‘higher quality fuel’ is just hearsay.  I have never seen anything to back up such claims other than ‘my mate used to work for a fuel station’, or ‘drove a fuel delivery truck’, or ‘my mechanic says’.. the actual energy densities do slightly vary between the 3 grades of fuel, but the difference is very minor. That said, I am very happy to be proven wrong if anyone has some hard evidence..
    • Hey guys I’m chasing a Rb20det complete or bare block need a good running engine as mine has low comp 
    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
×
×
  • Create New...