General Forum (Archived)

Thread: WRC S2000Turbo future Go to Top of This Forum

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by m4d-mike

21-Feb-09 10:47 AM 

was looking for the correct place to put this point but i think i have solved the problem with the current s2000 engines and the addition of a turbo. if they use the standard engine as it is with the addition of a turbo albeit optimised for the 32 millimeter restrictor the fia will imopose, im pretty sure that the price of the cars will have to fall.
i really thimk a power and torque limit should be imposed too to stop the runaway budget spending millions for ten newton meters of torque improvement that goes on today.
with a standard powerpland like that the s2000+turbo's would actually be a very interesting alternative.

say 300 bhp
and 300 foot lbs
my evo2 road car has nowhere near that and will drift and slide with the best of them,

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

23-Feb-09 05:32 AM

Maybe no kit :(. I'm guessing that unless they did some forward planning, adding a turbo kit to an existing S2000 drivetrain would just mean a lot of broken gearboxes, differentials and half shafts on the WRC trail.

So maybe WRC should go light. S2000 Lite with a minimum weight of around 700kgs : )

It would probably be a really fun car to drive. Resulting in some pretty good viewing.

Not sure what that would cost or whether it would be technically feasible??? Anybody have any ideas?

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

23-Feb-09 09:56 AM 

"was looking for the correct place to put this point but i think i have solved the problem with the current s2000 engines and the addition of a turbo. if they use the standard engine as it is with the addition of a turbo albeit optimised for the 32 millimeter restrictor the fia will imopose, im pretty sure that the price of the cars will have to fall."

Right place, m4d-mike, and a point nobody seems to believe me and make the whole S2000+T or NOT discussion another FIA joke.

It will be pretty tough to simply add a turbo to an atmo engine just like this. The engine will blow up. People saying that is the way to go have not got the slightest idea about engine technology! At the same time I believe the claim that gearboxes and transmission parts will blow because of turbo torque is bollox. Take the Audi Quattro S1, it had more torque of a modern WRCar, yet a weaker gearbox than a modern S2000 car, they did not even have a sequential gearshift, just a H-pattern. Did the groupB cars stop every 5 metres with a blown transmission I think not! In contrary, a turbo engine needs far less gear changes, such in this respect even less strain. An expensive transmission is more important for an atmo engine than for a turbo one!

OK, what is about the technology the rule makers dont seem to understand. Power and torque is in basics d through internal compression. In this the turbo engine is a technology not at all comparable to any atmo.

Atmo needs to find compression mechanically. It needs a high compression ratio through fine tuning on pistons, head, valves, camshafts and it needs to be constantly at high revs. This high compression tuning plus the constant high revs mean huge engineering costs combined with wear and weaker reliability.

A turbo in contrast generates compression simply through turbo boost. All these engineering points of a competition atmo are not needed. In fact if you have to develop a competitive atmo engine first to then detune it again to build your turbo on it, you may as well flash your cash down the toilet.

As an example what I am saying, I own a Peugeot 405 T16. This cars engihne is what Peugeot used to base their 206 WRC engine on. Believe it or not, the 206 WRC used an all standard engine block of the 405 T16 road car, no changes whatsoever! A friend of mine runs a Peugeot tuning business Ecosse-Peugeot. Dare I say how simple, as a tuner, he tuned his private road car Its a FWD 306, implanted the standard 405 T16 engine with standard 240BHP -without cat- then took a bigger turbo charger, some ECU chip tuning, thats it, he never opened the engine itself, not much cost, not much effort, but on the dyno a totally respec 349BHP!

Same can be done in rallying. Everybody seems to have a petrol turbo road engine these days. Take that and fit a bigger control turbo with an air restrictor and a boost restrictor. We dont need 400 to 500BHP in WRC and the 300BHP can be reached without much work on the engine itself. The air restrictor and the boost restrictor at the same time control power for a level playfield like we will never have in S2000.

I really dont see why people like FIA and some teams have such a hard time discussing this. And S2000+T car like that will actually be cheaper with better cost control than S2000 will ever be!

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Radiv

23-Feb-09 11:15 AM 

So what you are saying is that if you take a S2000 engine, take off the head, and replaces that with a head prepped for Turbo with the right compression level - that will not work ?

If so, why ?

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

23-Feb-09 11:19 AM 

It probably would work but is far more work than not opening the engine at all. To lower compression to allow for the turbo kit, the head needs extensive changing to allow for less basic compression, different valves, different camshafts, most likely pistons will have to be changed to a de-tuned version again too.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by m4d-mike

23-Feb-09 04:26 PM 

swapping the head would be the main part but the pistons would need swapping your talking about say supplying 2 engines 2 gear boxes and 2 ecu's with every car bought, labour involved in the actual build of the new engine would go beyond the 8 hours the fia wanted and would cost more than the second engine

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by levingt

23-Feb-09 06:39 PM 

You maybe right, and I do agree it is costly to develop NA engines and equally expensive (absurd) to kit them out for a turbo.

But if they do go NA S2000, because it seems most of the manufacturers and the FIA are happy with that, do you think reducing the minimum weight would be cost effective way of increasing power to weight and torque to weight ratio and make the prospect of S2000 cars more palatable.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

23-Feb-09 08:40 PM 

The FIA just made the S2000 cars heavier for the second year running, so I don't see them make them lighter again. Mind you, it is the u-turn FIA we are talking about. OK, that would give the cars a better power to weight ratio in a straight line, but will that make them more unsettled and slidy? Even if they should weigh 1100 rather than 1200kg, we are still talking of supposed to be dream cars that have less torque than most road cars!

No, for the reasons I named above, for cost efficiency as well as spectacle everything but a turbo would be a big mistake! Why does it have to be based on an existing S2000 car? Take the basic S2000 rules but use a new base engine! What is the crime in that? I don't think Subaru would have saved money if they re-engineered their gN engine in a WRC one. Between the events they are going to take the engines out anyway, so why not just swap engines rather than detune your used engine to fit something it was never designed for in the first place, or why design a high spec engine configuration first you are never going to use.

Besides road reality goes ever more to turbos. I don't think teams are in favour of atmos, although I then do not understand the teams gearbox worries. At least Citroen made that point quite clear that besides they don't want to compete the 207 S2000, for in the near future Citroen has no road engine any more without turbo, they will not be interested in rallying a non-turbo!

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by RonSkoda

24-Feb-09 02:07 PM 

According to latest news the new S2000Turbo cars should debut on the 2010-2011 winter season.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Radiv

24-Feb-09 04:55 PM 

So what do you make of this one ?



Has Chris B been talking to them on 1,6 T ?? :-)

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

24-Feb-09 07:52 PM 

Hmm, has not always been the most reliable news site. But if this is true, it is a sensational turn. It actually says the S2000+T is off the table, from 2010 we have boring S2000- in WRC, but already soon after an S2000 car could have alternatively a 2000cc atmo or a 1600cc turbo engine.

Two immediate comments:

- This doesn't help manufacturers, they engineer an S2000 car now and 2 years later a 1600 Turbo will surely blow them away!

- For the WRC another step in the wrong direction. So now the WRC does not even have better cars then the IRC. According to the article, the WRC version cars will made to look more spectacular than the IRC and national version ones in bigger spoilers only. I agree with comments other fans left on this site. This does not make the action more spectacular, we are talking just go faster stripes and boy racer add ons, WRC is kindergarden.

The comment I wanted to make before, and I did make before long time ago, especially combined with 4x4 an atmo engine simply does not make sense to me. If it is 2WD atmo I could understand.

But apart from the points I made before, name me one road car with 4x4 that has an engine no bigger than 2000cc atmo! As far as I remember nobody except some unsellable Subaru models is insane enough to combine 4x4 with anything such little torque even for road use!

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by AndyRAC

25-Feb-09 03:06 AM 

Well according to the anti-S2000 people, "They're not spectacular enough"
The only thing I would say is that they probably have more grip than power - and they have had their minimum weight increased twice. Maybe they could go back to what they originally were.

Shouldn't they really be like the old F2 cars, but with an added set of driving wheels?

Anyway, bring them on - the more Manufacturers the better - the sport can only benefit.


I actually wouldn't disagree - but those in charge are fixated with 4WD. Any reason why? It's proved it's point - forget it. Ford's latest Focus RS isn't 4WD, so why have it? Most normal road cars are FWD -aren't we supposed to be using 'Production' based cars?


Fine, no problem - have a season with a proper mix of events - Gravel, Tarmac, Snow. Instead of the preference for Gravel.
The 4WD cars dominate on snow,Gravel, but get blitzed on Tarmac. It should even itself out over the course of a season. That's what would cause interest - of course it would never be allowed. But you could have BMW, Porsche, etc entering the Tarmac rounds to throw a spanner in the works, just like the old days. Forgive me, I'm dreaming..........

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

25-Feb-09 05:06 AM 

You have a big point. Only on the S2000 cars I disagree. They may look more spectacular than WRCars for they have less electronics and I believe in IRC they drive a lesser grip tyre. They are not like the old F2 cars, because in basic physical terms what we want is minimum grip with maximum torque, S2000 is as much to the opposite extreme as you can get.

You say it yourself, even the Focus RS road car is FWD. While I can understand the merits of 4x4 in some regions and conditions, shouldn't rallying orientate to some degree on road market reality? Once again my question looking at S2000 car concept, can you name a single road car that combines 4x4 with an engine of 2000cc atmo or smaller? For the road this combination is totally non-efficient, so how should that be the future of rallying.

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Radiv

25-Feb-09 05:05 PM 

Just to take a turbo discussion;

If we could compare a 1600 turbo, 1800 turbo and a 2000 turbo for a second.
They have the same spec when talking restrictor, max rpm and other tech issues.
How much will the max output and max torque be on them ?

If we were to use a compressor instead of turbo, would the answer be the same ?

 Re: WRC S2000Turbo future by Chris B

26-Feb-09 05:37 AM 

I am not sure what you mean with this question. If we fitted i.e. a huge turbo, the bigger engine would gain more, while the 1600cc we would just increase the turbo lag. Generally a lot is possible however even with small engines, as the turbo feels like creating power and torque free from revs. If all surroundings, turbo, restrictors, boost settings are the same, I would think the difference between the engines is the same as without turbos, in percentage higher.

A compressor aka supercharger would be a very different story and the engines definitely are subject to their cc. The turbo uses waste energy to creeate boost and such is relatively free to engine revs. Very unlike the compressor, which is mechanically driven. Such added boost through a compressor is not the same sensation, not the same efficiency. The compressor helps in lower revs, but in higher revs it is rather a hindrance for the engine, not a help at all.

 Page 16 of 25 - Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | Next Page