>>> Current engines are old hat. Useless to any one but F1, and a the
>>> very few who can afford supercars. But even those guys are going
>>> for smaller, greener, intelligent engines.
>>> Face it, you are old and don't like change.
>> Awa--- and AC:
>> I must agree with your AC's second point ;-)
>> But claims of engineering "relevance" have never persuaded me. I
>> didn't see any 2.4 litre V-8s filling the high street. For that
>> matter 50 years ago the lovely 1.5 V-8 Climax was not 'relevant' to
> No, and F1 was not as expensive as it is now.
>> With current cylinder and head architecture, and crankshaft throws
>> not much greater than a camshaft, I don't contemplate manufacturers
>> learning anything as a result of building an F1 engine. Nor do I
>> contemplate that the new V-6's will cost a penny less than this
>> year's engines. Would manufacturers possibly find "relevance" in a
>> 1.4 litre aspirated straight-4 motor?
> Marketing? Imagine that Golf GTI being marketed with an F1 derived
> engine. Imagine Jeremy Clarkson getting all e***d about it.
> Cost wise, they will be cheaper over time. That how business works.
> Its spreads costs.
> 1.4? Yes.
> Crank Cam? That just reads like a silly excuse.
dumb. You don't rev anything on the street to 18,000 RPM. They might learn
things about materials or reliability of components, but never that this
engine is a prototype for a street car.