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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...