Talk:Formula One engines

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Formula One High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Formula One engines was copied or moved into 2026 Formula One World Championship with this edit on 08:33, 6 May 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Why isn't this "List of .Formula One engines"? Since it's only a list. ;Bear 06:48, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

Agreed. I would move it, except that I don't think this page is necessary at all, and it should be merged with either History of Formula One or the various teams' pages. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 18:06, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've moved this page to List of Formula One engines, though I maintain that the list is unnecessary. The information is relevant but would be vastly more useful in the context of the History of Formula One, where the various formulae could be connected with drivers, events and years.

If the list is to stay a list, I would like to know if someone intends to write an article on each of these engines. Presumably such articles are possible and encyclopedic; however, the list is meaningless without articles to link. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:30, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will prefer this article without the "List of", as it was. It's possible to write an interesting piece on these engines, not just a link list. --Marc Lacoste 15:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list seems to me to be useful, regardless of whether there's a full article for each engine. It needs linking from other pages though. I was interested to read it, but came across it entirely by accident. Some of the info could be worked into History of Formula One and Formula One Regulations, with links to this as a comprhensive list. It should also be linked from all F1 engine constructors' articles, etc. Spute 10:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will link to it from relevant articles I pass by. --Marc Lacoste 15:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should '2018' read '2008' in the section about future engines?

Ganglandboss (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they put a ten year ban on engine development, that's right. I don't know if the speculation about a new engine in 2011 should still be there, though. Bombadier337 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, but this statement is incorrect:

"A shorter stroke enables the engine to produce a higher rotating speed at a constant mean piston speed but also increases the speed at which the piston must travel in each revolution."

Shorter stroke means the piston travels LESS distance per rev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brawn fan (talk • contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say is: Shorter stroke means the piston travels LESS distance per rev, therefore less speed per rev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brawn fan (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Toyota engine be included in the table at the bottom of the page? Ladislaus (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table lists engines which have won at least one Grand Prix, which Toyota haven't. DH85868993 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same question as the Toyota one, but Cosworth engines should be on the list as they have won races, both rebadged, and on their own... Laylaholic (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:F1 convention is to refer to the individual engine types which scored those victories (DFV/DFY (155 wins, 1967-1983), HB (11 wins, 1989-93), Zetec-R (8 wins, 1994), CR-1 (1 win, 1999), RS1 (1 win, 2003)) as "Fords". (Note, however, that not all engines made by Cosworth are referred to as "Fords" - for example, the engines used by Minardi and Jaguar in 2003 and 2004 are referred to as "Cosworths"). Plus there's at least one reliable source (FORIX) which lists "Ford" with 176 wins (unfortunately it's a subscription site, so I can't just provide a link). DH85868993 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So does grandprixstats.com. DH85868993 (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ford engines have always been built by Cosworth in Northmapionshire. Ford has had an association with them for a very long time (i.e. the Sierra and Escort have Cosworth in the name) but they have remained independent throughout. Mercedes I would say is correct because of the fact they bought Ilmor outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloTeK (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes did not own Ilmor before the year 2000. Check out badge engineering. There is a market for naming rights.

It does not make sense to list this engine among the Formula One engines. What would be the supporting data to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandOEL (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a list of World Drivers Championship race wins per manufacturer, and therefore includes the 1950-1960 Indianapolis 500s, which were all won by Offenhauser-engined cars. I've retitled the section and added a footnote to clarify. DH85868993 (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Ward drove an Offy-powered Kurtis midget in the 1959 US Grand Prix at Sebring with, it has to be said, a conspicuous lack of pace before it eventually succumbed to clutch failure. Mr Larrington (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Cosworth is back in F1 (this time badged as themselves), Ford shouldn't be used anymore and should stay changed to Cosworth as is technically correct. Ford have never built F1 engines on their own and instead used rebadged Cossie units despite what was written on the cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloTeK (talk • contribs) 10:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See badge engineering. Auto giants have always invested in outside development and paid for the badge. Ford paid for their badge, just like TAG, Petronas, Acer, European and Fondmetal. To call those 176 wins other than a Ford is stealing stats.

Feed free but the subject is F1 engine manufacturers, Ford have only ever paid for their name to be used, they've never owned Cosworth nor have they ever even built their own engines so how can they be called a manufacturer when they blatantly aren't? Cosworth were THE main manufacturer in F1 for many years during the turbo era where the normally aspirated producers ran off and were always referred to by that name. Murray Walker seldom-called them Ford engines as they clearly weren't. Mercedes have actually owned a considerable stake in Ilmor since before they worked with McLaren so their naming rights are somewhat valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.227.92 (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Prost-Acer? Acer is an IT company. PAID for the badge man, PAID. Engine identity is not dependent on the ownership or location of the factory. It depends on naming rights. Are you just a nostalgic Cosworth fanboy trying to beef up records before the 2010 season. Do you even know Fondmetal or European?

Made it Ford Cosworth for the cosworth fans, as opposed to just Cosworth. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.213.212 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm being factually correct. Acer is irrelevant for this discussion because they never won anything with Prost GP. The title is manufacturers so it's who manufactured the engine which in the case of them making a win Acer would be Ferrari because Acer have never even built an engine. Cosworth built the engines so should be accredited with building them! OF course I know who Minardi and Fondmental are, two backmarking teams of utter disinterest to the conversation because they never won anything themselves...

Also, I prefer Honda engines myself to anyone else so your point is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.224.6 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your info, the naming rules applies to engine winners and to non-winners as well, that is why it is called a rule. Ford it is. See this source [1] Convinced? I already said factory location or ownership is irrelevant. It belongs to naming rights. You are deliberately ignoring the point. Please change your mind.

This argument seems a little like the blind leading the blind. Ford and only Ford is the way. This goes well beyond simple naming rights, as FoMoCo fully-funded the development of most of the engines that bear their name. Ford commissioned Cosworth to design and build the DFV and its successors, as well as other engines such as the HB. These were not rebadged Cosworth engines. Using this season as a parallel, are HRT cars referred to as Dallaras? No. Lazy colloquialisms aside, the first season that Cossie entered for themselves was 2000. And for the information of one of the myriad anonymous contributors up the page, yes, Ford did own Cosworth for quite a few years until relatively recently. Pyrope 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every DFV that ever won a GP had the word "Ford" writ large upon the cam covers. It was only the DFX and variations on the them which were differently-badged, first as "Foyt" and then as Cosworth. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, should the caption for the DFV read Ford DFV not Cosworth? Op47 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above remark about badge engineering strikes me as accurate, if in reverse: Ford may've paid for it, but the work was done by Cosworth. Crediting Ford simply for the money... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if it a very basic description of F1 engines was listed, i.e. are the SOHC,DOHC or Pushrod OHV?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.91.140 (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

== Very slight mention of Short STroke. Need paragraph. ==--65.26.105.141 (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should Ferrari's 5 wins using the D50 in 1956 be credited to Ferrari engines or Lancia? Obviously the engine in the D50 started out as a "Lancia" in 1954, but the point at which it became a "Ferrari" engine is perhaps not as clear. FORIX (subscription site), StatsF1[2][3] and ChicaneF1 [4][5] all credit the 1956 victories to Ferrari, giving Ferrari engines a total of 222 wins (and Lancia engines 0 wins). I suggest we do likewise. Opinions? DH85868993 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I'd consider it to be a Lancia engine, since it was just a lightly developed version of the DS50... but then again, I consider the Cosworth DFV to be, well, a Cosworth, not a Ford. If reliable sources say Ferrari, then we say Ferrari. I'm not seeing anything that credits the wins to Lancia right now. ESPN say Ferrari as well, by the way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they are counted by all the normal sources as Ferrari wins, then we should indeed be doing the same. I suggest making sure the Lancia/Ferrari re-badging is explained on the relevant articles. QueenCake (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Operation section says that F1 currently uses 1.6 L engines. But the Short stroke engine section says a relatively large bore is required to make the 2.4 litre engine displacement. The table at the bottom gives 1.6 L. Is the reference to 2.4 L just a holdover from the previous formula? Molinari (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Formula One engines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222043956/http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/5280.html to http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/5280.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grandprixengines.co.uk/Note_89.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901003154/http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1603301296__2006_F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS.pdf to http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1603301296__2006_F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081106195349/http://www.racecar-engineering.com:80/articles/f1/273555/inside-an-f1-engine.html to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/273555/inside-an-f1-engine.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you switch 'alcohol' and 'gasoline' columns, then the table notes read better. Currently, note 4 talks about the alcohol in 'pump gas', but the term pump gas is explained in note 5. I don't really understand table editing, so if you agree and could make this change, I would appreciate it. ike9898 (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is an error. Ferrrari Engine Wins 226: Scuderia Ferrari 225 + Scuderia Toro Rosso 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mone2884m (talk • contribs) 07:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to see some talk about what “hybrid” means; particularly in an F1 engine. There’s almost nothing at Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid or W06 (or anywhere). No article (for F1) even says what it is a hybrid of. MBG02 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this list still mentions that in the "new engine suppliers" it talks about how the VW group is still deciding between Porsche and Audi. But it has been announced already that Porsche will not be entering in 2026 and it appears to be in this page as well in the last sentence of the 2026 onward section. Dont know the best way to put it down, so just wanted to bring this to peoples attention. Stitch2088v2 (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]