When FORD Designed the GREATEST F1 Engine Ever!
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2024
- 💡Go to brilliant.org/DRIVER61 to get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription!
This is the most dominant engine in Formula 1 history - this thing has won 155 Grand Prix, 131 pole positions and even completed the triple crown - winning Monaco, the Indy 500 and Le Mans.
But, it’s not from one of the modern-day powerhouses like Mercedes, Ferrari or Honda. It’s a Ford! And a pretty special one - this engine changed the course of Formula 1.
But not because it’s got a special trick, or one really clever innovation - no, it’s because it had dozens of them. That’s down to the fact it was designed by one of the Greatest engine designers in history.
And where modern engines are designed in CAD software, in simulations or made in CNC machines. This thing was hand drawn, and hand made. Let me show you why it’s incredible.
📹 All source footage can be found here 👉 bit.ly/3RCIiUD
➤Follow Driver61 on:
➤ Instagram- @official_driver61 - bit.ly/D61Insta
➤TikTok - @official_driver61 - bit.ly/D61TikTok
➤ Follow Scott on:
➤ Twitter - / scottkmansell
➤ Instagram - @official_driver61 - bit.ly/D61Insta
#Formula1 #Ford #CosworthDFV - Auta a dopravní prostředky
So a few years back, my wife bought me a piston signed by Niki lauda. It was advertised as a Ferrari piston, but found that not to be true once I found the cosworth name cast into the bottom of it. I contacted a company in the UK who makes replacement parts for DFV engines, and the serial numbers line up when Niki was driving for McLaren in the early 80's. One of my prized possessions ❤
Great catch brother, hang onto that one and pass it on. It's a great conversation starter
Dude, that's sick
Which do you value more, the gift or the giver?
@michaellinner7772
Interesting question.
the gift will always be his.
The giver will most likely not, based on statistics.
Next week it'll be 16 years. I'm not going anywhere. ❤
The DFV actually got used until the 90's when they stroked t up to 3.5l. An astonishing engine.
"Duckworth worked for Cosworth" did he? I could have sworn he WAS Cosworth, or at least 50% of it, I mean it was the merger of names of its founders, Mike COStin and Keith DuckWORTH....COS_WORTH. Let's be honest though, it was really more like Duckworth WAS Cosworth, he was an absolute legend in the engine design space. The loss of Cosworth in F1 has ultimately led to an imbalance in the teams being competitive. Back in the day, you bought a Cosworth DFV engine and made your chassis and as long as your chassis wasn't rubbish, then you were competitive. RIP Keith, you are missed.
Couldn't agree more.
Costin and Duckworth . Back when Poms still knew how to Build Stuff .
You still work for the company you started. So saying he worked for Cosworth is accurate. You are just being overly pedantic like most car fans
Shocking omission! I’d have expected better from these guys!
@@LeTangKichiro Well, at least he had a workout for his fingers, not sure about the rest of his body though.
I just want the naturally aspirated engines back
Naturally aspirated with free configuration. V8, V10, flat 12, whatever. Give the cars a bit of variety.
same. at least let manufacturers have control over configuration. hybrid v4 or v8’s
@@littletweeter1327Or non hybrid internal combustion engines with a free engine configuration.
Electric is that you'll get!
@@grahambell4298 ok I do agree with that, but at this point in time (with the vacuum cleaner V6’s), I just want a good sounding engine even if
they are free configuration or now
So much wrong information. Turbo era began in 1982 not 72. Ground effect wasn‘t used in the mid 70s it was used in the late 70s. Duckworth was co founder of cosworth not a rendom employee . What about Costin? Not even mentioned in the video.
The 4 pot the engine is commonly known as „kent“.
I'll never understand how Jim Clark won the USGP by a lap with an H16 in his lotus. If he had lived and developed the 49/72...man.
Clark is truly one of few names that are the biggest what ifs, like imagine if he hadn't died in his crash and carried on in motorsport, he'd genuinely be in GOAT debates that we have today cos he was just that damn good
And the man could drive anything -- saloons or open wheel -- and win by extraordinary margins.
I am a great admirer of Clark, but you have to say US GP '66 was one of his more fortunate GP wins. After the opening laps he was back in fourth place, but the guys ahead eventually fell out (Bandini & Brabham engine failures, Surtees an incident) and Jim managed to bring the usually troublesome H-16 home for its only win. The rest of the field were well strung out behind, as was often the case in those days. Only 8 cars were running at the end. Arundell in 6th place was 7 laps down! So yes, he won by a lap, but not though his usual 'pure pace', as we might call it now.
It's one of the easiest what ifs ever.
"What if?"
He would have won.
Everything.
Until he retired.
He was supernatural.
He noticed a single slightly worn bearing in the nearside rear hub.
Which is technically impossible.
And yet 🤷♂️
When Ayrton says somebody is the greatest, you listen 😉
With the DFV you can't forget the Hewland gearbox it was mated to. A video on that would be nice. As well as on A.P. brakes.
Benneton was using a very simple dfv derived engine and manual gearbox until 1993. What the hell were they spending thier budget on?
Their budget was spent on hiding features in the software in that era if I'm not mistaken. @@mark4lev
In the 1960s Ford engineers in Detroit designed excellent racing engines for indianapolis and the Ford GT. But the Cosworth DFV was designed by Keith Duckworth.
While Ford had nothing to do with the design of the DFV, they did bring two very important people together. Colin Chapman and Keith Duckworth. A huge part of the success of the engine was due to Chapman's brilliant idea of making the engine a stressed member of the chassis. An idea still in use today and Keith built the DFV to do just that.
Ford's greatest contribution(they owned the rights to the engine) and what made them and Cosworth a ton of money was to share the engine with the world. They didn't have to do that as they could've kept the engine exclusive for Lotus only and literally dominated F-1 for over a decade.
Also to their credit Ford didn't insist on calling the destroked version that dominated Indycar racing a Ford either. They let Cosworth have the glory.
Ford did one other thing. Testing. Duckworth designed the engine. Ford made it reliable. The same rig the 427 that was in GT40 used to test the engine to destruction was used for the DFV. They ran the engine to death through multiple rev cycles and simulated laps, pulled it apart to see what broke, and then Cosworth took the data to fix the design or manufacturing flaw. Over and over. Until the DFV had it's reputation for being bulletproof. That was Ford's big engineering lift for Cosworth and the DFV. Testing. They did something no other engine manufacturer in the world at the time but Ford had the expertise to do for Cosworth. People forget the importance of that type of work. Cosworth never could have afforded having Ford do it for them, and Ford never did it for any other engine manufacturer so they probably wouldn't have even if asked. Different Ford. In 1966 Ford was coming off their win and for a short while had ideas of going to F1. It's why Ford gave Cosworth the money. It's also why they did all that backend testing work. They wanted their own engine for F1 if they went in. So it got tested the same way Ford did for their Le Mans car.
@@halycon404 Lots of misinformation here my friend.
The same rig the 427 that was in GT40 used to test the engine to destruction was used for the DFV. Rubbish
FORD LeMans winners were powered by big ole iron lumps developed in stock car racing.
Never revved over 6,200rpm. And never tested to destruction. LMFAO
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp Nope. The 427 used in the GT40 was not the same 427 that was used in stock car racing. That was the starting point. Ford took the 427 and designed an entirely new gearbox and transaxel for it, tossed the entire drivetrain on a series of dynos to add torque load, then ran LeMans over and over again on one of the first computer controlled test benches. Every gear change, every clutch use, every rev change and hold; all of it. The entire race. The engine over the course of development shed parts from the original 427 Nascar engine and got it's own. Cylinder heads, lifters, new water pump, new high pressure dry sump scavenging oil system, the exhaust system, and loads of internal parts. Every time they ran the engine around a simulated test of Lemans and something broke, they redesigned replaced it. The 427 in Nascar was called the Gen II FE 427. The 427 for LeMans was named the GT40X. They are not the same engine. Same basic block, everything else went. Anything which couldn't make it for 48 hours on the test rig went away. That engine was tested to destruction. Multiple times.
After the first loss at Lemans when none of the cars even finished Lunn and his team became downright zealots to testing everything and replacing anything that broke. That was the actual head engineer of the GT40 program btw. Roy Lunn. Carrol Shelby was in charge of on track testing in California. Back in Dearborn was were all the real money was spent in the mechanical R&D. The system to entirely change the breaks which people chalk up to Shelby? Shelby and his team came up with idea. Lunn and his team actually designed and built it.
There is so much about the GT40 which doesn't agree with the public story. LeMans was as much marketing as anything else. There's the marketing story which Ford put out because it made for good press. Then there's the actual story. Ford wanted to be the plucky underdog to the American buyer, pure Red White and Blue to the US auto buyer. It used the same 427 as the NASCAR cars because it made Americans feel good. Carrol Shelby was head of the GT40 program because here's an American that conquered Lemans. Even if the actual head engineer was a British immigrant Ford hired from Aston Martin where among other things he worked on the DBR1 which won LeMans in the 50s.
@@halycon404
The car used the 427 iron block production engine because that was the ONLY engine Ford had available to it! What other engine were they going to use? Some dreamers at Ford imagined the car utilizing the Indy dohc 4.2 liter V8. LMFAO. Can you think what a fiasco that would have been!
"...Cylinder heads, lifters, new water pump, new high pressure dry sump scavenging oil system, the exhaust system, and loads of internal parts..." ppppfft.. it was still a hot-rodded stock block school bus engine. Only revving to 6,200rpm with its crude 4-barrel Holley 780 CFM Carburetor.
And of course, they had to use an entirely new gearbox and transaxle for it. Unlike the stock-car it was rear engine car! And the gearbox was a Kar Kraft built four-speed unit. Not a Ford design.
All this urban legend about how this car was developed gets more exaggerated every year as time goes by. Nobody mentions that the great Bruce McLaren did the majority of track testing, and without the Kiwi's input the program would have floundered. Ken Miles was a rookie race car engineer compared to Bruce.
And of course, when you get right down to it, it was pretty sad that the Yanks had to resort to a 7.0-liter engine to compete against its 4.0-liter rivals. Brute force and ignorance. And cubic money! And in Can-Am the Ford 7.0-liter engines were humiliated by the alloy block Chevy's with fuel injection.
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp You do know there's video of the dynamometer testing process from the production of the GT40X engine right? Ford actually recorded it because it was the first testing process of it's kind. Every computer controlled gear change and throttle input. The entire drivetrain artificially put at a higher stress load than the race would be to truly test it. You can go look it up and watch. It existed. Ford really did do that. They broke the drivetrain on purpose to find the weak links.
I'm well aware the car wasn't an American, I pointed out the actual head engineer was a Brit. I pointed out why Ford hired him, he'd help engineer a previous LeMans winning car. Sigh. All this crap. A 427 is a bus engine. Sure. Whatever. If I change the crank shaft, the cams, the rods, the cylinders, the headers, the lifters, the intake, the timing, the fuel system, the oil system, the cooling system. And whatever else. Sure. It's a bus engine. The 427 was chosen btw because the block for it was unbreakable. Resilience was the most important consideration. It reved to 6000 RPM which was lower than stock, again resilience. Ford's goal wasn't just throw 7 liters at and win. It was throw 7 liters of bulletproof engine at it and anything lighter would blow itself up trying to keep up from internal stress. They did everything they could to make sure the engine would never break. Say whatever you want about it. It was year after year the most reliable thing on the grid. The thing was engineered to be a tank, reliable as clockwork.
So, back to the DFV. Sound familiar? The thing everyone says about that engine, the most reliable part on the grid. It just always worked.
They were still using a variation of the DFV in F1 until the 90's! From what I remember, Benneton and a few back markers were using updated and sometimes rebadged Cosworths when the turbo were banned
Until 1991! .
@@mark4lev 👍Known as DFR then.
In the 1990s, Benetton was using HB series Ford-Cosworth engines... very different beast. But yes, some back markers were less fortunate and stuck with the aging design. ;)
@@aoife1122 someone’s updated Wikipedia there’s some good info on there now. What was essentially an updated dfv was getting podiums in 1988 with benneton. I’ll bet the budget for that engine project wouldn’t pay for Hondas spark plug supply.
@@mark4lev A "cost cap" of a very different kind. ;)
That DFV was a stroke of genius back then and nothing can possible ever threaten its claim for being the "most successful engine". Such long runs are just impossible in this day and age, not to mention the vastly different specifications which rule out winning in F1, Indy Car and WEC Le Mans with the same engine.
Not a very well researched/edited video in comparison to your usual high standards Scott...
1) Keith Duckworth didn't "work" for Cosworth, he is one half of the company's founders! Mike Costin (Cos), Keith Duckworth (Worth).
2) 3:50 "And Jim Clark" .... that's still Graham Hill
3) "High Revs" - the DFV may have revved higher compared to other v8's, but 9,000 rpm was still lower than what the 12 cylinders were managing at that time - Ferrari's Flat 12, the "Tipo 001" was producing peak power at 12,600 rpm in 1970 (never mind it's redline value!) Compact, fuel efficient and more torque are typical attributes of comparison for an engine of same displacement but with less cylinders .... "high revving" tends not to be. An engine with more cylinders will typically rev higher because each cylinder is smaller, hence lighter, hence less momentum, inertia etc... to move :)
4) 8:20 "when the Turbo engine eventually took over Formula 1 in 1972" .... factually wrong. 1977 was when the first Turbo engine turned up, Cosworth DFV's 155th (and final) win was in 1983.
Do you have any friends ?
@@tonywright8294 I was wondering the same thing. What a bag of joy.
@tonywright8294 @S0ulinth3machin3 - plenty thanks, and thankfully they don't feel the need to make personal attacks when someone provides them with extra information :)
To quote Jeremy Clarkson, it made a dirty, dirty noise.
From attending historic F1 events, I can confirm it certainly does.
I've had the opportunity to stand right beside a DFV when it was started for warming up at Zandvoort in the pits, could feel it all through my spine of course 😄 unforgettable experience, fia historic Grand Prix is an amazing event if you like older race cars! You brits usually have it at Silverstone, for those who don't know
Another Ford engine similar to the DFV was the Series 4 that was developed for the Indianapolis 500. It was developed from the Series 3 based on the 260 stock block engine. It was cast aluminum with 255 cubic inch displacement. It had 2 valve heads. The Series 4 was a gear driven 4 valve head design that ran on alcohol fuel. It produced over 400 HP and won the 500 in 1965, 6 and 7.
Fords Indy engine made 800hp less than 300ci
And also for Colin Chapman! He was obviously the man with the plan - the Adrian Newey of the 60s and 70s. Adrian Newey is the Colin Chapman of the last 20years.
And 1969 and 1970 and 1971.
Man i still remember that motor when i believe it was shell used it in a commercial, screaming around a road coarse sounded incredible.
@@MrWildwilly48it created a whole new sound that became familiar at Indy.
I grew up watching this engine take over the world,. Amazing drivers,circuits and cars. Constant nail biting action.with THE best soundtrack motorsport will ever have
The DFV was not the first 3 litre V8 in F1. That honour goes to Brabham which had a Oldsmobile engine modified by Repco in Australia. That combination won both F1 championships in 1966 and 1967.
Beat the DFV which also ran part season in 66 and full season in 67. It was a shame Repco didn't bother to develop their engine further, as they had already achieved all they set out to achieve.
@@alexjohnward The Repco V8 was designed and developed by Philip Irving, who had previously designed for Vincent and Velocette. The Repco was successful because it was compact, light and reliable. Note that it won the 1967 F1 World Championship, including the year when Jim Clark won the DFV's first race. It was reliable, which the early DFV was not. However, to remain competitive, it did need more power, lots of it. The four valve versions of the Repco were not a success.
The DFV became competitive because it gained reliability to match its power. This was after an accelerated development program BY FORD in the USA. The had sophisticated test equipment to find and analyse faults in an engine, more sophisticated than any other manufacturer at the time. The methods pioneered at Ford have become standard industry practice.
The £100k which Ford put up to fund the Cosworth FVA and DFV is probably the best investment that they ever made.
The four valve Repco had enough power, but had the exact same vibration issues as the DFV, they could have fixed it, but why? Repco were not primarily a manufacturer of engines but machine tools, so it was hard to justify the R+D to compete with the ford engine that was available to anyone. I know the Repco engine sold for $7500 AUD back in the day, not sure how that compared to the DFV.@@pashakdescilly7517
Why did Repco move to retail lol they had some good machinists back in the day
@@youwantshum9860 Australia used to have a big manufacturing base but that shrunk over time, there would have been a engine machine shop in every town in the 60s, not now.
8:20 1983 was the first year when the majority of the teams started with a turbo engine.
In this year Piquet was the first "turbo" champion.
Piquet had a WDC in 1981 as well
@@PG-20 Yes, powered by a Ford Cosworth DFV 3.0 V8.
The engine had a new life in its later iterations of the DFY and DFX Indycar engine in the late 70's and early 80's. They cleaned up and for a decade pretty much did in Indycar what the DFV did and later variants were Champcar motors in the 2000's.
The first turbo DFV started with Parnelli Jones’ Indy Car team, but Cosworth recognized the potential and took it over.
I literally just finished building my 1:8 scale version of the Lotus type 49. Surely a crazy, and beautiful car!
Who makes a 1/8 scale 49? I must have one!
I'd love to build a 1:8 Scale Lotus 49!!
Are you talking about the 1:12 Scale Tamyia?
As a mechanic I really love these engine mini docs!
The engine that Enzo hated the most.
Garagisti - garage bouilders
Teams who did not have own engine
Yeah Enzo believed aero was for the guy who couldn't build a powerful engine.
Another fun engine to do a video on would be the Ford 427 SOHC AKA "The Cammer." An engine so badass that it got banned in NASCAR before ever making a single lap due to Chrysler complaining about it because they knew it was gonna eat their 426 Hemi alive.
There is an extensive history of “sanctioning bodies” banning FORD engines as the other 2 manufacturers simply can’t compete when the artificial parameters are equal. Just the Cleveland alone is the most banned engine ever submitted for racing.
I was at Imperial College some years after Keith Duckworth, and was told he spent 3 years in the basement of Mech Eng designing the engine. He did not attend any lectures, he just spent 3 years designing the engine with input from a number of professors who had realised he was a genius to be encouraged not made to follow the usual degree path.
Turbos took over in 1982, not 72. Turbos where introduced by the yellow tea pot in 1977 but took a few years to stop going up in smoke. Ground effect cars took over in the late 70's. 1978 - Mario Andretti Champ year and also Lotus's last championship.
NAH. Oldsmobile had an aluminum V-8 in their '63 F-85. That basic engine was later used in modern Land Rovers.
I had the 4-bbl carb version.
That has to be the best description, explanation, and analysis of the DFV (including the reason for its name) I've ever heard, and I've been an F1 fan since '92 and CART/IndyCar since 1993.
Thank you! As always, when Driver61 pops up on my feed I get a Scotch/Rocks and a headset and you have my undivided attention. Awesome!!
Based on those dates I guess you're a big Mansell fan?
A outstanding piece once again Mansell. Great job!😊
You know it was basically two Ford FVA 1600cc twincam 4 cylinders mated together? Which, incidently, was the engine powering the Lotus 48 racecar that Jim Clark was tragically killed in..
The 4 valve per cylinder design had been around even before Keith Duckworth was born, and I am not saying this to take anything away from his talents as a design engineer but merely to illustrate that the exceptional is often an evolution of existing ideas, I have to admit I had thought it was Harry Ricardo that invented the idea but apparently it goes back to 1911 when Indian introduced their pushrod 8-valve twin racer and it was the following year that a motorcar was to have an engine with two overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder which was the 1912 Peugeot L76 Grand Prix race car designed by Ernest Henry of course these engines were not without their problems but design engineers like Keith Duckworth knew how to solve these problems with the use of modern material, technology and financial backing.
Mike Dixon’s motocross MXGP team had Cosworth build their carbureted 250cc 4 stroke dirt bike engines. Was amazing in early 2010’s or late 00’s
First ever win of the DFV comes in the Lotus 49/R2 at Zandvoort, Dutch GP, 4th juin 1967, driven by the most iconic pilot:
JIM CLARK - By far the greatest driver ever - no doubt. He is and was "The Best of the Best" (Fangio, Senna, Prost, Stewart and countless others about Clark). No other driver in history until today was so superior as Clark - No other driver as so much "Grand Slam" - Pole/Win/Fastest Lap/Leading every lap of the race - like him. And all that from just 72 starts... !
This man is the Olymp of driving - the Michelangelo of racing - a dynamic art at the highest level. So smooth, so precise, so fast....simply out of this world. One, who won in Spa by 5 minutes (!) in monsoon rain with only one hand at the wheel (!) because of gearbox trouble...One, who takes back a complete lap (!) in Monza and back into the lead... One, who took pole on the original 22,8 km Nürburgring track by 9 (!) seconds and more....One who won Indy by 2 whole (!) laps...For eternity and by lightyears unmatched in the sport. That`s just four examples of his mesmeric unique genius...
Ayrton Senna: Hold my beer! The best F1 driver ever.
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp For Senna himself, Clark was by far "The Best of the Best". He even hold a speech at Jimmy`s school in Scotland. Clark is the Olymp of racing.
@@LeoWuerde Denny Hulme drove successfully in F1, Indy, CanAm and LeMans.
Did the Wee Scott do that?
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp Of course, he won the Indy 500 in the greatest possible style....he won in one year beside the the F1 Wordchampionship, the F 2 series, the British Touring Cars series and the Tasman series = unmatched in the sport. In Le Mans he was strong with Roy Salvadori - But Clark was a pure Lotus man and Chapman stopped the project...and ignore CanAm. When people asked the great American racers Dan Gurney and A.J Foyt who was the greatest driver they have ever seen...imagine the answer.... ;-) Anyway, i have enormous respect for Denny Hulme, he was a racer of the purest kind and he deservers the 1967 world title, which he won against Clark.
The whole idea of the Engine been part of the cars load baring stucture was Colin Chapman he asked for it when he was developing the Lotus 49 project. these three guys Mike Costin and Keith Duckworth had spent my hours over many pints of Beer talking about their idea's for a new type of F1 car and its power plant money was the only issues but Colin had his contacts with Ford after developing cars like the Lotus Cortina and Ford Escort Twin Cam and his Indy 500 project .
That $100.000 has to be one of the best deals ever made.
There is a great old documentry on the development of the Lotus 49 and the DFV from the 60's otherwise if you can track down a copy of the Legendry BBC TV series the power and the Glory,that covers as part of the series several ereas of F1 as well as all aspects of then of Motor sport from the very start until the mid 80's. Hopfully someone uploaded it onto CZcams .
I miss F1 so much...
Cosworth also completely changed modern engine design principles. Lower included valve angles lead to better breathing at higher RPM. Even Honda’s 20000 rpm engines had hemispherical combustion chambers at the time. The short stroke, wide angle V also allowed room for the exhaust pipes and leads to a lower center of gravity than flat engines,as the cars are so low, there’s no room for exhaust pipes under the car and you’d actually have to raise your engine to make room…
That green and yellow lotus '67 was an absolutely beautiful car
Can you make a video about offenhauser engine. It been used since 40s to 70s fighting the coswarth engine in the infycar
Interesting historical note is that Henry Ford designed his farm tractors to use the tractor engine and transmission as mounting points for the suspension..
I too was going to share that but didn't think anybody would care.
@@BXXification I would care!!
I was at Zandvoort on June 4, 1967 'first time out' for the Lotus 49 and the Cosworth DFV. The 49s were housed somewhere in the town and I was walking into the circuit sometime before F1 practice was due to start when there was a huge racket behind me and the two Lotus 49s came up behind me being driven to the circuit by 2 Lotus mechanics! I remember G Hill dominating in practice and taking pole position. However, his car croaked after about 10 laps and he pushed the car about 400 meters along the main straight to the pits - not something you would be allowed to do today!
Just to clarify, Ford had nothing to do with the design of the Cosworth DFV. Also, the BRM H-16 is not anything like 2 V8 engines joined together. More like 4 Subaru flat 4's joined into a pair of flat 8 cylinder engines with one stacked on top of the other.
Actually the BRM H-16 was two BRM V8's flattened and put on top of one another
I heard incredible music from all types of engine’s screaming around Trenton and this was one of them.
Duckworth Chapman Lotus Cosworth & Cooper engine royalty, during the glory days of British motorsports, I watched them race every weekend on the TV, BBC grandstand ITV World of sport.
So Ford provided the money but didn't design and built it ,looks like the upcoming Red Bull deal.
Cosworth should be credited in the title.
Ford is doing drive trains for red bull. Cosworth only make engines.
Its usually called the Ford Cosworth V8.
Because RedBull are designing and building the engines, hence why it’s called a RedBull Powertrain. Not a Ford.
@@JackPayne91 It's going to be called RedBull Ford powertrains and while RedBull will be designing and producing the Ice component of the powertrain Ford is working on the electrical side of the powertrain. So the powertrain is most definetly going to be a RedBull Ford.
Does it look like the RedBull deal though? Since for is most definetly helping develop the elctrical portion of the powertrain? Instead of just providing the money?
Just watch Ford, have a timeless innovative design fifty years ago, but never take steps further! I want more than a Ford Mustang, gimme something more!
This was actually mostly designed by cosworth, ford's engineers were not involved.
No innovation from ford here.
GTD is badass so are GT's.
There's the Ford GT but it's a bit out of everyone's budget lol
@@alfaruuto5182
"This was actually mostly designed by cosworth, ford's engineers were not involved."
I'm sure it was. Who funded the project and made it all possible, in the first place?
I was yesterday at the Spa 6 hours, it hurts so much when you see how strong Ford used to be.
The Spa 6 hours itself is dominated by the Ford GT40's, but almost every other brand is driving Ford engines as well.
Not only that, I was wondering: "Where are the Ferrari's?". Answer: "Too expensive to maintain.".
It's even budget friendly.
Also the Capri Cosworth destroyed the whole field in the Belcar Historic Cup, starting in the 2nd group with the older cars.
But 1 lap later the Capri was already 6th, overtaking 30-40 cars in just 1 lap.
Later overtaking M3's, 911's and more from the 90's and even a Corvette C4 with a whopping 800Bhp.
The Capri only has 435Bhp, is from the early 70's, and casually destroying DTM cars from the 90's.
At Zolder a decade ago also a Cosworth Capri being 4 seconds a lap faster than the Alfa Romeo 155 DTM legend.
Now Ford is rather pathetic, really sad about it.
Ford has gone greeney woke. They are pathetic today. At least I have my memories when there wasn't a race in the world a Ford or Ford powered car was not in.
Such a shame from Ford, hope they do well in 2026
It was this engine that caused the legendary remark from Enzo Ferrari. That aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines. Most of the field were using this engine when he said it.
Enzo died before aerodynamics came into F1 joe!
@DennisMerwood-xk8wp he died in 1988. Wings and the like started in the 70s along with ground effects, you know....aerodynamics. He was relating it to the fact that at the time, most teams used the Cosworth V8 because it was cheap. Therefore, they had to be good at aero because they didn't know how to make engines. Perhaps you should do a little research before you give such an ignorant reply. 🤔
@@joerieke300 Perhaps you ought to learn some manners before spouting your insults.
You give me the impression that you think you are the smartest kid in the room.
Yes, immature wings did start in the 70's. And of course, the Lotus 78 ground effects car came out in 1976 - I was wrong.
But if you can provide us to a link showing that Enzo said ""l'aerodinamica è per gente che non sa costruire motori", I would be very surprised. I think you pulled this outa your arse!
Also, the Cosworth DFV was more powerful than any Ferrari F1 engine at that time so what you claim he said does not make sense.
And while you have a minute, Google the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You seem to have a chronic case.
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp I don't get a reply for your ignorant H block comment? 🤣🤣🤣
@DennisMerwood-xk8wp I'm sorry, but as a 50 year old man, I have many more important things to do than to teach someone who should have learned how to do research years ago on how to do it. You actually can start with Google, and the Dunning Kruger effect has absolutely nothing to do with this. You should probably have at least researched the definition before using it. It's just another example of your ignorance AND it's obvious you already did look up the Enzo quote but are too embarrassed to admit you were wrong about that too. Who did you vote for in the last election? Don't tell me. I already know. 🤣🤣🤣
Thank you for a very well produced and researched video. But maybe the title could be "When Ford wrote the cheque to Cosworth, who designed and built the DFV"?
Ford selected the designers and engineers and paid them to develop these engines for their racing program. Businesses rarely have a complete technical team for their programmes. Ford paid for this and therefore they own them.
Duckworth did not simply "work for Cosworth", half his name was in the company name - the first half being that of Mike Costin - because they were the two company founders...
Keith is one of greatest engineers ever involded on motorsport. The DFV is hands down the most successful racing engine ever built.
@@robbiddlecombe8392 It wasn't build as a racing specific engine. It's a production based engine that was used in racing . Not even comparable considering the level of racing the cosworth was designed for. The SBC did pretty well when some of the Indy cars used them but still the cosworth Indy engine was far superior. Win records make that clear.
@@robbiddlecombe8392 These latest Yank 410 CID "Race" engines make only about 150bhp per liter.
F1 engines make 3-times that!
The FI Turbo BMW 1.5 liter 4-cyl made 13,50bhp! 900bhp/liter!!!!
Was it designed by Ford though? I was under the impression that it was designed by Mike Costin and Keith Duckworth.
The story of Cosworth in inextricably linked with Lotus both Cosworths founders had worked for lotus before establishing their own business and many of the early projects were for or collaborative with Lotus.
Many of the innovations listed for the Cosworth already existed.
When the 3-litre rules came in Jack Brabham quickly built a V8 based on the production Oldsmobile 215 alloy V8 with overhead cam heads designed by Phil Irving. He won the championship with that engine thus becoming the only person ever to win the driver's championship in his own car. That was a flatplane crankshaft engine as were all early V8s until the cross-plane crankshaft was developed. Tuning the exhausts of V8s could be a problem and contributed to some F1 V8s being reversed with the exhaust in the valley of the V and the inlets at the side of the engine.
Using the engine as a structural element of the chassis was well known and had been used in cars, motorcycles (HRD Vincent for one) and pretty much all WWII aircraft.
Four-valve heads had been around since the Peugeot GP car of 1912 but had fallen out of favour as the failure to understand gas flow and combustion meant that they did not perform much better than a two-valve hemi but were more complex. The four-valve head started its comeback in the early 60s with Honda racing motorcycles and the beginnings of designing the heads for squish. This was further developed by Weslake Engineering for Ford and later turned up in the Gurney/Weslake engines. THEN Keith Duckworth continued that development, his earlier engines were very different, some using Herron combustion chambers. There were many great British racing engine engineers in that era including one of Keith Duckworth's "Heros" Walter Hassan of Coventry Climax. Many of these people cut their teeth in aero engine design during WWII, whereas others such as Harry Weslake were legends in the British motor industry.
Firing order? It may be related to exhaust timing but usually firing orders are optimised to keep the crankshaft vibrational modes under control so that the crankshaft does not break.
Don't get me wrong, the engine was a great design but it was not doing anything new or innovative and THAT is one of the major reasons it was successful, it was just well-engineered. Unusual but not innovative was the BRM H16, and we know how that ended. There had been H engines before, most notably in aero engines with two prominent examples being the Napier Sabre and the Rolls-Royce Eagle 22, both of these were H24s using sleeve valves (most important for building a compact H engine!!!). The BRM H16 was designed by Tony Rudd who had come to BRM from (cough, splutter) Rolls-Royce.
just a small correction, scott meant 1982, not 1972 when turbo engines really took over
It was Cosworth who designed and produced the DFV. Ford "only" funded the development.
One of the peak highlights of British engineering design.
Ford didn't design the engine. They paid for Cosworth to design it
I was once at a vintage race event where the featured group was vintage Formula 1 and there were over a dozen DFV's all warming up in the same corner of the paddock. I will never forget that sound. I've often wondered if some nutter somewhere runs one on the street. Anyone know such a nutter?
5:06
i like how the rev gauge lags a bit behind
Ford deserves a lot of credit for pushing the boundaries of racing in the '60s, and for partnering with Cosworth. I would like to see them back in racing, as Cadillac seems to be doing. I'd love to see an Andretti Ford F1 team.
Cadillac will NEVER make an F1 engine.
Except for the DFV, all Ford F1 badged engines were flops or mediocre.
best engine ever
Just as I saw you uploaded this video, I just finished listening to and watching some F1 legends from 1966-1985 at the Spa Sound of History classics event.
What a coincidence!
These engines are enormously loud, but fun to listen to.
The turbo didn't take over F1 by 1972. The very first driver championship was won in 1983. (8:45)
Not only did the turbo not take over by 1972, it wasn't even until '77 with Renault's RS01 that a turbo even appeared. There's a good quote in a book I have (I think it's Doug Nye's 'History of the Grand Prix car 1966-85) mentioning a speed trap at the end of one of the straights on some circuit or other - suddenly a speed tens of miles an hour faster than anyone else showed up - the turbos had arrived... but it took them until 83 to win a championship, but of course that was also the year of the final DFV F1 win with Michele Alboreto.
@@thosdot6497 This video is littered with error, not to mention the click bait title. In addition, his conversion of English pounds to dollars is totally off, in 66/67 the rate $2.80/pound or $280,000 or $2,581,600 in 2023 $.
Is that cosworth available to purchase or are there any similar engines that can be bought today?
No Cosworth has not built F1 engines in a while. Maybe Judd engines could be close.
Serch for Mecachrome, AER.
You can buy old ones. Just gotta write a big enough check.
I’d say about the closest for modern engines are the ones based on motorcycle engines. They make some that are about 3L and 4-500hp.
the hayabusa v8 is probably the closest thing to a DFV that you can buy today
So I didn't see any comments mentioning it, but I thinkyou missed the technology that gave the engine it's tech. (This is from Kevin Camerons 'Classic Motorcycle Race engines')
You mentioned the engine had 4 valves per cylinder, and this allowed air to enter and exit the cylinder, there by allowing higher revs. However you missed a step here.
All that air and gas mixture has to burn. It's the burn time that was the limiting factor of the engine, not the valves. (The valves were a limiting factor but that comes up later)
See the way two valves engines would work, would be to have the intake valve set to one side of the cylinder. When the intake-charge was pulled In, it would swirl around the cylinder like liquide does in a blender. This swirling would allow faster combustion.
However at higher rpm, the valve size goes up to get increases flow. This makes for heavier valves and a slower valve train.
You can get around this by using 4 valves, but now you have valves off set to either side. As the air-charge mixture comes rushing in, the two paths cancel each other out. Killing all the swirl.
The cosworth genius was to think "instead of a swirl that spins like a blender, what if we make the valve angle really steep, and get a swirl like a front loading washing machine?
This created a combination of higher flow, and more efficient combustion. About 10% more efficient, which is what the lap times tended to reflect.
Casworths design didn't get figured out until the 80's. (Ducati had to discover it independently) other engines designers tried to copy the Cosworth design, but because they didn't know what they were shooting for (a horizontal curl) they couldn't replicate their success.
All the other factors you listed were new to me, so thanks for sharing. I appreciate the vid.
lotus cortina (Lookalike?)with a cosworth.?
Now that would be a class combination 👍
60s and 70 ford was top of its game world wide and across the board
What about the DFX, and how it helped develop the Sierra Cosworth?
Sir Jack Brabham, the only WDC to win the WDC in a car he designed and helped build himself. Greatest WDC ever, no one else has done that!
@@robbiddlecombe8392 Sir Jack was an Engineer. He designed the Repco Brabham car in which he won 2 WDC. Not the engine. Of course others had input, but the large part was Sir Jack.
@@robbiddlecombe8392 which Lotus did Chapman NOT design? He designed the 49 in this article. But not the Indy winners. Len Terry.
The 4 valves confiig wasn't the most significant element. The included valve angle and the port angle were set up to make barrel turbulence or tumble. This mixture motion allows efficient combustion at higher revs without the added friction and complexity of an increased number of cylinders. It took the others a long time to figure this out. Now almost every production engine has this type of combustion chamber. The Coventry Climax 1.5 liter engine tried a 4v head but wasn't successful due to its large included angle. It needed 50 degrees of ignition advance to make the same power as the 2V version.
You forgot something the DFV was an exclusive engine devloped to be used only by Lotus , it was Colin Chapmans who said that he could kill the sport if he kept Ford and Cosworth to their contract with Lotus . So he allowed Ford / Coswoth to sell this engine to anyone who wanted to buy it and unliked today everyone got the same engine .all you needed was a talented designer and you could in theory win races or the championship. Other spin off's from the Cosworth DFV project were the four pot 16 V BDA engine used to great effects in the Mk 1 and Mk 2 Escorts the whole Ford / Cosworth deal led to a string of race and road cars from Ford Europe. The DFV would find its way into LM Prototypes in different forms this still has to be one of the greatest engine's built
My Caterham7 is equipped with a Cosworth engine from that time.
I take pride in that! 💫🏁
Shout out for the Grand Prix Legends thumbnail
I thought Duckworth was one of the founders, with Cosman - hence Cosworth (or Duckman, lol)
Keith Duckworth and Mike Costin. Mike Costin's brother Frank was an aerodynamicist who designed bodies for Lotus, Lister and Vanwall and is also the Cos part of Marcos (Jem Marsh being the Mar part).
@@grahambell4298 Didn't know that about the other brands working with Duckworth, always interesting to learn that. The question was rhetorical for me, I only mentioned it because the video said something about Duckworth working for Cosworth rather than being a founder.
I saw Clark race his Lotus Ford in Trenton making those Offys look like they were out for a leisurely Sunday drive.
Thanks mate, top video! Can you please do one on a fello Aussie. Brabham?
I wonder if adrian newey analyzed this engine and the car built around it to inspire more of his design specialties.
Newey's first motorsport job was with Fittipaldi F1, which used DFVs and had a ground-effect chassis, then with March the following year, also DFV/ground-effects. He didn't need to analyse it - he lived it!
I think its inaccurate to say Ford designed the DFV. Cosworth (Duckworth and Costin) designed the engine, and then built it at their own plant in Northampton. Ford did finance and sponsor the development (via Lotus and Colin Chapman), but as far as I can tell had no say in the design.
Click bait title. Also, His conversion of English pounds to dollars is totally off, in 66/67 the rate was $2.80/pound or $280,000 or $2,581,600 in 2023 $.
Loved BRM too!
The Cosworth looks like it took many features of the Ford GAA. All gear cam drive,double over head cams , and four valves per cylinder.
8:25:"When the turbo engines took over in 1972..." I believe you meant 1982. There were no turbo engines in F1 during the 1970's.
Didn't Renault run a turbo in the mid to late 70s.
A cosworth engine that ford funded
Legendary. There are no other words.
I6, load bearing, 24 valves, 1 small snail and a pipe towards the heavens. Orgel fertig Chef.
Such a great explanation. I'd always heard about this engine, but as it was before my time, I never looked into why. Thanks for this great video.
8:20.. when the turbo engine took over in 1972. The year is wrong.
The Lotus Jim Clark drove in the 60's was and still is the prettiest race car ever!
I'm partial to Gurney's Eagle. But they both are fantastic.
Seems like they laid the foundations
for all modern day formula one, and
Indy car racing.
While iterations of their original engine
design are still utilized, and incorporated.
On Hoonigan you can watch them put a Honda Indy car engine in a Ridgeline.
In the end, that Honda engine looks just like the Ford featured in this wonderful video.
Great video, thank you so much. You make a verbal mistake @7:10 saying that Ferrari and Alfa were using "flat vee twelves."
It should be mentioned that Cosworths 300ci DOHC V8 wasn’t thought up & designed out of thin air or Duckwoths head… See: Harry A. Miller’s 308ci DOHC V8 in the FWD (Four Wheel Drive) Indy Race cars of 1932. Millers DOHC - 4-valve per cylinder Flat-Plane Crankshaft designed engines (4, 8, & 16 cyl) planted the Race Winning seed in many engine designers heads for decades and still today. (…and yes, Harry’s idea came from Peugeot around 1917!)
"it loved to blow up" is like me
Narrower inclused valve angle lead to better combustion , airflow isn't everything if you cant burn it effeciciently
British and American high performance collaboration. The Merlin engine equipped Mustang fighter and Ford/Cosworth engine F1/Indy cars.
We need a formula x with much more freedom to allow experimentation. Unlikely to happen, but one can dream.
Won't happen because privateers would be priced out. Already happened with Can-Am.
There is simply no balance of performance between rich and poor teams.
That's what formula one was starting to turn into, but it made it extremely expensive and basically meant that the teams with the most money would almost always win.
I'd prefer a system where you have to build your car to certain specs like peak down force and engine power, with the teams determining to to get there.
@@holy3979 That's called a spec championship, which you'll find in IndyCar and NASCAR.
And F1 is also trying to combat it with development credits - not that I can say it was an effective strategy.
Kick the fires n light the tires!
💪😎👍
Imagine that - an engine that sounds fantastic.
The RB7 driven by Liam Lawson at Bathurst last year sounded incredible.
The Cosworth was NOT a high revving engine compared to it's competition, in fact it was run dangerously close to it's mechanical limit just to keep up. Miss one shift and it was a matter of WHEN, not if it was going to drop a valve. What made it legendary was the sheer number of teams that used it every season, through the 70's and early 80's half the grid was powered by the Ford and it won every race of the season on two occasions. The fact is from the mid 70's the flat Ferrari T cars had the superior package, ground effects and the unreliability of the early turbos benefited the DFV's winning persentage greatly. A side note is in the late 60's Toyota built a 3 L V8 engine (based on the DFV) for sports car racing, it made up to 40 HP more due to a more modern design, Cosworth never had the deep pockets it needed to keep the engine close to the cutting edge, it spent most of it's life being just good enough to get the job done at a reasonable price. Later in it's life people like John Judd tickle 20 or so extra HP (and 300 more revs) but the engine was still rooted in 1960's design and architecture.
I never understand how it works in rainy days when the air intake was pointing upwards
7:04 you actually said, "flat V-12"? WTF!
If anything the turbo hybrid era has shown us, we NEED another Cosworth. It's almost a farce that a team that wins the championship dominantly one year, is nowhere the next, simply because their engine isn't up to snuff and their main rivals won't supply an engine to them. As much as many people would like to see Red Bull's dominance end, in 2026, we could well be in the same situation as we were in between 2014-2016 (or till 2020). It's fair to say that Ferrari, Mercedes and Honda are at least on par in terms of power (and have been for a few years now) and it's Red Bull's engineering team that are making the difference, as they should and not because Honda has a LOT more power (otherwise AlphaTauri would be as far up the grid as Williams was in 2014 and 15).
This is very true - for all the old old guards used to complain about "Garagiste" race teams, who bought in their engines from one place, gearboxes from another, and sometimes even chassis from yet another; it provided a competitition base level that was hard to beat. On occasion, one of the Grande Marques that did it all in house - Ferrari, Matra, later Renault, but mainly Ferrari, would produce an engine or integrated design that could temporarily stun the DFV brigade for a year or two - Lauda and Scheckter with the flat 12s, but the turbos killed off the competition and since then it became a case of 'who could afford the best engine for this season'.
In the 19 year DFV era ('67-85) there were 7 constructor's champions: Lotus (5 times), Brabham, Matra, Tyrell, McLaren (3, two turbocharged), Ferrari (6, two turbocharged), Williams. Of the last 19 years, we've had 5, or 4 if you count Brawn and Mercedes as the same team: Renault (2), Ferrari (2), Brawn, Red Bull (4, then 2 more), and Mercedes nee Brawn (8 on the trot) - it's as bad as the days of the Silver Arrows!
I want one in my fiesta
Down the gears the cosworth sounded rough, but the Ferrari sound the same up and down the gears-
The H16 was 2 flat 8 cylinder engines, not V8 😊😊😊😊😊😊