Grand Prix Rejects

The Toyotas were pretty crap when in the back of the Williams a couple of years back weren't they? Well down on power compared to the rest of the grid.

I'd agree with the Meccachrome/Playlife/Supertec rebadged Renaults though. They were pretty awful...

The 2000 spec Peugeot V-10 in the Prost.

Was woefully down on power, and had woeful reliability.

Same as the Yamaha.

1991 First season. No comment
1992: Troublesome in the Jordan, heavy, un-reliable, no power
1993: Same problems now at Tyrrell
1994: Great season. Their big chance
1995: More problems
1996: Much More problems
1997: Reliability improved, but down on power

David AGS wrote:The 2000 spec Peugeot V-10 in the Prost.

Was woefully down on power, and had woeful reliability.

Same as the Yamaha.

1991 First season. No comment
1992: Troublesome in the Jordan, heavy, un-reliable, no power
1993: Same problems now at Tyrrell
1994: Great season. Their big chance
1995: More problems
1996: Much More problems
1997: Reliability improved, but down on power

And don´t forget the 1989 prologue at the back of Zakspeed...

*cough* H16 *cough*

oh! oh! Turbine!

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=109

Well done Jeroen, I was just about to link to that post.

AndreaModa wrote:The Toyotas were pretty crap when in the back of the Williams a couple of years back weren't they? Well down on power compared to the rest of the grid.

I'd agree with the Meccachrome/Playlife/Supertec rebadged Renaults though. They were pretty awful...

Yet Arrows had a very decent 2000 with Supertec engines... then switching to Peug... excuse me, Asiatech engines!

AndreaModa wrote:The Toyotas were pretty crap when in the back of the Williams a couple of years back weren't they? Well down on power compared to the rest of the grid.

I'd agree with the Meccachrome/Playlife/Supertec rebadged Renaults though. They were pretty awful...

They propelled Williams, Benetton, BAR and Arrows to the upper half of the field. Can't find that rejectful.

Ferrim wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:The Toyotas were pretty crap when in the back of the Williams a couple of years back weren't they? Well down on power compared to the rest of the grid.

I'd agree with the Meccachrome/Playlife/Supertec rebadged Renaults though. They were pretty awful...

They propelled Williams, Benetton, BAR and Arrows to the upper half of the field. Can't find that rejectful.

Well they certainly didn't propel BAR to the upper half of the midfield! They were stone dead motherless last with Supertec engines in 1999 before they switched to Honda units in 2000.

The reason I mentioned them was not only because of BAR, but also the fact that both Williams and Benetton fell away from the front of the field having been right up there with almost equivalent factory Renault units only a year or two earlier. That decline was only properly reversed for both teams when BMW moved in with Williams in 2000 and likewise Renault took over Benetton in 2001/02.

the engine of the car on my avatar

This wrote:the engine of the car on my avatar

Which is ... ??

Vepe wrote:

This wrote:the engine of the car on my avatar

Which is ... ??

The BRM V12, whose first rendition was introduced in 1967...(the car in his avatar is the BRM P207, the last F1 BRM, driven to a DNQ by Teddy Pilette at the 1977 German GP).

Phoenix wrote:

Vepe wrote:

This wrote:the engine of the car on my avatar

Which is ... ??

The BRM V12, whose first rendition was introduced in 1967...(the car in his avatar is the BRM P207, the last F1 BRM, driven to a DNQ by Teddy Pilette at the 1977 German GP).

Would you include the Matra V12 alongside that? After all, it was essentially the same as the sports car V12 engine, and Matra and BRM had originally collaborated on the design of the Matra V12 until French nationalism reared its ugly head - the French government threatened to strip Matra of funding unless they worked with a French company (though the final engine was still quite similar in design to BRM's engine).

Faustus wrote:

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote: (Link to old thread)

Well done Jeroen, I was just about to link to that post.

And looking through that earlier thread (as there are quite a few good posts in there, especially from you Faustus), reminded me of the Alfa Romeo V8 turbo engine; high fuel consumption in a strict fuel restricted era, unreliable and underpowered to boot made for a poor combination. And to add insult to injury, Mahle was passing on information about Alfa's piston design to the TAG-Porsche consortium.

[Edited because the link to the old thread is no longer necessary, now Phoenix has merged the two threads]

Irisado wrote:As for the Asiatech engine which was mentioned, it was much more reliable than the old Peugeot engine it was based on, so I would argue it was actually superior to the 2000 Peugeot engine, and not really a reject engine. In addition, Minardi did alright with the engine in 2002, and even the performance of Arrows with the 2001 engine, was far from disgraceful; indeed the old Yamaha/Hart engine that Arrows used in 1998 and 1999 was, arguably, much worse in my view.

The Hart (Arrows) V8 from 1995 and 1996 really wasn't that bad. In light of the rule changes for 1995 and the way that the championship was going in terms of tracks, it made sense to try a V8 engine with its inherent good torque characteristics. Remember all the slow tracks in the championship in 95 and 96 and at the time it looked like new tracks were going that way. A decent V8 engine wouldn't be short on torque and the better fuel consumption over the V10 and V12 made an interesting proposition. Unfortunately Brian Hart never got a reasonable amount of money to be able to invest in the development of the engine.

Faustus wrote:
The Hart (Arrows) V8 from 1995 and 1996 really wasn't that bad. In light of the rule changes for 1995 and the way that the championship was going in terms of tracks, it made sense to try a V8 engine with its inherent good torque characteristics. Remember all the slow tracks in the championship in 95 and 96 and at the time it looked like new tracks were going that way.

Its interesting you have brought that up, because I remember that Tyrell did a study of all the corners on every GP track for the 1996 calendar. Their study showed that the average corner speed for 1996 was around 75 mph (2nd gear). Therefore they designed their 1996 car to be most suited to this kind of corner. Incidentially they seem to perform well at circuits which mainly consisted of medium to slow speed circuits (i.e. Melborne, Imola, Monaco, etc). I though it was quite clever thinking from them, & reckoned if they only had a decent engine that year, they could have gone on to embrass a few top teams.

Debaser wrote:A reject engine is the 1994 Peugeot engine. When bored today I read parts of Martin Brundle's book, and he talks a bit about Peugeot in 1994. The engine was underpowered, had big problems containing oil and water, and had a habit of shedding its flywheel. A couple of times the flywheel came off, went through the workings of the unit and set fire to the oil (the flywheel flying off caused the faliure at Interlagos and that massive accident that nearly killed Brundle and Verstappen). To top it off Peugeot blamed Martin for the Silverstone debacle when the engine caught fire on the grid and it was Peugeot's fault, and tried to get Alliot the 2nd seat ahead of Brundle.

I read somewhere that, part of the reason the 1994 Peugeot engine was a failure, was because there was a lack of leadership at the top level, in the wake of Jean Todt leaving them. Apparently Jean Todt, left Peugeot because of a disagreement. Basically he wanted them to enter into F1 with their own car & develop a completely new engine, solely designed for F1. Whereas the Peugeot board just wanted to re-use the engine that powered the Lemans winning car (905 car was it in 1992?). After this I believe it was Jean Pierre Jabouille who took over the reins, but being a former F1 driver, he had little experience of managing an F1 engine project. Hence the inital problems.

It seems such a shame that Peugoet never suceeded in F1, because for me, they have produced some of the best racing cars ever (the 205 & 206 rally car, the Paris to Dakar rally car in 1989 & the 905 & 908 Le Mans cars). I think it was a fatal mistake to leave Jordan at the end of 1997 (when they were widely acknowledge to have one of the most powerful engines at the time) & join forces with the French Prost team. If they hadn't been so patriotic at this time, I honestly believe they would have gone onto greater things than they did in reality. Shame.

ibsey wrote:

Faustus wrote:
The Hart (Arrows) V8 from 1995 and 1996 really wasn't that bad. In light of the rule changes for 1995 and the way that the championship was going in terms of tracks, it made sense to try a V8 engine with its inherent good torque characteristics. Remember all the slow tracks in the championship in 95 and 96 and at the time it looked like new tracks were going that way.

Its interesting you have brought that up, because I remember that Tyrell did a study of all the corners on every GP track for the 1996 calendar. Their study showed that the average corner speed for 1996 was around 75 mph (2nd gear). Therefore they designed their 1996 car to be most suited to this kind of corner. Incidentially they seem to perform well at circuits which mainly consisted of medium to slow speed circuits (i.e. Melborne, Imola, Monaco, etc). I though it was quite clever thinking from them, & reckoned if they only had a decent engine that year, they could have gone on to embrass a few top teams.

I remember this. The thinking behind it is spot-on and it's a perfect example of an under-funded team trying to overcome their deficencies, playing to their strengths and trying to think laterally. Tyrrell scored points on three occasions, twice on medium to slow speed circuits, even though one of them was Monaco with Salo's insane non-stop run in the wet. The qualifying performances in the medium to slow speed circuits certainly validate this, with Salo 10th in Australia and 11th in Monaco and Katayama 13th in Argentina.
The Yamaha engine was a nice package, light and small, but by 1996 there hadn't been much development on the engine since the good performances of 1994.

Faustus wrote:

ibsey wrote:

Faustus wrote:
The Hart (Arrows) V8 from 1995 and 1996 really wasn't that bad. In light of the rule changes for 1995 and the way that the championship was going in terms of tracks, it made sense to try a V8 engine with its inherent good torque characteristics. Remember all the slow tracks in the championship in 95 and 96 and at the time it looked like new tracks were going that way.

Its interesting you have brought that up, because I remember that Tyrell did a study of all the corners on every GP track for the 1996 calendar. Their study showed that the average corner speed for 1996 was around 75 mph (2nd gear). Therefore they designed their 1996 car to be most suited to this kind of corner. Incidentially they seem to perform well at circuits which mainly consisted of medium to slow speed circuits (i.e. Melborne, Imola, Monaco, etc). I though it was quite clever thinking from them, & reckoned if they only had a decent engine that year, they could have gone on to embrass a few top teams.

I remember this. The thinking behind it is spot-on and it's a perfect example of an under-funded team trying to overcome their deficencies, playing to their strengths and trying to think laterally. Tyrrell scored points on three occasions, twice on medium to slow speed circuits, even though one of them was Monaco with Salo's insane non-stop run in the wet. The qualifying performances in the medium to slow speed circuits certainly validate this, with Salo 10 in Australia and 11th in Monaco and Katayam 13th in Argentina.
The Yamaha engine was a nice package, light and small, but by 1996 there hadn't been much development on the engine since the good performances of 1994.

I too remember reading this at the time! Shame it didn't work out better... (for the reasons given above!)

EDIT: I've merged both topics.

Faustus wrote:Tyrrell scored points on three occasions, twice on medium to slow speed circuits, even though one of them was Monaco with Salo's insane non-stop run in the wet. The qualifying performances in the medium to slow speed circuits certainly validate this, with Salo 10 in Australia and 11th in Monaco and Katayam 13th in Argentina.
The Yamaha engine was a nice package, light and small, but by 1996 there hadn't been much development on the engine since the good performances of 1994.

Yes, I recall Salo running as high as 4th in the San Marino GP (ahead of Berger in the Benetton who eventually got a podium position). Although this was partly due to the 1st lap accidents it has to be said. Funny thing is when his engine did let go in that race, it dumped all its oil & water. Therefore this left the car under the minimum weight limit, specified by the FIA & presumably Tyrell got fined for it. So their engine failure was a double wammy for them.

The lack of engine development in 1996 certainly would explain Tyrell's apparent pace drop off towards the end of the year. Shame, since the Yamaha engine looked quite strong in 1994 (Tyrell showed well at 'power' circuits like Canada & Germany). After the 1996 Japanese GP, I believe Ken Tyrell (never a man to mince his words) was overheard saying something like "Good luck to Arrows...they are going to need it with these engines".

ibsey wrote:

Faustus wrote:Tyrrell scored points on three occasions, twice on medium to slow speed circuits, even though one of them was Monaco with Salo's insane non-stop run in the wet. The qualifying performances in the medium to slow speed circuits certainly validate this, with Salo 10 in Australia and 11th in Monaco and Katayam 13th in Argentina.
The Yamaha engine was a nice package, light and small, but by 1996 there hadn't been much development on the engine since the good performances of 1994.

Yes, I recall Salo running as high as 4th in the San Marino GP (ahead of Berger in the Benetton who eventually got a podium position). Although this was partly due to the 1st lap accidents it has to be said. Funny thing is when his engine did let go in that race, it dumped all its oil & water. Therefore this left the car under the minimum weight limit, specified by the FIA & presumably Tyrell got fined for it. So their engine failure was a double wammy for them.

The lack of engine development in 1996 certainly would explain Tyrell's apparent pace drop off towards the end of the year. Shame, since the Yamaha engine looked quite strong in 1994 (Tyrell showed well at 'power' circuits like Canada & Germany). After the 1996 Japanese GP, I believe Ken Tyrell (never a man to mince his words) was overheard saying something like "Good luck to Arrows...they are going to need it with these engines".

He also ran 4th in Belgium before his pitstop, losing the 6th position to Berger.

chrismc_DC2 wrote:

Enforcer wrote:
I'd also like to nominate the Judd CV series purely because when Williams' engines were like this:

Honda (87) - Judd CV (88) - Renault (89)

The corresponding constructor's championship positions looked like this:

1st (87) - 7th (88) - 2nd (89)

I think the Judds' biggest problem was the fact it was effectively a customer unit & John Judd didn't have manufacturer backing to develop it further....

In 1988 the Judds were in their infancy as the transition to the 3.5L formula began, & suffered a fair number of blow-ups as a result. Most were overheating related as i recall, especially in the Williams, so much of this could have been down to packaging. Also perhaps as a result of striving for more power to vainly hold onto the Turbo cars. The March was a decent car, & the engine seemed well suited to it towards the tail end of the season. The less said about the Ligier & its twin-fuel tanks the better!

As the 1989 & 1990 seasons unfolded though, the Judd development seemed to slow right down & the engine was left behind by the V10's & V12's. Only the super-slippery March showed the odd bit of form...

The Judd V10 in 1991 I actually thought was half decent in the Dallara....but pretty sure it only powered the hopeless Brabhams in 1992? Were the early Yamaha V10's further developments of the Judd unit i wonder? My memory fails me....

The Judd V8 was an unashamed rip-off of the DFV/DFR. The external dimensions were exactly the same and the pistons in the first couple of versions were interchangeable with the Cosworth, as the dimensions were exactly the same.
By the way, a friend at RML (who modified the Nissan R89 sportscars in 1990) told me that the twin-turbo Nissan V8 used in the World Sportscar Championship in 1989 was also a complete rip-off of the Cosworth, to the extent that Nissan Japan had several Cosworths cut-up in different ways to better understand the engine.

Have we mentioned the restricted Cosworth V10 that Toro Rosso ran in 2006?

Faustus wrote:Have we mentioned the restricted Cosworth V10 that Toro Rosso ran in 2006?

Interesting suggestion - although you do suspect that was because the manufacturer teams deliberately made sure that the V10 engine would be sufficiently cripped so as not to prove to be a threat to the new V8's. After all, it would be in their interest, having spend hundreds of millions of dollars on developing the new engines, to make sure that they were not then shown up by a team running an old V10 - especially following the buyout by Red Bull, when it looked like Toro Rosso could potentially have marshalled the resources to produce a much more competitive car than the previous efforts by Minardi under Stoddart.

Obscure suggestion alert - what about the Borgward engines some privateers used in the back of Coopers and Lotuses in the late 50s/early 60s? Anyone knows something else about them?

Phoenix wrote:Obscure suggestion alert - what about the Borgward engines some privateers used in the back of Coopers and Lotuses in the late 50s/early 60s? Anyone knows something else about them?

I seem to recall Borgward engines were pretty good in F2 at the end of the '50s. They had a neat four cylinder 1500cc unit, very advanced design with four valves per cylinder, DOHC, twin spark ignition and, if memory serves me right, direct fuel injection. The engine of choice in the best F2 cars was usually a Coventry-Climax unit but the Borgward was by no mean rubbish. Whatever this engine was a purpose built unit or was derived from the Isabella engine, I don't know.
The same Borgward unit was surely fitted on a very few Lotus 18 run by F1 privateers in 1960/1 but I cannot remember who they were.
With just 150 hp it would have been a very poor match against the Ferrari V6 used on the 156 which was over 180 hp.

The Mountain Man wrote:

Phoenix wrote:Obscure suggestion alert - what about the Borgward engines some privateers used in the back of Coopers and Lotuses in the late 50s/early 60s? Anyone knows something else about them?

I seem to recall Borgward engines were pretty good in F2 at the end of the '50s. They had a neat four cylinder 1500cc unit, very advanced design with four valves per cylinder, DOHC, twin spark ignition and, if memory serves me right, direct fuel injection. The engine of choice in the best F2 cars was usually a Coventry-Climax unit but the Borgward was by no mean rubbish. Whatever this engine was a purpose built unit or was derived from the Isabella engine, I don't know.
The same Borgward unit was surely fitted on a very few Lotus 18 run by F1 privateers in 1960/1 but I cannot remember who they were.
With just 150 hp it would have been a very poor match against the Ferrari V6 used on the 156 which was over 180 hp.

I've found a reference to Kurt Kuhnke, who appears to be the person you're thinking of - he was a German privateer, who used a lightly modified Lotus 18 with a Borgward engine at the 1963 German GP, although he failed to qualify for the race (his time seems to have been 11m 23.5s, which put him last, 16 seconds behind the next slowest driver and 1m 20s behind the slowest qualifier).

That, at the very least, seems to be the only entrant with a Borgward engine in a race that counted towards the WDC - it appears that he prepared another modified Lotus 18 with a Borgward engine for a couple of non championship events in 1963, driven by Ernst Maring. Again, he seems to have little luck with the car; he DNQ'd, along with Kuhnke, in the Rome GP, and retired from the Solitude and Kanonloppet GP's (as did Kuhnke, also suffering from mechanical problems).

Faustus wrote:

Irisado wrote:As for the Asiatech engine which was mentioned, it was much more reliable than the old Peugeot engine it was based on, so I would argue it was actually superior to the 2000 Peugeot engine, and not really a reject engine. In addition, Minardi did alright with the engine in 2002, and even the performance of Arrows with the 2001 engine, was far from disgraceful; indeed the old Yamaha/Hart engine that Arrows used in 1998 and 1999 was, arguably, much worse in my view.

The Hart (Arrows) V8 from 1995 and 1996 really wasn't that bad. In light of the rule changes for 1995 and the way that the championship was going in terms of tracks, it made sense to try a V8 engine with its inherent good torque characteristics. Remember all the slow tracks in the championship in 95 and 96 and at the time it looked like new tracks were going that way. A decent V8 engine wouldn't be short on torque and the better fuel consumption over the V10 and V12 made an interesting proposition. Unfortunately Brian Hart never got a reasonable amount of money to be able to invest in the development of the engine.

My dad is a engineer and when we lived in England he helped build the bits for Hart Engines in the mid ninties until Walkinshaw brought them. Brian Hart was looking for a works backing so that the smaller V8 could get developed more (or a big backer) as being an independent engine always gives you more credit on this forum then works engines. Back to the Hart V8 3.0L it wasnt lacking much horsepower, it was light, quite reliable and cheap to run and maintain. Sadly this was when Ford Honda etc were starting to have a spending race and killed off small engine makers. PURE sounds kind of legit, but sounds like the 2013 rule changes could be deleyed for a year or two.

GroupLotusRenault wrote:

Faustus wrote:

Irisado wrote:As for the Asiatech engine which was mentioned, it was much more reliable than the old Peugeot engine it was based on, so I would argue it was actually superior to the 2000 Peugeot engine, and not really a reject engine. In addition, Minardi did alright with the engine in 2002, and even the performance of Arrows with the 2001 engine, was far from disgraceful; indeed the old Yamaha/Hart engine that Arrows used in 1998 and 1999 was, arguably, much worse in my view.

The Hart (Arrows) V8 from 1995 and 1996 really wasn't that bad. In light of the rule changes for 1995 and the way that the championship was going in terms of tracks, it made sense to try a V8 engine with its inherent good torque characteristics. Remember all the slow tracks in the championship in 95 and 96 and at the time it looked like new tracks were going that way. A decent V8 engine wouldn't be short on torque and the better fuel consumption over the V10 and V12 made an interesting proposition. Unfortunately Brian Hart never got a reasonable amount of money to be able to invest in the development of the engine.

My dad is a engineer and when we lived in England he helped build the bits for Hart Engines in the mid ninties until Walkinshaw brought them. Brian Hart was looking for a works backing so that the smaller V8 could get developed more (or a big backer) as being an independent engine always gives you more credit on this forum then works engines. Back to the Hart V8 3.0L it wasnt lacking much horsepower, it was light, quite reliable and cheap to run and maintain. Sadly this was when Ford Honda etc were starting to have a spending race and killed off small engine makers. PURE sounds kind of legit, but sounds like the 2013 rule changes could be deleyed for a year or two.

Cool! Did your dad keep any bits that he made?

I thought of another one. The Acer V10 aka the re-badged Ferrari V10 that Prost used in 2001. There is no question that the engine was more than competitive, after all Ferrari won the drivers and constructors championships in 2001, but Prost didn't do much with it. Jean Alesi scored 4 points, but I mostly remember Luciano Burti's huge accident in Spa.

mario wrote:

The Mountain Man wrote:

Phoenix wrote:Obscure suggestion alert - what about the Borgward engines some privateers used in the back of Coopers and Lotuses in the late 50s/early 60s? Anyone knows something else about them?

I seem to recall Borgward engines were pretty good in F2 at the end of the '50s. They had a neat four cylinder 1500cc unit, very advanced design with four valves per cylinder, DOHC, twin spark ignition and, if memory serves me right, direct fuel injection. The engine of choice in the best F2 cars was usually a Coventry-Climax unit but the Borgward was by no mean rubbish. Whatever this engine was a purpose built unit or was derived from the Isabella engine, I don't know.
The same Borgward unit was surely fitted on a very few Lotus 18 run by F1 privateers in 1960/1 but I cannot remember who they were.
With just 150 hp it would have been a very poor match against the Ferrari V6 used on the 156 which was over 180 hp.

I've found a reference to Kurt Kuhnke, who appears to be the person you're thinking of - he was a German privateer, who used a lightly modified Lotus 18 with a Borgward engine at the 1963 German GP, although he failed to qualify for the race (his time seems to have been 11m 23.5s, which put him last, 16 seconds behind the next slowest driver and 1m 20s behind the slowest qualifier).

That, at the very least, seems to be the only entrant with a Borgward engine in a race that counted towards the WDC - it appears that he prepared another modified Lotus 18 with a Borgward engine for a couple of non championship events in 1963, driven by Ernst Maring. Again, he seems to have little luck with the car; he DNQ'd, along with Kuhnke, in the Rome GP, and retired from the Solitude and Kanonloppet GP's (as did Kuhnke, also suffering from mechanical problems).

1963 would have been even worse as far as power is concerned since the Coventry Climax V8 was very close to 200 hp. Coupled with the outdated Lotus 18 frame it's no wonder poor Kuhnke came in dead last in qualifying. Induction time anyone?
The 1500 F2 engine actually came from the Borgward RS racing car which enjoyed a certain success in Germany in the '50s. If I remember correctly one of their most successful drivers was the Swede Jo Bonnier who was killed in a tragic accident at the 1972 Le Mans while driving a Lola.

Faustus wrote:I thought of another one. The Acer V10 aka the re-badged Ferrari V10 that Prost used in 2001. There is no question that the engine was more than competitive, after all Ferrari won the drivers and constructors championships in 2001, but Prost didn't do much with it. Jean Alesi scored 4 points, but I mostly remember Luciano Burti's huge accident in Spa.

Wasn't that the 1999 Ferrari V10?

Shizuka wrote:

Faustus wrote:I thought of another one. The Acer V10 aka the re-badged Ferrari V10 that Prost used in 2001. There is no question that the engine was more than competitive, after all Ferrari won the drivers and constructors championships in 2001, but Prost didn't do much with it. Jean Alesi scored 4 points, but I mostly remember Luciano Burti's huge accident in Spa.

Wasn't that the 1999 Ferrari V10?

Yes but Prost re-badged it and didn't do much with it.

Rejetcs engine:

Ferrari V-12.

In its works configuration, was powerful, but heavy, thirsty and often un-reliable. In particular in 1991 to 1993 when the engine was even lacking grunt compared to the other engines, in particular to the Ford/Cosworth's V8, which lacked power, but made up on fuel consumption and weight.

Even more 'rejecful' was the Customer spec V-12 to Minardi, Dallara/Scuderia Italia and Lola. According to Forza Minardi, they were charged 10 million dollars for a 2 year old engine, and were legally bound to only run with Agip fuel, could not run with Marlboro liveries, and had its Pioneer sponsorship taken away.

But back to the engine, the 1991 spec was a 1989 type model, which wasnt updated and designed for the semi-automatic gearbox which Ferrari ran. Only late in 1991 and early 1992 was the engine updated, to 1990 spec.

In recent times, probably the Cosworth CA2010 V8 and the Honda Turbo Hybrid, at least when McLaren were using it (GP2 ENGINE! Lest we forget)

Apologies for the resurrection.