Vitantonio Liuzzi, Toro Rosso, Bahrain, 2006

FIA confirms 1.6-litre engines for 2013

2013 F1 seasonPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Vitantonio Liuzzi, Toro Rosso, Bahrain, 2006
The 2.4-litre engines used since 2006 will be scrapped

The FIA has confirmed a reduction in F1 engine capacity for 2013.

The World Motor Sport Council met today to approve the changes to the engine rules.

F1 teams have been required to use 2.4-litre V8 engines since 2006. There will be replaced by 1.6-litre, four-cylinder units.

The number of engines each driver may use per season will also be reduced.

A statement released by the FIA said:

The WMSC approved the introduction of a new specification engine from 2013, underlining the FIA?s commitment to improving sustainability and addressing the needs of the automotive industry.

Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

The engines will deliver a 35% reduction in fuel consumption and will feature extensive energy management and energy recovery systems, while maintaining current levels of performance.

In 2013, five engines will be permitted per driver, but each year after that the limit will be four.

108 comments on “FIA confirms 1.6-litre engines for 2013”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3
  1. Latest F1 Rule: 3 tyres per race weekend!

  2. Even though it wasnt included in the WMSC statement i can’t imagine a low displacement engine not being a turbocharged one. It will be an interesting combination of high pressure direct injection fuel and high pressure induction. 5 engines going down to 4 i’m not crazy about although low revving they should in theory last longer anyway.

    the whole thing with the revs is elementary as to get an increase in RPM you need more, smaller cylinders. Lower conrod weight and lenght = faster and higher revs.

    And those concerned with the sound, fear not! Just youtube anything from the turbo era and IMO they sound a hell of a lot nicer!

  3. With new engine rules in 2013 I wouldn’t be very surprised if quite a few drivers use more than 5 engines during the season.

    1. And anybody of the title contenders having an engine failure at any point of the season is most likely to be out of the championshiop, since the penalty of losing one engine is very high.

      I must admit i’m anything but optimistic about published changes.

      1. Hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right. Each engine will account for MUCH more of the season percentage-wise, so reliability will be paramount.

  4. The 500 BAR is the pressure of the fuel injectors—not the turbos.

  5. I don’t like any limitation in F1,…every limitation regarding engine numbers, engine rpm, horse-power, engine volume,…is retarded.
    This is F1, and its not supposed to be a cheep sport. I don’t want to “go green”, I want to see real racing.
    1,5 l engine is for F3 cars, they are ridiculing F1.
    In 10 years we are going to have 1 l engines and other stupid limitations.
    The Moto GP will have a bigger engine than F1 in a couple of years,..
    If they worry about the environment let them use special exhausts that lower the CO2 emission,..

  6. I don’t understand the bad rap the new regulations are getting. Sure, we’re going from 2.4-litre V8s to four-cylinder 1.6-litre units, and reves have effectively been halved from what they currently are – but they’ll still be producing the same power poutput as the current generation of engines. Does no-one else find that impressive? I mean, isn’t this what Formula 1 is all about: cutting-edge technology rather than simply bolting on a few extra cylinders?

    Horsepower isn’t the only way to improve a car’s speed. A smaller engine is a lighter engine, so the car’s power-to-weight ratio will change. Likewise, it will be easier to optimise weight balance and centre of gravity because even if the cars need balast to achieve minimum weight, the teams will be able to place that ballast more effectively. And then there’s regenerative power devices like KERS and talk of ground effects coming back for 2013. If anything, the 2013 cars will be faster than the current ones.

    1. I totally agree with you PM.
      I find this step quite impressive too. I can’t wait to see the lap times with this engines !
      Roll on 2013, all of that sounds pretty exciting !

    2. Ok so what you’re saying is that you would allow an 500cc engine in an F1 car in 2015, in, lets say, 10 years an 100cc engine,..and later an electric engine?! And much later a solar charged battery engine?
      I like classic V8 and V10 engines,..they can make them to have less CO2 emission and to spend much less fuel that is no problem I guess..

      1. And you are making me choose between a Mini (1.6l F1 car) and an Aston Martin (3.0l F1 car),…
        Just imagine getting into a F1 car and you feel the engine ripping your spine,..and an engine that sounds like a Toyota Prius,..

    3. Jarred Walmsley
      11th December 2010, 7:02

      Very true, I don’t mind the new regs as long as they allow any cylinder configuration, but I do think that maybe 2.0L V6’s would have been a good first step then to the 1.6L 4 cylinders, just to slowly get us used to them, but I think the loophole in the new regs that allows for any configuration could see some exciting new engines, as we could have traditional V4’s, straight fours and if VW group enter flat-4’s. It could make it very exciting,as the different config could allow for better weight distribution etc..

      1. Will the power-to-weight ratio really change? I assume the minimum weight of the cars will still be around what it is today.

        Btw has there been any word on the orientation of the cylinders? It should be interesting to see a grid of flat-4s, straight-4s and V4s!

    4. Exactly. We are getting more agile cars, so that is really something to look forward to.

  7. I can easily say that the 2013 cars will be significantly faster than this years cars.

    If you want sound go to a symphony.

  8. Not convinced personally. Making Formula 1 more ‘relevant’ and ‘green’ is a ridiculous notion; how can an engine designed for the mileage of five races be anything to do with the cars we drive year in, year out? Formula 1 is supposed to be beyond all that.

    I hope the full regs will allow at least some flexibility in bore/stroke and cylinder configuration. They will sound rubbish though.


    What’s everyone think of ’13 F1 engine regs? 1600cc Turbo & KERS electric motor together producing over 700bhp – same speeds 35% less fuel!!

    Sounds like Cosworth are excited!

  10. I’m a simple chap, but I think this announcement has the terrible reek of greenwash. Let me explain:

    In road cars, smaller but turbocharged engines are ideal. My girlfriend’s car is a 1.4 155bhp turbo. When tootling along it uses not very much fuel, and when you put your foot down, it has the power you want.

    But in F1, you have your foot to the floor [i]all the time[/i].

    The power output of an engine is directly related to how much fuel-and air mixture you are burning at any given time. So a 4 litre normally aspirated engine at wide-open throttle produces the same power as a 1-litre one at wide-open throttle with a turbo (and fuelling) that means there is four times the concentration of fuel/air mixture in the cylinder (i.e the same amount as would have been in the MA 4-litre).

    So in F1 the economy in terms of miles per gallon won’t actually be any better than any other engine of XXXbhp!

  11. CarsVsChildren
    11th December 2010, 0:11

    @LewisC you might very well be right, however I guess the green credentials f1 are hoping to gain actually come from the use of hybrid Kers systems.

    The 1.6 l engine helps on two levels. Firstly it is likely to be lighter and smaller helping with weight distribution.

    Secondly it will provide manufacturers with a justifiable reason to go f1 racing. The majority of the worlds car makers make a 1.5-1.8l engine. It gives those with an f1 engine a huge marketing edge to be able to use the “with f1 technology” marketing tagline.

    Finally it is true that racing improves the breed. I would love to be able to purchase a RELIABLE 1.6l lightweight turbo powered sports car with 250bhp that does 5.5l/100km. F1 engine makers will be able to use what they learn in terms of reliability and fuel conservation on their road cars. F1 development of carbon fibre is far far in advance of any other use of the material. Including military, I see no reason this will be any different for engines. This is great for the environment, drivers and f1.

  12. F1 is officially finished, each year the cars get slower, uglier and sound worse

    they might as well give the drivers go-karts to drive, they’re pretty fuel efficient and low on emmisions

    soon everyone will be watchin GP2

  13. i just wanted to voice out my personal longing to see F1 uses 3.6L V12 engines, or, if it must use twin-turbos then 1.8L V6 twinturbos with abundant torque and let the power exceed 1000bhp without traction control. interesting to see the drivers try to tame the cars…

    well just saying…

  14. I for one am really excited by this! As much as F1 is a competition of speed it’s also a measure of engineering, teamwork and getting the absolute most in the face of both mechanical and aerodynamic limitations. The FIA aren’t silly enough to purposefully reduce the spectacle…you don’t operate one of the most lucrative sports in the world by imposing limitations to the detriment of the pinnacle of motorsport. They know what they’re doing.

  15. Although i am a hard liner when it comes to F1 being a free for all unrestricted open wheel racing series… i have to accept the reality of things.

    the 1.6 Turbocharged I4 is the best solution. but why the rev limit? if anything is cool about F1 is the fact that they rev the engines so much they practically have their own gravity field…and 12,000rpm? will they be allowing a rotary solution if someone comes up with it? the possibilities are endless but they will surely come to nothing as Fota would have sat down and tied all the loose ends.

  16. CarsVsChildren
    12th December 2010, 8:24

    @damonsmedley: you are a glass half empty kinda guy aren’t you.

    Same power as now, more innovation possible, and the chance for more manufacturers, and the sheep will think it’s green and get off f1s back.

    Sounds good to me.

  17. This “green” engine spec is not meaningful. The cars shouldn’t be “green” F1 should be carbon neutral. Formula One should build Solar and/or Wind power at the tracks. Most tracks arent used 90% of the year. Huge open spaces with just grass or sand. If just Bahrain, Abu Dabi and Spanish GP had solar arrays they would generate enough energy to more than make up for carbon output for every race weekend.
    We must accept some engine changes so manufacturers see a technical benefit from racing. Since all auto companies are turning to turbos for emissions its reasonable. KERS as many teams said really has no technology transfer because daily driving just to slow to generate meaningful power. The rev limit reduction is just plain wrong. The high revs have become a signature for F1. The sound as well as the staggering differential to road cars enhances F1 technical prowess. A sport bike motorcycle that almost anyone can afford makes 10,000 to 12,000 rpm. It is such a devaluation of the sport. Do we want F1 drivers in 2013 saying the cars are slow for them? We want drivers to be on the limit not sunday drive compfortable

  18. These rules will do one thing and one thing only for me. Remove my attention from the Sport. I have watched F1 since i was 6 years old. I have always loved the sound of the engines. But thats going to change. They have totally lost the concept of the sport.

    HUGE powerfull engines in cars that cannot handle it. I spoke to a pro race driver, he thinks this is a really great change for F1. I have spoken to my friends that watch F1. They are almost sure they wont care for the sport anymore. They watch for the sound.

    Now i watch for the sound, and the racing, but the sound plays a damn big role, i didnt buy a surround system to listen to a 4 cylinder F1. 4cylinder belong on Bikes, and they should rev at insanely high revs, like moto GP.

    In my point of view, from the spectators point of view, FIA have found their gun, pointed it down, and said hey, why not, feels great to shoot myself in the foot.

    This year was by far the best year of F1 i have seen in many many many years. I shall sit back and really enjoy the next to years of F1, from there on, i think i’ll go invent a new sport, maybe i should call it Ultra Formula. If you cant afford the it, get out. We wont change the rules and cap you budgets ever season. :P

    Oh well, was great to have F1 for this time being. Farewell..

  19. formula one is supposed to be about the best drivers and the fast cars on the plant i disagree with any regulations that prevent this from being the case unless it makes formula one unsafe. It was bad enough to stop things like turbos, v10 engines and other aerodynamic triumphs but this four cylinder engine rule is a step too far the pursuit of speed has suffered enough! also as far as I’m concerned formula shouldn’t give a damn about being “green” it should only be about speed, competition and racing!
    Think about how f1 legends would feel e.g. Aytron senna etc who were all about speed.

  20. First off… we are talking about 24 cars. What impact will that make on the rest of the world’s consumption? Zero.

    So what’s the point? I wonder what these things are going to sound like? A weed whipper?

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.