> You could stick a commodity pushrod V8 in there and make 1000hp easy with a bolt on turbo and run the same laptimes.

Here's the issue: the engine manufacturers are also one of the most important financial sponsors of the sport. You'd need to convince Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault to build obsolete engines and put down a big bag of money.

And besides, you won't be able to fit a big V8 engine under the bodywork of a current-gen F1 car with the narrow coke bottle shape at the rear.

The engines are also pretty damn impressive, running at 50%+ thermal efficiency. Ye olde pushrod V8 would run out of fuel at half race distance with current fuel regulations.

It's a fine engine alright, but not even really in the same class.

The engine would have to put out about 7 mpg at 110 mph average speed, with lots of braking and acceleration and top speeds north of 200 mph.

It would need a turbo and significant amount of boost to put out a comparable 850 hp. And not exceed 100kg/hour fuel flow rate.

And it's still about 60kg heavier at about 150kg vs. 210kg.

All of this is kinda a silly comparison, because an LS engine won't fit in an F1 car and afaik can't be used as a stressed structural member.

Is that really true though, when you factor in weight? A 1000hp LS based turbo engine for 150kg?

A bit more than that, but LS motors are light for their power. Full street dress is about 210kg. I’m sure you could shed quite a bit of that right a way (you don’t need things like power steering or an alternator.)

My initial response to that was to snear at the idea of F1 engines with push rods.

But in all honesty, you have to hand it to the old American V8, it is at a hell of a local maxima.

Limiting max rpm might also be one way to reduce F1 engine expense. A naturally aspirated engine with, say, a 10k max rpm limit.