Simple...it would not have worked. The main reason the DFV worked was that it was a structural part of the car which allowed for simplified and lighter monocoque tubs. All H-16s dropped into engine bays from which the rear suspension was hung. All DFVs bolted to the tub and the rear suspension hung from the engine per Colin Chapman's design. It was revolutionary. AND light.
The H-16 had two crankshafts, upper and lower, geared together at one end. It was said that harmonic vibrations would travel from one crankshaft to the other in such a way that the linking spur gears would soon disintegrate in a catastrophic engine failure. I also heard that the main reason for the H-16 was an economy drive to utilize all those pistons, rods, valves and other leftover bits from the 1.5 V-8. The men behind the BRM story (Raymond Mays, Peter Berthon, et al) were really quite mad, if their biographers are to be believed.
In consulting Anthony Pritchard's Lotus All the Cars, I confirm that the BRM H-16 was a stressed member of the Lotus 43. But Pritchard states the forward monocoque and front suspension were more related to the Lotus 33 then in service than to the Lotus 49 which was still in the design phase.
This my friends is, the 1968 Shelby Turbine Indycar.
Actually, Parnelli Jones lead the race with it for something like 198 laps in 1967 until a minor failure put it out.This my friends is, the 1968 Shelby Turbine Indycar.
I should know this as it's one of my nominations in the Gran Turismo Suggestions thread
View attachment 644099 View attachment 644100
With a reputed 1,325bhp, it was tested by New Zealanders, Bruce McLaren & Denny Hulme but, never actually raced due to increasing restrictions placed on Turbine-engined cars.
