RE: Turbo V6 for next Ferrari 458
Discussion
Sadly not really.
I'm no expert but one of the key elements that I red from an interview with BMW engineers was that one of the keys is to reduce the overall number of cylinders because it is one of the main factors inducing "drag" in the engine, thus reducing efficiency. To put it simple, in a 12 cylinder engine the sum of the contact surface of all pistons with cylinders is far superior than an equivalently sized 6 cyl for example. Add to this the reduced drag on rod/crank due to the reduced number of components and the fact that with modern day technology from turbos you can obtain the same level of optimal cylinder filling throughout the rev range and there is the end of N/A engines served for you.
Do they have the same level of refinement and precision, the same noise and feeling? No, but in the name of environment.....all this even for limited production numbers/limited mileage like in Ferrari case...
Sad day for petrolheads if you ask me....
Enrico
I'm no expert but one of the key elements that I red from an interview with BMW engineers was that one of the keys is to reduce the overall number of cylinders because it is one of the main factors inducing "drag" in the engine, thus reducing efficiency. To put it simple, in a 12 cylinder engine the sum of the contact surface of all pistons with cylinders is far superior than an equivalently sized 6 cyl for example. Add to this the reduced drag on rod/crank due to the reduced number of components and the fact that with modern day technology from turbos you can obtain the same level of optimal cylinder filling throughout the rev range and there is the end of N/A engines served for you.
Do they have the same level of refinement and precision, the same noise and feeling? No, but in the name of environment.....all this even for limited production numbers/limited mileage like in Ferrari case...
Sad day for petrolheads if you ask me....
Enrico
Duffman83 said:
I can understand the need for downsizing etc to comply with eco rules and dont really have an issue with it as such, what i would like to know is how big a part number of cylinders plays v's engine capacity for efficiency
i.e would a 3.0l v8 turbo be more efficient than a 3.5l v6 turbo installed in the same car?
The reason I ask is that for sports cars, super cars etc, the noise and engine smoothness/characteristics are just as important as the power and performance in my opinion.
If we look at BMW for example, they dropped their cracking NA sixes for 2L turbo four pots. Yes the power, performance and efficiency are still there, however the lovely sound has gone as has the smoothness.
It's not as if it cant be done, in the early to mid 90's the Italians were brilliant at this sort of thing. Maserati has a 2.0L twin turbo v6 in the Ghibli cup which made a cracking noise and provided more power than their 2.8 twin turbo v6 they alos had available at the same time. Then we have Bugatti, they had a very small 3.5L v12 with quad turbos in the EB110. It produced 611 bhp, so its not as if you cant get the perfromance.
Utilising todays technology, surely it must be possible to retain a high cylinder count with smaller capacity to beat these emissions and efficiency targets?
The cylinder count is certainly significantly influential on engine efficiency. Obviously the number of pistons you have scraping up & down cylinders and the number of crankshaft big-end journals you have all reduce efficiency. Manufacturers even aim to use the smallest possible bearing diameters to reduce friction, which means you can't always turn the wick up on a standard engine to 800+bhp or so.i.e would a 3.0l v8 turbo be more efficient than a 3.5l v6 turbo installed in the same car?
The reason I ask is that for sports cars, super cars etc, the noise and engine smoothness/characteristics are just as important as the power and performance in my opinion.
If we look at BMW for example, they dropped their cracking NA sixes for 2L turbo four pots. Yes the power, performance and efficiency are still there, however the lovely sound has gone as has the smoothness.
It's not as if it cant be done, in the early to mid 90's the Italians were brilliant at this sort of thing. Maserati has a 2.0L twin turbo v6 in the Ghibli cup which made a cracking noise and provided more power than their 2.8 twin turbo v6 they alos had available at the same time. Then we have Bugatti, they had a very small 3.5L v12 with quad turbos in the EB110. It produced 611 bhp, so its not as if you cant get the perfromance.
Utilising todays technology, surely it must be possible to retain a high cylinder count with smaller capacity to beat these emissions and efficiency targets?
I'll try & get some numbers.
What works against a small cylinder count however, is the engine capacity. A general rule is 500cc/cylinder. As the ignition flame travels at a finite speed, a large capacity cylinder can only rev. at a certain speed before the piston catches the flame up !
This is why we're seeing smaller capacity turbos with fewer cylinders. Seems as though Saab were onto something back then!
Thanks for the responses guys, its something that has been puzzling me for a while.
"What works against a small cylinder count however, is the engine capacity. A general rule is 500cc/cylinder...."
I have heard of the above optimum capacity rule being mentioned before by BMW especially. I know they have been working on their small efficient 3 cylinder engines which is 1.5L. Looking at the current range of engines they have both diesel and petrol seem pretty much to be 2.0 4's, 3.0L 6's, then there is 4.0Lv8 in the m3, 5.0lV10 in the last M5, 6.0LV12 in the 760.
Do you see engines in the future simply becoming derivations of this optimum capacity/cyclinder count and we wont really see any abornimal capacities in engines outside of say Porsche, Ferrari, Aston etc?
"What works against a small cylinder count however, is the engine capacity. A general rule is 500cc/cylinder...."
I have heard of the above optimum capacity rule being mentioned before by BMW especially. I know they have been working on their small efficient 3 cylinder engines which is 1.5L. Looking at the current range of engines they have both diesel and petrol seem pretty much to be 2.0 4's, 3.0L 6's, then there is 4.0Lv8 in the m3, 5.0lV10 in the last M5, 6.0LV12 in the 760.
Do you see engines in the future simply becoming derivations of this optimum capacity/cyclinder count and we wont really see any abornimal capacities in engines outside of say Porsche, Ferrari, Aston etc?
suffolk009 said:
Oh.
What are the Ferrari fan-boys going to use to beat up McLaren with now? They'll have to revert to the old worn-out arguments: Soul vs Science, Red vs Orange, Stockings vs Tights.
Indeed... No doubt they'll modify their argument somehow and bang on about something else. Personally I can't wait for turbo Ferrari's to become reality. I'm not fussed, just that the posts will be intriguing and just as sillyWhat are the Ferrari fan-boys going to use to beat up McLaren with now? They'll have to revert to the old worn-out arguments: Soul vs Science, Red vs Orange, Stockings vs Tights.
ferrari vs mclaren is not an argument it is a difference of opinion therefore no-one is right or wrong.
All the "arguments" come as post choice rationalisations to justfiy that choice as humans don't like being wrong.
I like both but would by the ferrari because I like it more, end of.
If you bought a mclaren you would be as wrong and as right as I was
anyhoo back to topic, as long as the engine screams like they currently do and respond like they currently do I don't really care what the technology is as long as it is a real engine sound that doesn't come through the speakers
All the "arguments" come as post choice rationalisations to justfiy that choice as humans don't like being wrong.
I like both but would by the ferrari because I like it more, end of.
If you bought a mclaren you would be as wrong and as right as I was
anyhoo back to topic, as long as the engine screams like they currently do and respond like they currently do I don't really care what the technology is as long as it is a real engine sound that doesn't come through the speakers
suffolk009 said:
Oh.
What are the Ferrari fan-boys going to use to beat up McLaren with now? They'll have to revert to the old worn-out arguments: Soul vs Science, Red vs Orange, Stockings vs Tights.
Stole the post from my fingertips, man.What are the Ferrari fan-boys going to use to beat up McLaren with now? They'll have to revert to the old worn-out arguments: Soul vs Science, Red vs Orange, Stockings vs Tights.
This whole 'passion/soul' thing is vastly overblown. A romantic aspiration, nothing more.
Also, a turbo'd vee an anathema to Ferrari die-hards? GTO? F40?
</troll mode>
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Cars are like architecture. For as much as you try and objectively decide a is better than b according to various metrics, the reality is always going to end up as subjective opinion. We all want different things. We are humans, not robots. Cars are hugely complex and an ostensibly rational set of rules cannot apply, no matter how long the list. Even McLaren know that.The F40, widely reagrded by people lucky enough to have driven plenty of Ferraris as being one of the best drivers Ferraris, was Turbo charged so it's not a skyfalling in moment. The last V12 rolling out of the factory will be a very sad day though.
With ever tightening emission regs it's enevitable. The regulations are geared towards turbocharged engines that can run off boost for most of the test, so that's manufacturers, even Ferrari, have to go with to keep their new cars road legal. Still better than going the hybrid route with the attendant weight gain, at least if anything the turbo V6 should be lighter the the V8.
With ever tightening emission regs it's enevitable. The regulations are geared towards turbocharged engines that can run off boost for most of the test, so that's manufacturers, even Ferrari, have to go with to keep their new cars road legal. Still better than going the hybrid route with the attendant weight gain, at least if anything the turbo V6 should be lighter the the V8.
Behemoth said:
Cars are like architecture. For as much as you try and objectively decide a is better than b according to various metrics, the reality is always going to end up as subjective opinion. We all want different things. We are humans, not robots. Cars are hugely complex and an ostensibly rational set of rules cannot apply, no matter how long the list. Even McLaren know that.
+1.It's just a shame I like NA engines, manual gearboxes and RWD because "progress"
is seeing these things disappear at an increasing rate. I could own a car with AWD and a paddleshift as a daily, but I'd have to have the former tucked away for weekend blasts etc. - Generally speaking for me, turbos, paddles and AWD can't replace the feel and connection I feel with a NA manual RWD car, though the best turbo engines at least manage not to dull the experience.LewisR said:
Duffman83 said:
I can understand the need for downsizing etc to comply with eco rules and dont really have an issue with it as such, what i would like to know is how big a part number of cylinders plays v's engine capacity for efficiency
i.e would a 3.0l v8 turbo be more efficient than a 3.5l v6 turbo installed in the same car?
The reason I ask is that for sports cars, super cars etc, the noise and engine smoothness/characteristics are just as important as the power and performance in my opinion.
If we look at BMW for example, they dropped their cracking NA sixes for 2L turbo four pots. Yes the power, performance and efficiency are still there, however the lovely sound has gone as has the smoothness.
It's not as if it cant be done, in the early to mid 90's the Italians were brilliant at this sort of thing. Maserati has a 2.0L twin turbo v6 in the Ghibli cup which made a cracking noise and provided more power than their 2.8 twin turbo v6 they alos had available at the same time. Then we have Bugatti, they had a very small 3.5L v12 with quad turbos in the EB110. It produced 611 bhp, so its not as if you cant get the perfromance.
Utilising todays technology, surely it must be possible to retain a high cylinder count with smaller capacity to beat these emissions and efficiency targets?
The cylinder count is certainly significantly influential on engine efficiency. Obviously the number of pistons you have scraping up & down cylinders and the number of crankshaft big-end journals you have all reduce efficiency. Manufacturers even aim to use the smallest possible bearing diameters to reduce friction, which means you can't always turn the wick up on a standard engine to 800+bhp or so.i.e would a 3.0l v8 turbo be more efficient than a 3.5l v6 turbo installed in the same car?
The reason I ask is that for sports cars, super cars etc, the noise and engine smoothness/characteristics are just as important as the power and performance in my opinion.
If we look at BMW for example, they dropped their cracking NA sixes for 2L turbo four pots. Yes the power, performance and efficiency are still there, however the lovely sound has gone as has the smoothness.
It's not as if it cant be done, in the early to mid 90's the Italians were brilliant at this sort of thing. Maserati has a 2.0L twin turbo v6 in the Ghibli cup which made a cracking noise and provided more power than their 2.8 twin turbo v6 they alos had available at the same time. Then we have Bugatti, they had a very small 3.5L v12 with quad turbos in the EB110. It produced 611 bhp, so its not as if you cant get the perfromance.
Utilising todays technology, surely it must be possible to retain a high cylinder count with smaller capacity to beat these emissions and efficiency targets?
I'll try & get some numbers.
What works against a small cylinder count however, is the engine capacity. A general rule is 500cc/cylinder. As the ignition flame travels at a finite speed, a large capacity cylinder can only rev. at a certain speed before the piston catches the flame up !
This is why we're seeing smaller capacity turbos with fewer cylinders. Seems as though Saab were onto something back then!
Clivey said:
JohnGoodridge said:
Also wonder if smaller engine = lighter weight = packaging flexibility and possibly smaller car, contributing something to fuel efficiency.
If you want smaller & lighter, don't fit FI and the associated plumbing...Reducing the weelbase makes useful mass savings, increases chassis stiffness (or keeps it the same for less weight) and makes your car rotate faster.
Although obviously this is all driven by emissions and marketing.
I was reminded of the potential of the V6 turbo engine at the Donington Historic. I'm generally a fan of natural aspiration but was reminded of the phenomenal timbre of the 1.5l Renault V6 in the Lotus 97T. I've seen virtually every conceivable kind of car race down the years, but this was so loud and so barrel-chested; totally took me by surprise. There's no reason why a high-revving V6 turbo in a Ferrari road car wouldn't be utterly beguiling.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff