RE: Turbo V6 for next Ferrari 458
Discussion
Captain Muppet said:
Depends on the level of technology used in the aluminium chassis.
Carbon fibre is older technology than bonded aluminium, or that new aluminium spot welding process I think GM have perfected, or a hydroformed aluminium monocoque. Not that it matters because the important thing is how itsells drives.
True but strength to weight of even hydroformed aluminum doesn't come close. I can only see it being a cost cutting measure. As lovely as the 458 is, and it may be the better car, I think you're getting serious VFM with a 12C considering the construction and build quality. Carbon fibre is older technology than bonded aluminium, or that new aluminium spot welding process I think GM have perfected, or a hydroformed aluminium monocoque. Not that it matters because the important thing is how it
Face for Radio said:
Where are all the people from the McLaren P1 thread, that were getting on their high horse about Ferrari being NA, and McLaren being rubbish for using smaller cylinder turbos?
Well I'm here - and I still don't like turbos, and Ferrari using them won't change that one iota, any more than the laws of physics will change so somehow turbos become better than natural aspiration. Politicans aren't engineers or drivers but they seem to be choosing our cars.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inHtSQv8iS4
Make it sound like this and they're all set. They don't have turn it 11,000 RPM like the Indycar guys do. 8500 will be plenty.
Make it sound like this and they're all set. They don't have turn it 11,000 RPM like the Indycar guys do. 8500 will be plenty.
Captain Muppet said:
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.
How relevant a concept is a part time/bypassable turbo?
A small, minimal weight turbo unit optimised to charge at low revs to boost torque/economy.
When you open the taps it's bypassed and the engine breaths freely.
The carbons testing would be done in everyday/eco engine mode- this would be controlled via the CPU, ie the car bubbles along with lots of torque until you stamp on it at which point the CPU loads an n/a map and operates a couple of valves to bypass turbocharging.
The turbocharger here wouldn't evan need to be a high-performance part as such, it wont operate under high stress loads, it'll be very much an afterthought to the cars primary design focus.
A small, minimal weight turbo unit optimised to charge at low revs to boost torque/economy.
When you open the taps it's bypassed and the engine breaths freely.
The carbons testing would be done in everyday/eco engine mode- this would be controlled via the CPU, ie the car bubbles along with lots of torque until you stamp on it at which point the CPU loads an n/a map and operates a couple of valves to bypass turbocharging.
The turbocharger here wouldn't evan need to be a high-performance part as such, it wont operate under high stress loads, it'll be very much an afterthought to the cars primary design focus.
JohnGoodridge said:
Captain Muppet said:
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.
MPG can be marketing, but it's only effective to customers who are focused on low running costs, which is why Ferrari don't bother painting "our road cars are really frugal" down the side of their F1 cars.
PunterCam said:
I honestly don't understand why a supercar manufacturer should be concerned with efficiency. I don't understand why F1 is concerned about it. Making these cars a little cleaner and more efficient is a pointless exercise benefitting nobody. Trickle-down technology? Please. That's a marketing line. Putting forward a cleaner, more environmentally conscious image? By all means try to BUILD your cars in the cleanest and most efficient manner possible, but no one's stupid enough to actually think a few thousand V8 Ferrari's - most only doing a few miles a year - are a major contributing factor to anything bad.
Turbo engines are crap. Or perhaps more accurately, good turbo engines are crap. Crap turbo engines are good.
A turbo engine that is designed to be as tractable and responsive as a naturally aspirated engine is basically a s
t n/a engine; quieter, less responsive, less keen to rev... A st (read 80s) turbo engine is exciting, which is why the F40 and co worked as supercars. Sadly no one's going to design an 80s turbo again...
McLaren have been damned with the faint praise (which has gradually turned to criticism) their engine has received and sure, perhaps theirs is just not a good example, but I suspect the main reason for its lukewarm reception was the Ferrari's V8.
I don't know. Quite how anybody anywhere could get excited at the thought of a turbocharged v6 engined automatic Ferrari is beyond me... Will it be good? I'm sure; big power, big torque, much cleaner (in the eyes of the stupid euro tests at least...), but I don't think these things are defining aspects of a supercar. There will be ZERO noise and drama, so why not buy a GTR?
+1, totally agree.Turbo engines are crap. Or perhaps more accurately, good turbo engines are crap. Crap turbo engines are good.
A turbo engine that is designed to be as tractable and responsive as a naturally aspirated engine is basically a s
t n/a engine; quieter, less responsive, less keen to rev... A st (read 80s) turbo engine is exciting, which is why the F40 and co worked as supercars. Sadly no one's going to design an 80s turbo again...McLaren have been damned with the faint praise (which has gradually turned to criticism) their engine has received and sure, perhaps theirs is just not a good example, but I suspect the main reason for its lukewarm reception was the Ferrari's V8.
I don't know. Quite how anybody anywhere could get excited at the thought of a turbocharged v6 engined automatic Ferrari is beyond me... Will it be good? I'm sure; big power, big torque, much cleaner (in the eyes of the stupid euro tests at least...), but I don't think these things are defining aspects of a supercar. There will be ZERO noise and drama, so why not buy a GTR?
You answered the question about the irrelevance of emissions limits in supercars made in tiny numbers - "stupid euro regs". Bang on.
I can't afford/justify a supercar now but when I can it will be a purchase based in part on principle: I will have a used N/A manual mid-engined beast.
Please can all those who are in the market for new supercars now go out and buy as many MANUAL Audi R8s, Lambo Gallardos, Noble M600s, even Boxster Ss & Evoras, as they can.
Thank you.
It feels like we are reaching the end of an era, as usual.
That's what I was thinking too - the EU imposes levies on carmakers which exceed a certain average CO2 g/km rate across their range. Considering that Ferrari is part of the Fiat group, I'd have thought all those TwinAir and MultiAir 500s, Pandas, Puntos, MiTos, Bravos, Giuliettas etc (deliberately forgetting the sad shadow of Lancia) would give Fiat the lowest corporate CO2 emissions of any major automotive conglomerate, despite building all those Maseratis, Ferraris, Vipers and SRT-8 Jeeps and Chryslers.
I'd also be surprised if this new Maserati/Ferrari V6 is anything more than a reworked Chrysler 300C Pentastar engine. Now, I've never encountered a Pentastar so I've no idea if it's any good or not, but I think it'd be hard for Ferrari to sustain its unique bespoke image. OK, the current V8 is based on the Maserati unit (just with a flat-plane crank in place of the Maserati cross-plane crank - and is one dry and the other wet-sumped? I forget), but it's sufficiently different that most people don't realise.
Oh, and Ferrari rejects carbonfibre as too expensive while little brother Alfa Romeo produces the cheapest CF-tubbed car ever made? Right, that makes sense...
I'd also be surprised if this new Maserati/Ferrari V6 is anything more than a reworked Chrysler 300C Pentastar engine. Now, I've never encountered a Pentastar so I've no idea if it's any good or not, but I think it'd be hard for Ferrari to sustain its unique bespoke image. OK, the current V8 is based on the Maserati unit (just with a flat-plane crank in place of the Maserati cross-plane crank - and is one dry and the other wet-sumped? I forget), but it's sufficiently different that most people don't realise.
Oh, and Ferrari rejects carbonfibre as too expensive while little brother Alfa Romeo produces the cheapest CF-tubbed car ever made? Right, that makes sense...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
read this http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/bo...
gives an interesting perspective, I agree with Behemoth, whilst it may possible to objectively compare speed, fuel consumption, weight, etc when it comes to deciding what better means then subjectivity comes into play. There is no single objective definition of what better is , it entirely depends on the person, and is therefore subjective. Exchanging opinions is where the fun is just accept there is no right and wrong, just opinion.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff