RE: Turbo V6 for next Ferrari 458

[vz-r_dave]

Wonder if they will use the same 'Cool' in cabin sound generator's that BMW are using in their 6 cylinder 1 series?

How will they justify the price tag of a 458 if it has the same engine (effectively) as a 40k saloon? The California has opened the flood gates, it's all down hill from here on.

[matrignano]

Was going to say - no way they'd use a turbo V8 in the California and a mere V6 in the 458's successor.
What about a development of the existing V8 with KERS technology?

[Schermerhorn]

OlberJ said:

Turbo engines can't scream. The turbos make sure of that

Unfortunately, unless you start messing with the exhaust profiles and raising the rev limits. The latter being a problem due to the emissions regulations and defeats the point of turbo charging in the first place.

[purpleperil]

Thread resurrection here and confirmation that last but one poster was indeed correct, but has anyone else heard that Ferrari are currently running 1.5L V6 Turbo hybrid mules around as the successor to the 488?

[DonkeyApple]

TWPC said:

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 st 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.

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.

A considerable risk that an aspirational brand such as Ferrari runs in pandering to these taxation costs is to show overtly that the majority of buyers are clearly highly sensitive to small additional costs.

[Wadeski]

rich people in "not living like scrooge mcduck" shocker