RE: PH meets Porsche's Wolfgang Hatz - Detroit 2015
Discussion
EricE said:
Claudia Skies said:
I have to say that sounds like hogwash to me.
Look up Ferrari's new turbo (California T) and how they achieved the characteristics of that engine."It is, in other words, a properly involving engine. And, if you use the revs properly, a blisteringly fast one. Ferrari says it’ll do 0–62mph in 3.6 seconds, and 0–125 in 11.2. Which is both entirely believable and very much not hanging about.
"Going to nibble the 7,500rpm red line gets a pretty stimulating sound too." TopGear
PunterCam said:
s
t engines all round then.
I'm sick of this bullst move towards turbocharging. It's mindless, it's pointless, and it's ruining sports cars. I don't want a fking turbo. The don't rev (unless artificially programmed to) they sound rubbish (hey, we'll program that in too) and they're less responsive. Couple that to the fact that they're no cleaner, no more efficient, more complex and more difficult to maintain.
It's a fking shambles.
they do rev... done propperly they will also have a wider powerband than a comparable NA engine. The problem is with turbocharged engines where the manufacturer or tuner has decided to go for broke on the torque, and you end up with an engine that overwhelms you with a lump of torque and then fizzes out in the revs.. t engines all round then. I'm sick of this bulls
t move towards turbocharging. It's mindless, it's pointless, and it's ruining sports cars. I don't want a fking turbo. The don't rev (unless artificially programmed to) they sound rubbish (hey, we'll program that in too) and they're less responsive. Couple that to the fact that they're no cleaner, no more efficient, more complex and more difficult to maintain. It's a f
king shambles. I have a 480 HP and 440 lbft 2litre 16V turbo engine that works from idle, and is quite drivable even under 2500 rpm, is fast from 3000, and stupid fast from 4500 and on to 8000 RPM redline.... and this is 20yo engine technology with 10 yo turbo technology.
Modern tubo petrols with direct injection are finally frugal enough to be a real game changer. Try any of the modern turbo 3 pots... 0.9 to 1.2 litre, up to 130 hp, all the torque you want..
I have no doubt that porche will make a great turbo engine... they allready did with the 991 turbo... it is stupid fast and uses very little fuel when driven normally..
Sampaio said:
jayxx83 said:
EricE said:
I find it shocking that the NEDC/MVEC cycle directs most of the drivetrain development at this point. One only has to look at the 918 to see how deeply flawed it is. I work in Austria at the moment and the one-time tax to register a 918, the 800.000€ car that probably gets less than 16 mpg over any meaningful distance, is 0€ (zero) due to its official 91 mpg rating.
On the other hand the tax for something like a new Cayenne Turbo with lower fuel consumption is north of 45% of the price of the car (!). For the V6 Diesel it's around 16%. For a Cayenne S Hybrid? 0%.
All because the NEDC seems to fall apart when it comes to testing hybrid systems.
IMO It's only a matter of time until Porsche announces a Cayenne Turbo Hybrid with the same exact same engine as the regular Turbo but a small electric system to cheat the test and get a consumption rating low enough to bypass these taxes entirely. And then they'll do it with the rest of the lineup.
Will it actually help the environment? No, not at all.
Either that or only a matter of time before the regulators move the goal posts. On the other hand the tax for something like a new Cayenne Turbo with lower fuel consumption is north of 45% of the price of the car (!). For the V6 Diesel it's around 16%. For a Cayenne S Hybrid? 0%.
All because the NEDC seems to fall apart when it comes to testing hybrid systems.
IMO It's only a matter of time until Porsche announces a Cayenne Turbo Hybrid with the same exact same engine as the regular Turbo but a small electric system to cheat the test and get a consumption rating low enough to bypass these taxes entirely. And then they'll do it with the rest of the lineup.
Will it actually help the environment? No, not at all.
Claudia Skies said:
EricE said:
Claudia Skies said:
I have to say that sounds like hogwash to me.
Look up Ferrari's new turbo (California T) and how they achieved the characteristics of that engine."It is, in other words, a properly involving engine. And, if you use the revs properly, a blisteringly fast one. Ferrari says it’ll do 0–62mph in 3.6 seconds, and 0–125 in 11.2. Which is both entirely believable and very much not hanging about.
"Going to nibble the 7,500rpm red line gets a pretty stimulating sound too." TopGear
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/ferrari/califo...
autocar said:
Only when seventh gear is engaged on the twin-clutch transmission (which has longer overall ratios than before), does the engine make its full complement of torque. And it’s not because the driveline (which owes more to 12-cylinder Ferraris than the early California) can’t hack the torque.
No. It’s because the company’s engineers are as concerned about the character of a turbocharged Ferrari as you or I might be. Ferraris are meant to rev stratospherically. They’re meant to get faster as they move up the rev-range. They’re meant to sing. They’re meant to feel naturally aspirated.
So in short gears the California T’s torque is capped – to around 440lb ft in first, second and third – and the torque increases with revs. In higher gears it peaks earlier and the slope is flatter, until you reach the full-whack, table-top curve of seventh.
The idea is that the T feels more like a naturally aspirated car in low gears – Ferrari makes some bold claims about the response times of the twin-scroll turbos – but is as lazily responsive as a GT car should be in higher gears.
No. It’s because the company’s engineers are as concerned about the character of a turbocharged Ferrari as you or I might be. Ferraris are meant to rev stratospherically. They’re meant to get faster as they move up the rev-range. They’re meant to sing. They’re meant to feel naturally aspirated.
So in short gears the California T’s torque is capped – to around 440lb ft in first, second and third – and the torque increases with revs. In higher gears it peaks earlier and the slope is flatter, until you reach the full-whack, table-top curve of seventh.
The idea is that the T feels more like a naturally aspirated car in low gears – Ferrari makes some bold claims about the response times of the twin-scroll turbos – but is as lazily responsive as a GT car should be in higher gears.
PunterCam said:
st engines all round then.
I'm sick of this bullst move towards turbocharging. It's mindless, it's pointless, and it's ruining sports cars. I don't want a fking turbo. The don't rev (unless artificially programmed to) they sound rubbish (hey, we'll program that in too) and they're less responsive. Couple that to the fact that they're no cleaner, no more efficient, more complex and more difficult to maintain.
It's a fking shambles.
So that's no new Porsche for you in the near future although if the GT3RS remains NA, you're sorted.t engines all round then. I'm sick of this bulls
t move towards turbocharging. It's mindless, it's pointless, and it's ruining sports cars. I don't want a fking turbo. The don't rev (unless artificially programmed to) they sound rubbish (hey, we'll program that in too) and they're less responsive. Couple that to the fact that they're no cleaner, no more efficient, more complex and more difficult to maintain. It's a f
king shambles. Some useful comments here. It's certainly a shame that regulations are having these unintended effects - as regulations usually do. It doesn't mean there should be no regs but their effects should be monitored. The Prius has been around for donkeys' years and has been known since it was new not to deliver as good consumption as a decent standard hatchback. One doesn't need a degree in physics to understand this - commonsense states that in real driving the much greater weight of the hybrid set-up offsets the marginal gains of the electric motor. Factor in the extra manufacturing costs and considerable extra resources required and the standard mono-power setup wins decisively. As they say in aircraft design: "simplify and add lightness".
Completely agree regarding turbos - despite being much faster I infinitely prefer my rev forever normally-aspirated 996 to its Turbo brother. (Obviously the latest turbos are better in this respect but again, more complex, no more economical and likely to be expensive for subsequent owners to maintain. Though perhaps not in the case of the 996 before someone says it for me!).
Completely agree regarding turbos - despite being much faster I infinitely prefer my rev forever normally-aspirated 996 to its Turbo brother. (Obviously the latest turbos are better in this respect but again, more complex, no more economical and likely to be expensive for subsequent owners to maintain. Though perhaps not in the case of the 996 before someone says it for me!).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff