New 2015 Carrera 991.2 - 2.9 Flat Six TURBOCHARGED!!!
Discussion
Come on guys, this is the 911, its an expensive piece of kit with motorsport connections.
The i8 is a plug in electric car and is marketed from scratch as such, no legacy, its a clean sheet of paper and far easier to pitch to buyers. This is why BMW did not stick it into an M series car, it will take time for customers to wisen up.
A 2L engine won't be desirable enough in a 911 at this time, they may do it but where do the other Porsche models fit in terms of engine displacement? They have 4 other cars to fit in underneath it, 5 if you count a run out special.
Carl_Docklands said:
I would be shocked if the 911 Product team would allow an engine with anything other than a 3.x L designation due to marketing reasons.
I don't think the market is ready for an £85k car with a 2.xL engine of any description.
the good old esprit wouldn't be that far off £85k in today's moneyI don't think the market is ready for an £85k car with a 2.xL engine of any description.
It should, in theory, be possible to make a turbo engine that approximates the feel of an NA engine (but not the sound), shouldn't it? You would just have the boost mimic the induction effect (or whatever - I know no science) generated in an NA engine. If you did that, would it not be equally progressive in torque and power?
I guess it would remove some of the benefits of a turbo engine (to the masses) - e.g. "drivability"; but it would improve economy and specific output.
I guess it would remove some of the benefits of a turbo engine (to the masses) - e.g. "drivability"; but it would improve economy and specific output.
ORD said:
It should, in theory, be possible to make a turbo engine that approximates the feel of an NA engine (but not the sound), shouldn't it? You would just have the boost mimic the induction effect (or whatever - I know no science) generated in an NA engine. If you did that, would it not be equally progressive in torque and power?
I guess it would remove some of the benefits of a turbo engine (to the masses) - e.g. "drivability"; but it would improve economy and specific output.
I believe the Ferrari California does just that. The way I understand it is that the engineers willingly sacrificed "free" low-end torque in lower gears to make the engine feel "less turbo boosted". So yes, it is possible.I guess it would remove some of the benefits of a turbo engine (to the masses) - e.g. "drivability"; but it would improve economy and specific output.
article said:
The eye-watering statistic is that it boasts 49 percent more torque than the outgoing California, complementing its 560 prancing ponies with 557 lb.-ft. But there’s an asterisk with that. The full 557 is only available in seventh gear. In lower gears, it’s artificially limited — not to spoil the fun, but to feign a lack of turbos. By regulating torque, and fiddling with the mapping to match Ferrari’s desired torque curve, it offers the sensation of requiring high revs to extract its full potential, making it feel like the 7,500 rpm redline is higher than it actually is.
And 7,500 rpm is sky high for a turbo motor. But even still, from behind the wheel, you do miss those extra revs (the 458 tops out at 9,000 rpm). Fuel efficiency jumps 15 percent compared to the outgoing model, which is the whole point of this experiment anyway.
sourceAnd 7,500 rpm is sky high for a turbo motor. But even still, from behind the wheel, you do miss those extra revs (the 458 tops out at 9,000 rpm). Fuel efficiency jumps 15 percent compared to the outgoing model, which is the whole point of this experiment anyway.
Edited by EricE on Wednesday 22 October 09:43
The industry should invent some kind of technology that delivers 100% torque at any RPM, preferably with throttle response around a millisecond. If only they could couple that with these artificially remapped turbo engines then surely that would solve most of the issues while still being more efficient than N/A engines.
Would it be the same experience as a N/A engine? No, not even close. Would the masses consider it a better experience than a N/A engine? Yes, 99% would. The remaining 1% is here on PH.
Would it be the same experience as a N/A engine? No, not even close. Would the masses consider it a better experience than a N/A engine? Yes, 99% would. The remaining 1% is here on PH.
This forum is a bit depressing as it makes me think that future 911s are going to be like Golf R's in a pretty body . Hopefully GT3 will remain NA if they actually make a 991.2 version. My wife has a new Golf R and it is a very impressive small engine but does leave you feeling your car has a very powerful sewing machine under the bonnet and the fake exhaust noises in race mode make the speaker covers rattle.
Reffro said:
Now remember you read it here first:
Ignore what the CAR article says they have it wrong. The base 911 Carrera will be 2.7 litres with 370hp and the Carrera S will be 3.0 with 420hp. It looks like the power kit Carrera S will be 440hp. There is a another prototype supposedly running with a 3.0 producing 560hp, but that might be an error in the data.
Nice one reffro, you won the numbers bingo. Have a cookie. Ignore what the CAR article says they have it wrong. The base 911 Carrera will be 2.7 litres with 370hp and the Carrera S will be 3.0 with 420hp. It looks like the power kit Carrera S will be 440hp. There is a another prototype supposedly running with a 3.0 producing 560hp, but that might be an error in the data.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff