New 2015 Carrera 991.2 - 2.9 Flat Six TURBOCHARGED!!!

New 2015 Carrera 991.2 - 2.9 Flat Six TURBOCHARGED!!!

Author
Discussion

Mermaid

21,492 posts

170 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Carl_Docklands said:
The M4 uses a 3L turbo engine,
How many owners would go back to the thirsty, not so torquey (at low revs} na 4.0

The 1M is very popular, and technology has moved on since

Carl_Docklands

12,103 posts

261 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all

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.

Mermaid

21,492 posts

170 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Did you get to drive it on track? People drive the 991 TS/GTR/MP 12/Etc - all perfectly fine on track, as is the new M3. Hardly diesel like.

single turbo. twin turbo, triple turbo - it will only get better

Mermaid

21,492 posts

170 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Of course. So after 3k miles, any redeeming features?

Mermaid

21,492 posts

170 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Mermaid said:
Of course. So after 3k miles, any redeeming features?
991 thread , so no more BMW/Audi talk from me on this thread. wink

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Boom goes the dynamite! Nobody actually likes turbo engines except schoolboys and nobheads. I rest my case. In fact, case closed.

SFO

5,162 posts

182 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
from the videos I have watched of the M3/M4, the exhaust is soulless, dull but at least loud; much like a loud fart with no smell.

andrew

9,953 posts

191 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
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 money

mollytherocker

14,365 posts

208 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
andrew said:
the good old esprit wouldn't be that far off £85k in today's money
Yeh, that sold well didnt it.... biggrin

andrew

9,953 posts

191 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
mollytherocker said:
andrew said:
the good old esprit wouldn't be that far off £85k in today's money
Yeh, that sold well didnt it.... biggrin
biggrin

Pentoman

4,814 posts

262 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I just tested the M4 as well. Cmoose is right.

rlw

3,321 posts

236 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Seems we've all forgotten the 935 ran 2.8 turbos and even, I think, a 1.4 turbo to qualify for the lower capacity class at the time.
Also the 956 ran as a 2.8 and the Indy engine was also a 2.8. These made upwards of 650 bhp which seemed adequate at the time.

rlw

3,321 posts

236 months

Tuesday 21st October 2014
quotequote all
Agreed but showing the possibility of getting decent power out of relatively small capacity engines with the power all at the top end.
Porsche does have the experience still to make this kind of stuff work and probably the motivation too.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
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.

EricE

1,945 posts

128 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
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.

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.
source


Edited by EricE on Wednesday 22 October 09:43

EricE

1,945 posts

128 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
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. wink

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.

andrew

9,953 posts

191 months

Wednesday 22nd October 2014
quotequote all
EricE said:
The industry should invent some kind of technology that delivers 100% torque at any RPM, preferably with throttle response around a millisecond...
that's what an electric motor does biggrin

GT3hopeful

246 posts

116 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
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.

Dr S

4,995 posts

225 months

Friday 24th October 2014
quotequote all
GT3hopeful said:
...that future 911s are going to be like Golf R's in a pretty body ...
Ouch...

Carl_Docklands

12,103 posts

261 months

Wednesday 11th February 2015
quotequote all
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.