RE: Turbo V6 for next Ferrari 458
Tuesday 14th May 2013
Last week’s Formula Ferrari presentation didn’t have a whole lot of talk of cars but CEO Amedeo Felisa did let slip one important hint about the replacement for the celebrated 458 Italia adopting a turbocharged V6.
V6 tech could trickle down from next F1 carOK, he didn’t say so in as many words, but given the importance Ferrari is placing on green tech – Felisa saying half of the 250m-euro R&D budget for the next five years is going on emissions and efficiency measures – you’d have to expect even Ferrari is feeling the pressure for engine downsizing. He also said that the trickle-down of F1 technology into road cars traditionally takes four to five years.
208GTB shows previous with this sort of thingFerrari has been there before of course, sleeving down the 308 GTB and creating the turbocharged 2.0-litre turbocharged V8 208 to duck under the same Italian tax barrier that gave us the E30 BMW 320iS. And the 288 GTO and F40 prove that it’s more than able to give forced-induction engines the necessary thrill factor we all expect. Add into that the additional 250 workers Ferrari is taking on to build the twin-turbo V6s for the Maserati Ghibli and the production lines already full of this engine and it’s not hard to see where this could be heading.
Ghibli's V6 seems like an ideal candidateV6 or not, the 458’s replacement is unlikely to be built of carbon fibre, Ferrari’s GT cars boss Roberto Fedeli telling us that, following the aero industry’s step away from carbon and back to aluminium and the company’s own expertise with the material, it’ll remain at the core of future Ferraris. Furthermore, mass-produced structural carbon fibre still has some way to go, he says, the fact ‘productionised’ techniques tend to use larger quantities of material more or less wiping out any supposed weight advantages in his view.
Turbo V6 for next Ferrari 458
458's successor to get F1-inspired engine tech but not carbon construction, says Ferrari
V6 tech could trickle down from next F1 car
Extrapolating that to the current Ferrari range, and considering the pending introduction of forced induction V6s to F1 next year, could Ferrari really consider dumping signature screaming normally aspirated V8s for smaller turbocharged V6s? Well, pressures from legislators are only going to go one way, and such high-revving engines are notoriously ill-suited to the official tests for emissions and fuel consumption.
208GTB shows previous with this sort of thing
Ferrari pointed toward paddleshifter gearboxes, hydroformed exhaust manifolds, wheel-mounted manettinos, launch control and other technology that’s made the leap from F1 to forecourt in recent years; who’s to doubt that turbos will too?
Ghibli's V6 seems like an ideal candidate
An interesting comparison with McLaren, for whom this technology is, literally, at the heart of its cars. Sadly before we were able to discuss this comparison further with Fedeli a crack Ferrari PR SWAT team caught wind and swiftly extracted him from the conversation, before guiding us towards a presentation about expensive silk clothing with embroidered prancing horse logos.
Discussion
This is the time when all the people who claim Ferrari superiority over "throttle response" because of a NA engine start to squirm.
Nice to see Ferrari copying McLaren then, albeit with 25% less cylinders.
Mind you, having a blown V6 hardly handicaps the Nissan GTR, which is probably faster than everything inspite of its weight.
Nice to see Ferrari copying McLaren then, albeit with 25% less cylinders.
Mind you, having a blown V6 hardly handicaps the Nissan GTR, which is probably faster than everything inspite of its weight.
This annoys me a bit, because the only reason I would buy a 458 over a 12c is the fact the 458 is N/A, and it makes better noises because of it. So if I am ever successful I won't be buying a Ferrari.
But it does mean that the 458 will become a great classic, as it will be the last of the N/A engines.
But it does mean that the 458 will become a great classic, as it will be the last of the N/A engines.
Blown2CV said:
let's hope they don't make it an absolute munt-fest like the rest of the current ferrari line-up. The 458's looking lovely but very lonely at the minute.
Really? The F12 is my favourite car at the moment, I think it looks fantastic and that engine is sublime! I'd have one over a 458.As for a turbo'd V6, I'd rather see them continue with the high revving n/a engines. But Ferrari engines are usually fantastic, so I guess they'll make the best out of it
I am surprised hardly anyone has been negative about this move.
To me, fitting turbos to one of the best normally aspirated engines is game over for Ferrari.
Classic N/A engine'd Ferraris will be worth more to people like me than the new crap.
It's a shame, because as carbon-fibre manufacturing is getting much cheaper, they could have designed a smaller, narrower, much lighter 458 with a N/A V6 or 3.5 litre V8 using direct injection, off throttle fuel saving, low load cylinder deactivation etc, but keeping a traditional power steering system with optional 'eco' manual steering rack!
Simple is best sometimes. Concentrate the technology on making the smallest, lightest, stiffest chassis and body, suspension and wheels.
Regards to all...
To me, fitting turbos to one of the best normally aspirated engines is game over for Ferrari.
Classic N/A engine'd Ferraris will be worth more to people like me than the new crap.
It's a shame, because as carbon-fibre manufacturing is getting much cheaper, they could have designed a smaller, narrower, much lighter 458 with a N/A V6 or 3.5 litre V8 using direct injection, off throttle fuel saving, low load cylinder deactivation etc, but keeping a traditional power steering system with optional 'eco' manual steering rack!
Simple is best sometimes. Concentrate the technology on making the smallest, lightest, stiffest chassis and body, suspension and wheels.
Regards to all...
MadKipper said:
I am surprised hardly anyone has been negative about this move.
To me, fitting turbos to one of the best normally aspirated engines is game over for Ferrari.
Classic N/A engine'd Ferraris will be worth more to people like me than the new crap.
It's a shame, because as carbon-fibre manufacturing is getting much cheaper, they could have designed a smaller, narrower, much lighter 458 with a N/A V6 or 3.5 litre V8 using direct injection, off throttle fuel saving, low load cylinder deactivation etc, but keeping a traditional power steering system with optional 'eco' manual steering rack!
Simple is best sometimes. Concentrate the technology on making the smallest, lightest, stiffest chassis and body, suspension and wheels.
Regards to all...
Have to agree with this, Have I stumbled onto the wrong forum by mistake or have we been invaded by a load of people from mumsnet or the Green party? Are people seriously celebrating the fact that Ferrari, one of the last bastions of brilliant, screaming N\A engines is now considering going turbo powered? PH, "Emissions Matter"To me, fitting turbos to one of the best normally aspirated engines is game over for Ferrari.
Classic N/A engine'd Ferraris will be worth more to people like me than the new crap.
It's a shame, because as carbon-fibre manufacturing is getting much cheaper, they could have designed a smaller, narrower, much lighter 458 with a N/A V6 or 3.5 litre V8 using direct injection, off throttle fuel saving, low load cylinder deactivation etc, but keeping a traditional power steering system with optional 'eco' manual steering rack!
Simple is best sometimes. Concentrate the technology on making the smallest, lightest, stiffest chassis and body, suspension and wheels.
Regards to all...
I can understand the need for downsizing etc to comply with eco rules and dont really have an issue with it as such, what i would like to know is how big a part number of cylinders plays v's engine capacity for efficiency
i.e would a 3.0l v8 turbo be more efficient than a 3.5l v6 turbo installed in the same car?
The reason I ask is that for sports cars, super cars etc, the noise and engine smoothness/characteristics are just as important as the power and performance in my opinion.
If we look at BMW for example, they dropped their cracking NA sixes for 2L turbo four pots. Yes the power, performance and efficiency are still there, however the lovely sound has gone as has the smoothness.
It's not as if it cant be done, in the early to mid 90's the Italians were brilliant at this sort of thing. Maserati has a 2.0L twin turbo v6 in the Ghibli cup which made a cracking noise and provided more power than their 2.8 twin turbo v6 they alos had available at the same time. Then we have Bugatti, they had a very small 3.5L v12 with quad turbos in the EB110. It produced 611 bhp, so its not as if you cant get the perfromance.
Utilising todays technology, surely it must be possible to retain a high cylinder count with smaller capacity to beat these emissions and efficiency targets?
i.e would a 3.0l v8 turbo be more efficient than a 3.5l v6 turbo installed in the same car?
The reason I ask is that for sports cars, super cars etc, the noise and engine smoothness/characteristics are just as important as the power and performance in my opinion.
If we look at BMW for example, they dropped their cracking NA sixes for 2L turbo four pots. Yes the power, performance and efficiency are still there, however the lovely sound has gone as has the smoothness.
It's not as if it cant be done, in the early to mid 90's the Italians were brilliant at this sort of thing. Maserati has a 2.0L twin turbo v6 in the Ghibli cup which made a cracking noise and provided more power than their 2.8 twin turbo v6 they alos had available at the same time. Then we have Bugatti, they had a very small 3.5L v12 with quad turbos in the EB110. It produced 611 bhp, so its not as if you cant get the perfromance.
Utilising todays technology, surely it must be possible to retain a high cylinder count with smaller capacity to beat these emissions and efficiency targets?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff