RE: Porsche Reveals Hybrid 918 Spyder
Discussion
ewenm said:
Agoogy said:
I'm actually quite taken aback by the almost total agreement here for this car... and it's a Porsche??!!
Just goes to show that those who decry many as "Porsche-haters" are wrong - people don't hate Porsche, they hate lazy, predictable design. As soon as Porsche produce something interesting and a bit different (despite it still having many of their standard styling cues), people like it.
Streetrod said:
ewenm said:
Agoogy said:
I'm actually quite taken aback by the almost total agreement here for this car... and it's a Porsche??!!
Just goes to show that those who decry many as "Porsche-haters" are wrong - people don't hate Porsche, they hate lazy, predictable design. As soon as Porsche produce something interesting and a bit different (despite it still having many of their standard styling cues), people like it.
Feel compelled to reply.
This is, by a country mile, the nicest looking car I have seen in a very long time. I like it for several reasons but the biggest being that you can see that it is a viable 'concept' so won't become a watered down variation by the time it is launched.
Only downside is that it's going to be far beyond my means if it launches....now if this was the new 911 then I'd be down the Porker garage faster than you could say 'Knackwurst'
This is, by a country mile, the nicest looking car I have seen in a very long time. I like it for several reasons but the biggest being that you can see that it is a viable 'concept' so won't become a watered down variation by the time it is launched.
Only downside is that it's going to be far beyond my means if it launches....now if this was the new 911 then I'd be down the Porker garage faster than you could say 'Knackwurst'
havoc said:
chuntington101 said:
havoc said:
chuntington101 said:
Just needs a couple of turbos strapped to that V8 now 
No it most emphatically DOES NOT! Turbo's are for the lazy and those who don't care about how an engine behaves. Thankfully Porsche (as evidenced by the Carrera GT and generations of GT3s) does care, as do I. I'll take mine gloriously n/asp with just the 500bhp thanks!
Also could you exsplane the comment on Porsche not liking turbos? it just seems alittle strange as their 911 has come in turbo modle for YEARS, Also porsche have been at the cutrting edge when it comes to turbo tech for many decades now.......
Cheers,
Chris.
1) Turbo's give easy access to power at low-revs (through significantly greater torque), and across a large rev-range. Which means you don't need to use the gearbox as much to get 90% of the performance out of the engine. Usually the engine of choice for someone who just wants "POWER" and doesn't care how they get it.
2) A turbo necessarily blunts the throttle-response of an engine, vs naturally-aspirated (however with the advent of DBW n/a engines have been dragged-down somewhat in this regard!
). And it also means the power isn't delivered in a linear fashion...with n/a you know exactly how the power will be delivered through the rev-range. With a turbo you WILL get a slug of torque at some point...modern turbo's are better in this regard than old-school stuff, but it's still there.3) I didn't say Porsche didn't like turbos, I just said they care about engine behaviour...look at the cars I mentioned and their engines are the epitomy of high-tech, low-inertia and truly instant-response...and they're delivering 100bhp/litre from an n/a repeatedly! Porsche have long been among the 3 best builders of (semi-mainstream) n/a engines - BMW & Honda being the others. And the Porsche engines are perhaps the closest to the circuit in their build and approach.
4) Weight and complexity - turbo, plumbing, intercooler, more plumbing, perhaps a bigger rad for more cooling...it's something else to go wrong, and it's additional weight (although I accept the argument that you can use a turbo with a smaller-capacity unit to get the same output...but would you rather a blown-4 or a n/asp V6?!?)
5) Finally, sound and range. Compare a GT3 to a Turbo. Compare the Carrera GT to any turbo'd competitors. Compare an S2000 to an Audi TT, or a CTR to a Golf. Turbo's muffle an engine. Turbo's also typically don't work at low AND at high-revs, so you either get something lazy and truculent low-down (think older STi's) or something which is out of puff before 6,000rpm (most modern turbo-petrols, sadly). The solution is the more expensive sequential-twins (BMW -35i) or twin-scroll units (Porsche), which ARE very good engines.
But I still don't think turbo's have any place in a proper sports-car. GTs, hot-hatches, big execs - yeah, sure. But not sports-cars, and certainly not supercars.
Clearly you feel VERY strongly against turbocharged engines. I'm not going to get into a slagging match about what is better as there is NO right answer.
you do make some very good points. however im sure you are aware of the positive sides to forced induction to. have you seen the 2.0ltr mazda engiens ARE are putting into LMP2 cars now? they looks very intresting and offer great power for their small size. i dont know how they compear to the V8s for cost, but i'd guess they would also be cheaper as they will be using production blocks....
Whats your opinion on other forms of forced induction, such as supercharging?
Cheers,
Chris.
chuntington101 said:
Havoc,
Clearly you feel VERY strongly against turbocharged engines. I'm not going to get into a slagging match about what is better as there is NO right answer. you do make some very good points. however im sure you are aware of the positive sides to forced induction to.
have you seen the 2.0ltr mazda engiens ARE are putting into LMP2 cars now? they looks very intresting and offer great power for their small size. i dont know how they compear to the V8s for cost, but i'd guess they would also be cheaper as they will be using production blocks....
Whats your opinion on other forms of forced induction, such as supercharging?
Cheers,
Chris.
Agree there's no 'right' answer, only what's best for individual people. As a n/a afficionado though, I'm getting rightly f'd off with all the mfrs going to turbo's because they're an easy route to (allegedly*) lower emissions, which are the bete noir of pseudo-green politicians nowadays. Which is perhaps why I'm very defensive of n/a...there aren't that many good n/a engines left!!!Clearly you feel VERY strongly against turbocharged engines. I'm not going to get into a slagging match about what is better as there is NO right answer.
you do make some very good points. however im sure you are aware of the positive sides to forced induction to. have you seen the 2.0ltr mazda engiens ARE are putting into LMP2 cars now? they looks very intresting and offer great power for their small size. i dont know how they compear to the V8s for cost, but i'd guess they would also be cheaper as they will be using production blocks....
Whats your opinion on other forms of forced induction, such as supercharging?
Cheers,
Chris.
Positive sides - sure - the wife's got a MkV Golf GTi, and it's a ridiculously easy car to go quickly in...which is good and bad, IMHO. And I test-drove a v.8 STi which was stupendously quick for a 2.0. So I'm not blind to what they can do, I just prefer the 'feel' of driving an n/a car, and of having to make a deliberate choice to go banzai, rather than it just being "flex ankle, hit warp speed".
Re: S'charging - I prefer it to turbocharging as it preserves the linear nature of an engine and (most of) the responsiveness. Downsides are you often get a bloody-awful whine (think R53 MCS - great car except for a concrete ride and that whine. Oh, and the image) and at high-rpm you may need to find some way to 'step-down' the s/charger to keep everything from flying apart, so you rarely get s/charged engines which rev that highly.
* The emissions-test regime is biased towards cars which develop peak-torque low-down in the rev-range (i.e. turbo-diesels and the modern breed of 'low-rpm' turbo-petrols which peak below 6,000rpm), and even more so towards DSG-style boxes which can be treated as autos for the purposes of the test, so their 'auto-mode' programming is biased-towards rapid-upshifts which you wouldn't really do in day-to-day driving.
Streetrod said:
I love the pop up rocket launchers and spoiler
I don't normally type in caps, but...Edited by Streetrod on Wednesday 3rd March 10:36
HOW COOL IS THAT!!!!!!!!!!
Part of me thinks this is quite possibly going to turn out to be the best supercar ever made.
Edited by Beirut Taxi on Wednesday 3rd March 17:59
DiscoColin said:
Streetrod said:
For those that dont like the the show car wheels:
I think that we have a winner on the wheels there Edited by Streetrod on Wednesday 3rd March 18:30
king sexy - completely finished off by the wheels Definate shades of Fezza 308/328 in the side proportions - which is no bad thing - Always thought they were some of the prettiest mid engined cars.
Edited by Asterix on Wednesday 3rd March 19:05
havoc said:
Agree there's no 'right' answer, only what's best for individual people. As a n/a afficionado though, I'm getting rightly f'd off with all the mfrs going to turbo's because they're an easy route to (allegedly*) lower emissions, which are the bete noir of pseudo-green politicians nowadays. Which is perhaps why I'm very defensive of n/a...there aren't that many good n/a engines left!!!
Positive sides - sure - the wife's got a MkV Golf GTi, and it's a ridiculously easy car to go quickly in...which is good and bad, IMHO. And I test-drove a v.8 STi which was stupendously quick for a 2.0. So I'm not blind to what they can do, I just prefer the 'feel' of driving an n/a car, and of having to make a deliberate choice to go banzai, rather than it just being "flex ankle, hit warp speed".
Re: S'charging - I prefer it to turbocharging as it preserves the linear nature of an engine and (most of) the responsiveness. Downsides are you often get a bloody-awful whine (think R53 MCS - great car except for a concrete ride and that whine. Oh, and the image) and at high-rpm you may need to find some way to 'step-down' the s/charger to keep everything from flying apart, so you rarely get s/charged engines which rev that highly.
* The emissions-test regime is biased towards cars which develop peak-torque low-down in the rev-range (i.e. turbo-diesels and the modern breed of 'low-rpm' turbo-petrols which peak below 6,000rpm), and even more so towards DSG-style boxes which can be treated as autos for the purposes of the test, so their 'auto-mode' programming is biased-towards rapid-upshifts which you wouldn't really do in day-to-day driving.
Havoc, you might want to take a look at the Rotrex style of supercharger. They work a little like a belt driven turbo. This give you more boost the higher the RPM. I have heard great things about them being used on bike engines and the Honda KA20s. also you can use a conventional Air to air intercooler rather than the more complex air to water. Positive sides - sure - the wife's got a MkV Golf GTi, and it's a ridiculously easy car to go quickly in...which is good and bad, IMHO. And I test-drove a v.8 STi which was stupendously quick for a 2.0. So I'm not blind to what they can do, I just prefer the 'feel' of driving an n/a car, and of having to make a deliberate choice to go banzai, rather than it just being "flex ankle, hit warp speed".
Re: S'charging - I prefer it to turbocharging as it preserves the linear nature of an engine and (most of) the responsiveness. Downsides are you often get a bloody-awful whine (think R53 MCS - great car except for a concrete ride and that whine. Oh, and the image) and at high-rpm you may need to find some way to 'step-down' the s/charger to keep everything from flying apart, so you rarely get s/charged engines which rev that highly.
* The emissions-test regime is biased towards cars which develop peak-torque low-down in the rev-range (i.e. turbo-diesels and the modern breed of 'low-rpm' turbo-petrols which peak below 6,000rpm), and even more so towards DSG-style boxes which can be treated as autos for the purposes of the test, so their 'auto-mode' programming is biased-towards rapid-upshifts which you wouldn't really do in day-to-day driving.
Can you see direct injection and fuels like E85 bringing back the classic N/A, and turbo for that mater, engines?....
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff