| Author |
Message |
Dennis (Bighead)
New member
Username: Bighead
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 8:18 pm: | |
I speak as a current owner of a 996 and former owner of an RS America (964) and an early 930 (911 Turbo). Porsche's "top-end" car, as Tom puts it, is turbocharged for a number of reasons.
First, it's very cost efficient. Although the current 911tt/GT2 motor has a somewhat different architecture from standard 996 engines, I don't know that I'd characterize it as "completely different". And the rest of the current 996tt is built on the 996 body, with lots and lots of the same parts. Hence, the turbo is a big money maker for Porsche. Always has been.
Second, Porsche currently offers only two engines. A flat-six in various displacements, normally aspirated and turbocharged, for the Boxster and the 996. And the new V-8, in the Cayenne. Porsche has, historically, focused on building small, light cars, and the 911 has always had a flat-six (yes, the budget 912 had a four). In addition to wanting to keep the weight down, the engine is a very bad place to add weight, given the rear-axle layout. So turbocharging is an easy way to add lots and lots of power without lots of weight (i.e., shoehorning in a v-8). Could Porsche offer a higher-powered, normally aspirated 911? Sure; e.g., the new 911 GT3. But Porsche engines have always had a really invulnerable reputation; it wasn't unheard of to have a flat-6 go to 200k miles without opening it up. Can't say that about Ferrari engines.
As for current quality. Yes, the 996 and Boxster have had significant quality issues, in part due to build quality, and in part due to inferior materials chosen to be used. Porsche has made big strides on both fronts, to the point that accusations made against early Boxsters and 996s are no longer applicable. Is the quality as good as a 1989 911, or even a 1998 993? Probably not. But is the 996 a better car? There are 911 aficionados who might disagree (and until I bought the 996, I was one of them), but, damn, the 996 just crushes the 993 in about every performance rating you'd care to consider. You can debate "soul" and "character" and "history" and "looks" all day, but the 996 is a GREAT car.
As for Porsche the manufacturer -- I believe that it's a great shame that they pulled out of racing a couple of years ago to focus on the Cayenne. BUT, the Cayenne is now out, and it's winning accolades from everyone who's driven it. And though the factory isn't currently racing, a CUSTOMER 911GT3-RS actually won Daytona outright this year. Yowza. And, don't forget, Porsche is a TINY, independent company. Do I wish that they still have a factory racing effort? Yes. Do I wish that the 996/Boxster had better build quality? Yes. But considering that the 996/Boxster costs Porsche less than HALF to build than what the 993 cost to build, that greater profitability means continued independence, not to mention SURVIVAL. I'd much rather see Porsche continue in this vein, than not as all.
Lastly, I don't lose sleep over the Cayenne. Any resentment I may have on it stem solely from the loss of the racing effort. If people want to spend $90k on a turbo-charged SUV that laps the nurburgring faster than a Boxster, than so be it. Cause it means that Porsche can take that profit and build more things like the GT-3. If Ferrari makes more money on a Maserati SUV and can therefore offer things like the Challenge Stradale in the future, than more power to them.
vty,
--Dennis
P.S. Don't like the feel of turbocharged engines, even the newest TT. I'll take my 355 any day of the week. Though that 996 is awfully nice....
|
Terry Springer (Tspringer)
Member
Username: Tspringer
Post Number: 409
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 10:43 pm: | |
EFWUN
I agree with you. The Porsche of today is just not the same company. They no longer have a factory race team, they no longer can boast that all their cars are track ready off the dealers lot and they are building SUV's. The company is basically cashing in its reputation in a massive cash grab. I for one am not buying into it one bit, and Im a Porsche fanatic since I was a small child.
Also, Enzo is long gone and Ferrari Im sure now builds much better engineered cars than they did in decades past. I seriously doubt they are as well engineered as something like a GT2 or GT3... but im sure they are better than the 308/328 series.
Its a real shame that Porsche has decided to abandon the things that made it great and instead has made soccer moms its new target market. I believe they will ultimatley pay a heavy price for this decision. |
Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Junior Member
Username: Jaguarxj6
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 10:12 pm: | |
Porsche has so much time and money invested in their turbo setups over who knows how many years (a lot), its what they turn to first like a reflex.. or so it seems to me.
Sunny |
Mark Eberhardt (Me_k)
Member
Username: Me_k
Post Number: 425
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 9:29 pm: | |
Porsche already uses a shorter short than Ferrari. They keep the revs down to improve engine life. I would guess they turbo for the same reasons other makers do, it's much cheaper to make power for a limited production vehicle by throwing a turbo on a mass produced engine than building a special engine. Also, their race cars were turbos for a lot of years so the turbo street car both cashes in on the race reputation and provides cars to meet the sales number required by some race class rules. Maybe. |
Mr. Doody (Doody)
Member
Username: Doody
Post Number: 887
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 3:47 pm: | |
i for one don't lament turbo-spool-up.
doody. |
EFWUN (Efwun)
Junior Member
Username: Efwun
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 2:45 pm: | |
Mitch, too, is correct. The GT3 is a good example of Porsche not being constrained by space in producing a high-horsepower, naturally-aspirated road car of prodigious performance.
BretM, space constraints are not the issue. |
Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member
Username: Mitch_alsup
Post Number: 392
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 2:39 pm: | |
"Porsche chooses turbo charging because of space constraints."
I don't see why Porsche could not decrease the stroke, increase the bore and stay the same size with a much higher reve limit and actually build a 8,5000 RPM engine just like Ferrari does. This would be essentially the same size as their current flat six. It is certainly within the technology Porsche understands. The turbos and intercoolers HAVE to take up more space tha a bigger bore.
Your argument does not hold water. |
EFWUN (Efwun)
Junior Member
Username: Efwun
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 1:49 pm: | |
Terry: the design and quality of modern Ferraris is light-years ahead of the 308. Similarly, reliability is vastly improved. As you noted, 996s offer significantly less quality (as well as soul) than do the 993s, and the 996 motor (not the GT1 based Turbo engine) isn't anywhere near the quality of the 993 series motors. So, as Porsche has declined, Ferrari have improved. Finally, while Ferrari makes more cars than they used to, they are far from opening another plant in another country to build "everyman's" Porsche, and they're not building Ferrari SUVs and sending out millions of brochures claiming it's a "Porsche." Hmmmm . . . . . . |
Dave L (Davel)
Junior Member
Username: Davel
Post Number: 239
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 12:31 pm: | |
For Turbos nothing matches the efficiency and power to weight ratio that a Lotus Turbo conveys. Efficient and easy to maintain. They did Turbos and still do them very very well....JMHO |
Terry Springer (Tspringer)
Member
Username: Tspringer
Post Number: 408
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 11:41 am: | |
The 996TT runs a completely different engine than the stock 996. The stock 996 engine is just not up to turbocharging or generating really big HP. Talk to the people who work on 996 engines.... they are very cheap. Not on the same build quality as the old air cooled engines at all.
The 996TT engine is based on the engine from the GT1. This same engine forms the foundatoin of the GT2 engine and the new GT3. The GT3 makes close to 400hp without a turbo.
Comparing German engineering to Italian engineering is something of a joke. Ferrari clearly knows how to build fantastic F1 race cars... but street car engineering I would not put in the same league with Porsche. Porsche built their reputation by building the most solid, reliable and fantastic performing sportscars available.
That said... the Porsche of today is not the same company that built that reputation. The build quality of a regular 996 or boxster is nothing like what Porsche delivered in years past. The cost cutting measures and "modern" manufacturing techniques have seen to that. Not that its a bad thing necessarily. If Porsche built 996's the same way they built late 1980's 3.2 Carrera's they would have to sell for $120K or more.
I cannot speak definitively on the modern F cars. Indeed my hands on experience is with a lowly 308GTB.... But I can tell you that the 308 offers a really well engineered engine, but the rest of the car is a disaster. Thrown together with no apparent thought to future maintenance or repair at all. The details are just missing. On a Porsche from the same era, the engineering down to all the smallest details is meticulous. I love to work on my '69 911S... I hate to work on the 308. And the 308 requires work sooooooooooooo much more frequently.
However, as we all know despite all that fantastic German engineering they just cannot produce the raw sex appeal and emotion that the Italians can. Ferrari's are just so incredibly beautiful and make sure incredible sounds that the sloppy engineering is forgotten or overlooked completely.
|
EFWUN (Efwun)
Junior Member
Username: Efwun
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 10:59 am: | |
Germans have a cold "manner" of building engines?? Have you seen a W-196 GP car? How about a 917? As to turbos, why is turbocharging a "cold" manner of building an engine? If you remember, in the early '70s, turbos were seen as a universal panacea for emmissions restricted cars. Porsche produced the "Turbo", and very few automotive names have been more evocative over the last 25 years. I'd have to concur with REXRCR, marketing, and engineering decisions, not any failure of "passion." |
BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member
Username: Bretm
Post Number: 3295
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 10:34 am: | |
Porsche chooses turbo charging because of space constraints. They simply don't have the room to put in anything larger than the current flat sixes they're running, so they have to turbo if they want power and still keep that 911 profile and design the same. Also, Germans have a very cold, efficiency based manor of building engines, and forced induction is the most efficient means of creating power. The Italians tend to think a lot more with their hearts. Even the F40 only used turbocharging to make ludicrous amounts of power, to make something so ridiculous, it wasn't a choice of efficiency but rather of making something so insane it just much catch on. |
Rob Schermerhorn (Rexrcr)
Member
Username: Rexrcr
Post Number: 389
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 8:08 am: | |
Simple matter of engineering, marketing, manufacturing decisions. |
Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member
Username: Mitch_alsup
Post Number: 387
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 8:01 am: | |
Ferrari gets its HP through revs. Big Revs cost big money and sound awesome.
Porsche gets its HP through blowers. Blowers build big torque across a wide power band--this is user friendly.
If any american 350 V8 produced the power that the F or P produced per litre, a typical 350 would be in the 600 HP range. |
izel k. (Ferrarist)
Junior Member
Username: Ferrarist
Post Number: 160
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 2:56 am: | |
Don't forget twin turbocharged F40 pleasee... |
Ben Cannon (Artherd)
Junior Member
Username: Artherd
Post Number: 223
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 2:11 am: | |
It takes... different strokes... |
thomas lawrence (Pozziblue)
New member
Username: Pozziblue
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 10:35 pm: | |
anyone know or venture a guess why porsche's "top-end" car has always been turbo-charged (at least in my lifetime) while ferrari's are not (other than the 288)?
is it just simple economics - ie, i presume it's cheaper to "turbo charge" a 996 rather than develop a new engine to produce the same output as the 996 twin turbo. thanks.
|
|