458's successor engine speculation

At the moment this is true, but who knows in 10 years time.

 

You state "facts", some of which hold true, some others are erroneous though. Yes, turbocharged engines do make more power for a given capacity (even though Ferrari's N/A engines produce some amazing specific outputs, surpassing some turbocharged engines in that regard). Also, turbocharged engines make more torque for a given size, as they should as air is forced into them! Finally, turbocharging is on paper at least more efficient. What happens in actual life is a different matter altogether, but in the stupid standardised tests, turbos have an edge. And basically the pros stop there.

A turbocharged engine suffers from some major flaws compared to a N/A engine of the same output. For starters, turbo lag. Turbo lag is present even in today's highly evolved turbo engines. You erroneously stated that in F1 the turbos spool up electrically. No they don't actually. The ERS (Energy Recovery System) uses the electric motors (hybrid system) in order to power the driven wheels and thus mask the lag of the petrol engine. The road going Ferraris won't have a hybrid system though (apart from the N/A LaFerrari, which is totally irrelevant in this discussion). They will instead have to rely on two turbos, one smaller for the low RPM and a bigger one for the high RPM. This solution is better than a single big turbo but it still has some very noticeable lag compared to a state of the art N/A engine. Lag is not the only problem though. Linearity of response is another major issue. Turbo engines are more on/off than N/A ones and it is difficult to modulate their output with the throttle. At very low RPM they are off boost, then all the power comes suddenly and abruptly and near the red zone they flat-line. Those are not good characteristics. In a N/A engine power increases as RPM rise and at the red line you have that manic power crescendo that no turbo engine can hope to match. Another issue with turbo engines is heat soak. They hate hot weather and power falls considerably as ambient temperature rises. You can lose a lot of power that way, whereas a N/A engine is quite resistant to that. Finally noise. Did you hear the new F1 engines? Pathetic!!! It will be very hard for Ferrari to crack this one. I for one am quite sceptical and fear that they won't match the magic of their N/A V8s with the new generation of turbocharged V8s.

All in all, the best engine configuration is a big, high-revving N/A V12. I am thinking of the F12 now, the car which many journos described as an engine with seats! With such an engine you have it all: Tons of power and torque everywhere in the rev range, no lag whatsoever, perfect linearity and insane soundtrack. Yes it is big and drinks petrol like a alcoholic sailor but who cares?

PS: A two litre Ferrari won't happen, at least not anytime soon. That is hot hatch and not supercar territory.

 

Turbo lag: As noted by PSk, with the new turbo-systems (twin turbo, VTG), the engine "computerization" and the recently available complementary F1-technology (spooling up the turbo with an electric motor) this topic is really no longer a big issue. We are living in 2014!

Linearity of response: I expect from a race-car driver that he is able to control each engine characteristic, also a characteristic with a lot more torque in the medium speed range. With a little bit training, I would say, not an issue. There are even people they love the turbo engine characteristics, a pure matter of habit.

Heat soak: with a properly sized intercooler also not a real big problem.

Noise: the most modified part of a 458 is the exhaust system - think about!

 

You might need to do some reading regarding F1. There is no spooling of the turbos via the electric motors!!! The motors power the driven wheels till the engine comes alive. Still to this day, no turbocharged engine is lag free. Even the 12C doesn't have the immediacy of the 458 for example. The same holds true for the linearity of the response. Heat soak is an issue and no matter the size of the intercooler, a turbocharged engine will be significantly slower at 35 degrees, compared to the same car at 15 degrees. As far noise is concerned, no amount of modding can help some turbocharged engines I know of.

 

Yes, things have improved, but a TT is still not competitive with the best NA engines, which have also gotten better with Ferrari. The 12C still has lag at all speeds. And there is no TT made with a boost over 1 bar that has an intercooler big enough to prevent heat soak.* But we expect a lot from Ferrari and we will see how they do in the new California.

* BTW a good way to control heat soak, though it will cost you, is to run high octane fuel up to 100 (US (R+M)/2 method). The sensors will not cut back the boost and timing nearly as much.

 

The Mercedes engine has an electric motor as part of the turbo assembly, it uses that motor to recover energy and also to spool up the turbo. Yes there is another electric motor as part of the KERS that connects to the rear wheels.

Also F1 will solve the linear power delivery issue as they did with very aggressive NA motors. They do this by the fly by wire throttle and moving the throttle butterflies all over the place to achieve a linear delivery. Half throttle on pedal does not mean that is what the butterflies are doing.

Time will tell but we are at the point where we can engineer out the disadvantages to the turbo engine and are left with the facts that I pointed out previously.

And Realzeus we are not talking about a super car, that is the LaFerrari, we are talking about the Dino line, and who cares what size the engine is, it is the power and torque figures that matter.
Pete

 

I do not believe the 12C uses the F1 system but a more traditional, now old fashioned turbo installation.
Pete

 

The 12C may not sound "good" to you, but the powerplant outperforms the 458 engine in output. Any turbo lag exists only below 3500 rpm or so and the 458 engine also needs rpms to make any power due to its low torque. As for heat soak, to what objective data do you refer? I've tracked my 12C and it runs the same speeds at the fast spots on track after 20+ minutes as it does early in a session. A 12C needs to be run between 4000-8000 rpm to extract what it can really do, and a 458 needs to run between 5000-9000 rpm for the same. Driven in those ranges, the 12C is simply a noticeable step up in terms of engine performance from the 458 and I've never seen data otherwise. You have to talk "soul" and other subjectives to put the 458 on top.

Romanticize about sound all you want with NA engines, but many of today's greats are forced induction. Ford GT. ZR1. GTR. MP4-12C. 991 Turbo S and soon GT2. (yes I know 2 are supercharged). Several of these cars will outrun a 458 on the drag strip and road course. And many of yesterday's greats used turbos, too. F40. 288GTO. Porsche 956 and 962. F1 1.5l turbos of the 80s. 959. Indy cars.

Turbocharging is simply great technology, and modern materials, variable vanes and volute designs, and direct injection make it even better.

Heck, even the folks with 458s and Gallardos who want REAL power turbocharge them. I am completely amazed and baffled by the anti-turbo sentiment. I'd add forced induction to every car I own if I could justify the expense.

And even "laggy" turbos are a hoot to drive when they come on boost. And they work fine on track if you know what you are doing.

You are just a cross between and ostrich and a caveman if you don't acknowledge and embrace turbo technology in the 21st century. Way better than hybrid IMO. Negligible weight increase for the power boost.

 

Where did you read that about the Merc engine? All new F1 power units have a heat recovery system placed there, but there is no electric spooling. The recovered energy tops up the batteries. Unless of course I am missing something, which I don't believe I am having read the regulations and the manufacturers' solutions. There was some mumbling that Honda may try electric turbos, but it's still too early to say.

The non linear power delivery doesn't only have to do with throttle inputs but also with the power band, when you give them full beans. The new F1 engines make their power at 10-11k RPM. Above that they flatline and that is the reason (it also has to do with the fuel flow rate but let's not complicate things further) they don't do more than 13k, even though 15k is allowed.

Dino line? Well, that V6 died eons ago. It is the 308 line really and since engine size doesn't matter, there is nothing wrong with a 5 litre N/A V8 then. That should make all the power and torque needed, plus have response, linearity and sound .

Anyway, the new cars will be turbocharged. Let's wait and see how they compare to the previous N/A V8s.

 

So you are basically saying that a tuned turbo 458 is faster than a stock one. Oh my, that was a shock! Anyway, I would prefer my 700+ HP in the form of a stock N/A V12 instead of a riced V8.

 

You have missed something.

You have not understood my comment. When you stand on the throttle of a modern F1 engine the computer varies the throttle butterfly position as the engine and car accelerates to provide a linear power band.

The 308 is a Dino and continued the Dino line.

The 458 is not a supercar, it is the latest of the Dino line. And why stick with NA when we can now do so much better with clever turbo engines. Ferrari don't make classic cars remember
Pete

 

Ferrari have stated numerous times that they would prefer to stay with the N/A engines as their qualitative characteristics are great. Moreover, their performance is fantastic. Those would be reasons good enough to stay N/A. Emissions regulations though force their hand. Let's hope that the results won't be disappointing. After all, an increased performance is a given in any new model, either N/A or turbocharged. The experience has to remain authentic though. Cheers.

 

This is how I feel. However, I think the other guys point out that they can engineer out most of the disadvantages with the turbo. It will make a different sound and be a little different experience. If Ferrari can deliver the Ferrari experience with their turbo setup, then it will be a win for us the Ferrari fans. If not then we will skip the next generation of cars.

I will agree turbo has many advantages for power and efficiency, but I didn't buy a car to go to the drag strip or even to the track to conduct time trials. I bought a car for my enjoyment and so far I tend to go for the NA engines- though I admit driving an F40 the one time I got to- is a highlight!

 

The future V8's will be TT. The V12's will remain NA. Such are the orders from LdM.

 

Thank you. Can you imagine the future power they will have to get out of the F12 to keep it a good gap from the V8! I wonder if the V12s will all have to go to their 4RM system to help with the power application.

I'd like to see the system on the California.

 

Yes agree with everything you say, but "increased performance is a given in any new model" ... this is where I have a problem.

Already the 458 is too fast IMO for a Dino. They can't keep making it faster as that is silly, or atleast faster in top speed and power rating.

Maybe they can make it lap faster instead OR introduce a new range as if every new model increases performance we are going to end up with ridiculous cars that have no place on public roads IMO.
Pete

 

This is incorrect. The MGU-H does in fact spool the turbo as well as harvest energy. This is why the new F1 engines have zero turbo lag, because the MGU-H is spooling the turbo when the turbo is not essentially able to spool itself. Additionally, the MGU-H harvests energy and can communicate this energy directly to the 160bhp or so electric motor as well as to a battery allowing for multiple avenues. Turbo spool speed can also be controlled via the MGU-H which allows for higher redlines without leaning out the mixture (F1 allows only a certain amount of fuel above 10.5k to 15k) which allows for shifting so the following gear selection can be engaged at maximum torque.

If Ferrari's road engines take from this path -which I'm sure they will- then they will be just fine IMO. The torque potential is impressive, although the MGU-H does sound almost as a jet engine.

 

Ferraripilot is correct.

All F1 engine suppliers for 2014 are operating under the same principles & regulations. Here it is explained in lamen terms from a Renault point of view:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJtenemHPJM]Sky Sports F1 2014 - 1st Test Jerez Day 2 - Ted's Notebook 1/3 - YouTube[/ame]

I don't think the F1 turbo / ERS technology developed for this year and on will make it onto the 458 successor though. It might be 5-10yrs after 2014 realistically before we see even inklings of this new F1 tech applied onto road going Ferraris.

 

Correct, the new F1 engines use the turbo-powered generator as a motor to spool up the turbo-charger when accelerating off-boost. I believe this is new turbo tech that could go along way to improving linearity of turbo-engine response to near NA-engine levels.

 

This discussion reminds me of the manual -> dct discussion.

So many people championed the manual and bashed the dct in beginning, holding out hope that the manual would remain. Fast forward a bit; no one even talks about it anymore. Everything is dct and the manual is dead and forgotten. People love the 458 dct.

People will say there is nothing like and no substitute for the NA V8. Next thing you know the new car is out with a V8 TT and everyone is saying how amazing it is.

NA is on its last leg in many respects. Aside from the engineering benefits, another major one is probably cost. How much does it cost Ferrari to find additional performance in their NA engines vs McLaren or Porsche simply increasing the boost a bit? How much effort did it takes to find the extra performance from 458 -> 458S vs 991TT -> 991TTS vs 12C -> 650S?

 

Well the technology is still far from amazing at the moment...I mean look at the current 2014 F1 cars. They are running at GP2 speeds for crying out loud and they sound terrible...sad but true.

"Jenson Button has warned that GP2 cars might rival Formula One lap times at some circuits until development of the new-generation F1 cars steps up a gear."

At the opening test in Jerez last week, only three Formula One drivers went quicker than the fastest time set at last year's pre-season GP2 test at the same circuit. Although conditions will not have been identical and most F1 teams were focusing on reliability over performance, the fastest time of the week set by Kevin Magnussen was only 0.724s quicker than the quickest GP2 car in 2013 and 4.397s slower than the fastest time at last year's F1 Jerez test.

"They [GP2 cars] will be a lot closer on certain circuits," Button said. "At high-speed circuits we will be quicker but not that much quicker, but then again this is the first test with a very new package."

Read more at GP2 cars will be close to F1 pace at some circuits - Jenson Button | Formula 1 | Formula 1 news, live F1 | ESPN F1

 

I disagree that this discussion is the same.

With a DCT transmission you are not changing the gears you are asking a computer to for you. Therefore they have removed some of the driver involvement in the process.

All we are talking about here is engines and how they make power/torque, we are not saying the driver is not in control of whether the engine accelerates or slows anymore.
Pete
ps: I would though like the FIA to mandate accelerator cables to directly connect the throttle pedal to the throttle butterflies as then we will see real driving again AND hp would drop considerably as drivability of the engine would become important again. Thanks to fly-by-wire engines are now designed for peek hp in F1 only ... they are like electric motors now .

 

But this will quickly change. The current engine formula has the potentially for considerably more power and torque than the engines they replace ... so be patient, won't take long at all ... probably the first official practice session at Australia.
Pete

 

I was under the impression that race car performance is limited by rules, not technology. I'd be hesitant to write off any race car components as better/inferior

Road cars are limited by cost, marketing, and business plans. I'm pretty sure you could take any car on the road today and get the exact same performance with a FI set-up, but I think the FI set-up would be cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, and easier to modify going forward in the product line, up and down the scale.

 

The regulations do dictate the technology in F1...hence why for 2014 regulations and on, the engines have been downsized from NA V8s to turbocharged V6's, with the goal of making F1 technology development more relevant and more relevant to a wider spectrum of road going applications. There is also a strong emphasis on the ERS (Energy Recovery System) this season and on, which is what we're all talking about here, particularly how it helps to keep power/torque linear and minimizes turbo lag by keeping etc.

F1 as in Formula One not Forced Induction...