Actually the V8 is going away (or so is rumored) and only V10 model moving forward. Makes sense since 3 to 1 sales ratio on V10 to V8. New RS5 will not hit until 2017 according to GM at my Audi dealer.
Can't argue with that. Will be interesting as to optional 'exhaust package' on V10 for 2016 and what comes of it--my prayer they get it closer to what Huracan sounds like (which is just a monster sound wise). 488 anyone? I hope Ferrari nails it...come on Ferrari we all want a beefy sound (or optional exhaust package from factory).
of course supercharged engines are less effective but I wish Ferrari change their mind after customers complaining about sound better than turbo would be one of this options: V8 NA + electric motor V8 supercharged V6 NA + two electric motors
That's a good question. RS7 is a turbo V8 and is really really fast. 560 hp. Our S4 is sc v6 and is great. 333 hp. A sc v8 would be great. Of course none sound or perform like the 458
Yep RS7 is actually 560HP as is lighting fast--loved mine. Dealer GM said 2016 RS7 (which first one will hit in March/Apr this yr) will be tweaked to 575 HP.
AUDI should be smarter than BMW & Merc Benz, they should build supercharged V8, if it's good for V6 so why not for V8? superchaged V10 from R8 have 750hp http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2010/05/hispano-suiza-v10-supercharged/
Novitec build supercharged 430 http://www.ramspeedautomotive.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Ferrari-F360-Red-Novitec-Twin-Supercharger-Ramspeed-Automotive-4.jpg superchrged 599GTO with 888 HP http://fancytuning.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/novitec-rosso-ferrari-599-gto-supercharged-3.jpg
That is a good question. Most people believe turbos are more fuel efficient. However, we traded in a 2009 mt Subaru Outback with 260 hp and got 21-25 mpg. Bought an S4 mt sc with 333 hp. Getting 26 mpg and the car is at least 1 second faster 0-60. There is no question that sc is more fuel efficient than na, especially at altitude...we are at 8k ft above sea level. Some sc produce more heat (roots) than others. Have has no problem with our sc S4. Has not been hot summer or winter.
I don't know about current tech but previous turbocharged cars were more efficient. If you stayed off boost.
I thought at low rpms yes, which enables you to pass emissions tests, but at higher rpms, which is hopefully where you are driving, they are less fuel efficient. If this is true, the whole move to turbos is a farce as far as emissions are concerned.
supercharged california 606 hp at 7.900 rpm http://www.novitecgroup.com/rosso/img/content/modelle/california/katalog/motor/F188802_sportkompressor_m800x533.jpg
Yes. The least of my concerns. Would get a diesel, turbo diesel or BMW i8 if that were really a concern. I get 10 mpg in the twisties in Race mode in the 458 spider. Never complain about the gas. Cheap entertainment with lift tickets here over $100 per day (but I get a season pass). Golf costs over $100 a round per person.
The reliability of turbos have come a very long way. I'm willing to bet you that the average 488 turbocharger will easily last 75+k miles. Just look at how reliable turbos are in the VAG cars running extremely high boost levels of 40+ psi. This is not an old Nissan or Subaro - and at the end of the day, these turbochargers can be rebuilt, so no need to change the entire thing.
Turbo reliability is way up but 75k is an absurdly low number. I've seen many lesser companies get turbos to run way longer without issue. Before people say no one will put on 75k. The Europeans will. Probably within 3-4 years. Funny you mention VAG. My turbo Subaru STi was far more reliable than my turbo A6 or my wife's turbo A4. Both were junk. Had nothing to do with turbos though, just poor parts and design.
I had two A6 Avant's a 2.4 TDI and a 2.0 TFSI, never an issue with turbos. But the reason why I say 75k, is because we have to expect these cars to be driven hard and tracked. Also notice that I said 75+ and it is a conservative estimation. The valve train life in these cars are also different than a "regular" car. Fast reving engines mean high valve spring pressures, aggressive cams with steep lobes and so on. As for VAG, the current models are working very well. Here in Europe, there are a ton of 1.2 to 2.0 TSI engines with +200k kilometers and never an issue. All in all, I think we agree on most of the turbo questions, and I completely agree that turbos are very reliable now-a-days. That being said, I'd hate to be the owner of a 488 if one of the turbos shattered a compressor wheel and with either no warranty or due to something that would void the warranty.
A modern turbo engine has a significant higher efficiency than a comparable NA-engine. Performance figures (usable in road traffic) like 670hp and 760 NM from a 3.9liter engine aren't possible without turbo technology. For example the Ferrari 6.2 V12 in the F12 spec is able to produce 740hp and 690 NM of torque. Therefore the big benefit of the turbo technology regarding "fuel economy" is the usage of the downsizing effect: a "small" 3.9 V8 engine needs basically less energy "for itself" than a "big" 6.2 V12, the engine is lighter and fewer components have to be moved. The additional turbines are driven "for free" by the exhaust gases which remain unused in a NA V12. There is just one small problem: each one will use these 670hp and this huge amount of torque. At the very end, a 488 GTB driven maxed out will burn more fuel than a 458.
