Only those that don't realize the temporary limitation which I think should be more widely discussed amongst the dealers. As I said before its only limited in manual mode. Do a launch and it'll shift right at 8000......
The point being..... Saying it reaches 8000 RPMs by "spec" doesn't mean it reaches 8000 RPM in all gears. Evo said Ferrari limited the upper RPM range and torque to top gear. How often do any of you go to the redline in top gear? Exactly my point. If it's limited to 7500 in 1-2 then for all well in good for most of us, it's a 7500 limit. AKA: It CAN go there, but most of us will never see it unless we track it.
No, that is incorrect and that is what we are trying to explain to you. The final product will reach 8k RPM in all gears. It's not the revs that are being restricted, but the turbo pressure and the corresponding torque in the mid range of the power band in lower gears. In all gears though the car will make 670 CV and reach 8000 RPM. It just won't have the full torque, which is presented only in 7th gear.
Sorry but no one at Ferrari has stated it will reach 8 grand in all gears YET. When you find that quote, please post it here.
Again, during the test drives in Budapest, Ferrari instructors told us the rpm will be @8000. Im sure any of the European members here can confirm that but I guess most guys in the US need to hear it from their dealers. Last I heard they don't even know when or how man 488s they'll be getting.
Ferrari has largely cited regulations as the reason for going turbo. However, I can't help thinking that this had something to do with it too: McLaren Automotive - 650S Coupe Fact is, Ferrari (and some of its new car buyers) might not tolerate being smoked by the upstarts in Woking. I'd much rather have a 458 than 650S for the looks, sound, involvement, etc., but the numbers do matter to many people. While this would get expensive, I wonder if Ferrari shouldn't have used a N/A V8 hybrid like LaFerrari instead of a TT V8....
Porsche GT4 only revs to 7,500, but the last 500 is the peak of the power band, so the car screams and you can feel it reaching the top. In turbocharged, the max power band is actually lower, so if it's being added up from 7,500 to 8,000, that would be a flat rev. Engine would only produce turbulence sound, and I think the car would perform slower because the upshifts are being inefficient (too late).
That is my experience with McLarens. It will rev to 8500 but the last 1000 or so is declining torque. TT engines are mid range torque-makers and that's the short of it.
Not the case with my TTS. I find I'm I'm shifting at just over red line, at which time it's still pulling strong.
They don't have to be. Even if the turbos are sized for low/mid range response, manifold pressure can be programmed to increase linearly with rpm so it carries power out to redline and doesn't have the 'just dropped off a cliff' feeling. Variable geometry turbo is also a great way to achieve a wider powerband without sacrificing efficiency.
redline in the turbo S is 7200revs. maybe porsche is just more honest in this than other producers which let the engine rev on without power and torque increase. peter
The purpose of TT is to get max torque and power at low rpm. Nobody sets the turbo to start boosting at 7,000 rpm, so the max power reached at 8,000 rpm. Even F1 cars now shift much sooner than last time (NA).
Here's a little arithmetic with the manufacturer's specs. The 488 peak torque is specified at 3000 RPM. Peak hp (which is proportional to torque x RPM) peaks at 8000 RPM. This means that Torque(@8000 RPM) must be greater than (3/8) x Torque(@3000RPM). So torque in the 488 can fall off by more than half from its peak and still give max hp at 8000 RPM. Thus you can get that sinking feeling. But the 458 peak torque is specified at 6000 RPM and peak hp is at 9000 RPM. This means that Torque(@9000RPM) must be greater than (2/3) x Torque(6000RPM). So while torque is falling off above 6000 RPM, it has a much narrower power band and cannot fall off nearly as much as the 488 torque curve. So redlines come up fast and furious, a completely different experience, no matter what the acceleration times.
I object! I was told that there would be no math! Perhaps the falling off in torque at higher revs is the reason why Ferrari chose to limit the revs at 8K and not 9? I tend to think that turbos since they are small and well designed could handle the rpms
The rpms of the engine and the rpms of the turbo has nothing to do with one another. One of the issues with forced induction engines in relation with rpm, is the design of the cam shafts, valve train etc. An aggressive valve train that works well for high rpm power, does not work well for forced induction applications, especially turbochargers. With more aggressive specs, i.e, less lobe separation, high lift and long duration, the efficiency of any compressor goes down. Also, for that to even work, you'd need higher valve spring pressure due to the fact that you'd need steeper lope ramp angles which in turn creates a "faster" valve train. Valve seat angles become an issue due to high lift, and so does the weight of the valve train itself. On top of all that, such a valve train need a lot more attention and maintenance due to more wear and tear.
I disagree with some the above^^ As long as the turbos are spec'd correctly you can run very similar valvetrain/rpm as a naturally aspirated engine. For instance, you could turbocharge a 458 and retain the original cams/valvetrain and 9k rpm. Possibly more valve spring pressure would be needed but certainly not an issue.
The purpose of turbocharged is for small and normal engine to gain similar or more power with highly tuned and large NA engine. Because the engine is small and normal, then it's more environment friendly. There is no point to add a turbo on highly tuned NA engine, some more it won't be durable anymore.
