Why no turbo or supercharging on recent Ferraris?

Based on the number of You Tube vids showing wrecked Ferraris, I don't think Turbos are necessary.

Dale

 

The new Ferrari Supercar likely will be TT V8.

 

My answer would be: GOD FORBID!!!
But I can not stop progress . . .

I am a great fan of normal aspiration when it comes to 6 cyls. and above
Hearing an engine scream is my utmost reward!

Although I do not mind superchargers and Turbos in 4 cyl. engines!

Greetz,


Joseph

 

I think as Jim posted above.. a TT V8 would be more in lines with lower carbon footprint and emissions...

 

So they just put turbo to V8 from 458 or thy buil something new?

 

Also, turbos have not been in F1 for a while...

Trickle-down tech from F1 has a large impact on Ferrari's road cars...

 

Ferrari invests the design-time and money into the engine parts so that they can get the HP needed without resorting to turbos and supers. The design-time component has mainly to do with air-flow through the cylinders, and the parts-money is mainly in keeping the engine alive at 9,000 RPMs.

 

To add a turbo or supercharger is not an insult. Just different. A little more boy toy but will seriouly kick ass.

 

Certainly the technology is available.

Based on my limited turbo experience
( I have and drive/ride 3 turbo cars
and 8 turbo motorcycles), I believe that
Ferrari, with a 6 litre twin turbo, could produce
a street engine that would make 850-900 HP,
and go 100,000 miles.

With a little more boost, 1,100 Hp and
a limited warantee would be very doable.

The sound suffers, because the turbos
act like mufflers that dampen the exhaust pulses,
and that exciting v-12 sound is muted.

When riding my 750 HP motorcycle (269 MPH-twice) all-out,
I would be hard pressed to tell you what it sounds like.

I am paying attention to other things.

Here's my rider at Bonneville.

(Use some audio to pick up the naration)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImtEKiicus[/ame]
Scott

 

Ferrari makes performance engines, and tosses in the rest of the car as "accessories".

A normal breather engine will typically have better throttle response and a flatter torque curve than a turbo mill.

A turbo mill will be more economical than a NA of the same power.

So, Ferrari only puts turbos on their "economy" models.
(E.g. where displacement is restricted due to local tax penalties or homologation rules.)

 

I think a new Ferrari with forced induction would be dreamy.

 

has Ferrari ever built a supercharged car?

 

Turbo's can sound good.

Thing is naturally apsirated engines especially small displacement engines that Ferrari and most exotics use tend to have to rev to make power, and thus sacrificing torque. The expense that goes into these engines goes into making the components withstand the high revs.

However turbo and large displacement engines have to be built just the same to handle the cylinder pressures.

Both are equal.

Yea 600+ cubic inch V8 with twin turbo's can sound good... kinda like Godzilla fighting a tornado.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9De0p6DIysg[/ame]

 

I can't think of any.

 

Why would you want such a retarded amount of power, unless you're drag racing? As has been proven many a time...there is such a thing as too much power.

 

Comprex supercharger was tried a cuple of times back in the F1 turbo-era

 

Cart is dragging the horse, here.

Torque is a strong function of displacement and a weak function of compression. Thus, it is the small displacement that limits the torque of Ferrari engines.

Power is a function of torque and RPMs, thus, with little torque from the small displacement, one must rev the engine significantly higher in order to produce power equivalent to bigger displacement engines reving lower. In order to make torque (and thus power) at high RPMs the heads, intake and exhaust must breath very well.

 

Twin Turbo Ferrari 458... I don't like it but seeing what they did with the Lambo, hot damn it's going to be fast.

http://www.undergroundracing.com/car-gallery/ferrari/195-ferrari-458-twin-turbo.html

 

You've got it!

Its as much about the driving pleasure as the outright performance!

 

We have yet to experience too much power.

If the traction and chassis are correct,
the power is transmitted in a predictable
way to the ground, and the car / bike
behaves properly.

 

I am quite willing for the moment to agree with this.

My twin-turbo Callaway Corvette with automatic
produces an impressive amount of torque,
being able to produce full boost as low as 2,000 RPM,
with the proper starting procedure.

The result astounds the high RPM folks when
at a stop light we can spin the rear tyres
without limit, and the car remains standing still.

The automatic helps, as does the torque
and brake bias.

 

One of the biggest reasons I decided to not turbo
my 456 was the loss of "sound quality."

I have a bunch of Japanese turbos lying around,
the remains of several Nissan 300ZX twin-turbo
projects. These turbos, in pairs, are well capable
of feeding 3.0 iitres of engine to 6,600 RPM and
12-16 pounds of boost, doubling the horsepower.

I just assumed that if I put 2 pair (4 turbos) on
a 456, that I could "easily" net 800 crankshaft
horsepower from the 456.

But no V-12 sound, so forget it.....

* * * *

I have driven an S 2000, and enjoyed it.

Comparing that to another memorabale ride,
a modified 1956 English Berkeley sports car,
the S 2000 memory suffers.

The Berkeley then carried a 700 HP motor,
and remained close to its original weight,
scaling maybe 1,200 pounds, or less than
2 pounds per HP.

Frankly, I don't remember the engine sound........

 

very well said

If i may extend the argument, one can compare two engines to see that a smaller-displacement, higher-revving engine ... with less engine torque ... need not suffer anything at the wheels, compared to a larger-displacement, lower-revving engine ... of EQUAL POWER :

ENGINE A :

small displacement, lets say 300 ft-lbs of engine torque (flat across rev range), 8000 RPM redline

ENGINE B :

large displacement, let's say 400 ft-lbs of engine torque (flat across rev range), 6000 RPM redline

(note that the torque and rev limits of these two engines were chosen so that the max horsepower is identical)

STATEMENT : Given any gear ratios for ENGINE B, you can select the appropriate gearing for ENGINE A so that all measurements at the driven wheels (including torque) are absolutely indistinguishable between the two cars

CONCLUSION : It is indeed POWER that is the fundamental quantity of interest ... no matter how you choose to get there Alternatively: the appropriate gearing can make a high-revving, small displacement engine feel identical to a low-revving, large displacement engine ... at the wheels, where it counts. POWER is ultimately what matters