Why no turbo or supercharging on recent Ferraris?

OP,
I would guess F1 is a factor, but also because turbos work the best with automatic transmissions and less gearing.
But 562hp is 562hp no matter how you get there. On as street car, that's a lot.

N/A motor can't put down torque as efficiently as equivalent turbo motor.
turbos don't make power in a linear fashion like a N/A or supercharged motor.

turbos sound F-18 fighter jet great.
And in concert with a Ferrari V8 -mesmerizing.
nobody is mistaking a turbo for a muffler.
Funny thing is, the turbo in the Ferrari is a bit harder to notice than my other turbo cars. The motor is too loud!



Calloway Twin Turbo Vette????
6 cylinders, half the turbos, and twice the seats.......

Buick GNX vs. Calloway C4
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0F-MdFIuOk&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]
It looked pretty ugly when the rider and bike made contact. Glad he survived and hope he fully recovers.

 

This argument fails for the due to the physics underlying "Moment of Inertia".

Take the 380 HP Ferrari weighing 3200 pounds
Compare 330 HP Corvette LT4 GS weighing 3200 pounds
Ferrari has a slightly higher top speed (which is power limited) 183 vs 177
Corvette has a slightly faster 0-60 (which is traction limited: wider rear tires) 4.5 vs 4.3
Corvette has a slightly faster 1/4 mile (which, in this case, is moment of inertia limited) low 13s vs high 12s

Bigger engines reving more slowly have more power "under the curve".

 

nope.

In the example given, both engines have identical area under the torque curve. In the example given, each torque curve is flat to the rev limit. Therefore the areas under the curves are identical, and the max power is also identical. Geared properly, these two motors are indistinguishable at the wheels.

Now it's true that the example I created is an idealistic one ... i didn't pick two real engines to illustrate the point (no internal combustion engine has a perfectly flat torque curve). But the point still stands : power is the fundamental quantity, and the higher rev limit of a small displacement engine allows you to use gearing to generate torque at the wheels that's indistinguishable from the larger, lower-revving engine.

 

im sure its coming...

 

id much rather have a all motor v-12 than a twin turbo v8. if one wants a turbo that bad there are aftermarket options for that.

 

Indeed !

How could it not

Working with turbos is another level on complexity,
and is quite demanding at the outer reaches of performance.

Run a little lean, and the whole motor burns down.

In the "Old days" of turbo F1, it was accepted that
one engine manufacrurer supplied "qualifying motors"
and made around 1,400 HP from 1.5 litres.

The "fuel" was something simular to gasoline;
in that both fuels were "liquid."

Ferrari had their turbo act together back then,
and they certainly have the capability to produce
a car with the power and longevity of the Bugatti.

It just remains as to whether or not they want to.

It would not be a surprise if there is a "new" turbo
Ferrari on the market when the "new" F1 turbo
engines debut.

 

They serve different needs and desires.

That's why I have both.

Scott

 

Nice video of the C4 v GNX !

Rider was back on track 2 weeks later,
running almost 250 MPH on the back-up bike.

From my point of view, it looked like the rider
was IN the fireball, and that was my big worry.

Sometime we are just lucky !

 

I have dyno grpahs (both from my cars) that dispute your claim. I do not have a means to post them here. Be glad to send you a *.jpg so you could post them.

No, the LT4 engine has a descending TQ curve through the power band, the HP curve has more than 33% of the rev range over 300 HP (330 HP peak). Looking at the Ferrari HP curve, only 22% of the rev range is over 300 HP.

This is what is decidedly not true.

But you have yet to explain how a car with lower HP and identical weight ends up with lower performance in 0-60 and 1/4 mile.

I own both cars in question--btw.

That last paragraph is true only when you neglect rotational inertia (a quadradic function wrt RPMs.)

 

Kinda back on point, but not really...

I think the sweet spot for a street sports car is 400 hp/torque and 3,000 lbs. My Cayman is close to 3,000 pounds, but only has 285 ponies. If it had 400, I'd have to buy rear tires by the gross.

Dale

 

No ... the "example" I was referring to, was mine. In the example I GAVE, the torque curves were perfectly flat, and designed for EQUAL max hp. THEREFORE, in my example, the "areas under the curves" were IDENTICAL (in contrast to your objection). There's simply no denying that, in the example given by me, the higher-revving, lower-torque motor can be geared to be indistinguishable (at the wheels) from the lower-revving, higher-torque motor.

Now, regarding your concerns about rotational inertia, I would argue that the smaller-displacement, higher-revving engine is STILL not at a disadvantage, because :

- the rotational mass will be less
- the moment of inertia (of the crankshaft, for example) will be less because the stroke of the higher-revving motor will probably be less (and moment of inertia tends to go as the square of mass distance from center of rotation).

Bottom line : nothing wrong with a higher-revving motor to make power (assuming it's geared right)! Case in point, the wonderful 458 Italia

 

Absolutely!
Jus my opinion, but I think the rewards are worth the effort

I read somewhere a long while ago that those turbo F1 cars were 1000+hp
What fuel were they running?

no kidding about being lucky! Did this guy have a rabbits foot in his pocket? Or does he have a couple of rabbits' feet? Amazing.
I like to bet him $10 that he couldn't do it again!
Any clips of a complete run?

That GNX/C4 vid is ancient! I remember it on a GNX website when the Internet was a baby. Both are incredible machines, the Eighties were the most underrated generation for cars.

 

Back in the 80's, Ferrari sold the 208 GTB/S(and GT4, too) turbos in Italy, to get around high taxation on larger displacement engines. Two liter engine, not three. On the GTB/S, there were some extra air ducts near the back.

Not a big seller, but a work around for the local Italiano market...

 

Easy...
Naturally aspirated, high-revving cars have a better exhaust note & are typically much more responsive/precise with regard to throttle delivery (esp through hairpin turns where things need to be accurate/calculated)

 

Ferrari did produce a twin supercharged V12.

http://www.scaleautoworks.com/realeng1.jpg

Installed in the racing hydroplane Arno XI.

 

I got two german cars with about 5 litres of displacement. One with more than 700 hp and one with 500 hp. The one with 700 hp is not suited to drive on the road. The one with 500 hp is manageable on the road. A powerful car that is supercharged or even more so turbocharged has a sudden impact of thrust that makes it unsuitable for the road and not that enjoyable to drive. It´s not necessarily better with a supercharged modern Ferrari since Ferraris now all are powerful cars.

 

There is also the question of turbo lag
From when you put your foot in it until power produced is a bit, more with some than others.
Majorly pronounced with fire truck diesels and somewhat with Volvo turbo V70 XC.

Jury is still out for me on high rev small displacement IE Mondial vs. big block low rev 440 Chrysler or 8 liter V10 Dodge on which works better. Ferrari sounds better but the 440 4bbl moan is sweet too. Displacement has its advantages but leads to weight. Ferrari has the handling down pat. Ferrari also wins in MPG race.

 

Give it a couple more years...

 

May have been mentioned but I personally believe that if F1 was to turn turbo we'd see turbo Ferraris because they are so dedicating to democratizing race technology. But, since Ferrari always does their own thing. Also, don't we all somewhere deep down view turbo fitted cars to be less reliable than regular cars? Ferraris are technical enough, turbos would add an order of magnitude to that equation.

 

Nope to the 1st part and just ask the manufactures that same question. Without any knowledge/background/experience in turbochargers one cannot say they are less reliable, the myth seem's to have not died. Oh and before I get beat down lol my opinion is neither right nor wrong just friendly banter.

 

Ferrari has produced both turbo-charged and and super-charged cars in the past and will likely do so again in the future.

 

I don't believe it's a myth that turbo cars are less reliable, first off. A myth is only faintly based on experience, turbocharged cars are not mythical entities...ergo.....speculation about the reliability of turbocharged cars is speculative, it is granted.

I should have said it better, like this. There is no denying that a turbo adds a layer of complexity to a car, irrespective of reliability. Take the venerable Fiat Spider turbo, simple base 2 liter DOHC engine, neat, reliable, Lampredi design. Fiat added a turbo in 1981 and yanked it a year later, but I'm not citing this as a proof case, not at all. It was bad execution that killed that project. But there is no denying that adding a turbo adds a layer of mechanical complexity. The amount of additional units of mechanical complexity you have is directly proportional to the amount of breaking issues, by sheer quantity. Doesn't matter what subsystem is ramped up in complexity, if you increase complexity, you increase breakage. Now some might say....'turbos' aren't complex because they just recycle exhaust. Well...simple principle doesn't equate to simple execution and you still get increased probability of breakage. At least in my highly marginal .02.

 

In 2013 they will produce a turbocharged F1 car (again).

As far as turbo lag, this is an older concept when fitting larger turbochargers to small(er) engines, in regards to the metric volume of exhaust as compared to operating speeds of the turbocharger. New technology with variable vane turbo fans alters the dynamics of the pressurized side to start producing boost under 2000rpm's.

Older Formula 1 cars would qualify in a low boost trim. Senna was known for doing quali with an 800HP car and then change the set up for race trim, pushing out 1200HP. He would get squirrely tires on the straights with that much power. The BMW dyno at the time maxed out at 1400HP and the F1 cars would push that amount of horsepower out, indicating that they had well more than that on tap.

 

That's backwards. They would qualify (on qualifying tires which last 3 laps) at 1200 HP and race at 800-900 HP. The engines used in Qualifying would not last a race distance at qualifying levels of power.