488 GTB (458 replacement)

Put it this way : Even the F1 cars with turbo sound like s*it, let alone the road legal.

 

Unless they use an electric motor to spin the turbo and not exhaust. The technology is just coming out.

 

I most certainly do not need a hybrid system - especially in a V12. Just as bad as a turbo in my opinion but way more cost and complexity. Hi-test gas and a marvelously tuned screaming NA combustion engine with 12 cylinders is what brought me to Ferrari. Lots of CO2 to feed the trees and plants! The battery can run the headlights.

 

I doubt that hybrid will be on V8 cars in the future, it will go only for V12.
Some customers will be a little disappointed about V8 turbo but Ferrari will not have problem to sell 458 replacement.

 

That would be way too expensive for the V8s and will be the privilege of the future V12s.

 

The electric motors spin the turbos at low engine RPM, but the exhaust gases take over after that. Thus there won't be a sound difference.

 

I think that the turbo V8 might be there for only one full car cycle before being replaced by hybrid V8s in the early 2020.

 

Probably But Hybrids cost a lot more so maybe not

 

In the early 2020 we are probably going to see hydrogen-powered supercars. Hybrids will be surpassed tech.

 

Not so fast. Internal combustion engines have many years in front of them.

 

Perfect.

 

Well, there is a catch

Only fuel that could save NA screaming internal combustion engines as we know them today is hydrogen! Also, end product of hydrogen powered car is H2O. Hydrogen acts like classic gasoline, so in theory you can convert (for example) your 458 Italia to hydrogen if you change conventional gas tank, some mechanical parts and re-program ECU for hybrid injection. Keep in mind that this is just general thought when it comes to converting.

Also, with hydrogen you dont need heavy batteries and heavy electronics to keep car running! So, the best way to explain this, with hydrogen you would have cars like you know them today but with zero emissions.

In theory, only way for Ferrari to save their screaming NA V12 is to go in hydrogen direction.

 

With an energy conversion efficiency of more than 95%, the electric motor will succeed (combustion engine max 50%), and this very soon. Tesla and BMW sends his regards. To protect the big advantage of the sound Ferrari should invest finally in the development of a reasonable sound system.

 

Energy conversion efficiency? I finally figured out why God made the dinosaurs and plants for all those millions of years. It was so I can put 93 octane in my NA V12 for the rest of my life! Also so I can open the hood and gasp at that beast.

Agree that electric motors and computer consoles will eventually win in the end - and they'll be autonomous as well. That way you can thumb massage your 4G device all the way to your destination and not even know you were in an automobile.

 

A couple of problems with your assessment. First off you have to look at what is called "well-to-wheels" efficiency, not just the efficiency of the final drive motor. When you do that, the gap closes to zero.

1. Gasoline manufacturing efficiency is over 90%; typical fuel-to-electricity power generation efficiency is 30% (coal) up to 60% (natural gas combined cycle). Forget wind and solar. They make only a small contribution to the mix. So you lose a lot of energy to begin with when you start off with an electrical system relative to the chemical energy of gasoline or diesel.
2. Battery energy density is much lower than gasoline -- the best commercial battery has only a few % of the energy density of gasoline. This is one reason why range is so bad in electrics.
3. Rapid battery discharging results in loss of energy that is wasted as heat. In the extreme you get fires.
This is not to mention that when you fill your car with gasoline, the rate of energy going into your car is 16 megawatts, enough to light up a city. Try that with a battery system and you will get a nice detonation. This is why you can pull into you friendly gas station, fill up in a minute or so and go 300 miles with confidence.

All this is to say that there is a reason why an outfit like Tesla loses money on every car they sell. Their profit is derived entirely from government subsidies. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-tesla-motors-really-makes-money-from-taxpayers/

 

+ 200 cell

 

I fully agree with you. You show exactly where the challenges are! BTW during this spring I had to buy a new car for everyday life and these are the reasons why I've decided for a great V8 and not for a Tesla (next to the V8 sound and the car design...) . On the other hand we have also to accept that our environment has a small problem with all the combustion processes, it makes sense to optimize all the energy conversion processes. In this context the future usage of pure electric drives is a major driver. I guess we have to accept this.

If interested have a look on the conclusion of the "Well-to-wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context".
APPENDIX 2 - WTW GHG-Emissions of Externally Chargeable Electric Vehicles
(R. Edwards European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy)
Downloads | JEC research collaboration
(Section October 2011)

Chapter 9 Discussion & Conclusions

As already discussed and outlined in chapters 5 and 8, the climate impact of externally chargeable HEV and BEV strongly depends on two main factors:
1. The utilization of electric energy from the grid versus the utilization of fossil fuel (which is a function of the initial pure electric range and the calibration strategy) and
2. The GHG intensity of the grid electricity.

In case of utilization of renewable electricity only, WTW GHG emissions in the range of 0 – 70 g CO2eq/kWh can be demonstrated with the considered xEV concepts. Battery electric vehicles (including externally chargeable HEV with initial electric mode for travel distances below the pure electric range) in that case have no WTW GHG emissions at all. In case of OVC concepts with blended operation strategies (e.g. PHEV), the GHG emissions are in the upper range of 60 – 70 g CO2eq/kWh. Considering the weighted average between the charge depleting condition and the charge sustaining condition for E-REV concepts as determined by the standardized test procedure delivers significantly lower GHG emissions.

With increasing GHG emissions from the considered electricity mix, the WTW GHG emissions of the OVC concepts are also constantly rising. Compared to an ICE reference vehicle (@ 120 g CO2eq/km TTW = 143 g CO2eq/kWh WTW), PHEV show higher GHG emissions if the electricity mix shows emissions beyond 600 g CO2eq/kWh and E-REV and BEV beyond about 850 - 900 g CO2eq/kWh in the worst case. Beyond 1100 to 1200 g CO2eq/kWh electricity mix emissions, all best case OVC concepts have higher WTW GHG emissions than the ICE reference.

Considering the electricity mix at about 467 g CO2eq/kWh the OVC concepts with a range of 60 – 96 g CO2eq/kWh still perform much better than the ICE reference. Only the PHEV in the worst case shows slightly higher WTW emission of about 126 g CO2eq/kWh, but still staying below the ICE reference.

Thus, for current EU-mix, total WTW GHG emission savings of up to 58% are possible. When utilizing renewable electricity, up to 100% GHG savings are possible with pure BEV and battery electric vehicles with range extender for travel distances below the pure electric range. OVC concepts with blended operation strategies or range extender with travel ranges beyond the electric range still show GHG emission savings of about 50 – 80%.

Finally, the conducted assessment showed the large GHG saving potential of different OVC concepts compared to an ICE reference vehicle of the same vehicle category. However, the potential savings are dependent on a lot of factors like the architecture and calibration strategy of the OVC concepts as well as the GHG emission of the electricity mix used to externally charge the batteries.

As a consequence, to further increase the environmental benefits of OVC concepts, it is essential to improve the electric range by further improving the battery technology, the overall vehicle/powertrain efficiency, weight reduction, aerodynamic measures, and so on.

In addition, the reduction of the GHG intensity of the electric grid as well as development of technologies for charging predominantly renewable energy (―wind to vehicle&#8214 in smart grids are the most important enablers of future sustainable electric propulsion.

As outlined before, further updates of the WTW study may reconsider the input data based on better established data derived from increasing experience with serial production vehicles and more detailed simulations. However, for holistic assessments of the impact of electric vehicle concepts on the European transport sector, the data provided with this appendix is sufficient and accurate.

 

hm...hope it does not look like this.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

No way! You are looking at 360-430 transition, not facelift of 458.

 

You should be more concern about exhaust sound than body design

 

Yes. And engine response, peak RPM, and heat soak as well. The solution that Ferrari came up with in the California T is very interesting: Rein back the boost in the lower gears to keep the exhaust noise, achieve quick response, and allow high RPM (7500). In the higher gears you get full boost and huge mid range torque. The car is still quick enough for fast 0-60 and quarter mile times. But 7500 RPM will not cut it in a 458 replacement. We will have to see what they come up with. It is very challenging.

 

....and i am still torn up between the speciale and the M458-T. my dealer checked with maranello and they confirm that (most likely) the speciale can be ordered until february for june delivery. but will we know the M458-T specs by then? and have heard the sound?
peter

 

I would get the Speciale or Speciale A since in my opinion they will become an instant collectible being the last NA v8 Ferrari ever.

 

If I were in your position, that is what I would do. At the end of the day we can expect the TT to have more brute torque but make needed compromises in other dimensions.

 

I wouldn't take the chance. I'd grab a Speciale while you can.