Turbos vs naturally aspirated?

You mean supercharged?

All best,
Andrew.

 

I'm pretty certain you'd find the 2015 Ferrari SF15-T far from terrible!

 

So if it is all about instant and effortless torque, why waste time and mess with turbos and go straight to electric. Why drive a turbo when you could drive a Tesla? People like what they like for various reasons. I prefer normally aspirated higher revving engines because they are more fun for me to drive. I have ownd and driven many turbo cars and i like them as a daily driver, I just prefer a high revving normally aspirated car for fun.

 

My hot rod has a 6-71 GMC supercharger, I just love to nail it, It gives me a rush!

Dave

 

It just sounds terrible compared to the old V-12 and V-10s.

 

My point is many forget that two of the best loved cars from the 80's (and before Enzo's passing) were Turbo cars.

 

I find the whole F40 is a turbo thing a bit of a false argument. It is a turbo because of RACING regulations (288). The new cars are turbo purely because of more stringent environmental regulations- and Ferrari is more exposed to those because of their going public. Don't think there is not a correlation. It very much is. So to me the turbo of modern Ferraris is not a carryover from racing.

However, this choice sure beats the underpowered cars that happened the last time they had to change from carbs to fuel injection.

I agree with the OP. Turbos are fine to help reduce consumption and emissions, but for a sports car, I would choose the NA motor.

As to why not go electric- the answer is two things: weight and complexity. Going hybrid of any sort means some heavy batteries. The current crop of hyper cars weighs something like 650lbs more than their predecessors all because of the hybrid systems. And Ferrari has been having a terrible time of it with the LF hybrid system.

I don't think your production sports cars can handle that kind of weight increase. A 488 that weighs around 4,000lbs? I don't think so! That would be very bad.

So its turbos. Sure beats what happened the last time, but for now I'll stick with my NA toys.

 

We all know Ferrari had to do something.

Both the Huracan & 650S could wipe the streets (and track) up with the 458. The 650S has the twin-turbo (terrible sounding) and advanced software, whilst the Huracan has the impressive V10 and all-wheel drive, with some understeer.

I'm curious to see how the new Turbo'd 488 will do against those same cars. According to the numbers, both cars may be faster still; but, we'll have to wait & see. If Ferrari does not make appreciative gains on those cars, then the 488 is not a success in my book. They can no longer claim the sound, as that has been effectively surrendered to the still NA Huracan.

 

As much as I really like the 288's exterior aesthetics and the F40's spartan interior, these models have not been on my bucket list to own due to their turbocharged engines. Maybe track time behind a wheel of an F40 LM may convince me otherwise, but won't hold my breath.

In terms of new turbo cars, the AMG GT S is interesting with the turbos within the engine's V, which shortens the intake. I'm willing to try those, too.

 

You're right they had to do something. But it is possible to make more power via either SC or just a larger motor. The turbos are the only realistic choice given the decision to go public. It is what it is.

 

My experience in (riding in not driving) an F40 was that it had the most brutal acceleration I have ever experienced. I say that in a good and exciting way. It was more of a rush than my ducati...

Would love to put one in my garage some day. Although I love the high rev'ing NA cars (and their noise) I have driven. So i will stay with NA first and foremost.

Robb

 

The key to driving the F40 is keep the RPMs just a tick under the turbo coming on and then the power is nearly instant when you ask for it. Its a very fun car to drive.

 

Why haven't superchargers become more common?

 

Because you don't get the efficiency gains. They are driven by the motor themselves, so there is a direct loss in the equation.

Turbos are recapturing energy that is otherwise lost from the system (exhaust gases / by product) and harnessing those, for an efficiency gain in the system.

Turbos in modern cars are all about the efficiency -- more power from smaller displacement engine. Smaller engine equals lighter weight and less space / better packaging, and more energy harnessed for every combustion cycle.

 

For example the Dodge Hellcat with a listed 7HP over 700 is supercharged. The problem is the supercharger requires 0ver 80 HP to develop boost. Even though response time is better than a turbo there is a significant loss of HP. With turbos the power is free but there is usually some lag

 

Exactly, the supercharger draws engine power to drive the "charging" (or compression of air).

You can usually start with a smaller, lighter engine with a turbo than you can with a super charger. Of course, plenty of lag.

Supercharger will be lag free, but won't generate quite the efficiency gain (if any, depending on use). I imagine there may be more system stress through a super charger as well, but I'm not certain of it.

I guess you could twin charge a system but likely expensive (and even more things to go wrong) vs. twin turbos (with either one smaller and one larger, or two variable geometry systems?) Easiest way to see the benefits is what the manufacturers have opted to do, and pretty much everyone turbo charges in the mass produced models (where efficiency, cost and reliability are key).

 

One of the biggest problems with turbos is heat...pumping heated exhaust gases back into the engine. Hence those big ducts behind the doors. Intercoolers are better nowadays but heat would still be a concern for me. Be careful not to put the car away without a good cooldown period. And heatwill shorten the life of the engine and nearby parts.

My preference is big high revving na. But we have a 2014 Audi S4 that is supercharged. No lag. Instant torque. May not be as "efficient" as a twin turbo but is much more fun IMVHO. And it sounds great in Dynamic mode.

 

Sorry about the earlier typo the Hellcat has over 700 HP however the supercharger uses over 80 HP to run according to autoweek. Even though there is no lag your actual HP is over 10% less. As for turbos and heat soak that is no longer a problem because they come with efficient intercoolers and the turbos are now water cooled so heat soak is not an issue and free HP

 

Hellcat is 707hp, not over 10% less. Crank hp is crank hp regardless of supercharger parasitic loss.

Also, while exhaust energy is used to drive the turbochargers and is less loss than a supercharger, it certainly isn't free.

 

What do you mean when you say "pumping heated exhaust gasses back into the engine"?

A turbo does not pump the exhaust gasses anywhere but out the rear of the car, they get nowhere near the compressor, or anywhere else upstream. All the air going into a turbocharged engine is fresh air.

 

You're both right and wrong. No, heated exhaust gases do not go into the engine. But the hot and cold side of the turbo are about 5 inches apart and are connected by a shaft, filled with oil (and sometimes coolant), bearings, etc.


Being careful not to put the car away without a long cooldown is mostly a thing of the past nowadays. Modern turbo cars have water and oil cooled turbos and will use an electric pump to keep coolant flowing through the turbos after shutdown.

Also, assuming ferrari is not dumb, they have accounted for the extra heat in the engine bay coming from the turbos.

As for intercoolers, they are pretty damn efficient if done properly.

 

Its all a out some lag, and as other here have said turbo power for a given throttle seetting is not consistent.

Also while all motors suffer on a hot day, the difference in performance on a turbo car on a humid 90 degree day compared to say a 70 degree day is a chasm.

Exrarct 600 hp and you burn gas to make 600hp. We can see this on the ford ecoboost f150, good gas mileage on a flat straight road running on cruise control, in other areas can be worse than a v8.

Of course the euro way of making big power with lots of revs is also inefficient in that there are massive frictional losses comapred to say a bigger NA pushrod V8.

Its all a function of how these motors are tested and under what conditions. Everthing in terms of eeficiency is based on light use on gov test cycles, and power draws above that and that what gas is then burned is not relevant in terms of tests.

As paper stats sell, its hard for a company to beat the paper accleration and hp numbers of a competitors boosted car, although lambo is sticking with NA. Althougha s we can see its getting to ridiculous and irrelevant hp numbers.

Like a stick a NA motor will become more of the conniseurs choice.

Turbos in the case of ferrari also seem to negate the concept that a smaller ligher motor allows you to build a much lighter car, as the turbo motors weigh more than the cars they replace.

To the extent that boosted motors are here to stay, I think electric turbos will come to the fore, no lag like a supecharger, and you can really modulate the boost exactly.

 

one reason to like superchargers is they do not muffle the sound, the exhaust noises leave uninterrupted as they would on any normally aspirated engine ... short of getting in a competition, most of us would enjoy the better noises over the extra power a turbo would offer

 

I dislike turbos or superchargers as they add more components that can go wrong.
Nothing beats increased volume of the engine for torque and power, and more cylinders for smoothness!

 

To your point and as a reminder:


[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQaikxTUJs[/ame]
Apr 29, 2014 - Uploaded by Petrolicious
Using hyperbole to describe the 1964 Ferrari 250 GTO is unnecessary. The car speaks for itself