Why has Ferrari abandoned turbo charging?

Using turbos is cheating!

 

In F1 you must use a N/A motor today. As to turbos, they get very expensive when they go "pop".

 

amadeo felisa says its quite possible, as well as direct injection, but not for performance, bc of emissions, it becomes tougher to make a NA engine perform as they do as emissions equipment becomes stricter..not to mention noise regulations. Turbos arent cheating, theyre just...better!

 

I think Ferrari is focusing on natural aspiration because of the instant throttle response and its benefit of predictable handeling, which lends itself to the total package approach that Ferrari seems to favor these days. They are not out to make the most HP or to be the best at only one particular performance test, in fact the thing Ferraris do best cannot be captured on a spec sheet.

 

kind of off subject but does anyone know are Gallardos turbocharged?

 

Words of wisdom

No

 

in a recent interview, ferrari said they will likely move that direction in the future as the only way to produce craploads of power while meeting emissions.

 

But isn't supercharging the real way forward. The benefits of turbos but with no lag, and a linear response?

Jas

 

With the exception of use with Diesels, haven't most manufacturers shelved this form of forced induction. Further evidence if more were needed to the old adage 'there ain't no substitute for cubes'. Variable valve timing seems to have bridged the gap a little

 

Today's turbos are MUCH more advanced and responsive than ever. With the advent of ball bearing cartridges/center sections lag is becoming a thing of the past. Even moreso now with these new variable geometry turbos which continually adjust the vanes on the compressor wheel to operate efficiently at all times (not very big here in the States yet, but available on many turbo diesels elsewhere in the world). It's hard to beat the efficiency of a turbo'd car, but I don't think reliability is high up on the list of benefits. Even though I'm a huge fan of Ferrari's current trend of high hp/low displacement N/A engines I would certainly welcome another turbo car back into their lineup. A twin-turbo'd Enzo would suit me just fine

 

Do you think that there are tires , or a road that will be able to resist the power of a twin turbo Enzo ?

 

I've owned several turbo powered cars, and I just flat out don't like them. The lag makes it seem as though the engine is underpowered and needs help. Response feels like an add on.

 

Have you owned an F40 ? I know that in that awesome car when you push the throttle the response of the turbo it`s immediat , and there`s no delay , unlike other so called turbocharged cars .

 

I think the F40 is supposed to have HUGE lag...isnt it?

 

No man ,you`re making a confusion , the car with the HUGE lag is the Porsche 959 , in that car you push the throttle and then you need to wait a long time until power hits !!!
That was porsche`s big problem , opposite to F40!

 

From i know, the way to get rid of lag is to keep engine compression the same. Which almost no engine manages, bar a few exceptions, this is why for exemple the 993 turbo had less HP than a stock 993 before the turbo kicks in.
A way to do is of course to have two, a small one that has almost no inertia, and a second, bigger one, for high end power. This was used on the 959, and is still considered as one of the big futures of turbos (many new or next gen diesel engines are using this tech).
Still there will always be a lag you don't have with a kompressor, but this eats a lot of HP.
Anyway, i don't think turbos are cheating, even if it looks like the less beautiful or pure solution, but then again, cubic inches isn't very subtle either at first look, but in the end, if you look at the weight/package volume of engines you get the full picture. The engine of the veyron with gearbox and cooling is almost 900 kgs i guess....
Anyway, a typical petrol engine has a ~13 energy efficiency, meaning 13 % of the actual energy contained in the explosion of the gas ends up at the wheels. Turbos can get up to 30-35 % eficiency.
I often wanted while i had the 993 to install a biturbo kit, but in the end never did it.
I think it's not in the current philosophy of the F-cars to build turbo engines. They have a good expertise of NA engines, and there is no competition fundament or legislation, like the 2 litres tax in italy right now to justify such an engine..,
Also, most of the time, turbos had a bad press because of people not knowing how to use them (giving them time to cool down etc), and this is the same for non iron engines....
Lastly, in a way engines now use more natural ways to increase the volume of air, supercharging it slightly as speed rises, which is also why the real HP of a superbike can't be found on a static power measure, as this effect counts for a lot.

 

superchagring is belt driven and there for in increases off line response but the top end is rarly improved plus its far less relible and small turbos do the trick just as well as supercharging

 

Superchargers are far less efficient in comparison to turbochargers. Centrifugal superchargers are bridging the gap, but they are basically the compressor housing off of a turbocharger that is belt driven. They therefore also have a bit of lag before the compressor is operating within its range. I'll speak on a platform that I am intimate with to provide an example. A T25 turbocharger was used on the 1995 to 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GST and GSX. Besides the associated noises, it would be hard to notice that this car even had a turbocharger because the lag is next to nothing. The power comes on seemlessly, but this turbo starts dying off on the top end. Put a very large (for a 4 cylinder) GT35R and it could be making over 600 hp to the wheels all the way to 9000+ RPMs but you have to wait until 4500 rpms for the turbo to kick in. Turbochargers are just like every other component on any performance vehicle. You determine what engine speed range you are going to be operating in and design the system around it. Long intake runners promote low end torque while short intake runners increase high end power. High compression is great down low, but keeping up with the demands for fuel at the top limit how far we can go with this. Every single thing in your motor is designed around its intended application. Honda Civic clutches are easy to use, but they won't hold any power. Lamborghini Diablo clutches are a bit harder to use (so I've heard) and they will hold 500+ horsepower through an AWD launch. Technology in the last decade has helped to relieve some of these problems. Variable vane turbocharger technology as mentioned above is helping this. Manufacturers are also using variable turbine housing geometry to help with spool up characteristics. A small turbine housing will ensure that more gasses pass over the turbine and make the turbo spool quicker while a larger housing will promote flow in the upper RPM range. Again compromise, but not for long as techonology alleviates this problem. Also you have the aforementioned variable valve technology, also designed to increase lower end efficeincy and in turn power while not giving up flow in the upper range. Garrett and other turbo manufactures also have many other technologies they are developing, to include ball bearings as mentioned earlier and ceramic turbines that are lighter and spool quicker. For those of you interested in learning more, definately read up on Garrett (owned by Honeywell) here.

As far as the original question as to whether Ferrari will resume use of turbochargers, I personally feel that will totally depend on the direction of Formula 1. Ferrari uses F1 as its test ground and I don't see them going through seperate R&D to develop a turbocharged Ferrari unless they go full force into another racing series. I love turbochargers (and they are definately not cheating) but I think I'll have to stick to saving for an F40, because I don't plan on seeing anything turboed coming out of the factory anytime soon.

 

Nope. N/A 5.0L V10.