Turbocharging?this late in the game. Hasnt porche been doing it since the 80’s?

@ Step Dad…

the point here is that they didn’t want to do it because of the associated lag which may be fine for a $80k Porshe, but has no place in a $250k Ferrari. Also Ferrari shoppers certainly have enough money to absorb added fuel costs better than a relatively less wealthy Porche owner. I guess that gas finally got bad enough for them to start caring. Now only if GM brought back the H1, but this time with a 2.0TD mill.

makes sense, cant argue there.

The turbo was invented well over 100 years ago, so if someone was to figure out how to eliminate the lag, it would of been done decades ago. Good luck Ferrari. teehee.

To be fair though, Ferrari had a turocharged car already…wait, in fact 2, the F40 of course but also the 288 GTO. But their point is well made, turbo lag isn’t something you look forward to, one merely tolerates it because of its benefits.

Is no on of you able to spell PORSCHE right? One guy spells porche, the other Porshe! First learn to spell the most simple names before discussing. I would understand if it´s Koenigsegg.

I think the main problem with a turbo in a ferrari is that they use small displacement engines which, as I know it, had to rev higher that most engines that were of larger displacement to get the same power. Add this to a regular turbo, or even a twin turbo, which was originally thought of to eliminate turbo lag, and you end up lag that is noticeable. I don’t get it though, I’m calling their bluff because porsche powerful engines, and when I got to drive a 997 turbo, I never noticed the lag! Maybe they should work on new engines! or just shove 4 turbos in there…I’m sure everyone would love it!
.
.
.
.
.
INCREASE THE DISPLACEMENT!!

@911

If you’re going to slam someone for spelling, at least check your own spelling…that or your grammar.

Take your pick:
Is not one of you…
Is neither of you…

FERRARI is a rather traditionalist Automaker. It isn’t a matter of Turbocharging being “cheap” or “tacky”. They just did not want to do it, it wasn’t what their customer base wanted, and they are doing fine with V8s and V12s. FERRARI feels that the times are changing and that they will need to go this route. Just like the “bolt-on” hybrid AWD. If that is what their Customers are asking about or for, then they are obligated to at least look into it and/or eventually do it.

I can sorta’ understand the “it’s blasphemy” attitude, but it really isn’t much different from the serious talk of Muscle cars going TT or Supercharged V6, in place of big V8 as a matter to improve F/econ and handling. Frankly, I’m more in favor of smaller V8s, the FORD 4.6L not withstanding. But if that is what people want, then let’s do it.

Where’s our buddy Pazzo? He usually gets pretty excitable whenever there’s talk of Ferrari straying from the path of righteousness.

Haha 911, what u should be askin them is if they know how to pronounce Porsche

@idrinorbarsaku , the reason why cars like Ferrari (and Porsche GT3) have small displacements is because of racing regulations. they have to squeeze the maximum amount of power out of a given displacement. they learned how to to that in racing and are applying it to road cars and fans love the idea of getting that level of engineering in their cars. anyone can make a big , low revving engine with lots of power, but that’s not Ferrari’s style, they have a huge 6.0l V12 but it’s still a high revving engine. unfortunately for the fans, due to emission regulation Ferrari will have to add turbos but they want to keep the distinct Ferrari feeling and make small, high rpm turbo engines.

I am right here johnny…….and yes your right….i dont like the idea BUT as long as they keep it V8 i will be happy if its V6 they might as well shut up shop now….
Why dont they just supercharge the farker…..i would…lol
Their is a paint shop in sydney i think who twin turbocharged a 360….got it looks magic…

Good Lord people. First there’s nmofgm, then his step dad, then his real dad, who else is there, his mom? Then eventually his 2nd cousin 3 times removed?

I’m pretty sure Porsche has variable turbine geometry that greatly reduces lag without sacrificing high-rpm power…I smell irony here.

@Pazzo, since turbocharging is a form a supercharging, technically they are supercharging it (although I would prefer a twin-screw blower too though)

yes but wideopen….you driven a supercharged car lately….not a lot of lag thier anymore..not in the ones ive driven anyhow…much smoother

idrinorbarsaku : ferrari doesn’t need to worry about big displacement, like scratchy says… but if they develop some tech such as the ones Porsche (pronounced PORSH-UH) and BMW do… VGT / VTG, and/or sequential turbocharging (one large turbine for high-rpm effectiveness and power and one smaller one for low-rpm effectiveness and power)

aexcorp : i believe that you are incorrect in your statement that no one likes turbo lag… some enthusiasts like it because you can keep the car out of boost at lower rpms for normal cruising and decent fuel economy…. then let the rpm’s climb, let the turbo spool (sssshhhSSHSSSSSSSSS…), and let the boost pile on…. and hold on……

there are some quite desirable characteristics associated with turbocharged engines (especially high-pressure) engines, although understandably many of this are not so desirable to a ferrari driver / enthusiast….

wideopen:
turbocharging is not a form of supercharging… They are both forms of forced induction.

forced induction meaning forcing/compressing air into the engine, with approporiate amounts of fuel…
(air/fuel ratio)

Turbochargers are driven by the kinetic energy from spent exhaust gases, but they heat needs to build in order to accelerate the turbine wheel… hence turbo lag

Superchargers are belt driven… which are parasitic – to the engine to some degree or another –
depending on the application…
the belts are turned by pulleys which run directly or indirectly off of the engine’s crankshaft…

i may be stating the obvious for many here…
but from wideopen’s comment he/she seems not to know the difference…

Va Fanculo!!! Bad Ferrari!! Bad!! No!!! No turbo. What the hell is the matter with you?!! First you kill the manual transmission essentially killing the GT heritage of your cars (even though you still have the F1 heritage) and now you’re using turbos?? What are you italian rice burners now?? Pasta burners?? Don’t destroy years of naturally aspirated perfomance heritage. I’m begging you!!

can anyone tell me why they don’t just have electric motors to stop turbo lag? I mean, it spins until the turbo gets necessary boost, then lets off so the engine can do the job. Sounds like it should work to me, it also would not take very powerful motors, so weight’s not an issue.

There isn’t much difference between turbo-lag and peak naturally-aspirated horsepower at redline. Only difference is power delivery is usually a little less linear in high horsepower applications.

reedfast : i have thought of that as well… i heard someone already has it patented… honeywell…. garrett… one of them…

jmayhew… well yes… but there would be quite a difference between a small 1.5 to 1.8 liter motor with a very large turbo that doesn’t have a ball-bearing or variable geometry tech…
and a larger displacement engine…. with high naturally aspirated power or a smaller turbocharger….

so your statement may be correct in comparison of some cases, but it really depends on the size of the engines / turbos you are talking about, as well as the type of turbo…. standard, twin scroll, ball bearing…. or VGT, sequential twin turbo chargers…. etc….

I know it has no place in racing, but, in the right context, turbo lag can be FUN!

trying to reduce lag in v-6 and v-8? i think german car companies are way ahead of ferrari in terms of turbo technology. practically no turbo lags in bmw’s inline6TT and v8TT, of course the porsches, audi/vw, etc.

I am a fan of V6, I6 and V8 turbocharged cars. Ferrari’s 288 GTO is still my favorite of all their cars for both looks and its performance philosophy. Yes, it’s not at all the same thing as a naturally aspirated V12 or V8 but if preference is what we are discussing here, I’m in full support of their move back into the turbocharged world. Hell, I don’t even mind the lag with today’s excellent technology. We aren’t living in the 1980’s any longer where *most* turbocharged cars took forever to spool up and intercooling was a premium feature instead of a standard– not to mention how far we’ve come with fuel and ignition control.

I would hate to see the Ferrari V12 die. That shouldn’t be at all. A turbocharged Ferrari is a welcome thing, however, lag or nearly no lag.

I’m with you ****sterS. One of my favorite cars, the 86-87 Buick GN/T-Type, would lose so much of the sinister character that makes it such an icon were it not for turbo lag. I think half the fun with those cars (other than going really fast) is the anticipation that building boost causes before you let go of the brake pedal and floor the gas

Not that a Ferrari is anything like a Buick GN but there is a car where turbo lag can even be a sinister thing.

Quite interesting!

@nickkop , it’s always funny when Americans and Brits pronounce “PORSH-UH” , it’s better to pronounce it “Porsh” . but if you want to do it correctly , it’s “PORSH-EH” like the guy at 0:26 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL-7C0c92f8

Just gid rid of the catalytic converters and run smaller turbos like the GT28RS. Those things spool around 2500rpms with the right exhaust setup. Not sure if those are big enough for Ferrari to make it worth it though.

hmm…. thanks

livelyjay… that is why a VGT and/or sequential twin turbo will be best for them…. they would probably insist of it delivery of a linear powerband from a lowly 1800-2000 rpm all the way on up to redline at 8000 or 9000rpm…..

a turbocharger that doesn’t spool up untill 2500 rpm but chokes up above 7000 or 7500 rpm just would not cut it…

(chokes up) my gander meaning becoming inefficient…or ineffective

How about they just make a f.ucking efficient N/A engine? It seems like all the Italian cars GUZZLE gas compared to American V8 of even large size. Why is it that General Motors can build 7.0L V8 and 6.2L Supercharged V8s that are ***WAY*** more fuel efficient than Italian V12s? And it’s not like do not make power. ZR-1 is 620+HP–very close to Enzo’s 650HP V12. And gets nearly DOUBLE the mileage. (and with less emissions and better durability)

F.ucking europeans man… they always make excuses for their stupidity.

@LS7 , if you compare EPA and DEKRA ( the German equivalent of EPA) you will see that those numbers don’t match. the big American V8s consume a lot more in Europe, just like European cars consume more in the US. but for Ferrari , they always consume a lot , they are not very good engineered , at least not until the F458 with direct injection.

The issue isn’t the lag but rather the sudden acceleration that may come at the worst time. You really need to anticipate when the turbo is going to kick in during real spirited driving. Having said that, I love turbos especially Audi’s 2.0.

E46> Exactly my thought. Add the GM 2.0T DI and Fords Ecoboost to the list.
DI and variable turbo is key. Add in VVT capable of eliminating throttle plate, like BMW valvetronic, nissans version and Fiats multi-air.
Reedfast> A US company has just finished development on a electric motor driven super charger and are know trying to integrate it with manufacturers now.

The technology is out there. I mean c’mon GM has it with their LNF 2.0T 4cyl. They use a twin scroll Borg-Warner sourced KDO4 turbo, (similar to the KO4 used in Audi & VW’s) and turbo lag is nearly diminished. With the LNF the turbo is spooled @ 1,800 RPM. Even Subaru has this technology. I’m sure Ferrari has the resources to work that out. But I agree with LS7, just sounds like an excuse.

while modern turbos have reduced lag, it is still there. Ferrari is simply trying to improve on currently available technology. To say that if it hasn’t been thought up in the last 100 years that it is not possible is silly. Its like when they closed the patent office 100 years ago because they thought that everything that could be invented had already been invented. Technology will continue to improve. Its small thinking to say otherwise.

Ferrari has also always focused on getting maximum performance out of its engines, not tuning for efficiency. Not that they are incapable of it, it just hasn’t been their goal.

Also, the reason the big American V8s get good milage numbers has less to do with efficient engine design and more to do with gearing. We have outragously tall final gears that allow the high torque engines to lug along at less than 2k rpm on the highway. This makes good highway milage numbers but if you compare combined cycle or city ratings they are not that different.

Oh, and one of the manufactures producing some of the most fuel efficient performance cars in the world is Porsche. They have been having to focus on efficiency due to meeting fleet Cafe numbers.

doesn’t the new mclaren have a turbo V8 that spins to 8000?

I love turbocharged cars. And I really love the old school turbocharged cars which give you a kick in the back once the turbo spools. Recently I had the pleasure to drive in a 1985 Porsche Turbo slant nose (1 of less than 1000 built), no real power til around 3000 rpm. Then the turbo starts to spool and the ride begins. What a rush, words can´t explain the feeling when it kicks you into your seat. But those turbo characteristics are not good for racing (with corners). I´m with nickkop on this one. Sequential turbocharging, a small turbo for low rpms and a big turbo for high rpms, is the key for a smooth power delivery without all that lag of a single turbo. Just look at diesel trucks running sequential turbos, those have a lot of power and start spooling early without loosing power at high rpm.

@LS7

Way to compare a naturally aspirated 6.0L to a forced induction 6.2L. I wonder which would be faster……in a straight line only.

“The turbo was invented well over 100 years ago, so if someone was to figure out how to eliminate the lag, it would of been done decades ago. Good luck Ferrari. teehee”

Except I have the solution… It’s called turbo pre-spool. Use the extra compressed air that would be released through the blowoff valve and put it in a chamber where it’s held until the vehicle begins forward motion again. At which point, the chamber releases the compressed air back into the exhaust system, quickly spooling the turbo back up.

Not sure about some of the finer details with this theory, but I’m sure someone will pick it apart soon enough.

Hey slider,

actually that is a great idea to reduce lag even further. And this shouldn´t be too difficult to develope either.
Patent it and call Ferrari

But you´d need quite a bit of pressure in the chamber, right?

If they can pull it off then superchargers will go the way of the typewriter, except for people who are in love with supercharging.

Whoever says Ferrari’s are not well engineered is a fool. The didn’t put the price tag on them just for the name buddy.

I have full faith that Ferrari can come up with a solution for turbo lag.

Maybe you need some reminders:

1) Variable valve-timing was first patented by Fiat and perfected by Fiat/Ferrari
2) Fiat/Ferrari were one of the first pioneers of DOHC

Sorry honda fan boys, but the Civic Si was not the first car to have these.

Twin-turbos is one of the “solutions” to turbo lag, but I’m sure there is something else you can do. “Turbos were invented 100 years ago, solving the lag is impossible.” How the hell would technology get anywhere with this attitude?

You guys seriously think that ferrari doesn’t know about twin turbo charging!?! They already know that. twin turbo charging DOESN’T fully reduce all lag, it reduces drastically compared to a regular turbo, but not fully(like the 335) That’s why I said they probably have a problem with their current engine lineup that will make even a TT’s lag noticeable. I say give them all the time they need, because I have a feeling when they do come up with something, it’s going to be AWESOME!