neanicu

Today while watching a video with the new Ferrari California T,I have come to the realization that sadly the end of the NA cars is near. Since there's a high chance Porsche will move to Turbocharging with the next gen of GT cars,I couldn't help but thinking that personally I would prefer a smaller displacement 4 cylinder high revving NA engine assisted by a high torque 2 speed motor,rather than a Turbo engine.
Let's say : 2.5L 4 cylinder boxer engine with individual throttle bodies. The batteries are heavy,but their development is continuous,so they are getting smaller and more efficient. I guess the batteries could be fitted in the place of the rear seats,which on the GT cars are useless anyway. I don't know where they would fit the motor,but somewhere in the front would be ideal for perfect weight distribution.
I guess the 997 GT3R hybrid could be the starting point.

What do you think?

Mike in CA

I honestly don't know which I'd prefer. It would depend completely on how the total car was engineered and packaged.

What I do know is that I am very glad I pulled the trigger on the current NA car.

ipse dixit

I've test driven the California T, and it is unlike any turbo (or FI) engine out there. No lag, no turbo sensation in other words.

The gremlins over at Maranello using what they call "Variable Boost Management" (or something of that ilk) have essentially dialed-out turbo lag.

If all FI engines felt this way behind the steering wheel, I'd be ok with it.

rockitman

I am neither...leave well enough alone...NA only, all the way.

skuplist

Wow never would have expected the survey out come!

ipse dixit

Everyone is dreaming of a baby 918.

Aerowerke

It's easier to have a switch the turns the electric motor's functionality off than to turn turbos off... Kind of like a button for start-stop.

Well that is assuming such a switch would be gifted to us by our automotive corporate overlords.

1pvr

A six with assist likely would meet any federal mpg guidelines. No need to move down to a four.

Petevb

The motor assist is the heaviest, most complex, most expensive option, but surprisingly I voted for it anyway, assuming you can make it fit into the budget.

First consider the target vehicle- what type of package, performance and price point are you shooting for, and what can the target buyer control? Limitations- corporate fleet economy, etc. If we want a 5 lbs per hp car, say we broadly have three paths:

1. 3000 lb car, 600 hp 5L normally aspirated
2. 3010 lb car, 602 hp 3.5L turbo
3. 3300 lb car, 660 hp total (500 hp NA + 160 electric)

The weight and power difference is due to the different drive systems plus the bigger wheels/ tires/ brakes required to handle that weight.

Option 3 will have the best power delivery due to the instant response of the motors. It will also have over 3x the mpg of option 1 and 2x the mpg of option 2 if you switch the engine off as needed while cruising. It also has options for electronic driver assistance wizardry not available to 1 and 2, particularly if you're driving the front wheels with the motors. It's therefore likely the easiest to get the performance out of, and therefore the fastest in most cases.

Downsides. It's the most expensive by a lot- the larger wheels, tires and brakes are minor, the motor/ batteries/ electronics are major. It's also the most complex, and being cutting edge will likely date the fastest.

Which you'd choose depends on your budget and preference, but the turbo option seems a middle child that's not as "good" as the hybrid but significantly cheaper. Of course cheaper is important, so if you set a 250k price target with some fleet economy caps the turbo could well make for the best car because for the hybrid you'd need to skimp on the budget elsewhere. This is likely why Ferrari is going this path.

My personal order of preference would probably go NA first, Hybrid second, Turbo third. I feel NA would make the 'best' overall sports car currently at that ~250k price point currently, ignoring economy requirements.

I admit I am ambivalent about the regulations driving these changes; while I support them in concept, the outcome that results is warped in this case. This is in part because the Hybrid is in the above scenario the least 'green' viewed by itself: the car will never do enough miles to pay back the 'embodied energy' in the batteries, motors, etc. Thus total 'carbon footprint' will be the highest. On the other hand it likely makes sense as a stepping stone for these technologies to lower costs where they do pay back.

Along those lines I do expect that quite shortly the 'best' sports car at this price point will be hybrid as technology improves. At which point I'd still probably look for a NA option. Because 'best' doesn't always mean most fun...

GrantG

Shouldn't there be a choice on the poll for "Both" like the McLaren P1 - seems to work pretty well there (torque fill cancels the biggest deficit of turbocharging, lag, and you get all the positives of turbocharging)...

Carrera GT

I think Porsche has two "best in the world" turbo cars, the 911 turbo and 911 GT2. I guess some would argue the Panamera and Cayenne are both pretty stout turbo cars, but I don't think either of those are "best in the world" at the assigned route.
I don't see how Porsche needs another forced induction car -- the weight, complexity, "drivability" and practical issues of packaging for handling, and things like managing the heat, all just don't add up to the meaning of the GT3 or the GT3 RS.
It's a misstep at best; certainly not a step forward. And surely means the end of the line for me.

Petevb

But what advantages does it offer over NA plus hybrid? Peak efficiency isn't improved so fuel economy isn't really up. The engine weighs the same per HP or more. Maybe you need to shut off the motor less, but to achieve high efficiency you'd still need to shut it down sometimes. Porsche and Toyota brought both of these strategies to LeMans, and in terms of engine performance there is very little between them; if anything Toyota may have a marginal advantage with their NA V8.

I think as soon as you go hybrid the real question isn't what type of engine, but how big is it, and how big are the batteries?

Going with small batteries decreases cost and weight at the expense of efficiency (witness the 918's 3x better fuel economy than the La Ferrari).

Going with big motors, on the other hand, say 600 hp electric and just 150 hp gas, might get you the same real world performance nearly everywhere while increasing usability and efficiency further. The downsides being that you'd run out of juice at the track and couldn't cruise for long periods above ~130 mph on the autobahn.

GrantG

Maybe I haven't though it through as well as you, but I thought the ICE part of the equation would be lighter for similar power/torque if you made a turbocharged motor with fewer cylinders (TT Flat-6 vs. NA V-8 for example).

My preference is for NA though for this car!

Petevb

You would think that, but surprisingly that's not yet generally the case in streetable engines.

Often the numbers are very close for mid range street engines:
BMW's 4.4L V8 from the GTS made 444 hp from 444 lbs, 1 hp per pound.
Their new M4 engine make 425 hp from 425 lbs, identical despite being significantly newer.

However as you move up the performance ladder you start to see a delta.
McLaren's V8 weighs 439 lbs, and produces anywhere from 650 up to possibly 737 hp (though the P1 engine probably weighs more). That's an impressive 1.5 up to as much as 1.7 hp per pound, but it still can't match the 918's 2.0 hp per pound, or the Ariel Atom V8's ridiculous 2.5 hp per pound.

Up in this stratosphere the engine's weight likely depends more on how much you're willing to spend and how long it needs to last than its configuration, but at the very least there is no significant advantage to a smaller turbo other than perhaps a compact layout.

In motorsport, where power band can sometimes be sacrificed, there may be an ultimate advantage to forced induction. The best F1 V8s were not allowed to be lighter than 209 lbs, making them better than 3.6 hp per pound, while Nissan raced a 400 hp, 88 lb 1.5L turbo 3 at LeMans last year in their hybrid, 4.5 hp per pound! This is likely comparable to what F1 would have done if there were no rules, but in either case the power band isn't quite ideal for a street car. At this point you're splitting hairs anyway- on a 500 hp motor you're talking about something weighing between 111 and 138 lbs- either of which would be massive overkill for a street car.

neanicu

Excellent info PeteVb!

Let's not forget the Koenigsegg One to One with 1350HP and 1350 kg,making it at one to one power to weight ratio!