Why not "R" 4.0 in .2GT3
03-24-2017, 08:08 AM
#46
conjecture about what?
everybody speaks as we were facing a revolution (without 1 hp gain)...it is normal evolution as every manufacturer does after a facelift
everybody speaks as we were facing a revolution (without 1 hp gain)...it is normal evolution as every manufacturer does after a facelift
Last edited by Dante; 03-24-2017 at 08:28 AM.
03-24-2017, 08:13 AM
#48
Drifting
^Regarding motor...
03-24-2017, 08:58 AM
#49
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
Should I assume the .2 engine is cheaper for Porsche to build, using the solid lifters rather than the hydraulic as in the .1?
Last edited by bronson7; 03-24-2017 at 07:08 PM.
03-24-2017, 09:02 AM
#50
Nordschleife Master
.2GT3 is great engine for sure and I hope it will be the basis for further development on NA before moving to turbo, but..."Why not "R" 4.0 in .2GT3 ?"
Look at the emissions comparing these two engines, I do believe that the development is mainly driven by this.
Second, listen to AP when talking about .1 failures: he repeats they were caused by third party supply (everybody knows this is not true ) and says that people wrongly thinks that the reason was too high revving.
Porsche absolutely needed to do a 9.000 rpm engine to support its thesis and they did it, but not 1 single Hp and Nm more than previous generation 4.0 engine, maximum power is delivered at same 8.250 rpm and just torque is available 200 rpm below, I’m pretty sure we get no better acceleration time shifting at 9.000 instead of 8.800 with .2GT3 (especially given the maximum torque available lower), surely a limiter at 9k is cool and sound will be amazing…but to what extent?
Third, we all know how Porsche is keen on increasing profits, you can be sure that when they find the way to reduce costs without leaving on the table anything else (let’s assume reliability is not an issue) they do it…and they avoided to use the very expensive RS/R crankshaft and reduce complications (1 oil pump less, no hydraulic lifters, etc.) with the new engine.
The new engine is surely great but I think AP is really an excellent sales&marketing man
“we focused less on lap times and more on driving pleasure than in the past” he says; the truth is that the room for (sensibly) improving laptimes from .1GT3 was close to zero – look at the effort put in the RS to gain from 1 to 1,5 sec versus .1GT3 in 90% of “normal” tracks, that’s why now he emphasizes the driving pleasure
Less rigid camshafts free up engine so what about the cranckshaft which on the other way is more rigid than the R/RS one? And we’re talking about a crucial part of an engine …which deliver power directly to transmission.
What is relevant at the end of all are performances on the road…hp gains are real when results are tangible, this is for everything…from figures declared by manufacturer to improvements found on dyno by tuners.
Hope to not disappoint all the R-haters around…but I wouldn’t say the new engine is that much better than previous one, the only figure improved is emissions…
Look at the emissions comparing these two engines, I do believe that the development is mainly driven by this.
Second, listen to AP when talking about .1 failures: he repeats they were caused by third party supply (everybody knows this is not true ) and says that people wrongly thinks that the reason was too high revving.
Porsche absolutely needed to do a 9.000 rpm engine to support its thesis and they did it, but not 1 single Hp and Nm more than previous generation 4.0 engine, maximum power is delivered at same 8.250 rpm and just torque is available 200 rpm below, I’m pretty sure we get no better acceleration time shifting at 9.000 instead of 8.800 with .2GT3 (especially given the maximum torque available lower), surely a limiter at 9k is cool and sound will be amazing…but to what extent?
Third, we all know how Porsche is keen on increasing profits, you can be sure that when they find the way to reduce costs without leaving on the table anything else (let’s assume reliability is not an issue) they do it…and they avoided to use the very expensive RS/R crankshaft and reduce complications (1 oil pump less, no hydraulic lifters, etc.) with the new engine.
The new engine is surely great but I think AP is really an excellent sales&marketing man
“we focused less on lap times and more on driving pleasure than in the past” he says; the truth is that the room for (sensibly) improving laptimes from .1GT3 was close to zero – look at the effort put in the RS to gain from 1 to 1,5 sec versus .1GT3 in 90% of “normal” tracks, that’s why now he emphasizes the driving pleasure
Less rigid camshafts free up engine so what about the cranckshaft which on the other way is more rigid than the R/RS one? And we’re talking about a crucial part of an engine …which deliver power directly to transmission.
What is relevant at the end of all are performances on the road…hp gains are real when results are tangible, this is for everything…from figures declared by manufacturer to improvements found on dyno by tuners.
Hope to not disappoint all the R-haters around…but I wouldn’t say the new engine is that much better than previous one, the only figure improved is emissions…
The .2 GT340L is likely a great engine. The .1 4.0L so far has proven to be great engine and brought back within safe operating parameters for hydraulic lumps. You correctly pointed out power and performance of both are nearly identical so in reality terms likely not much difference where the rubber meets the road as they say. The extra 400 rpm only comes in in those cases where you are able to run out the gear that extra 400 rpm on the track before having to brake so you don't have to grab that extra gear before you get there or brake earlier. Likely a non issue in 99.9 % of real world application.
The real advantage of the new 4.0L with solids is where they can take it from here reliably.
As to the R. I love the R. Wish I had one too. I just like the RS better but I would jump at the chance to corral an R. I just don't think they are worth $600K. But the market decides that not me.
But hey, I think gen II FGT's should be trading at $500K. If POS's like Countach are trading form those numbers it beats the hell out of me why FGTs aren't also. Again the market decides that not me.
Bottom line. The R is epic.
03-24-2017, 10:31 AM
#51
Maybe also that needing to do a 9k revving engine the gen 1 or gen 1.5 4lit. were not reliable enough...who know, but I would consider the whole pic.
Mine was simply an invitation to a critical approach to what they tell us
Anyway I'm sure that .2GT3 will be an excellent car (as usual for all GT's) and it will worth the wait
Last edited by Dante; 03-24-2017 at 10:32 AM. Reason: .
03-24-2017, 11:29 AM
#52
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
03-24-2017, 02:24 PM
#53
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by GrantG
No, not cheaper to build (maybe more actually), but hopefully cheaper to keep running during warranty period...
I'm sure they are both great cars. I won't have either but I have an RS and love it.