991.2 "undisguised"
07-26-2015, 01:39 PM
#271
Why is it that Porsche can't move them? These cars sit, sit, and sit. I think it's been somewhat of a disappointment for them.
I'll keep referencing this article for those who have not read it. Good reading.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...turbocharging/
I'll keep referencing this article for those who have not read it. Good reading.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...turbocharging/
07-26-2015, 01:49 PM
#272
Rennlist Member
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/28/g...ected-engines/
"Turbos, which are powered by exhaust energy that is otherwise wasted, increase engine output by forcing extra air into the cylinders, prompting the fuel injectors to provide more fuel for combustion. More combustion, alas, means more heat. To keep the engine (and turbo) from overheating, turbo engines inject excess gas under boost. It seems counterintuitive, but this "rich mixture" cools down combustion and reduces exhaust temperatures. It's also a double-whammy fuel-economy killer, because burning that extra fuel doesn't help the engine make more power, it actually reduces output.
Government fuel-economy test cycles, especially those in Europe, approximate the driving style of a heavily sedated 83-year-old librarian. Since the engine is rarely taxed, the turbo doesn't spool up, so no extra fuel is used. But purposely driving slowly enough to keep the turbo from generating boost defeats the point of having a turbocharger in the first place. Sadly, out in the real world, riding that big, effortless wave of boosted midrange torque means burning extra fuel—and creating even more CO2. So much for reducing emissions."
Honestly, you guys can try to convince people the new 991.2 are a step back from the 991 all you want. That just mean I can get a better deal with the dealer down the line while the rest of you can fight for last remaining allocations on the NA 991.
07-26-2015, 02:00 PM
#273
Race Director
991.2 "undisguised"
Originally Posted by cloud9blue
I think you just answered the question yourself. Turbo S or not, these things are incredible performance machine, but the truth is, most who purchase these machines are more in for the image of owning one of these cars than actually care about the facts that these cars are faster and more reliable than almost anything else out there, save from the +$1M hypercars.
After all, to the general publics, these are just one of the dime a dozen 911 you would see in any affluent neighborhood. At the similar price range, cars like Hurrican and 458 and even the AMG GT get a lot more wow factor.
After all, to the general publics, these are just one of the dime a dozen 911 you would see in any affluent neighborhood. At the similar price range, cars like Hurrican and 458 and even the AMG GT get a lot more wow factor.
For once, we agree. The clientele at that price point is more "image" minded and God forbid they be lumped in with the crowd that just bought a used a beautiful 991 Carrera S for 90K.
Geez, now they'll all be turbos. Why not add a "turbo" badge to all Carrera's? Ha ha.
Porsche has no problems selling GT3's and GT3RS's all day. These are mostly enthusiast models.
07-26-2015, 02:41 PM
#274
I have been tracking my BMW E92 335 for two years now (a car that I have owned since new from 2009), with full M3 suspension conversion, coilover with double adjustable damping, and numerous engine and chassis mods so it can make and effectively put down more than 440whp reliably(so a little more than 500hp at the crank just FYI). The chassis geometry of the newer F8x generation is nearly identical from my generation aside from the obviously superior dual clutch transmission. The biggest issue with the BMW is their weight and how their weight is distributed. The so called perfect 50:50 weight distribution really isn't all that great if you are driving the thing on the track.
So trust me, I am definitely not pulling stuff out of my *** and definitely know what I am talking about when it comes to pointing out the weakness in the BMW chassis. Hell, why would I bother to spend +$100k for a 991.2 down the line if I don't think the 991 chassis is much more superior than anything BMW can crank out. You are free to google up my username in the BMW forums if you guys think I am some sort of covert marketing person hired by Porsche, lol. I might be a bit biased in my opinion about turbocharge given my experience, but my points are all derived from years of experiencing in working on and driving the car on track and street.
Honestly, Audi RS5 is so far removed from being a true sports car, even when compared to a BMW E92 or F82, let alone a Porsche 911, I honestly have no idea why you are even bringing that car into the conversation... And I am willing to bet you have never driven either of these cars on a proper track. And for the record, I doubt the true horsepower output from the RS5 is anywhere near the severely underrated S55 engine found in the M4 (as I mentioned, S55 has been dyno'd at 420whp numerous times, which is equivalent to 470-490hp at the crank, turbo engines are typically very underrated from the German manufacturers).
Anyway, if you are motivated and intelligent enough, there is plenty of information online to educate yourself why the BMW is slower than a 911 despite the power advantage.
So trust me, I am definitely not pulling stuff out of my *** and definitely know what I am talking about when it comes to pointing out the weakness in the BMW chassis. Hell, why would I bother to spend +$100k for a 991.2 down the line if I don't think the 991 chassis is much more superior than anything BMW can crank out. You are free to google up my username in the BMW forums if you guys think I am some sort of covert marketing person hired by Porsche, lol. I might be a bit biased in my opinion about turbocharge given my experience, but my points are all derived from years of experiencing in working on and driving the car on track and street.
Honestly, Audi RS5 is so far removed from being a true sports car, even when compared to a BMW E92 or F82, let alone a Porsche 911, I honestly have no idea why you are even bringing that car into the conversation... And I am willing to bet you have never driven either of these cars on a proper track. And for the record, I doubt the true horsepower output from the RS5 is anywhere near the severely underrated S55 engine found in the M4 (as I mentioned, S55 has been dyno'd at 420whp numerous times, which is equivalent to 470-490hp at the crank, turbo engines are typically very underrated from the German manufacturers).
Anyway, if you are motivated and intelligent enough, there is plenty of information online to educate yourself why the BMW is slower than a 911 despite the power advantage.
My point was, again follow closely, the M4 turbo doesn't get any better mileage in the real world (or even in US EPA testing methods) that a similar NA motor, generating similar power. And please, spare me the M3/4 is better than the RS5 nonsense. Different cars, different styles, near identical performance, particularly in the real world. On the track the F80's a little faster (which you'd expect when you compare a brand new design to one that's 4 years old) but the driver has to hang the car out to do it. Neither car is a 'sports car' and both target the same market with similarly sized/powered cars. And they both get the same ****ty mileage in the real world. So again, how is the turbo the better option?
You seem to be avoiding the central question I'm asking and trying to confuse things with nonsense.
07-26-2015, 02:44 PM
#275
Seriously who's paying you guys to clog up this board with your turbo rah-rah nonsense?
07-26-2015, 02:45 PM
#276
Rennlist Member
Dude, what the **** are you talking about? I never mentioned a thing about chassis and have no idea why you're extensive knowledge of suspension set up has anything to do with anything.
My point was, again follow closely, the M4 turbo doesn't get any better mileage in the real world (or even in US EPA testing methods) that a similar NA motor, generating similar power. And please, spare me the M3/4 is better than the RS5 nonsense. Different cars, different styles, near identical performance, particularly in the real world. On the track the F80's a little faster (which you'd expect when you compare a brand new design to one that's 4 years old) but the driver has to hang the car out to do it. Neither car is a 'sports car' and both target the same market with similarly sized/powered cars. And they both get the same ****ty mileage in the real world. So again, how is the turbo the better option?
You seem to be avoiding the central question I'm asking and trying to confuse things with nonsense.
My point was, again follow closely, the M4 turbo doesn't get any better mileage in the real world (or even in US EPA testing methods) that a similar NA motor, generating similar power. And please, spare me the M3/4 is better than the RS5 nonsense. Different cars, different styles, near identical performance, particularly in the real world. On the track the F80's a little faster (which you'd expect when you compare a brand new design to one that's 4 years old) but the driver has to hang the car out to do it. Neither car is a 'sports car' and both target the same market with similarly sized/powered cars. And they both get the same ****ty mileage in the real world. So again, how is the turbo the better option?
You seem to be avoiding the central question I'm asking and trying to confuse things with nonsense.
Can't believe you are still ranting about this like a six year old. Given the lack of any intellect exhibited by you, I don't see the point of continuing this conversation any further. For once, you are the one clogging up this thread with non-sensical claims while other are trying their best to explain things in a factual manner.
Have a good day... You must be wonderful to talk to in real life.
07-26-2015, 03:56 PM
#277
Race Director
991.2 "undisguised"
Originally Posted by cloud9blue
Not sure you are just trolling at this point or just painfully stubborn. Your questions about the fuel efficiency of turbo engines have been answer multiple times by me and other posters if you ever bother to read.
Can't believe you are still ranting about this like a six year old. Given the lack of any intellect exhibited by you, I don't see the point of continuing this conversation any further. For once, you are the one clogging up this thread with non-sensical claims while other are trying their best to explain things in a factual manner.
Have a good day... You must be wonderful to talk to in real life.
Can't believe you are still ranting about this like a six year old. Given the lack of any intellect exhibited by you, I don't see the point of continuing this conversation any further. For once, you are the one clogging up this thread with non-sensical claims while other are trying their best to explain things in a factual manner.
Have a good day... You must be wonderful to talk to in real life.
07-26-2015, 04:13 PM
#278
Dude, what the **** are you talking about? I never mentioned a thing about chassis and have no idea why you're extensive knowledge of suspension set up has anything to do with anything.
My point was, again follow closely, the M4 turbo doesn't get any better mileage in the real world (or even in US EPA testing methods) that a similar NA motor, generating similar power. And please, spare me the M3/4 is better than the RS5 nonsense. Different cars, different styles, near identical performance, particularly in the real world. On the track the F80's a little faster (which you'd expect when you compare a brand new design to one that's 4 years old) but the driver has to hang the car out to do it. Neither car is a 'sports car' and both target the same market with similarly sized/powered cars. And they both get the same ****ty mileage in the real world. So again, how is the turbo the better option?
You seem to be avoiding the central question I'm asking and trying to confuse things with nonsense.
My point was, again follow closely, the M4 turbo doesn't get any better mileage in the real world (or even in US EPA testing methods) that a similar NA motor, generating similar power. And please, spare me the M3/4 is better than the RS5 nonsense. Different cars, different styles, near identical performance, particularly in the real world. On the track the F80's a little faster (which you'd expect when you compare a brand new design to one that's 4 years old) but the driver has to hang the car out to do it. Neither car is a 'sports car' and both target the same market with similarly sized/powered cars. And they both get the same ****ty mileage in the real world. So again, how is the turbo the better option?
You seem to be avoiding the central question I'm asking and trying to confuse things with nonsense.
If you want to compare the RS5 and the M4, here you go. Note that the RS5 is AWD, which should give it an edge in the 0-60 relative to a RWD car, but it's still slower than the M4. It is even slower to the quarter mile.
http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle...-60-mph-times/ 2013 Audi RS 5 0-60 mph 3.9 | Quarter mile 12.3
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...q=audi+RS5+mpg : 16/23
2015 BMW M4 Compare Car 0-60 mph 3.8 | Quarter mile 12.0
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...#q=BMW+m4+mpg: 17/26
Note that the M4 is rated 0.3s faster in the 1/4 mile and gets >10% better highway mileage.
Further note the Cd difference:
M4: 0.34
RS5: 0.32
The RS5 has less drag, which should make it more fuel efficient and faster with a given engine, but yet it is slower and less efficient than the M4, by a reasonable margin. Like I said before, there is no sense in comparing different engines by different manufacturers in different cars, especially not when you fixate one one number.
I get that you don't understand the science here, but please don't spread misinformation.
The 991TTS is 33% faster to 60 than the C4GTS, with only a 10% fuel efficiency penalty, even though it's heavier (same displacement plus turbos plus 4-wheel steering, etc)
In summary, enjoy your NA. It certainly feels different than a well-designed turbo. But please get your facts right instead of posting that inaccurate hack of an article again and again.
Finally on the subject of RS5 vs M4, please watch this:
Last edited by strumbringer; 07-26-2015 at 04:30 PM.
07-26-2015, 04:33 PM
#279
Burning Brakes
991.2 "undisguised"
So what do people think the U.S. Mpg stats will be for the 991.2 engines?
I'd be surprised if the "on paper" numbers went up by more than one. I'd also like to see a "flat out" track mpg comparison just for fun. And of course a real world highway comparison. Lots of folks exceeding 30mpg on long road trips in the 991.1 engines, some by a big margin. We'll see if the miracle puppy saving turbos can top what the current NAs already do.
I'd be surprised if the "on paper" numbers went up by more than one. I'd also like to see a "flat out" track mpg comparison just for fun. And of course a real world highway comparison. Lots of folks exceeding 30mpg on long road trips in the 991.1 engines, some by a big margin. We'll see if the miracle puppy saving turbos can top what the current NAs already do.
07-26-2015, 04:50 PM
#280
991.2 "undisguised"
Just depends on how you drive. If you drive like grandma. Buy Turbo! If you don't buy N/A! Because if you don't drive like grandma you will get ****ty MPG in both. 
07-26-2015, 04:54 PM
#281
991.2 "undisguised"
Drove a VW Tiguan 1.4liter petrol turbo charged engine for a week. Estimated mpg was something like 40mpg! I managed 20mpg! Undersized engine with a hot shoe driver is not a good combo. 
07-26-2015, 06:05 PM
#282
Nordschleife Master
The bottom line is that it looks like the '911' moniker carrier will have turbo engines no matter what the badge says in the rear. They are all 'Turbos', the Turbo will just be a more powerful still turbo (like the Macan duo). And another step into further complexity and man-machine isolation.
07-26-2015, 06:08 PM
#283
Nordschleife Master
Even on these fora I read 27MPG exploits driving the S 9A1. I am very, very, far from that result and could care less.
07-26-2015, 06:29 PM
#284
Rennlist Member
That is a great way to state it. These designs are well suited for boulevard cruisers, 'coffee and cars' practitioners, and such. Makes sense for that - on average very economical, because seldom pushed.
Even on these fora I read 27MPG exploits driving the S 9A1. I am very, very, far from that result and could care less.
Even on these fora I read 27MPG exploits driving the S 9A1. I am very, very, far from that result and could care less.
How about we just wait the models to be released and hear from the few open minded owners and reviewers that have experienced both the NA and newer turbo engines instead??? Factless speculations are totally pointless just FYI.
07-26-2015, 06:42 PM
#285
Race Director
991.2 &amp;quot;undisguised&amp;quot;
Originally Posted by cloud9blue
That is so far from the truth. But you guys are free to believe whatever you want. And honestly, how many of the NA die hard fans have driven any modern turbo engines on a proper road course to truly explore what the technology is capable of?
How about we just wait the models to be released and hear from the few open minded owners and reviewers that have experienced both the NA and newer turbo engines instead??? Factless speculations are totally pointless just FYI.
How about we just wait the models to be released and hear from the few open minded owners and reviewers that have experienced both the NA and newer turbo engines instead??? Factless speculations are totally pointless just FYI.
Turbo engines are out now by Porsche, BMW and everyone else. It's no secret what we're going to be getting.
If you have such a fetish for turbos, have fun! Quick fast/short boost with no longevity or excitement.
A NA 430HP GTS not enough car for you?