Tacet-Conundrum

That article is a little dated! They have a Dodge on it but neither of the 707 BHP Hell Cat's. Those two would knock off the old Dodge and Mustang.

ChoyV

The science will give you fact not opinion. They are just stating that more volume of air means more fuel added. And that is the science of turbo.

STG

Either are a PREFERENCE!!

I like that Porsche has made both up to this point. Both engines have their merits. I agree! No reason to say one is better than the other. Like I said, it's a preference like car colors.

I DON'T agree with the FACT that the only reason they're going all turbo is because of meeting GOV'T emission regulations numbers not because it's consumer driven.

I'll also add, this is where the debate starts.... Are turbo engines really more efficient in real world driving, or just manipulated feel good politics? Come up with some crazy testing to give you unrealistic MPG #'s just to "make the quota".

Simple explanation.

ChoyV

That is one of the reason why, if not the main reason. They always stated in their literature that turbo lowers the emission due to smaller engine displacement. Not just Porsche but all auto companies that doing turbo.

Don't get me wrong. I like turbo cars specially 911 Turbo but I also like 911 NA cars. The NA is my cup of tea due to the throttle modulations and control. The torque surge of turbo car is really something. It is just your preference on what you prefer, for now. Maybe down the line it will shift.

strumbringer

I assume you're saying that you agree that they are going all turbo because of emission guidelines. I don't think anyone disagrees on this point. It has the nice side effect that they can keep increasing power without increasing displacement and putting a V-8 in a 911 (puke) - but I don't think that's the primary motivation, nor AFAICT does anyone else.

The disagreement starts when people say that well-designed turbos are only gaming the numbers - that they are no more efficient than equivalent NA engines. This may be true of cheap, badly designed engines - but what I and others are trying to point out is that the articles you cited are incorrect on the actual science. Some of them hilariously so, others insidiously so, but nonetheless incorrect. FI engines are more efficient. That may not matter to you, and I'm not one to preach that it should - just understand that the articles you are citing is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should like FI engines.

96redLT4

That is a great find STG. I should print up for our kid's future reading. What I don't understand is why all companies, eg Ferrari feel they have to comply w CAFE standards. Do they pay a fine as a company or a fee per car? Does anyone know how this works? Why not just pay if it is a gas guzzler tax per car for something as special as a Ferrari??
Jim

Archimedes

So everyone's wrong but you're right? Is that you Mr. Science?

Seriously, the proof is in the pudding. In the real world, FI doesn't result in massive fuel efficiency improvements. The European ratings are a total joke, so we can disregard them from the discussion. But even the U.S. EPA ratings almost always overstate the real world efficiency of the typical car, so one should even take those with a small grain of salt. I've experienced first hand with two FI vehicles that there is very little to be gained on the mpg side. Both were very nice, powerful, torquey motors, but neither delivered better fuel economy than similar V8 cars they replaced in our family fleet. And both had just enough lag/hit to make me wish they still had the V8s from the prior cars, though I expect that will continue to be improved.

As regards this discussion/poll, if I were in the market, I'd want the better performing car, whichever it was at the time. Fuel efficiency wouldn't enter the equation unless and until the difference was massive. But if they use a turbo to make a better performing car and it was reliable, I'd be all for it. I am going to test drive the new Macan S some time, in case the Porsche motor has a better throttle response than our Q7. The Q7 has a ton of power and torque, but it is somewhat on/off rather than progressive.

strumbringer

Did you even read what I wrote? Am I trying to tell you that you should care about fuel economy? Really?! Maybe you need to go back and read it again. S L O W L Y.

Beyond that ... either read the article (from an actual scientific magazine) that I posted days ago and comment on it, or don't. Sounds you are one of those "The drought is a myth because I just ate a sandwich" types, and there's no point trying to get you to stop attacking people because you have to live in a world where everyone agrees with you.

Archimedes

I did read your PM article and it doesn't even address the comment I made. In fact, what it does say, that turbos achieve 8-10% better fuel economy overall, is almost exactly what I quoted. I was even a little more generous in my estimates, closer to 10-15%. That article doesn't even address the point I was making (i.e., that those efficiency gains dependent on driving style), so I'm not sure wtf you're even talking about at this point. Nor have I attacked anyone. Pot meet kettle.

BTW, I never said they were 'gaming the numbers'. I said the advantage you see in the testing estimates, particularly the European ones, overstates the real world gains in sporty cars when you consider the way these cars are typically driven. Interestingly, if you read that PM article you linked, in regards to efficiency advantage it specifically states 'small, modern gas turbo engines', which would lead me to believe they might be referring more to the various small 4 cylinder turbo enginess that are replacing 6 cylinder NA engines in a lot of small/midsize family cars, rather than high performance sports car motors. But again, an 8-10% increase in efficiency ratings wouldn't surprise me at all.

991 GT3

NA!

Visceral

Turbos.

Im a fan of midrange, big power, easy increases to power (Stage 2!), launch control, and big asses.

I sure as hell didn't buy it for the mileage, but 28+ on long highway trips it pretty nice.

I test drove the GTS several times before I bought the TTS. It's true; it sounds amazing. But I preferred all the above to the wonderful sound.

(And I don't think the TTS sounds that bad inside the car under full throttle either.)

My favorite cars have all been FI, from an 89 951 turbo S, to an 06 STI to my E63s wagon, but this TTS is the most perfect car I've ever driven.

I'll own a NA car sometime soon, but it will be a convertible RWD Sunday Twisties car. Maybe a *gasp* new Miata.

Vista6019

For every day driving, NA is the way to go for me.

drmatara

That holds true for both FI and NA....when I drive my 991 on the freeway I get over 30 MPGs...but when I'm driving enthusiastically in the mountains, mainly in first and second gear all the way to red line...I get 10 MPGs

NoGaBiker

Hmmmmm...

(and I'm a two-time Miata owner and former racer. )

Tacet-Conundrum

Considering that the modern non air cooled cars make more power than the Turbos of yester-year. I question myself If I really need a Turbo in the first place. The 993 Turbo makes between 400 & 408 BHP. Now that much power is standard issue for an S and 430 BHP with the power kit. Wish they would make the 475 BHP GT3 engine an option on all 911 models.

That and what will the power inncrease will be on the 911.2's?