Ferrari Considering Return to Turbo Power

Ferrari 430

A few years ago only the brave would have bet in favour of BMW using turbo technology for its M cars. Yet today two of Munich's biggest models are force-fed. Similar bets against a turbo Ferrari may not inspire many Tifosi despite this Autocar report all but confirming Maranello's return to turbo charging as well as this previous report - also "discovered" by Autocar - with published schematics of a supposed Ferrari turbo unit.

An engine developer quoted in the report apparently says the main issue with the technology is turbo lag. He says Ferrari will use it at some point but only after this problem has been cleared. Any delay in power delivery is not acceptable to the company. BMW and Porsche have been eliminating lag through the use of twin turbos while others like Mercedes-Benz and Cadillac employed superchargers.

A possible option has been Fiat's new Multiair system but it seems that does not work too well in the upper rev ranges. The good news is that Ferrari's new double-clutch transmission can work up to 10,000rpm making it ideal for its V12 engines.

The iconic F40 was one of a few Ferraris to use a turbo.

Source: autocar.co.uk

Ferrari F70 Enzo Replacement to Receive Twin-Turbo V8
(47 comments)

Add a Comment

Comments (46)

newest first oldest first

Subscribe to comments

Xanavi23

Ferrari's F40 is probably my favorite car of all time. As we all know it used a twin turbo small displacement V8 which helped make it quite godly. Given the obvious factors/benefits of turbocharging i think Ferrari could benefit easily from it. Still offering good power with decent fuel economy by way of the fuel timing etc.

November 12, 2009 6:29 pm

report abuse | reply

vilivo

Well... if it worked in the F40...

November 12, 2009 6:30 pm

report abuse | reply

hunkeers87

my favorite car of all time is R8 V10 and i don't care Ferraries thing......

November 12, 2009 6:55 pm

report abuse | reply

2 replies

tumbo

Amen to that! :)

November 12, 2009 6:59 pm

report abuse | reply

Xanavi23

I dont like Ferrari much either, almost not at all, but that doesn't stop me from loving the F40 and how brutally fast it is and how capable it was around a track ESPECIALLY for its time. With a bit of(expensive) work an F40 will keep up with many cars today at least down the straight.

November 13, 2009 1:18 pm

report abuse | reply

Pagani

The report is inaccurate with regards to Mercedes Benz using superchargers. While this was the case in the past, the company's only force-fed induction is made via twin turbochargers.

November 12, 2009 7:52 pm

report abuse | reply

1 reply

James2911

They still do - the G-Class AMG does, as well a few older (but still in production) Mercedes-Benz models.

November 13, 2009 7:26 am

report abuse | reply

mtaddi

R8 v10????? Only a jackass picks that as his favorite car of all time.

November 12, 2009 7:57 pm

report abuse | reply

7 replies

scratchy996

what's your problem ?

November 12, 2009 8:22 pm

report abuse | reply

cush_

Nothing. He's perfectly sane. Who in their right mind would get an Audi R8 V10 when there are better cars out there. Not to mention it looks like a bulked up Audi TT.

November 13, 2009 7:17 am

report abuse | reply

scratchy996

i bet neither of you have ever driven an R8 or any other supercar.

November 13, 2009 9:05 am

report abuse | reply

cush_

I have, lots. And somehow I am not convinced of this R8. So this topic was about Ferrari's and turbos?

November 13, 2009 9:58 am

report abuse | reply

scratchy996

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkgD-Pepc1o

November 13, 2009 1:05 pm

report abuse | reply

Xanavi23

I can see people picking the R8, although i like the R8 4.2 a bit more largely due to its balance, even if is a bit anemic.

November 13, 2009 1:19 pm

report abuse | reply

cush_

That video still did not convince me. I have actually DRIVEN it and I do not like it. Or any Audi for that matter.

November 15, 2009 3:30 pm

report abuse | reply

mtaddi

@Pagani: The report says employed. Referring to past tense. So technically, it is saying Caddy has used S/C, but possibly still doesn't. Which would still be incorrect.

November 12, 2009 7:59 pm

report abuse | reply

Andy_Turbo

why wud u want to use a 6 or 7 litre engine to make 600hp when it can be done with a quite smaller turbocharged 4 or 5 litre engine? the GTR does the performance thing well with its 3.8l and the 911 does it just as good so y do u still want gas guzzling naturally aspirated engines? i know some people prefer to hear the engine sound and all that, but in terms of power and torque the turbo engine will always be better.

November 12, 2009 9:43 pm

report abuse | reply

4 replies

Joe_Limon

Because a 6 liter engine pumping 600hp will get better fuel economy and last longer then a 3 liter engine pumping 600hp. For example, the 6.2L C6 corvette puts out 436 hp and still manages 16/26mpg, while the 4.2L r8 puts out 420hp with 13/18mpg. Throw in turbocharging even smaller engines and you will have the 2.0L lancer evo engine pushing 291hp at 16/22mpg.

November 12, 2009 10:03 pm

report abuse | reply

cyclist848

A large engine has potential for massive amounts of torque. I find it kind of silly comparing fuel economy of an R8 and a Corvette. An R8 is all wheel drive and quite heavy. A Corvette is rear wheel drive and fairly light. I believe the weight and drivetrain may cause the difference in these two vehicles.

November 13, 2009 4:29 am

report abuse | reply

James2911

Because large capacity and small capacity engines have different characteristics.For example, you wouldn't put a 2.0L twin-turbo VTEC screamer in a Challenger, regardless of power output, and neither would you put a 7.5L V8 in a Porsche 911.

November 13, 2009 7:29 am

report abuse | reply

Joe_Limon

If you don't like the r8 comparison, fine, how about a Ferrari comparison? The California gets 454hp out of a 4.3L with 13/19mpg. While the F430 gets 490hp out of the same 4.3L engine and gets 11/16mpg. And the 599 gets an almost equivalent to the F430 with it's 6.2L with 600hp netting 11/15mpg even though it puts out 110hp more and weighs 525lbs more.

November 13, 2009 2:02 pm

report abuse | reply

Andy_Turbo

i read a few articles and eveb saw a few twin turbo lamborghini gallardos and even a murc. and they are awesome. if i had to choose my fav car of all time, a murcielago with an 1100hp twin turbo v12 would be heaven sent!!!!!!!!i can only imagine hearing the turbo spool until redline. OMG

November 12, 2009 9:49 pm

report abuse | reply

carcrazy1234

"Any delay in power delivery is not acceptable to the company" -- best part of that whole article hahhah AHMEN to THAT! :)

November 12, 2009 10:19 pm

report abuse | reply

tootall

What about a turbo similar to that of a Porsche 911 VTG? If the whole pattent period for that system is up, then Ferrari can go that route. The VTG turbos from Porsche seem to combat turbo lag pretty well (not perfect but close).

November 13, 2009 2:05 am

report abuse | reply

1 reply

scratchy996

combined with the PDK gearbox the lag is completely gone in the new 997.2 turbo, you only feel traces of lag with the manual.

November 13, 2009 9:09 am

report abuse | reply

nederina

Ferrari is thinking of sticking a turbocharger because they know that their cars are lack of torque. Not to forget that their new arch rival McLaren and cars like the Nissan GT-R, the next M5, Porsche's V8 and flat-six turbo, Audi, and the Bugatti Veyron has been very successful employing with the turbos. I am not sure about an Italian turbocharger judging from their diesel technology.

November 13, 2009 3:04 am

report abuse | reply

Swifty

supercharger is the best for heavy cars, cos of torque! example: Mercedes-Benz SL55 AMG have 5,4L V8 with 517hp, to have a same power and torque with same nature of revving and delivery of grunt, you should have exactly 10L engine!!! Those are the words from AMG, so instead of that they mounted a supercharger (twin-screw) and there you have it, less weight and phenomenal sound adds on whole package!

November 13, 2009 9:19 am

report abuse | reply

1 reply

Xanavi23

I wouldn't say 10Liters, i love the SL55AMG, another of my favorites of all time, i think even more than the SL65AMG(due to its cheaper price) but the Viper accomplishes similar power curves with 8.4L. Its not a big difference but it still is one.

November 13, 2009 1:24 pm

report abuse | reply

andre_a_s

I agree with tootall. VTG turbos can minimize a lot the lag. Maybe not a 100%. but it would be much better than the common ones.

November 13, 2009 10:50 am

report abuse | reply

GTurbo

Ferarri is supposed to be at the cutting edge of hypercar engineering. This may seem like a backward step in my opinion. They are being affected by the incredible competition coming from everywhere in Europe, and recently from the States, with their hideously ugly SSC Aero Twin Turbo. Torque is what the Germans and Japanese do best and they don't want to lose face in the pulling power stakes. Post F355, virtually all Ferarris (except the new 458 Italia) are now ugly; their designs heavily influenced by aerodynamics and EuroNCAP crash testing factors. I may digress, but I hardly think reverting back to turbo power will gain new customers for Ferarri. Some wealthy customers actually prefer pre-war cars or 'customised Ferarris' owing to their increasing disillusionment with new designs. Beauty, not beast, used to be the Ferarri watchword.

November 13, 2009 11:17 am

report abuse | reply

8 replies

jerry05cod4

No disrespect, but i think your mentality is what´s backward stepping... turbos are meant to increase efficiency in an engine. Naturally aspirated engines, although brilliant, waste more energy than turbo powered engines. In normal engines about 70% of the energy they produce is wasted through heat, friction, etc... turbo engines reduce this waste.

November 13, 2009 3:04 pm

report abuse | reply

EDavis

"Torque is what the Germans and the Japanese do best..." The Japanese? Ever hear of a Buick GS 455? Chevelle SS 454? Charger 440 R/T? Duesenberg? The sport of tractor pulling?

November 13, 2009 3:55 pm

report abuse | reply

Joe_Limon

jerry... turbo engines reduce this waste by cramming more air/fuel into the engine, they may make the engine produce more power per liter but they aren't producing any more power per liter of fuel used.

November 13, 2009 7:11 pm

report abuse | reply

Xanavi23

GTTurbo, if you think Germans do torque best than the coke you're sniffing is really some grade A stuff that Escobar would sell. Mercedes Benz aside German cars do not make particularly great torque, good but not great. As for the Japanese only 2 cars made what can be called very good torque and only for their class, the Supra Twin Turbo and GT-R, both of which require turbos to do the job(Tq.). The N/A supra has as much torque as its horsepower, but like others above american cars with 200hp often make substantially more torque than hp. The 5.0LX is a good example of this. So Japanese cars too can't be called as being best torque makers. You want Torque ? Think American.

November 13, 2009 8:09 pm

report abuse | reply

scratchy996

@ Xanavi23 , you want torque , Mercedes is the answer , the engine in the Zonda has 780Nm torque from a NA 7.3l, more than a Viper SRT 10 with a 8.4l engine. Gumpert has 900 Nm torque from the Audi 4.2l Audi V8 turbo , SL 65 AMG Black has 1000 NM torque and then there is Brabus...

November 14, 2009 2:32 pm

report abuse | reply

Joe_Limon

Why are you comparing a million dollar European car to a sub hundred thousand dollar American car? Maybe you should be comparing cars of that price range to a twin turbo Callaway Corvette? Or how about a Hennessey Viper? lol Ultimate Aero? I dare you to find a sub $50,000 car with 480lb-ft (650Nm)... that isn't American.

November 14, 2009 10:11 pm

report abuse | reply

scratchy996

what does price have to do with it ? there are European production cars that come with more torque than American cars. American cars are mass produced cheap cars , European high performance cars are exclusive luxury cars, it's only normal to be more expensive. the point is , Americans are not the only ones than can make high torque. i bet if the Japanese wanted , they could create cars more powerful and cheaper than the Americans.

November 15, 2009 7:37 am

report abuse | reply

Xanavi23

Scratchy, you're preaching to the converted, the Zondas motor is godly, i love Benz large displacement engines for the reasons you stated. However like Joe pointed out, the costs of some of the higher end versions of those engines like the Zonda 7.3 is of a much higher cost than the Vipers motor. That doesn't completely discount the Zonda engines amazing build but at the same time it is a bit of an unfair comparison. But speaking between Dodge and Benz, i find the 5.5L to be a fair comparison, even if the Benz plant is a bit more costly, sure it uses a Supercharger but the Viper has more size to it so thats fair. One small thing though, they only make 2000 Vipers a year which is similar size to some Ferraris, i believe the F430 is one, so you can't call the Viper mass-produced like its other Dodge, Corvette or American counterparts.

November 15, 2009 1:01 pm

report abuse | reply

Prince_Ash

Putting a turbo in new ferraris to come would be an intresting feat, especially if they can make it fuel efficent then it would be more intresting.

November 13, 2009 11:21 am

report abuse | reply

ricer8

All have pros and cons. I think most race car drivers that are no longer racing (i.e. They don't have to tow the line of there employer) will say NA motors are their choice. Drivability and reliabily. I have owned all. Superchargers are fun but not good for track use. Turbos are fun but trying to time the response mid corner is not. I love driving highly strung small displacement turbos for the entertainment but "THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR DISPLACEMENT"

November 13, 2009 4:36 pm

report abuse | reply

popilirol

BMW rules normal aspirated and turbo-charged engines.

November 13, 2009 5:14 pm

report abuse | reply

tootall

LOL!! I hear you EDavis. The list of cars you've rehearsed were known for their torque delivery, hands down.

November 13, 2009 6:03 pm

report abuse | reply

tootall

@ Jerry05cod4. Just to add to what you said about heat loss in an engine... Forced induced cars can run more efficient than naturally aspirated cars. My theory is this: If you have a great inter-cooler system coupled to the right turbo, then combustion chamber temps should not be an issue. Optimal operating temperatures, @ all driving conditions will be present @ all times. Just my two cents on that subject.

November 13, 2009 6:12 pm

report abuse | reply

veesix

Ferrari Turbo? You guys gotta be kidding me.

November 15, 2009 10:55 am

report abuse | reply

2 replies

scratchy996

remember the F40 ?

November 15, 2009 12:16 pm

report abuse | reply

Xanavi23