When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I don't think the move from blowers to snails is such a bad thing.
It won't sound as good, and that's the big negative in my opinion. Otherwise no issue with turbos over superchargers.
Originally Posted by hoonery
For one, it will allow easier incremental power increases whereas now the V8 seems to be somewhat tapped out.
I'm not sure why you say its tapped out. We've just begun to investigate the V8's potential and are currently ~100 hp over stock with only a few simple mods. While upgrading turbos is easier than upgrading a superchager, I'm not sure you'd see the gains crazy gains over stock unless they oversized the turbos. Remember by this rumor you're lopping off 2 cylinders and reducing displacement. That motor may very well be maxed out just to get back to current power levels. Upgrading a 3.0L BMW N54 motor from 300 to 500 hp is a heck of a lot easier than upgrading a 3.0-4.0L whatever motor from 550 to 750 hp.
Originally Posted by hoonery
Secondly, it will allow it to keep up with the acceleration of competition. The Mercedes AMG GTS has less peak HP than a F type R or SVR but has significantly better acceleration according to a multitude of magazine tests. That's due to the broadness of a twin turbo power band that simply can't be matched.
Consider that a Mclaren 570S has less peak HP than a SVR but blows the doors off of it in acceleration tests. There are other factors such as weight and gearing, but that alone wouldn't make a 10-12mph trap speed difference.
I ordered an AMG GTR so we shall see how it compares... Both have 575 HP.
The Mercedes out does the Jag simply because its 500 lbs lighter. That's a huge weight gap for similar horsepower. And the McLaren weighs 800 lbs less! That along with similar torque numbers in the AMG easily make for a 0.5 second difference in the quarter mile. Turbos still suffer from lag, however minimal that may be these days. Power numbers being equal, I think you'd have a better powerband with the supercharged engine if it was designed properly.
It won't sound as good, but many turbocharged cars such as the aforementioned Mercedes and Mclaren do sound pretty good.
I'm assuming a TT V8 for the top end F type, not a I6, as several reports have stated. You're talking about the aftermarket and I'm talking about what an auto manufacturer is willing or able to produce for the public. Without any mechanical changes, Jaguar has increased output from 488 to 567. That's exhausting the capabilities of the stock motor.
It's not 500 lbs lighter. 350 lbs is more accurate. And it's less powerful.The math doesn't add up to support your rationale. It's the power band of the TT V8. Ditto the Mclaren. Trapping 133 in a 1/4 mile is not just weight. Compare ZL1 acceleration to Z06. The Camaro weighs 500 lbs more but is very close to the Z06, especially in trap speed. Weight plays a role, but it isn't as substantial as what you're claiming.
There are vague rumours of a possible Ingenium V8 down the track, which if it remains "modular" with the standard half litre per cylinder would be 4.0 litres.
Surely JLR could engineer such an engine to take the same Eaton TVS R1900 supercharger as on the current AJ133 5.0 V8, and if they did they should be easily able to tune it for a safe 600 bhp.
But as I have said before it seems all/most of the Ingenium R&D involves turbos instead of SCs so I doubt this would happen.
Then again JLR might decide to go with a SC V8 Ingenium in the top offerings just to differentiate their products from the mainstream turbo herd, and so preserve some more uniqueness in Jags and RRs, especially with the exhaust sound of the F-Type which is a big selling point.
200 lbs difference but almost the same numbers from the same motor. By the way, those 0-100 times are identical to what a F type R or SVR produces with a 420 HP motor and a couple of turbos. It can't be just the weight, especially since the T4S is so heavy.
Here's a comparison test between F type R AWD and AMG GTS. 411 lb. difference between the cars which would be less on an SVR or F type R RWD (by 171 lbs).
See the differences in acceleration time. 1.1 seconds 0-100 difference!
Okay. The F type R weighs more than the AMG GTS. Only by 240 lbs in this example. Basically the same stats.
I ordered an AMG GTR so we shall see how it compares... Both have 575 HP.
Please keep us posted. I sat in one, too cramped for my stature. However, gorgeous looking car.
Naturally aspirated would be my choice. Failing that - supercharged. Yes, everything you say is correct. However, with a manual gearbox turbo lag is real and noticeable even in the best twin turbos. Also, turbo cars punish you very harshly if you happen to shift badly. Forgot to downshift going into corner? Might as well play elevator music at the apex. It is not nearly as embarrassing with a supercharger.
911 Turbo both non-S and S are also great examples. They're a few hundred lbs. lighter than an F type R RWD or AWD. 540 or 580 HP. Very similar. 1/4 performance? Not even in the same stratosphere. Even the non-S Turbo traps 129.
Some of that is the PDK, but not all of it. It's that monstrous TT motor.
All I'm saying is there are reasons to embrace turbos.
Please keep us posted. I sat in one, too cramped for my stature. However, gorgeous looking car.
Naturally aspirated would be my choice. Failing that - supercharged. Yes, everything you say is correct. However, with a manual gearbox turbo lag is real and noticeable even in the best twin turbos. Also, turbo cars punish you very harshly if you happen to shift badly. Forgot to downshift going into corner? Might as well play elevator music at the apex. It is not nearly as embarrassing with a supercharger.
Fair points indeed. They aren't perfect or even great. I think many people would prefer a Lamborghini V10 to the new Ferrari TT V8. Those people, like you, actually drive cars. But most people buy numbers in a magazine like I'm propagating.
But I've sort of accepted the future. And if it has to be this way, let's at least shine a light on the silver linings. More robust acceleration, albeit not always linear or predictable, is one of them.
Also, with a turbo you have to be Very Aware of where it kicks in. If you are not careful, it can kick in mid-turn and you will end up with some oversteer. That is, turbo car is much more punishing to drive properly at the limit. Some people could do it perfectly, any day, every time and in the rain. I would rather not have to deal with the car trying to kill or frustrate me.
Have you ever driven 911 Turbo (RWD converted) on the track in the rain? I can't say I recommend.
Trap speed is generally a calculation of horsepower vs. weight, so lets eliminate that completely from the discussion as that's more of a fact than anything.
That brings us to the quarter mile time discussion. You show a simple 200lbs. of weight equaling .2 seconds in your porsche example, which seems right in line. Beyond that quarter mile time is a combination of power/curve, grip, gearing, aero, etc. in addition to driver skill. This is much too complicated to make blanket statements about turbos.
The real issue with the Jag is our massive torque reduction in 1st and 2nd gear when at WOT. If this car launched like a GTR can I think you'd have a much different opinion. Sure we make 502 ft/lbs of torque, but not until 3rd gear.
Many years ago and much younger I had a series of Nissan Z cars. When they went from straight six to V6 I couldn't wait to get newest thing but as seen by BMW newest isn't always a big improvement it was done for design package not performance.
While I appreciate the technical comparisons from knowledgeable forum members between the turbo and supercharged engines, from a pure marketing differentation and branding, it feels like going turbo (especially if they come from BMW) is not a favorable move, at least from my perspective. I bought my 2 jags because they were supercharged V8's and not lagging turbos. From a long term reliability perspective is a supercharged engine (I.e the supercharger) more reliable and less prone to failure than a turbo? One of my associates BMW X5 twin turbos had to be replaced just out of warranty. They quoted $10k at the dealership. Again, appreciate the insights, but I prefer to be different than other brands, and hopefully better in the couple of areas cited.
The real issue with the Jag is our massive torque reduction in 1st and 2nd gear when at WOT. If this car launched like a GTR can I think you'd have a much different opinion. Sure we make 502 ft/lbs of torque, but not until 3rd gear.
I don't quite understand that statement. Peak torque occurs at 3500 rpm and WOT, which can be achieved in all gears. Are you suggesting that the OEM tune limits torque in the first two gears on the V8?
I don't quite understand that statement. Peak torque occurs at 3500 rpm and WOT, which can be achieved in all gears. Are you suggesting that the OEM tune limits torque in the first two gears on the V8?
From what I have read the Transmission Control Module (TCM) and the Power Control Module (PCM) "talk" to each other to reduce torque in the first two gears, so as to protect the gearbox. Dunno quite how that might work with a manual trans though!
Trap speed is generally a calculation of horsepower vs. weight, so lets eliminate that completely from the discussion as that's more of a fact than anything.
That brings us to the quarter mile time discussion. You show a simple 200lbs. of weight equaling .2 seconds in your porsche example, which seems right in line. Beyond that quarter mile time is a combination of power/curve, grip, gearing, aero, etc. in addition to driver skill. This is much too complicated to make blanket statements about turbos.
The real issue with the Jag is our massive torque reduction in 1st and 2nd gear when at WOT. If this car launched like a GTR can I think you'd have a much different opinion. Sure we make 502 ft/lbs of torque, but not until 3rd gear.
Using HP to weight, the Jag has an almost identical HP/weight to the Mercedes AMG GTS, about 7.2. In fact, it's lower in the RWD R. So it doesn't stand to reason that the trap speeds shown are primarily HP/weight. That's a 5 MPH difference that has to be accounted for.
There are numerous examples of turbocharged cars with similar horsepower outperforming blown or NA cars with similar power/weight. It's only a blanket statement because it's generally true.
The other factors would be gearing and speed of gear changes but they shouldn't create that much of a difference.
Also, with a turbo you have to be Very Aware of where it kicks in. If you are not careful, it can kick in mid-turn and you will end up with some oversteer. That is, turbo car is much more punishing to drive properly at the limit. Some people could do it perfectly, any day, every time and in the rain. I would rather not have to deal with the car trying to kill or frustrate me.
Have you ever driven 911 Turbo (RWD converted) on the track in the rain? I can't say I recommend.
That's basically a GT2, right? Yeah, that sounds scary. I'm not a fan of turbo motors. My 911 is my first. And we are getting used to people saying they can't detect Turbo lag when that can't possibly be true.
While I appreciate the technical comparisons from knowledgeable forum members between the turbo and supercharged engines, from a pure marketing differentation and branding, it feels like going turbo (especially if they come from BMW) is not a favorable move, at least from my perspective. I bought my 2 jags because they were supercharged V8's and not lagging turbos. From a long term reliability perspective is a supercharged engine (I.e the supercharger) more reliable and less prone to failure than a turbo? One of my associates BMW X5 twin turbos had to be replaced just out of warranty. They quoted $10k at the dealership. Again, appreciate the insights, but I prefer to be different than other brands, and hopefully better in the couple of areas cited.
I'm with you. I just don't see an alternative except Z06, Lamborghini, and a few other sports cars.
From what I have read the Transmission Control Module (TCM) and the Power Control Module (PCM) "talk" to each other to reduce torque in the first two gears, so as to protect the gearbox. Dunno quite how that might work with a manual trans though!
Bingo. I believe it's to protect the driveline more-so than the trans, but regardless it's something we haven't been able to overcome.
Using HP to weight, the Jag has an almost identical HP/weight to the Mercedes AMG GTS, about 7.2. In fact, it's lower in the RWD R. So it doesn't stand to reason that the trap speeds shown are primarily HP/weight. That's a 5 MPH difference that has to be accounted for.
There are numerous examples of turbocharged cars with similar horsepower outperforming blown or NA cars with similar power/weight. It's only a blanket statement because it's generally true.
The other factors would be gearing and speed of gear changes but they shouldn't create that much of a difference.
There was a thread somewhere with actual weights of the various F Type models and I swear the AWD R was up near 4000 lbs. Also I believe AMG is under-rating the GTS. Regardless, real world the Jag usually wins a drag race because it can hook.
I wont continue the argument because we don't have enough data to come to a consensus. But I firmly believe an N/A motor is better than a supercharged motor is better than a turbocharged motor when comparing strictly straight line acceleration at equal peak power/torque ratings.
What I like about the F-type R rwd Coupe, and what was the decisive reasons for why I chose it over another brand/model, is the fact that it is "different" than most other sportscars.
1 - it looks great (very subjective, but most people agrees)
2 - it has a V8 with a supercharger (less common and I love the feel of instant Power)
3 - it sounds great
4 - it's so much fun to drive
5 - it can be a challenge to drive, if you want to
6 - it can be very easy to drive, if you want to
7 - it is surprizingly comfortable to drive compared to many other sportscars
8 - it is rather practical compared to many other sportscars
9 - running cost / maintenance is not bad, compared to many other sportscars
Turbo might be a better solution if you look at even more power and more speed, but I don't really feel the need for that - and it is easy and affordable to tune the SC V8 to get 50-100 more bhp, IF that need should arise.
Turbo might be a better solution to get a more efficient engine (specially if you reduce the engine volume to ~ 4.0 with the same Power output), but for me this car is a weekend car, and I love the "big" V8 5.0 displacement (just knowing that makes me feel good). I don't really care what kind of mpg I am getting, and I am actually surpriced of how high mpg you can achieve - but that's no fun....
Yes - there are faster cars in a straight line. If that was more important for me than nr. 1-9 above, I would have bought a faster car.
Yes - there are quicker cars on track. If that was more important for me than nr. 1-9 above, I would have bought a quicker car.
There is only one area where I wish (without nitpicking on minor totally unimportant "nice to have" things) the F-type could have been better, and that is on weight - as long as that could have been acheived without compromizing the comfort. (I have a friend with the latest GT3 RS, and whilst it is a great sportscar that will drive arround the F-type on a track, I am very happy I am the one driving the F-type when we are driving together on some longer roadstrips - which is were I use my F-type most ). And even if it is a bit on the heavy side (not much heavier than a Porsche Turbo though....), it does carry the weight very well
So I am very happy that I have finally found the right sportscar for me and my priorities, and the fact that it has delivered on those terms.
Bingo. I believe it's to protect the driveline more-so than the trans, ...
I'm not certain that makes much sense. The tires are going to loose grip long before you twist the driveline into a pretzel. Shock kills drivelines, not torque.
04-05-2017, 08:21 PM
