Can you guys read the RPM that the max HP and torque were made at on the MT tests? The print is too small for me. I'm wondering if it's something as simple as the old L88 trick, where they published 430HP (picked the HP they wanted and then worked backwards and rated it at that specific RPM) was at say 5000RPM, but really it could make 560HP at 6500...that way they weren't really lying they were just rating at different RPM.
The C7 Z51 with manual transmission trapped 118mph in the 2014 review I pulled up. That's with maybe 150 pounds less weight, but also no launch control and much taller gearing from the slower-shifting manual transmission. I suspect it could have done 120mph with all of the aforementioned equipment. To me, it's not a stretch to see the C8 going 3 mph faster with 495hp and all the mechanical advantages it has. Again: if the C8 is 150hp underrated then apparently the 992 911 S is also since it traps the same speed on even less power. I agree with Sporin that this was likely a dyno problem.
Given all of the info aggregated in this thread, I am more convinced that this was dyno user error.
Originally Posted by cockerpunk
Ferrari seems to be the only manufacturer that's fully allowed to bring multiple one test ringers- because everybody wants access to them and they know complaining would cause a problem.
Have to give credit to Chris Harris for blowing the whistle on that BS.
Almost makes up for his Miata hate while openly loving worse cars because "character".
Oh, and I am confused on the "it makes too much torque" reasoning.Originally Posted by Chris Harris
I told the blokes here at Jalopnik I was pissed at Ferrari and wanted to tell a few people. They said I could do it here. Stay with me, this might take a while.
I think it started in 2007 when I heard that Ferrari wanted to know which test track we were going to use for Autocar's 599 GTB road test, but in reality the rot had set in many years earlier. Why would it want to know that? "Because," said the man from the Autocar office, "The factory now has to send a test team to the circuit we chose so that they can optimize the car to get the best performance from it." They duly went to the track, tested for a day, crashed the car, went back to the factory to mend the car, returned, tested and then invited us to drive this "standard" 599. They must have been having a laugh.
Sad to say it, but the ecstasy of driving a new Ferrari is now almost always eradicated by the pain of dealing with the organization. Why am I bothering to tell you this? Because I'm pissed with the whole thing now. It's gotten out of control; to the point that it will soon be pointless believing anything you read about its cars through the usual channels, because the only way you get access is playing by its rules.
Like anyone with half a brain, I've been willing to cut Ferrari some slack because it is, well, Ferrari –- the most famous fast car brand of all and the maker of cars that everyone wants to know about. Bang out a video of yourself drifting a new Jag XKR on YouTube and 17 people watch it; do the same in a 430 Scuderia and the audience is 500,000 strong. As a journalist, those numbers make you willing to accommodate truck-loads of bull****, but I've had enough now. I couldn't care if I never drive a new Ferrari again, if it means I never have to deal with the insane communication machine and continue lying about the lengths to which Ferrari will bend any rule to get what it wants. Which is just as well, because I don't think I'm going to be invited back to Maranello any time soon. Shame, the food's bloody marvelous.
How bad has it been? I honestly don't know where to start. Perhaps the 360 Modena press car that was two seconds faster to 100mph than the customer car we also tested. You allow some leeway for "factory fresh" machines, but this thing was ludicrously quick and sounded more like Schumacher's weekend wheels than a street car. Ferrari will never admit that its press cars are tuned, but has the gall to turn up at any of the big European magazines' end-of-year-shindig-tests with two cars. One for straight line work, the other for handling exercises. Because that's what happens when you buy a 458: they deliver two for just those eventualities. The whole thing stinks. In any other industry it wouldn't be allowed to happen. It's dishonest, but all the mags take it between the cheeks because they're too scared of not being invited to drive the next new Ferrari.
Remember the awesome 430 Scuderia? What a car that was, and still is. One English magazine went along with all the cheating-bull**** because the cars did seem to be representative of what a customer might get to drive, but then during the dyno session, the "standard" tires stuck themselves to the rollers.
And this is the nub: how ****ing paranoid do you have to be to put even stickier rubber on a Scuderia? It's like John Holmes having an extra two inches grafted onto his dick. I mean it's not as if, according to your own communication, you're not a clear market leader and maker of the best sports cars in the world now, is it?
What Ferrari plainly cannot see is that its strategy to win every test at any cost is completely counter-productive. First, it completely undermines the amazing work of its own engineers. What does it say about a 458 if the only way its maker is willing to loan it to a magazine is if a laptop can be plugged in after every journey and a dedicated team needs to spend several days at the chosen test track to set-up the car? It says they're completely nuts –- behavior that looks even worse when rival brands just hand over their car with nothing more than a polite suggestion that you should avoid crashing it too heavily, and then return a week later.
Point two: the internet is good for three things: free porn, Jalopnik and spreading information. Fifteen years ago, if your 355 wasn't as fast as the maker claimed you could give the supplying dealer a headache, whine at the local owners club and not much besides. Nowadays you spray your message around the globe and every bugger knows about it in minutes. So, when we used an owner's 430 Scud because Ferrari wouldn't lend us the test car, it was obliterated in a straight line by a GT2 and a Lambo LP 560-4, despite all the "official" road test figures suggesting it was faster than Halley's Comet. The forums went nuts and some Scud owners rightly felt they hadn't been delivered the car they'd read about in all the buff books. Talk about karma slapping you in the face.
It's the level of control that's so profoundly irritating and I think damaging to the brand. Once you know that it takes a full support crew and two 458s to supply those amazing stats, it then takes the shine off the car. The simple message from Ferrari is that unless you play exactly by the laws they lay down, you're off the list.
What are those laws? Apart from the laughable track test stuff, as a journalist you are expressly forbidden from driving any current Ferrari road car without permission from the factory. So if I want to drive my mate's 458 tomorrow, I have to ask the factory. Will it allow me to drive the car? No: because it is of "unknown provenance," i.e. not tuned. I'm almost tempted to buy a 458, just for the joy of phoning Maranello every morning and asking if its OK if I take my kid to school.
Where I've personally run into trouble is by using owners' cars for comparison tests. Ferrari absolutely hates this; even if you say unremittingly nice things about its cars, it goes ape ****. But you want to see a 458 against a GT3 RS so I'm going to deliver that story and that video. Likewise the 599 GTO and the GT2 RS. Ferrari honestly believes it can control every aspect of the media — it has actively intervened several times when I've asked to borrow owners' cars.
The control freakery is getting worse: for the FF launch in March journalists have to say which outlets they are writing it for and those have to be approved by Maranello. Honestly, we're perilously close to having the words and verdicts vetted by the Ferrari press office before they're released, which of course has always been the way in some markets.
Should I give a **** about this stuff? Probably not. It's not like it's a life-and-death situation; supercars are pretty unserious tackle. But the best thing about car nuts is that they let you drive their cars, and Ferrari has absolutely no chance stopping people like me driving what they want to drive. Of course their attempts to stop me makes it an even better sport and merely hardens my resolve, but the sad thing is its cars are so good it doesn't need all this ****e. I'll repeat that for the benefit of any vestige of a chance I might have of ever driving a Ferrari press car ever again (which is virtually none). "Its cars are so good it doesn't need this ****e."
None of this will make any difference to Ferrari. I'm just an irrelevant Limey who doesn't really matter. But I've had enough of concealing what goes on, to the point that I no longer want to be a Ferrari owner, a de-facto member of its bull****-control-edifice. I sold my 575 before Christmas. As pathetic protests go, you have to agree it's high quality.
Jesus, this is now sounding like a properly depressing rant. I'll leave it there. Just remember all this stuff then next time you read a magazine group test with a prancing stallion in it.
People having been building LS engines for pump gas for years that make that much power with under 7 liters.
Maybe GM tuned them special (timing and emissions?), but the "must be bored for bigger displacement" thing is a red herring imo.
Last edited by BRealistic; 10-22-2019 at 07:41 PM.
Therefore, it is physically impossible for a 6.2L n/a V8 to dyno the torque numbers reflected in the motortrend article. Absolutely impossible on pump gas with no forced induction.
So there are exactly two possibilities: (1) dyno error; or (2) engine has more than 6.2L.
While I was originally leaning more toward option #2, some of the more intelligent analysis in here has me leaning more toward #1.
Originally Posted by cockerpunk
Whatever the reason, without boost, pushrod V8s don't seem to have the torque density of overhead cam engines. The difference is small, but it's definitely there.
Originally Posted by cockerpunk
Even then, though, there is an absolute limit to how much energy pump gas and air at the stoich ratio can produce in an internal combustion engine using current technology.
EDIT: There are modified Porsche GT3 engines that get north of 95 lb-ft per liter, but those are with emissions equipment removed, timing advanced to ass crack of what 93 octane can handle, and other modifications. I was talking about in an OEM application with my earlier comments.
Last edited by SchnellFowVay; 10-22-2019 at 11:01 PM.
Originally Posted by cockerpunk
I agree that there is a limit to what can be done on pump gas, and modern cars do hold stoic longer than they have in the past, but stoic isn't a factor in this as they can run richer at WOT.
Look up "BMEP" = "brake mean effective pressure" and what it means ... and what the plausible range is.
The "torque per litre of displacement" is related to BMEP but using commonly available units (it's easy to know or measure the displacement, and a dyno test tells you the torque).
Most normal two-valve-per-cylinder, normally aspirated, 4 stroke gasoline engines with normal emission and noise control equipment, and without exceptional tuning measures, make about 65 - 70 lb.ft of torque per litre of displacement. I am talking about "normal average run of the mill engine" here. That implies BMEP of around 11 - 12 bar. A well tuned 4 valve per cylinder DOHC engine, normally aspirated, 4 stroke running on gasoline, but still with emission and noise control equipment, for example a modern 1000cc supersports motorcycle engine, may make 80-ish lb.ft per litre, around 13 - 13.5 bar.
What about state-of-the-art? NASCAR is practically certain to be the two-valve pushrod state-of-the-art, Formula 1 (in the non-turbo era) is certain to be the four-valve state-of-the-art. Comparison article: http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine..._cup_to_f1.htm TLR? Both are very close to 15.1 bar BMEP. That, for a normally-aspirated 4-stroke engine running on gasoline, is as good as it will get. This represents 89 lb.ft of torque per litre of displacement.
It requires exceptionally good tuning to reach that level, and generally a very high BMEP will be reliant upon acoustic tuning of the intake and exhaust systems such that it will only achieve that BMEP over a fairly narrow RPM range - the RPM at which the intake tuning, exhaust tuning, and cam timing all work together. One of the desirable characteristics of a production engine is to have a wide, flat torque curve. A consequence is that the maximum BMEP won't reach the very high extremes.
I am a little tickled by how riled up people are about this. "How scandalous!" I doubt the people up in arms about this were in the market for one anyway. It's peculiar but def not worth the OP's level of concern IMO.
Variable valve timing allows the engine's cam timing to be tweaked to optimise it over a wider RPM range but at any given RPM, it cannot make anything magic happen that couldn't be done with fixed valve timing optimised for that specific RPM. Result ... Peak BMEP is no higher but it may extend over a wider range.
Certainly there have been improvements over the last 50 years but the underlying physics has not changed.
For a point of comparison, a modern Chrysler 3.6 Pentastar makes around 260 lb.ft of torque. The BMEP is practically the same as that old Corvette engine (despite DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder and variable valve timing). But ... The improvements made in the last 50 years are that the Pentastar has a very flat torque curve and it makes most of that torque anywhere between 1500 rpm and 5500 rpm, and it does so smoothly and quietly and fuss-free and in compliance with current emission standards, and it will get more than 7 miles per gallon in daily driving.
Second off, at best, I was arguing that the engine was bored and stroked to the 7.0L range. That is basically a 12-15% increase over the claimed 6.2L. At no point was I arguing that this thing was bored out to 9.0L or something.
Originally Posted by cockerpunk
Gotta say, for a thread based completely on speculation, I have learned a lot. For instance, I didn't now know that there was an actual physics limitation to torque (ft-lbs/liter).
I am the farthest thing from an engineer, so some of it's over my head, but ...
Well part of your problem Mr Pennypacker is that you posted a picture of an inverted helicopter, but that cockpit is obviously from a fixed wing Cessna. Helicopters have cyclics and not yokes.
Driving While Awesome Podcast. Give it a listen. #TeamAkane. Donate to help a wonderful family kick cancers ass
Originally Posted by Phillie Phanatic
I too don't see how a pushrod V8 can beat a GT3RS on torque/liter. But I don't know that the conclusion is that they sent bored-out ringers, which as mentioned could be checked without too much difficulty. It might be the dyno, the testing conditions, the software, etc. Maybe there's even race fuel in the cars...if there's a factory 100 octane MAP, it may be a bit misleading but not cheating near the level of a bored-out motor. And 92lbfts on a high-performance 100octane V8 sounds reasonable even if it is OHV.
Get all the pre-orders, then admit it was on race fuel? Unless the press car was refueled before dyno, I could believe that. I don't even think I would be upset...so long as it were a factory option.