perhaps a dumb question...

[inter mil]

i have a question... which might sound really stupid, but why are no ferraris, and if i am wrong about that, most current ferraris, not turbo? what do they do to the engine that they dont need/use a turbo?

[toyota_trevor]

Originally Posted by inter mil

i have a question... which might sound really stupid, but why are no ferraris, and if i am wrong about that, most current ferraris, not turbo? what do they do to the engine that they dont need/use a turbo?

First of all, I dont think that there is a stupid question. It takes courage to ask a question and at the risk of admitting his knowledge. I commend you for that.

I do know that Ferrari has made one turbocharged automobile. That being the Ferrari F40. As to why current Ferraris are not turbocharged I cant help you out. I do know that when a engine is turbocharged it usually losses it easy reving capabilities. Easy reving is something that is a character of Ferrari and I can see why they would not want to change that aspect of there automobiles. Maybe some of our more experienced and knowledgable members can help you more than I can.

Last but not least, I would like to welcome you to Ultimate Car Page forums.

[henk4]

Good question actually, and apart from the F40, its predecessor, the 288GTO was also fitted with turbos. (During the turbo period of Formula 1 the Ferraris were of vourse also equiped with turbos). Some aftermarket tuners like Koenig in Germany also fitted road cars with turbos.

Its also worth noting that Maserati's latest coupe started life as 3.2 litre V8 with twin turbos, but has now the unblown 4 litre engine that is also in the Modena and the Quattroporte.

Obviously there must be a reason for this, and the I am not sure whether it is the free revving capabilities of non-turbo engines. I never heard anybody complaining about the F40 in this department. It may have to do with fuel consumption, which tend to increase heavily under full use of the turbo. (The Modena however is not known for being frugal with petrol though). The heat management could also be a reason to stick with naturally aspirated engines as long as they can deliver the required performance.

There must be other reasons also, so any contribution here is welcome.

[cls12vg30]

Did they change the engine in the 360 Modena? The 2002 a friend of mine had was a twin-turbo V8.

[NAZCA C2]

Ferrari doesnt need to use a turbo on their cars, they make power by using modern racing technology. For example the 360 Modena has a 3.6 liter engine that revs past 9000 rpms and makes 400hp! A turbo isn't nessesary it would just add weight.

[MrVette83]

Originally Posted by cls12vg30

Did they change the engine in the 360 Modena? The 2002 a friend of mine had was a twin-turbo V8.

If a friend of your had a TT 360 it wasn't stock. The only way to buy one from Ferrari is with a N/A 3.6L V-8.

[crisis]

Could it be that Ferrari design all of their engines for maximum performance and therefore do not have to enhance ordinary engines that have design compromises built in. ie economy and smooth running. Of course Porsche use a slightly different philosophy but are also not directly comparable as they also make certain models to a price. Not to mention SUVs.

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
Mr Garrison - Southpark.

[kiwitt]

Agree with others ... There is never a dumb question ... it is only dumb not to ask. Everybody has varying levels of knowledge in various subjects. If you ask, you will be better informed not less.

As to your question: Why are no Ferrari's turbo-charged. Others have answered that it is a matter of better engine design aimed at performance.

Try to think of an engine as an Air-Pump and not as a Fuel-Pump. The objective is to get as much air though the engine (i.e. oxygen) to generate more power. You then add fuel-mix as appropriate. Some enhancements are as follows;
-bigger cylinders
-supercharging
-free-flow heads
-turbocharging
-more valves
-N O S
etc...

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/mainmenu.htm gives a good explanantion of this and more in more detail.

[Matra et Alpine]

I think Ferrari now concentrate on delivering cars that SOUND like Ferraris and turbo's muffle that rasp

Motorbikes are polarised into twins and fours and the main voiced difference by riders is the sound. Ducati wouldn't consider a 4 for the road as it doesn't sound or ride in the 'Ducati' way - that will change if they have success in MotoGP I'm sure

Turbo owners now seem to want to make theirs sound like racers and WRC by selecting 'noisy' dump valves.

[kiwitt]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

Turbo owners now seem to want to make theirs sound like racers and WRC by selecting 'noisy' dump valves.

Agree ... I don't like that noise. I prefer the "sleeper" look/sound, etc. Too much noise, reduces the surprise. I have surprised many a "boy-racer", with their "noisy" toys.

[Niko_Fx]

Originally Posted by kiwitt

Agree ... I don't like that noise. I prefer the "sleeper" look/sound, etc. Too much noise, reduces the surprise. I have surprised many a "boy-racer", with their "noisy" toys.

I think blow off valves turn heads. It is something you don't hear all the time even tho a lot of cars out there have turbos. When I hear a Blow off valve I turn to see where it comes from and I find it pretty cool, love that sound.

Just sharing my opinion

[megotmea7]

i find the turbo bov whisle more of a novelty sound, you can tell when someone has a stock eclipse with a horn shaped bov and someone who has the power to back it up, you hear a WRX with a bov and you look and say "wow, how neat..." you hear a f-body with a nice exhaust blast by or a supra with a big single and its more of a "holly shit what was that"

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Niko_Fx

I think blow off valves turn heads.

Unfortunately when you turn your head you are often dissapointed that you expended the energy.

[Ferrari Tifosi]

Originally Posted by kiwitt

Agree with others ... There is never a dumb question ... it is only dumb not to ask. Everybody has varying levels of knowledge in various subjects. If you ask, you will be better informed not less.

As to your question: Why are no Ferrari's turbo-charged. Others have answered that it is a matter of better engine design aimed at performance.

Try to think of an engine as an Air-Pump and not as a Fuel-Pump. The objective is to get as much air though the engine (i.e. oxygen) to generate more power. You then add fuel-mix as appropriate. Some enhancements are as follows;
-bigger cylinders
-supercharging
-free-flow heads
-turbocharging
-more valves
-N O S
etc...

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/mainmenu.htm gives a good explanantion of this and more in more detail.

Please don't refer to Nitrous Oxide as NOS, thank you.

[inter mil]

i agree with the opinion that ferrari and ducati may have gotten a little too caught up in the image their cars have and maintaining that level, i.e. not making turbos because that is not a "ferrari" thing to do. but if their engines are better without turbo then good for them. personally i think the throaty sound of a truly powerful engine sounds cooler than a BOV.

as for porsche making an SUV, i think that is an acquiescence to the american demand for gas-guzzlers. im dissapointed that they would do that, but if it helps the company (not that they need it) and helps them take more risks with their sports cars, then its all good to me. but porsche is guilty of the same fault as ferrari, getting caught up in image. i'd really like to see some pure enthusiast company come out and trounce the germans/italians. not because i dont like porsche/ferrari, but because to see them challenged would be to see them answer... and their answer would be incredible