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.
"Lag is pretty-much non-existent on well-designed modern engines, including the N63 and S63 from BMW."
Poor throttle response is the new norm, because of turbo charging, and with BMW's exploding engine record of recent years, they are hardly the best example of "well designed modern engines".
Because turbos are spun by impeding exhaust gases, they also suffer power losses, especially at lower rpm, exactly when the smaller engine can least afford to.
"This is why the AMG GTS is so much faster than the F-type R, because the power band is wider and comes on earlier."
Ignore maker's claims; back to back, (1) It isn't. (2) It isn't. (3) It doesn't.
"Again, McLaren, Ferrari, Porsche, and the GTR have turbo engines for a reason, and they dominate at the tracks. If you still don't think a turbo engine can do well on the track, I'll just say...Formula 1."
The track is not the road.
On the track, all one needs is to be able to extract maximum performance at high rpm, for a short while, even for endurance racing such as the Le 24 heures du Mans, if the engine explodes as it crosses the finish line, it doesn't matter in the least.
On the road, one needs instant response to changing situations, and reliable long term performance; I have seen many naturally aspirated and supercharged engines still performing strongly at over 300,000 miles, never having had even the heads off, but have yet to encounter even one example of one of the cars you mention which has passed 60,000 miles without at least one major overhaul.
I am not sure of your point here, this is simply a list of manufacturer's claims; the earlier text states: "and although it might lack some low-down enthusiasm compared with the compressor-fed F-type," when referring to the AMG GTS; the AMG may hit peak torque lower down, but clearly that peak is also lower, as is peak bhp.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, one must then consider the fragility of "high output" turbocharged engines; Porsche, Mercedes and BMW have recently become famous for building engines which don't take the miles, the others you cite, always have been.
By all means stick with what you like, suffering the associated rides home on recovery trucks, and the subsequent bills, and I'll keep driving largish, naturally aspirated, or supercharged, reliable-as-you-like real world fast cars.
Ok so please post a list of the NA engines in production making over 100 HP/L.
Why is HP/L a meaningful metric? Outside of strictly regulated competition brackets, there is no upper limit on L (displacement).
A much better metric is HP per unit of weight of car, however this is typically includes all components, and not just engine.
Naturally aspirated engines are bigger volume-wise. They are also heavier (just block), but not in total, as with NA you don't have multiple turbos, extra exhaust piping, intercoolers and coolant piping, extra fluid and oils volume.
I am not sure of your point here, this is simply a list of manufacturer's claims; the earlier text states: "and although it might lack some low-down enthusiasm compared with the compressor-fed F-type," when referring to the AMG GTS; the AMG may hit peak torque lower down, but clearly that peak is also lower, as is peak bhp.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, one must then consider the fragility of "high output" turbocharged engines; Porsche, Mercedes and BMW have recently become famous for building engines which don't take the miles, the others you cite, always have been.
By all means stick with what you like, suffering the associated rides home on recovery trucks, and the subsequent bills, and I'll keep driving largish, naturally aspirated, or supercharged, reliable-as-you-like real world fast cars.
Those aren't manufacturer claims. Those are results of back to back performance testing done by the magazine.
4088 pounds for F-type R, 3677 pounds Mercedes-GT and 3276 points for 911. That the only meaningful metric there, and naturally aspirated 911 is lighter than all of other cars BY A GREAT DEAL. Having 800 less pounds to turn or stop makes a great deal of difference in cornering and braking performance.
Also, if you look at Mercedes-GT hp and torque curves you will see that torque is electronically limited. Meaning, to get flat handling characteristics they over-designed and electronically capped. Uncapped, it would probably reach 850-875Nm @4500 rpm (and also rip transmission appart and melt the exhaust valves and pistons).
The Jag sounds glorious.
The Merc I can't help but feel it sounds like a wet fart or blown bass speaker, its not bad sounding but just sounds well odd.
There is no reason, other than space and costs, why NA engine wouldn't be able to deliver comparable power to boosted engine.
+1. I raced a GT-1 Mercury Capri with a Gloy built 331 cu.in. Ford Windsor that produced 630 hp on a load bearing dyno... no forced induction, no injectors, no computers. Just a honkin' 4-barrel and some very expensive headers, manifolds and heads.
I can only imagine what we could have gotten out of that engine with a modern day computer and injectors.
+1. I raced a GT-1 Mercury Capri with a Gloy built 331 cu.in. Ford Windsor that produced 630 hp on a load bearing dyno... no forced induction, no injectors, no computers. Just a honkin' 4-barrel and some very expensive headers, manifolds and heads.
I can only imagine what we could have gotten out of that engine with a modern day computer and injectors.
Nice, but what do you think the output would be if that car had to meet current emissions requirements and reliability?
The Jag sounds glorious.
The Merc I can't help but feel it sounds like a wet fart or blown bass speaker, its not bad sounding but just sounds well odd.
Jag wins it for me!
No doubt, the Jag sounds better and looks better, too. I never seriously considered the AMG because I think it's too goofy-looking, but the performance is impressive. My whole point here is the the sky isn't falling. It's going to be ok, and I guarantee the new version of the F-type will be faster.
Four thoooousand pounds? Wow, I knew it was heavy but, dang....
And interesting, with all the talk of the beautiful sound of the Jag, it is actually the quietest of the bunch! And gawd, the Benz does sound terrible next to the R.
Nice, but what do you think the output would be if that car had to meet current emissions requirements and reliability?
Reliability? You would have to regularly neglect oil changes and run it without intake filter to get it to modern turbo engine reliability. You are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to claim that naturally aspirated engine is somehow less reliable than turbocharged engine. With NA engine you don't have to deal with turbo cooling, high temperature turbo lubrication, high-rpm bearings, higher compression under boost...
Emissions? Well, this is difficult question. Meeting emissions requires a) modern engine control system based on O2 sensor and MAF, it simply isn't possible to tune carburated engine to pass emissions AND produce power b) catalytic converters.
It used to be the case that catalytic converters were very restrictive. They could take only so much flow, and that would choke the engine up. This is no longer the case, modern multistage systems are nearly free flowing.
So it is very possible to have naturally aspirated engine that delivers power, reliability, and passes emissions. The only issue with NA engine is that block is physically bigger. So V6 and V8 NA engines simply would not fit into most economy car's engine bays.
However, in 2018 Toyota Camry is offering 300hp V6 naturally aspirated engine. That Camry is going to embarrass Ingenium I4 F-type off the line. Imagine getting left in the dust by a Toyota family sedan with kids and groceries in the back! In your "sports car" 4-banger F-type that costs at least three times more.
Your apparent passion and expertise roped me in so I googled. The ingenium I4 makes 295ftlbs at 1500rpm and goes 0-60 in 5.4 seconds. The Toyota 3.5L V6 makes less torque at 4700rpm and goes 0-60 in 5.8 so the base model F Type won’t get dusted by top model Camry.
Please note carefully the lows�������� “LOWS Fuel consumption and acceleration lag behind competitors’ turbo-four models, expensive.”
The base price for the Camry is 35K and F Type 59K so three times the price as you advised - nope.
Originally Posted by SinF
However, in 2018 Toyota Camry is offering 300hp V6 naturally aspirated engine. That Camry is going to embarrass Ingenium I4 F-type off the line. Imagine getting left in the dust by a Toyota family sedan with kids and groceries in the back! In your "sports car" 4-banger F-type that costs at least three times more.
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4-5.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.7-11.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.8-13.9 sec
Combined/city/highway: 25/23/29 mpg
Toyota Camry XSE V-6 Power: 301 hp @ 6600 rpm Torque: 267 lb-ft @ 4700 rpm
Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 26.3 sec
Combined: 24 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 29 mpg
So you are right, F-type I4 won't get dusted by a Camry. I didn't realize how poor Camry's torque characteristics are. They probably had to make serious compromises with intake and exhaust piping so it would fit to end up choking the engine torque that much.
I still can't tell if this is a serious conversation. From Jaguar owners...not exactly a brand known for reliability, but granted making progress...panicking over the idea of reliability problems that might arise from switching to an engine made by BMW, which is known to be a more reliable brand overall...
...to a guy suggesting a driver of a F-type R has never driven a NA V8 because they're only in high-end cars. You know, like $25k Mustang GTs..
...to comparing a turbo to a potato. “I'm not gonna fall for that banana in the tailpipe again!"
...to suggesting the Camry would be faster than a 2.0L F-type...without checking the stats first. Oops. Only to find out that not only is the Camry slower, it's also slower than its 4 cylinder turbo competitor...
Anyway, yes turbo engines are more complex. But it's not the complexity. It's the design and build quality. If we were worried about complexity, we would be using an abacus and (maybe) watching TV on a small tube television. Maybe some here are. But the Porsche 911 turbo is one of the most reliable cars in the world. And my GTR has been faultless. Don't fear the future. It's going to be ok.
We're all going to be driving electric cars in 20 years anyway, so this is just another step.
Nope 270ftlbs for a 3.5L NA gas engine is normal. Just can’t match a FI engine for low end grunt. If you are just finding out these things now it seems you have a lot of learning to do.
Originally Posted by SinF
So you are right, F-type I4 won't get dusted by a Camry. I didn't realize how poor Camry's torque characteristics are. They probably had to make serious compromises with intake and exhaust piping so it would fit to end up choking the engine torque that much.
This narrative simply doesn't match my experiences. I enjoy cars and make a point to test drive notable cars from all makes/models. Test drives is something I do for entertainment, but I also own a modest stable of muscle and sports cars made from 70s to modern day. Of the cars I own, and some that I don't, I have driven them on the track, often pushing them beyond casual lap.
There are some awful engines of all makes and models. There are some unexpected gems.
Still, in general terms.
a. Large displacement V8 and I6 engines deliver smooth power, are very responsive to throttle modulation and have power available linearly and early.
b. Large displacement V8 and V6 engines with turbos tend to be over the top. Too much power that comes on suddenly and unbalances the car. I can't drive these types of cars 10/10, as dying in a fiery crash is a real possibility. Supercharged V8 and V6 behave more like naturally aspirated engines, as there is no stark on-boost, off-boost dynamic, but still unideal due to typically very non-linear torque curves.
c. Small cars with high-revving naturally aspirated I4 engines can be fun. They are faster to rev than V8s, but lack low-end power. They are fun to drive if you like to show off your footwork, but ultimately too much work for me.
d. Small cars with high-revving turbocharged I4 engines are death traps more so than b. I have no idea why anyone would willingly drive one on the track. I know people do, but I clearly know it isn't my thing. Not only all flaws of b. are present, but due to small engine you have to keep it in the power band or get passed by stock Miatas. Least pleasant driving experience of any possible configuration.
Toss out "light car", as F-type is a 4000lb boat, and you have worst of any kind of combination with 2.0T F-type.
Now you trying to tell me that this turbo I4 is the pinnacle of engineering, the best driving experience JLR engineers have to offer in a flagship Jaguar model?
Now, if I were stuck on a desert island with only turbocharged 4-cylinder cars and a race track, I would probably pick up boxer 4 cyl engine, ideally mid configuration. New Porsche Boxster. Failing that, Subaru STI.
01-02-2018, 12:52 PM
