Sad truth but the NA engine is going to become rare in new cars
 

Do you think its going to by all turbos in the near future? Porsche appears to going that way. I've owned both turbo and supercharged cars and love the gobs of power they offer but to me a high revving NA motor is pure bliss. Wonder how our cars will be viewed in 25 years as one of the last analogue NA sports cars.

The end of the naturally aspirated engine?

A lot of cars I had to drive or passenger into during the last year or so were turbo. 1.4TSI, 1.6, 1.8.... ect... and most of those were almost as fast as the Porsche on the launch anyway hmmm

I have a bad habit of borrowing ppl cars, whatever I can find lol

Technology continues to evolve and improve and that is certainly evident in turbos. There has been some pretty crappy turbos over the years - but now are becoming the norm due to a much greater reliability and performance. Can only imagine how slick they will be in another 10 years. Great power + fuel efficiency

As much as I would love to believe all that, since that's where we are headed, I've been questioning the legitimacy of turbocharging being the "big solution" to the issue.
Here's an interesting excerpt from a related article to the one above:
"Turbos, which are powered by exhaust energy that is otherwise wasted, increase engine output by forcing extra air into the cylinders, prompting the fuel injectors to provide more fuel for combustion. More combustion, alas, means more heat. To keep the engine (and turbo) from overheating, turbo engines inject excess gas under boost. It seems counterintuitive, but this "rich mixture" cools down combustion and reduces exhaust temperatures. It's also a double-whammy fuel-economy killer, because burning that extra fuel doesn't help the engine make more power, it actually reduces output.
Government fuel-economy test cycles, especially those in Europe, approximate the driving style of a heavily sedated 83-year-old librarian. Since the engine is rarely taxed, the turbo doesn't spool up, so no extra fuel is used. But purposely driving slowly enough to keep the turbo from generating boost defeats the point of having a turbocharger in the first place. Sadly, out in the real world, riding that big, effortless wave of boosted midrange torque means burning extra fuel—and creating even more CO2. So much for reducing emissions."

Also:
"there's more to an engine's behavior than going fast in a straight line. The way an engine generates power—its personality, if you will—is just as important as the number of Mister Eds it replaces. Immediate, predictable response is a requirement in any driver's car. Naturally aspirated engines react without delay to throttle inputs, but a turbo engine is vastly more complicated. It has two torque curves—one when it's off-boost and one when the turbo is at full puff. The transition between the first curve and the second is what we call lag—and both how long it takes and how abruptly it occurs change continually. A naturally aspirated engine's output is determined by the position of the pedal and the engine speed, period. Turbos change that into a complicated matrix with far too many variables for a driver to keep track of. At best, turbo lag is a handicap. At worst, it turns neutral, throttle-adjustable cars into insolent, uncontrollable, four-wheeled bastards."

Sure I want to protect the environment, and since I drive so much for work, fuel economy is on my list. I have a bad taste in my mouth from turbos of the past, and I'm sure improvements have made that bad taste moot to an extent. However I'm clearly not alone in squinting an eye at all the claims of the new turbo engines. Especially in performance cars.

Wait until they perfect the electric turbos - then you won't even notice them. What's going to be more missed by me are the distinctive exhaust notes that are the result of geometry, like the rumble of a V8. Can't make a V6 do that, no way no how.

I've got a 2012 Audi Q5 with the 2.0 turbo. It's surprisingly satisfying and very impressive that a 4 banger can sling a 5400 pound sled around as easily as it does. 25mpg in mixed driving, too. I, for one, welcome our new forced induction overlords.

here's a link to a Porsche 930 with a vvt turbo upgrade:

http://aerocharger.com/porsche-930-vvt-conversions-are-finally-here/

a machine they called the widowmaker because of the turbo lag. look at what the vvt turbo does to the dyno - no turbo lag here. and that's on a 1986 car.

if engine sound is the issue, look at what Porsche is doing with the 991:

Faking It: Engine-Sound Enhancement Explained - Tech Dept. - Car and Driver

Impressive power curve especially the torque. Pretty much like a modern turbo.

Ecoboost f150, excellent! Cheap fiesta witha. Turbo slapped on, excellent. Crappy rental Chevy cruise, now spiced up with a turbo, awesome!

Porsche Boxster flat 6 replaced with flat4 turbo just to "stay competitive" not so cool.
The latest ferrari announced just today, may go to 60 in 3 seconds, but the f430 and 360 will be cherished for their unbothered v8s.

I don't know why cars always have to get faster, a good car is a good car.

Turbo can be cool in the same way diesel can be cool. However it should be used in appropriate applications, in the case weight can be reduced, hybrid drive trains are the way forward for sports cars.

(Disclaimer, if the Le Mans v4 ends up in a boxster, I want complain)

Forced induction of any kind adds a lot of power and efficiency but at the cost of additional parts and complexity.

Out of warranty repair is already very expensive.

With a history over the years:

(1)Pulled head studs.
(2)IMS/RMS
(3)D chunked cylinders.
(4)Block porosity.
(5)Recent engine fires from improperly secured rod ends on their most powerful 911.

I say for a consumer to exercise caution for a while till sorted.My opinion.

Porsche Motorsport boss Andreas Prueninger told EVO's Jethro Bovingdon that NA will still exist within Porsche for "a longer while" Start at around 18;30. or watch the whole video, its incredible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGVWojMMeg4

CAFE is leading to this more than anything. To meet fuel economy and lubricant mandates "free power" is going to be a welcomed thing. Engines have already gone to on demand oil systems, steering systems, charging systems and etc. This frees up as much power as possible.

Having the turbo helps even more.

more than profit? From a non-expert's view it seems like it would be less costly to make a turbo that delivers both power and reilability (oh and profit) beyond m97 levels than to stick with the NA regime. Look at what the 991 GT3 engine is costing Porsche now. That ordeal has probably contributed greatly to changing a few executive minds about NA power going forward. With VW in charge, short of going to flat8? they probably see shifting to Turbos as the less risky road.

No, it's fuel economy that drives it.

The turbocharging is coming with smaller displacement.

Smaller displacement means better economy, but if you want efficiency and forced air is more dense it requires more fuel, but nothing like greater displacement requires. Engines are seldom run at their peak horsepower point, and when they're toodling around smaller displacement is the path to better fuel economy.

Remember that the push for better fuel economy has nothing to do with cheaper fuel--all these motors will require premium fuel.

If a car can't perform and meet CAFE, you can't profit, because you have no car to sell.

One of my partners just traded in his Cadillac CTS-V for a new BMW 435IX last week. I was giving him a friendly ribbing over it, then I went or a ride in the BMW..............:eek:

That being said, my brother-in-law has a 2 year old M3 with the NA V-8 and 8400 rpm redline........it's in a totally different league.