Porsche takes the grand prize.
Porsche is known for some of the best sports cars out there. People tend to compare Porsche with Ferrari and they will be ultimately wrong. You can buy a 911, drive it like you've stolen it, every day and night, and in the end, just take it to the 15.000km maintenance period for an oil change and small checks. Try thrashing a Ferrari on a street race and you'll end up with it on a tow-car with an expensive bill and 1000 broken or wear'd-out parts. OK maybe I was a bit too harsh... make it... 999 broken or wear'd-out parts. Yeah I know I'm caustic, but think about the following: used car reliability guide (this is where you really see what is the car is built to last) starts with Ferrari 1st, has Lamborghini and Maserati in it and ends in tesla 10th. If you think that a tesla is built to last the 4 year battery span and then get scrapped... and still is 9 positions above Ferrari, it says a lot about it. Check it your self in HERE
Porsche not only managed to build a reliable supercar, but they've managed something that is completely CRAZY and respectful all at once: a good 911.
911 Porsche was a rear wheel drive, rear engine thing. This layout counters physics of motion on 90% on scenarios. Today it is 4wd but still rear engin'd!
Let me be clear:
- Front wheel drive car with the engine in the front, is stable moving forward and has difficulty with direction changes. The weight at the front generates forward momentum and the front wheels get over-loaded with weight/torque and directional change.
- Rear wheel drive car with the engine in the front, is stable moving forward, stable while cornering, unstable under heavy acceleration particularly under cornering.
- Mid engine (front or back) with a rear wheel drive, is the most stable design for all circumstances, including stability under acceleration, as the weight on the engine promotes squeezing the tires to the ground increasing traction... if it loses, however, the experience is less progressive and not easy to master.
- Rear wheel drive car with the engine in the back, is only stable if you are moving backwards, in a straight movement. Else, the inertia will constantly try to make the rear end of the car, overtake the front. Rear wheel drive, rear engine lovers (911 owners) also claim increases adherence under acceleration, but the fact that once you brake traction you have an even more extreme and even more difficult to master overseer, rendered a lot of them in the hospital... or morgue. This is not helped with the fact that, lack of space on the rear, makes the front be the one holding the petrol tank... and this means that, as you start emptying it, the front has less and less weight to help you corner. It becomes a puzzle of balance that constantly changes variables.
So, having a true sports car that is stable, easy to drive and with a composed figure is difficult, with rear engine is really very difficult to master. Adding all the reliability, make them one of a kind and although the starting point is ALL WRONG in pure physics terms, the over engineering around it to tame it down, managed true miracles over the years, and you have to respect that. Still I would never buy a 911. not that I have the money to pay for one... that I don't, but the design is wrong and my engineering brain can't overlook that fact.
So Why is Porsche tame evolution? Well their way of managing their brand to protect the 911! They've thrown BILLIONS into developing the wrong platform almost to perfection, But then throw away the opportunity to do the same with much better platforms.
Enter the Cayman:
The Cayman is a Boxer with rigid top! Same Rear wheel drive mid engines beauty of balance and poised car, but with less weight (less reinforcement for the cut top) and better torsional rigidity. But for some reason, Porsche never really beefed it up with their best engines, they reserved that to the 911 RS series... but why? Well because if you were to test drive a Cayman GTS4.0 the de-tuned version of the RS engine, you would say: this feels better, pity it lacks the grunt to leverage the chassis.
It was only in 2021 (the platform exists since 2016) that Porsche properly fitted the engine from the 911 GT3RS (no de-tuned bs) to the chassis with the Cayman GT4 RS. Talk about 911 protection.
But this has happened before... Enter the 944:
It's 1989, Porsche has its 911 line and then launched the 944 turbo.
Bare in mind that the 92x and 94x chassis where all front engine, rear wheel drive cars, so the on the limit behavior was just beautifully balanced, unlike the 911. But the 280bhp 911 sold for being the one with the best engine and as such faster 0-100 times.
HOWEVER the engine on the 944 turbo was a 290 bhp able one. This would make it faster, quicker on 0-100 and crucially better handling. 911 would have been extinct right there and then. So Porsche de-tuned the 944 turbo, until it managed to produce 250bhp, and even still, it would only be 0.3s 0-100 and 3km/h top speed slower then the 911. Can you imagine the original 290Bhp numbers?
So, instead of letting the old 911 die... and invest all that engineering time in making a bad platform good, they should have just embraced the 944turbo.. develop it further, reach the boxter/cayman faster and give us better cars sooner.
Porsche is not alone... Honda follows close!
Honda has always managed to be respected because it followed it's own trends instead of copying others. Light Sports cars with High Revving engines with better revving range that torque figures, much like a motorcycle.
The VTEC and their B16, B18, F20C, K20 and K24 engines are so good that so over engineered (known to be able to support twice their power numbers on stock internals), that they've managed to go against much more expensive and bigger engine'd cars. They are a true pinnacle of engineering and used to be known for producing masterpieces of engineering brilliance.
During their best times, Honda created the Civic Type-R, Integra Type-R, the all aluminium NSX (Vtec, even thought the Vtec ha been designed for inlines) and the glorious s2000.
Honda even managed to create the second generation NSX in the middle of the Hybrid eco-mania era, and make it better than the rest by having torque biasing front electric engines, plus a hybrid rear drive with an electric engine to compensate the low end lack of torque, until the petrol engine gained revs and started to shine it's magnificent high rev character. It was perfect.
But they where not just brilliant with top end cars... consider the civic and look at the versions and it's competitors form other brands:
| Parameter | Honda | VW | SEAT | PEUGEOT | Renault |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Civic Type-R (EK9) |
Golf Mk4 |
- | 306 GTi |
- |
| Engine |
1.6 Vtec |
1.8 Turbo |
- | 2.0 | - |
| Power | 185PS | 180PS | - | 167PS | - |
| Weight | 1050Kg | 1213Kg | - | 1215Kg | - |
| Ratio | 5.7 Kg/ps |
6.7Kg/ps | - | 7.3 Kg/ps |
- |
| Parameter | Honda | VW | SEAT | PEUGEOT | Renault |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Civic Type-R (EP3) |
Golf Mk5 |
Leon Cupra R | 307 GTi |
Megane2 RS |
| Engine |
2.0 Vtec |
2.0 Turbo |
1.8 Turbo |
2.0 | 2.0 Turbo |
| Power | 200PS | 200PS | 225PS | 177PS | 225ps |
| Weight | 1190Kg | 1347Kg | 1320Kg | 1320Kg | 1232Kg |
| Ratio | 5.95 Kg/ps |
6.7Kg/ps | 5.7Kg/ps |
7.45 Kg/ps |
5.47Kg/ps |
Even with a 5.95kg/ps against the lower SEAT and Renault, the engine availability under VTEC would mean it would smoke them on a track without breaking a sweat. So even thought it was falling behind, the end result was still very competitive.
But then!
Honda killed the NSX, killed the S2000, killed the Integra Type-r, and ... started Turboing the K20 engine from the Civic Type-r in pursue of ps numbers, much like the europeans had done. Pocket rockets are now 1.6, 1.8 or 2.0 but always turbo. No perfect delivery of power, no millimetric throttling, no instant response...and a bunch of unneeded electronics to tame the beast down, while generating tones of heat soak issues and absurd cooling needs, out of an already tight and packed front end of the car!
And they didn't need to!
Prototype Racing was installing the K20A with a tune, new exhaust and intake and pulling 260ps; BTCC EP3 type'r where running over 300Ps without turboing the car. Why turbo it to go 306 ps?
Why then push it to 320 unreliably?
It's a complete joke that the latest Civic Type-R reduced the engine RPM limit, to get to 320 ps but it will not run a full lap without SERIOUS overheating issues... This is just dumb.
Some tuners have turboed the EP3 k20A and made over 360ps reliable and daily driven.
Honda, on its own, killed the ONE thing that made them better than any other brand out there, and replaced it with a copy'paste sort of mentality, and built... well... far worse products.
Seppuku is the only word that comes to mind.
Why? Well the one thing americans complain (yes, no other country complains about Honda's torque numbers, except the 7.2 V8 20 ps nation) is low end torque. Evidently! had they ever driver a proper race car, they would know that the engine tuning for high rpm, will sacrifice torque, but in the end, having more usable engine range is crucial on the track. Obviously it's hard to get this principle if you're running around in ovals the entire time!
Still, A high rpm engine will, by design, not be optimized for torque particularly at low rpm. The electric engine is tremendously capable or torque, but at high rpm it loses it's efficiency and starts having wear and heat problems.
Till we get a new breakthrough, the technology that is positioned to become the best future for cars, is the hydrogen engine. This will produce even pore power than gas (out of the same design), and the speed of the hydrogen combustion is higher and more violent than compressed atomized gasoline, so high rpms will be the tune for this type of engine.
So: in my opinion, unless tomorrow we find out that nitrogen is a better option, a hydrogen powered car, can have hydrogen fuel cell power a small electric engine to produce torque and then handover to the hydrogen combustion engine to the high rpm efficiency. In this possibility, engine designs that run high rpm's with the technology and engineering to match the design are the future... and Honda was the best positioned brand to mainstream this... by miles.
Volkswagen... another weird'o!
If I ask you to name a sports car from VW, you will, unless you've just landed on this planet yesterday, say: Golf GTI !
I'm not a Golf GTI fan. I think that they are like an iphone... to much overprice for too little delivery. However they are probably (in exception of the Corrado G60, VR6 and PD engines) the best thing that VW ever did.
Except for the fact that they didn't want to!
Yes that's right. The GTI should have been called VW SkunkWorks.
Golf was the replacement for the beetle, but the first ones where built with very little quality and VW was not really going anywhere.
In 1974, a group of people that included the man responsible for VW communication, decided to create a sports Golf. They gathered engineers and top mechanics, and they let loose their desires. The board, that dismissed the idea. They went underground and while the majority of the board was looking the other way, they quickly assembled the a prototype. Simple recipe: Big engine, light car, stiff suspension.
When presented with an almost finished product, the board decided to change their heart and embrace the project. GOOD... it kicked started something brilliant. No not the hot hatch... this crown does not belong to the GTI.
The first hot hatch EVER came from... wait for it... the AMERICANS. That's right. The first Hot Hatch ever was the AMC Gremlin in 1970. A full 5 years before the GTI. Not only that, it featured an inline 6, from the land of the V8, with more displacement than your living room and 2 and a half horse power.
The GTI was an important mark, in my opinion; because it kicked Ford in the chin... and they immediately started working on went to become the Escort XR3i, a Fiesta XR2i.
VW went back to its idiocy and spent the next years producing mediocre GTI versions and weird R versions that really should be the GTI's... and apparently the latest one (the mk8) may be the only good thing coming our of VW since the mk1.
It's safe to assume that Golf GTI mk16 will be also a good one, then.
BMW doesn't come out clean either!
BMW never wanted to create the M1. Much like VW didn't what to create the GTI.
This must be a German thing, there management has no vision and employees take or their blindness and solve the problem for them. It's like a company ESP!
While the Division manager took 2 week vacation, the engineering team, overtimed to created the M1. Upon return, he had an M1 prototype with zero development cost ready to go... so they went with it!
But the idiocy isn't done yet! At that point in time, BMW had replaced the E46 M3 beautiful master piece 3.2, 260ps In line 6 with an american type v8 style monstrosity in the E92. They did it because the E92 was bigger and heavier than the E46. The result was a worse handling car that lost al the nimbleness that E46 was known for.
The E46 was no more and the E92 was big and sluggish compared to it. But the M1 was much lighter than the E92 and with the same engine, it became what you would have expected the E92 M3 to be as an evolution of the E46. This could not be! an M1 better than the M3! So, instead of allowing this throught the doors, they've got the in line 6 engine from the z4 and turboed it for the M1, but still shaving 80ps out of the total package.
Still, If the race track is sufficiently filled with corners and with little long stretches, the 340PS M1 will sill outperform the 420Ps E92 M3, so you can imagine just how much of a facedrop would it have been, had they not crippled the car. In truth I much rather have it like this, the V8 weight would have messed the balance and perfect 50-50 distribution anyway.
And here we are ladies and gentleman. Brand decisions to cripple their products in the name of brand policy, and ignoring the "let's put the best product we can out there rational". We could have much better cars than we do, hed the engineers be left alone and away from politicians and marketeers
No comments:
Post a Comment