backtop

Print 34 comment(s) - last by 306maxi.. on Sep 10 at 5:31 PM

Enzo Ferrari

Ferrari 599 HY-KERS Hybrid Concept
Enzo successor to get HY-KERS hybrid system

288 GTO, F40, F50, Enzo. These are all names that spring to mind when someone mentions Ferrari supercars. Both the 288 GTO and F40 used turbocharged V8 engines while the F50 and Enzo are both powered by naturally aspirated V12 engines.

According to Ferrari S.p.A. Chairman Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, the company's next generation halo vehicle will have a hybrid powertrain. “[The] car will incorporate the state of the art of our knowledge in terms of increasing performances while reducing fuel consumption and emissions. It will then influence all Ferraris that appear after it,” said Montezemolo.

Montezemolo states that the car will feature the HY-KERS system that was seen in the Ferrari 599 HY-KERS hybrid concept earlier this year.

For the Ferrari 599 HY-KERS concept the powerful V12 was left untouched and a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission, 107 hp electric motor (111 lb-ft of torque), and 3 kWh lithium-ion battery pack were added to the mix.

Although there is no indication as to how much fuel consumption will be cut by using the HY-KERS system on the new supercar, CO2 emissions will be cut by 35 percent.

Not much else is known about the Enzo successor other than the fact that it will be downsized compared to the predecessor. It no doubt will have far greater power than the Enzo's 651 hp thanks to a decade of engine advancements (the car will debut in 2012) and the hybrid powertrain.

The car also will likely receive the seven-speed dual-clutch transmission (as seen on the current Ferrari California and 458 Italia) as all Ferrari's going forward will lack a traditional manual transmission.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sigh...
By MrTeal on 9/9/2010 11:18:46 AM , Rating: 3
Really guys? It's a halo car. You sell a handful of them, to people that aren't exactly hard up for gas money.

Unless this actually increases performance, what's the point? The Veyron gets 3.6MPG when it's running full out, if the Ferrari is comparable and the hybrid raises that by 20%, you're looking at 4.3MPG. Woohoo.

It will be interesting to see how this one is received.




RE: Sigh...
By bug77 on 9/9/2010 11:42:57 AM , Rating: 3
An all-electric car can be better than an IC counterpart. Less complex engine, constant torque and such. But since that can't be done yet, my guess is Ferrari is just going for hybrids so they gather some expertise.


RE: Sigh...
By Spuke on 9/9/2010 12:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
They're just meeting upcoming CO2 and fuel economy requirements. They already pay fines, they're just reducing the amount of fines they'll be paying in the future. That's all. Not a big deal.


RE: Sigh...
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2010 12:24:15 PM , Rating: 3
Its so rich celebrities can feel good by saying they drive a hybrid. Never mind that it makes a Hummer look like a Camry.


RE: Sigh...
By quiksilvr on 9/9/2010 3:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, its because of the stringent standards that the European Commission is putting on cars in terms of fuel efficiency, emissions, etc.

Bugatti and Lamborghini for instance are in the clear because they are owned by VW, so the Golf GTi, Jetta and other fuel efficient cars in the company balance out the super cars.

But companies such as Porsche, Ferrari and Aston Martin need to either start making tiny cars or hybrids. Top Gear was discussing this a couple episodes back.


RE: Sigh...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/9/2010 3:47:24 PM , Rating: 3
sigh....can there just be one thing, just one, that isn't tainted by politics or environmental red tape? Like the man himself said...

“The Ferrari is a dream. People dream of owning this special vehicle and for most people it will remain a dream apart from those lucky few.”

Enzo Ferrari
1898-1988

Keep the dream alive...


RE: Sigh...
By Spuke on 9/9/2010 7:24:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But companies such as Porsche, Ferrari and Aston Martin need to either start making tiny cars or hybrids.
No, actually they don't. They're all already paying fines and passing those fines to their customers. They're too small to be totally compliant and evade fines altogether but they will make it look like they're trying. The fines will still be there, just much less than they would pay if they did nothing.


RE: Sigh...
By Lord 666 on 9/10/2010 8:30:07 AM , Rating: 2
Spuke,

As of 2011, Porsche and VW will effectively merge.


RE: Sigh...
By Spuke on 9/10/2010 9:13:59 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
As of 2011, Porsche and VW will effectively merge.
You uninformed wankers can rate me down if you want. Porsche was going to take over VW, remember? Porsche agreed at the last minute to a merger of some sort. It's not a full merger, it seems, but it looks like they're going to create some umbrella company. BTW, none of this has anything to do with meeting CO2 and other regs and everything to do with the crappy economy. Both companies are just trying to stay afloat.


RE: Sigh...
By Lord 666 on 9/10/2010 11:51:33 AM , Rating: 2
Ok Mr Goodwrench, amuse me on how the above post is uninformed? You should just get the chip off your shoulder and pay attention to the subtle details because you were factually incorrect. Porchse and VW will be the same company.

Yes, Porsche was attempting to take over VW, but they didn't account for the economic slump of 2008 and found themselves in massive debt. It can be viewed a couple different ways, starting in 2011, they will effectively be the same company. Its also a bit of family one-upmanship.

One of the unintended side effects of merger would be the reduced environmental fines for Porsche due to the fuel efficiency of VW. However, in any M&A situation, the end goal is economy of scale for either survival or increased profits.

VW is poised for increased sales in the US and world wide in the very near future both by plan and accident. Even a car sales number person like yourself will admit in the past 5-6 years, VW sales in the US have steadily increased. Once the TN plant is finished (I drove past it last month actually) it will enable them to be more cost competitive. Lastly, the new Jetta looks great and can't wait for the Passat. So hoping for TDI with AWD.


RE: Sigh...
By 306maxi on 9/10/2010 5:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
Dude....... Fiat own Ferrari so if Bugatti don't need to pay fines then neither would Ferrari...


RE: Sigh...
By hduser on 9/9/2010 1:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
Every car from Ferrari is a halo car. At least to me it is.


RE: Sigh...
By Etern205 on 9/9/2010 1:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
The planet can be saved if all people would drive a "green" Ferrari...


RE: Sigh...
By cfaalm on 9/9/2010 5:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
I always thought Ferrari, like other supercar makers, have a certain pride in engineering. It's showing off their ability to integrate a hybrid powertrain into a supercar. I agree people buying these cars will not care about the gas bill, but they might care about reducing their carbon footprint while enjoying a super ride still. I think that every penny of gasoline saved will go into the purchase of the car. This baby isn't going to be expensive, even for a Ferrari.


RE: Sigh...
By tritium4ever on 9/10/2010 2:55:08 AM , Rating: 3
If there's one thing we all know about the super-rich, it's that they don't give a rat's ass about being green. They might say they do...as they're flying in their private jet, or cruising around in their yacht.

Greening a supercar that'll sell less than 1000 copies over its entire production run is useless anyway. Getting a 1 MPG improvement in a Toyota Camry does far more for the environment than any kind of mileage increase in a supercar.


Performance, not fuel efficiency
By bobsmith1492 on 9/9/2010 12:21:00 PM , Rating: 3
Guys, it's all about performance. Electric motors are perfectly responsive and have tons of low-end torque (over the whole range, in fact).

A boost in fuel efficiency is ONLY a side perk. The main driver is performance.




RE: Performance, not fuel efficiency
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2010 12:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
Instant on torque only creates wheel spin. These cars aren't built for getting off the line quickly. They're for road racing and flat out speed and acceleration. They're not concerned with the 1/4 mile time.

It will add nothing to the performance really that they couldn't do with just an engine since the weight it adds will offset any performance advantage.


RE: Performance, not fuel efficiency
By Spuke on 9/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Performance, not fuel efficiency
By Ormand on 9/9/2010 5:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
Porsche has a hybrid, although it's different from the Ferrari, it still adds power to an existing platform. It has been tested, and it is DEFINITELY quicker on a road course than the base Porsche- a 911 GT3. My guess is that Ferrari can figure how to use the added power. Porsche uses the power to drive the front wheels- maybe Ferrari will, too.


RE: Performance, not fuel efficiency
By Spuke on 9/10/10, Rating: 0
By Lugaidster on 9/10/2010 11:58:19 AM , Rating: 3
I think people rate you down because you add nothing to the discussion and then start calling names. I've read every post on this article about you and to me, you're the only "wanker" (who says this sh1t anyway). And I'm not even agreeing with the O.P. posts.

Go get laid and relax a bit, and you can't then, go F yourself. I bet that'd be interesting.


RE: Performance, not fuel efficiency
By theapparition on 9/9/2010 6:17:45 PM , Rating: 4
You keep saying it and I'll keep saying you are incorrect.

Let's take an example that is WAY more powerful than your average EV. If a hypothetical electric supercar has 4000ft-lbs of torque (4x1000ft-lb motors at each wheel), that is not to incomparable to a current manufactured sports car.

I'll use the Corvette as an example since I'm very familiar with them. Nice sports car, but not quite an exotic.
LS3 436hp/428ftlbs
1st gear ratio (manual/auto): 2.97/4.03
Final drive ratio (manual/auto): 3.42/2.73

I'm not going to go into the whole driveline torque multiplication again. You can't change power through gearing. If the gearing has a 2X speed reduction, torque increases by 2X. If you increase speed through gearing (commonly called overdrive), you reduce torque by the same ratio. Very simple and non-debatable.

Max torque delivered to wheels in first gear would be 428 x 2.97 x 3.42 = 4347ft-lbs (manual) or 4708ft-lbs (auto). Keep in mind that's split between 2 wheels. So each of the Corvettes 2 wheels (assuming equal distribution) is getting anywhere from 2173 and 2354ft-lbs. Accounting for driveline loss, lets even bring them down to 2000ft-lbs for both the manual and auto (auto's have much higher driveline loss).

So in our example, a base Corvette's rear tires have to handle twice as much torque as the hypothetical EV supercar. The one factor to be considered, is that an electric motor provides almost all of that torque from virtally 0RPM on up. Basically instant. But you could get the same effect from a 4000RPM clutch drop on the vette (or a stalled auto).

Now to your argument.
quote:
I'll say it again, there isn't a tire made today at any price that can handle the instant torque of a decent electric motor.


So is it impossible to put a set of Hoosier slicks on the back of a base C6, launch at 4000RPM and get no wheel spin? Yes, quite possible, and happens all the time at 1/4mile tracks around the country. I'd even say DOT tires would be able to handle that level of power, which is still at 2X the level of a hypothetical EV supercar, much less a more conventional EV made for the masses.

With performance street tires, say BF Goodrich KDW, you will get some wheel spin, but it's minimal and controlable. But when you cut the torque requirements in half, I'd say that opens up the choice of availble off the shelf tires that can easily handle the amount of torque provided by electric motors.


RE: Performance, not fuel efficiency
By Spuke on 9/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Performance, not fuel efficiency
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/2010 10:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I really don't understand what he was trying to go for there. And his math...umm something looks a bit off. Drag tires? lmao, I agree fully Spuke.

Claiming that EV's "instant flat" torque curve is a performance advantage is just silly. Especially when talking about launches. You can get the same effect by revving an ICE up to 6k RPM and dumping the clutch. There is a reason you don't do that in most cars to get a good launch, you will just produce wheel spin and end up with a slower 0-60 time. Unless you have AWD or some form of launch control etc etc, of course, the tires can't take it.

Seeing an EV car doing burn outs might look cool, sure, but it's no performance advantage.


By theapparition on 9/10/2010 10:58:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And his math...umm something looks a bit off.

Then contradict my math with some of your own.

But as it stands now, you have nothing.


RE: Performance, not fuel efficiency
By theapparition on 9/10/2010 10:51:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Did you seriously bring up drag tires?


Remember your quote.
quote:

<SPUKE>
I'll say it again, there isn't a tire made today at any price that can handle the instant torque of a decent electric motor.

You didn't qualify it with street tires, you said any tire. You were wrong, don't try to back down now.

quote:
How many drag tires fit under stock, unmodified rear fenders can handle 2000 lb-ft of torque?
I'd wager that most can accept a slick in some size. I have several sets of drag tires that fit fine under the non-tubbed nor flared fenders of all of my cars. We're not talking about tires that stick 3" out of the fenders. Tires that aren't any bigger than stock.

quote:
Like I said, on pedestrian cars like the Leaf, you will have torque limiting devices just like cars of today that have WAY less torque. How are EV's exempt from tire tech again?

That's the point you are missing. I don't think the LEAF will have more torque than currently available cars. Your standard Honda Accord will have signifigantly more available 1st gear torque, albeit not at 0RPM. Still, it's a non-issue.

quote:
Since you brought up sports/muscle cars. Name one that ships with drag tires.

Don't try to re-qualify your original argument. You said no-tire made, now you're trying to talk about cars that ship with street tires.
For the record, the new BOSS 302 is rumored to come with DOT compound tires.

quote:
Name one that can handle 2000 lb-ft right out the box from the factory.

I'll see your argument and raise you. Corvette ZR1 has 636Hp and 604ft-lbs. Using launch control, it automatically sets RPM to 4000 and off you go, a system that works remarkably well. Yes, there are electronic nannys that control delivered torque using that feature. However, looking at the LS9 dyno graph, at 2000RPM, torque is only around 400ft-lbs. After all that gearing, we are right back at 4000ft-lbs of 1st gear torque. With all traction control off, I can attest that the ZR1 has no problem with a 2000RPM clutch dump (no slipping) on street tires. The Michellin Pilot Sports do not have a problem at all containing that power. And as I stated previously, that's instantaneous torque that's far beyond what you'll see on conventional EVs.

As a matter of fact, tires get so sticky now, that you have to worry that something else will break, like an axle.

So on low rolling resistance, hard compound, all season passenger class tires, yes they might have a problem with that instantaneous torque of a EV motor, but I don't think it will be anywhere near the severity that you claim. Plus with all the electronic nannies available, it will be a non-issue.

But again, your ridiculous argument was:
quote:
I'll say it again, there isn't a tire made today at any price that can handle the instant torque of a decent electric motor.

Not my fault if you weren't clear.


RE: Performance, not fuel efficiency
By Spuke on 9/10/2010 11:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not my fault if you weren't clear.
No it wasn't and I should've been clear. I assumed we were just talking about typical consumer driven EV's not aftermarket modded cars.

quote:
That's the point you are missing. I don't think the LEAF will have more torque than currently available cars.
No, I am not missing that point although I would agree. My post was for those touting the vast amount of 0 rpm torque as a benefit of EV's in an appeal to the car enthusiast. Sort of a "see you guys will still have your performance" salesman tactic. The problem is these people know nothing about car enthusiasts or what we like or don't like. The ZR1 you mentioned can smoke its tires at will with too much throttle, tripling that torque will not make that car accelerate any faster and will more than likely make it slower. Sure with a deft foot, you can sort of put some power down but I seriously doubt you can hammer that car at even 2000 rpm with no wheelspin whatsoever. I would need a graph of the throttle position plotted against acceleration before I will believe that. I've just seen way too many cars with even less power and the same or similar tires just smoke them up without traction aids or some throttle modulation.


RE: Performance, not fuel efficiency
By Hans Gruber on 9/9/2010 6:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
The statement below could not be further from the truth. Ferrari cares just as much about 0-60 and 1/4 miles times as they care about top speed handling and braking. The whole purpose for a dual clutch system as well as paddle shifting gears is primarily to reduce wheel spin and increase acceleration times through quicker gear changes. Ferrari would not include electrical power if it was going to hurt performance in any way. Ferrari sets the standard for technological performance, than the competition passes them and they do it all over again and again.

Instant on torque only creates wheel spin. These cars aren't built for getting off the line quickly. They're for road racing and flat out speed and acceleration. They're not concerned with the 1/4 mile time.

It will add nothing to the performance really that they couldn't do with just an engine since the weight it adds will offset any performance advantage.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/9/2010 6:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think Fit simply meant Ferrari's aren't "drag cars". Their 0-60 times are a byproduct, not the end goal.


You don't get it.
By Smilin on 9/9/2010 4:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure you guys get it. Hybrids are not just about fuel economy.

Electric motors can pull massive torque and are well suited to sports cars. As the technology matures they'll be eating their ICE counterparts alive.




RE: You don't get it.
By Spuke on 9/10/2010 11:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Electric motors can pull massive torque and are well suited to sports cars. As the technology matures they'll be eating their ICE counterparts alive.
If they do, it won't be because of the torque. The massive area under the curve is the benefit not the unusable 0 rpm torque. All things being equal, an EV should be quicker in a straight line.


RE: You don't get it.
By Smilin on 9/10/2010 1:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure I follow.

How is 0 rpm torque unusable? It propels you above 0 rpm quite well.

Also the area under a curve is going to be higher for an otherwise equal electric. A rectangle is going to have more area than a bell curve of the same height. right?


Wohoooo!!!
By bug77 on 9/9/2010 10:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
Finally. I'm sure the 1000 or so vehicles Ferrari builds every year are the actual cause of global warming. And most of the air pollution. And all the other bad things happening around the world.




My next car
By zebalow on 9/9/10, Rating: -1
"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki