Patents reveal Ferrari's plan for new turbocharged engines
Ferrari turbocharged V8 engine patent drawing - Click above to enlarge
Last week, we learned that Ferrari was taking a long, hard look at hybrid drivetrains as a way to improve the performance of its line of supercars when a less-than-ideal amount of traction is present. While Ferrari's patent documents didn't mention environmental concerns as a reason to investigate hybrids, it seems likely that the issue is at least on the minds of Italian automaker's engineers. But it isn't the only technology Ferrari is developing in an effort to build more efficient vehicles that don't sacrifice performance.A search of Europe's patent database system shows that Ferrari has recently submitted proposals for a new twin-turbo design for V-shaped engines with six, eight, ten or twelve cylinders. Of course, twin-turbo engines have been done hundreds of times before (including by Ferrari back in 1980s and early '90s), so its the arrangement of the two turbochargers along with all the associated plumbing required to make it all work that the Italian automaker is seeking to patent.
The drawing submitted with the application shows an eight-cylinder engine with two equally-sized turbochargers nestled inside the V of the engine block and cylinder heads. The system would use one turbocharger at low engine speeds and would only use the second turbocharger for maximum power and torque when required. Click here to view the actual patent application.
[Source: European Patent Office via Autocar]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
sk7m 7:05PM (5/29/2009)
Does this mean that the exhaust and intake will be reversed? Similar to BMWs new twin turbo V8. I'm sure Ferrari will make one badass motor with beautiful squiqqly pipes and turbos under a piece of glass. Drooooool . Lets hope Ferrari puts a wastegate dump a la F40!
Reply
zamafir 7:14PM (5/29/2009)
AND tripple exhaust pipes!
fofhur 8:18PM (5/29/2009)
yup -- based on that diagram.. it appears the turbos are placed just like the BMW line up of twin turbo systems.
why not the LS2LS7? 8:23PM (5/29/2009)
BMW's lineup is mostly made up of non-V engines. You can't put the turbos in a non-existent valley.
Several manufacturers are trying this idea now, I think BMW may have been the first to ship it.
xtasi 7:22PM (5/29/2009)
I thought ford was doing this with the powerstroke engine on the F-series.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 7:36PM (5/29/2009)
It's fantastic to see so much turbo development on gas engines now. Between this and the industry already shipping so many turbo Diesels, it really feels like gas turbos will finally make it over the top and become widespread in cars, at least in the US.
This would be great, and the best part is, it'll only get better as we go along.
Reply
xmdfmk7x 7:50PM (5/29/2009)
Great news! I hope that Ferrari will be able to bring back the heart and soul of the F-40 with this. Even though there are plenty of Ferrari's worth falling in love with, I think Ferrari's best car was the F-40 mainly because of its 2.9L twin turbo V8. It's a shame Formula 1 banned turbocharged engines around the time of the F-40. I think we would've seen many more turbocharged engines coming from Ferrari if they weren't outlawed.
Reply
Nateb123 7:49PM (5/29/2009)
Not to be a jaded ass but this is just Mazda's sequential twin setup from the '92+ RX-7 except it's in between two cylinder banks. The thing is, it's nowhere near as simple as it looks in the picture shown. When referring to the RX-7 version of this, we call the mess of valves, vacuum hoses, etc. "the rats nest". It's a huge pain in the ass to deal with and most people just remove it and go single. Twin parallel turbos is just as reasonable an option for a V8 though. Still, why add the complexity? The potential is limited.
Reply
xmdfmk7x 8:00PM (5/29/2009)
The difference is that aftermarket turbocharging usually ends up removing most of the emissions systems that the manufacturer has to include by law in order to sell the car. There are other reasons for all the garbage they put in there, like driveability and allowing the PCM to keep tabs on controlling everything. The manufacturer isn't interested in tailoring the car to be user-friendly for the customer to modify it. They're interested in having the car meet regulations while running reliably with consistent driveability. I'm sure Ferrari and Mazda and any other manufacturer have plenty of other reasons why they'd do it this way. I think we'd all be happier without all the complexity though, except for the hippies who care about the environment.
why not the LS2LS7? 8:19PM (5/29/2009)
http://www.rx7.org/Robinette/images/hoses.gif
To be even more fair, Mazda didn't invent sequential turbos. The 959 had them, the Supra had them and I'm pretty sure they weren't first either.
BMW started with twin turbos on their I6 engine, but removed one now to make a new version that is simpler. I don't really understand what twin turbos are good unless you can't find a single turbo that is big enough or if you have a V config and want to avoid crosspipes.
Nateb123 10:18PM (5/29/2009)
I didn't mean to imply Mazda was the inventor, just wanted a current example of how complicated they have become. They do work but over-complication is just a sign of an immature design. Maybe Ferrari can simplify things though. I sure hope so.
BoxerFanatic 10:01PM (5/29/2009)
It is interesting... Reverse flow heads and central turbos is an interesting concept.
But the relative simplicity and symmetry of the 288GTO, and the F40 after it are just gorgeous. At least a third of the attractiveness of those cars is looking under the engine cover.
I have wondered if a reverse up-flow boxer engine would be interesting for a parallel turbo layout, with the intake side on the bottom of the head, with direct injection, and throttle-less with VVEL like valve modulation, and turbos mounted directly above the exhaust valves, not heat-soaking the engine from underneath it, or with long head pipes causing lag.
I kinda wish Ferrari would try another boxer engine again... 8 and 12 cylinder variants. 6 and 10 just don't say Ferrari to me.
I can only imagine what a 21st century 512 Berlinetta Boxer would be like with reverse flow, and top mounted twin turbos fed by 12 screaming cylinders. Holy hell!
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 11:48PM (5/29/2009)
I don't even need the turbos, just the idea of Ferrari doing another flat 12 has me salivating.
pmiddle5 1:09AM (5/30/2009)
Why did Ferrari never count it as a flat or boxer 12 though? They always insisted it was a 180" V12. WTF is the difference?!
why not the LS2LS7? 1:55AM (5/30/2009)
It has only 6 connecting rod journals on the crankshaft, each journal is shared by two rods. This is like a V8, where there are only 4 journals, but it runs 8 cylinders because one piston from each bank is attached to each journal.
On a boxer, it would have 12 conn rod journals, one for each cylinder.
Because of this, Ferrari's engines are configured more like a V12 with a 180 degree vee angle than like a "normal" boxer 12-cylinder.
Ferrari calls it a 180 degree V. Some call it a flat engine but not a boxer. Some just call it a boxer anyway (like Ferrari did when naming the 512BB).
At least this is how I understand it.
BoxerFanatic 1:59AM (5/30/2009)
There is a difference. Both are horizontally opposed, and look very much the same from the outside. It has to do with crankshaft configuration. A 180-degree V engine is almost considered to be a sub-classification of a boxer, horizontally opposed engine. Boxer and horizontally opposed can be used to describe a 180 degree V, or a 'true' boxer engine.
It has to do with whether directly opposing pistons share a crank journal, or have their own 180-degree opposed journals.
A V-engine has common journals for cylinder pairs, some being as widely separated along the crankshaft axis as 180 degrees, and thus, technically, horizontally flat, but still hitting TDC side to side, alternating order, firing the power stroke every other TDC. If they share a crank journal, they move back and forth as a unit, essentially.
A 'true' boxer has individual journals, also 180 degrees horizontally flat, but hitting TDC simultaneously, and firing every other occasion. They have separate journals for each rod, then pistons across from each other both go up to TDC, and away from each other at the same time, and come down to BDC, toward each other at the same time.
As I read it, It tends to cancel out the second order vibrations that a common crank journal engine, especially those of a narrower angle of V. A 90 degree angle of V also sometimes use an offset split pin crankshaft, that puts some pistons at an odd firing order.
A flat 180-V doesn't need to do that, and a true boxer goes further by being inherently smoother, with some of the imparted forces cancelled out directly across the engine. An inline 6 mirrors the first three pistons with the last three, basically offsetting forces against each other that way, along the length of the engine.
And Ferrari did refer to it's first flat 12 road car as a boxer, right in the name of the car. The 512BB stands for Berlinetta (solid roof coupe) Boxer (horizontally opposed engine, 5.12 Liters of displacement.)
It was basically their Colombo V12, which started as a narrow angle V12 of 1.5 liters, and gradually was enlarged. more well known versions, the 250, 275, 330, 4-cam, 365, 400, and ultimately 512. 365 and 512 displacements were both flattened to 180-degrees, and used in the Berlinetta Boxer model, as well as the Testarossa, along side the narrower V12 in 400i and 412.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_Colombo_engine
It was replaced entirely with a new engine family for the 456 line, which evolved from the Dino's V6 and split off from 308-328-348's V8 engine lineup, scaled up to 12 cylinders, then evolved in that format for the 550, 575, F50, Enzo, and 599, and is obviously still in service, until Ferrari replaces it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_Dino_engine#V12
This patent will likely be applied to a reverse-flow version of the Ferrari/Maserati V8 from the 360/F430/Maserati/Alfa8C... which may also spawn a newer V12 in the future.
Ferrari is remarkably scaleable and efficient with it's engine designs, it seems.
pmiddle5 10:36AM (5/30/2009)
kick ass
zard 11:45PM (5/29/2009)
So no more high revving Ferrari? Turbocharged F40...I remember it was very quite car compare to F50. I prefer F50 over F40 because F40 was to quite to be a Ferrari..
Reply
wonkydonkydotnet 12:44AM (5/30/2009)
I smell engine bay fire.
I think it was Ford that proposed the spools in the valley thing about ~ 1 year ago.
@LS2LS7: You can run smaller ones that spool up faster with less lag. There's at least 1 VW MkIII VR6 that has 3 small ones in series. I forget what the advantages of sequential bi-turbo vs. parallel twin-turbo setups are, though.
Don't know why they wouldn't do a twin-scroll or variable geometry, though. I thought the 2-of-different-size idea was passé.
Where is Corky Bell at when you need him?
Reply
pmiddle5 1:22AM (5/30/2009)
Corky Bell explains all of that in his book silly.
They are just all different ways to get the exact same, or incredibly similar, result.
The single turbo is hardest to spool up because of its larger weight. Even though it may make similar power to twins and a similar power curve its transient response (aka lag) will always be greater then the others
Lag is the moment you press the accelerator with the turbo operating in the effective RPM range of the engine to the moment you get boost. People are constantly explaining lag incorrectly.
A parallel twin setup is more beneficial because the two independent turbo wheels weights are lower then the weight of one large single turbo wheel. The larger single turbos wheel must be stronger at its outer extremities then a smaller turbos since the edges are moving faster because of the greater distance from the axis.
A sequential twin turbo setup is the best overall way to get as smooth of power as possible. The super small turbo spools incredibly easily with all energy focused on it but then when the engine is producing enough energy to easily spool the larger turbo voila.
A big single turbo will always have worse lag then a twin setup.
variable geometry turbos, IDK why they are not picking up as much as I'd expect. The variable nozzles are the most basic of them and they seem to be very durable. Some of the variable vane turbos might be more fragile or just incredibly expensive? They seem like great ideas but something is holding them back from main stage use in petrol engines so far
Twin turbo setups are just obviously more expensive and complicated thus shunned upon