The Pinnacle of the ICE sports car

[TenEightyOne]

Indeed. The 930 perfectly captured the 'live fast, die young' attitude of the 1980s, and all the suddenly-rich moneymen who bought them...

Absolutely. When the 911 needs to be refined and intellectual, it can be. When it needs to smoke a pipe and rock a roll-neck it can do that too. It can do a supermarket run in jeans and a t-shirt and it can spank round a track in nomex.

As you point out it can also, as the need arises, sprout braces and shoulder pads while shouting "loadsamoneeeeey" into an improbably large cellphone.

 

[TheCracker]

If the focus is on ICE-powered sports cars, then a huge factor has to be what will be 'lost' when purely internal combustion engined sports cars are no more.

For this reason 'sound' has to play a big part in it and a normally aspirated engine will always sound better than a forced induced one. I'd also say that it has to be teamed with a manual gearbox. If you're going to have electronics changing the gears for you, why not just have electronics powering it too. If this is a celebration of older tech that's dying out then the manual box is an important part of that because it probably won't survive beyond the ICE either.

So perhaps...

V12 - McLaren F1
V10 - Porsche Carrera GT
V8 - Ferrari F430
Flat-6 - Porsche 911 GT3 (997)
Straight 6 - E46 M3 ZCP/CS
Straight 4 - Honda S2000

 

[AlvaroF]

A good question with so many angles to cover. For me there can't be only one pinnacle of the ICE, whether it's sports car or not. On the 4 stroke ICE engine side we have to have the pinnacle of carburated and the pinnacle of fuel injected, Then each has achieved it's prime either through looks (making an ICE look good inside the bonnet is an art in itself), sound, efficiency, power and so on.

Also there is the possibilty of having breakthroughs on the rotary engine and we'll see where the HCCI engine from Mazda leads us to in terms of efficiency and performance.

 

[Epic B]

Also there is the possibilty of having breakthroughs on the rotary engine and we'll see where the HCCI engine from Mazda leads us to in terms of efficiency and performance.

I'm certainly interested how Mazda's HCCI engine will turn out. I'm also hoping to see Koenigsegg get a free valve engine on the market. As for rotary breakthroughs, don't know. Mazda seems to have given up on rotaries at least for now outside of range extenders on electric cars. Also, Mazda's experimental triple charged engine might be something too. I remember Volvo also having a triple charged 2 liter four that could push 450 horsepower.

 

[05XR8]

A good question with so many angles to cover. For me there can't be only one pinnacle of the ICE, whether it's sports car or not. On the 4 stroke ICE engine side we have to have the pinnacle of carburated and the pinnacle of fuel injected, Then each has achieved it's prime either through looks (making an ICE look good inside the bonnet is an art in itself), sound, efficiency, power and so on.

Also there is the possibilty of having breakthroughs on the rotary engine and we'll see where the HCCI engine from Mazda leads us to in terms of efficiency and performance.

It's possible to pick an era(which is why this will be a continual debate). I mentioned the small block V8, the 959, S2000.
Supercharging was used early in this development of these engines. Rotary sports car been out 60years ago.
Sports cars in the 50s and 60s had small displacement V12s.

Maybe that is the era. From then, engines got hammered in the 70s and early 80s. Late 80s thru to today, have become more powerful while efficient. Is the pinnacle, a better performing sports car, with a more efficient engine? Or can it be a sports car which led the scene for others to follow?

 

[TenEightyOne]

This thread seems to be meandering towards "best engine" rather than "best sports car". As far as I understand it the engine is part-and-parcel of the overall car(s) packages that we're choosing, we're simply excluding electrics, hybrids and steam cars, no?

 

[AlvaroF]

I'm certainly interested how Mazda's HCCI engine will turn out. I'm also hoping to see Koenigsegg get a free valve engine on the market. As for rotary breakthroughs, don't know. Mazda seems to have given up on rotaries at least for now outside of range extenders on electric cars. Also, Mazda's experimental triple charged engine might be something too. I remember Volvo also having a triple charged 2 liter four that could push 450 horsepower.

I think the rotary hasn't achieved it's full potential yet, I'd like to dig further on that though. As of now Volvo uses a twin-charged 2 liter four with electric aid that pushes about that amout in the T8 variants. And yes, I read something about that triple charged engine from Volvo, but I not sure on how would it be more efficient than the 2 liter nutjob from AMG.

It's possible to pick an era(which is why this will be a continual debate). I mentioned the small block V8, the 959, S2000.
Supercharging was used early in this development of these engines. Rotary sports car been out 60years ago.
Sports cars in the 50s and 60s had small displacement V12s.

Maybe that is the era. From then, engines got hammered in the 70s and early 80s. Late 80s thru to today, have become more powerful while efficient. Is the pinnacle, a better performing sports car, with a more efficient engine? Or can it be a sports car which led the scene for others to follow?

For me that is my big root of the question asked. I think the pinnacle is using a basic philosophy that a certain sports car created and paved way to an ICE that has been pushed to the limit. As mentioned on the first page the XL1 (although not being a sports car) is the pinnacle of efficiency because it exploited a certain idea to the limit, so is the Veyron/Chiron that took pretty much every single aspect to the limit. Both are pinnacles in a certain way, There isn't a definitive answer for sure. And I'm sure the boundries will be pushed further away as time passes by. We're probably close or further to the new pinnacle.

This thread seems to be meandering towards "best engine" rather than "best sports car". As far as I understand it the engine is part-and-parcel of the overall car(s) packages that we're choosing, we're simply excluding electrics, hybrids and steam cars, no?

The best engines find their way to the best sports car in one way or another. For me, and this is completly personal, I find it easier to discuss this theme by looking through the engine prespective.

 

[Epic B]

I think the rotary hasn't achieved it's full potential yet, I'd like to dig further on that though. As of now Volvo uses a twin-charged 2 liter four with electric aid that pushes about that amout in the T8 variants. And yes, I read something about that triple charged engine from Volvo, but I not sure on how would it be more efficient than the 2 liter nutjob from AMG.

I am aware of Volvo's T8 hybrids. The twincharged T6 makes 316 horsepower on its own which is still pretty good, but yeah, AMG's 2.0T is a bit more nuts, and Audi's turbo five in the TT RS and RS3 is also something. Volvo's triple charged engine uses twin turbos and an electric supercharger but I don't know what advantages an electric supercharger would have compared to a normal one. As for whether rotaries have more potential, maybe. Given how inefficient they can be compared to piston engines, I imagine some would be unwilling to touch them. But they still seem to be popular in small aircraft and both Mazda and Audi have toyed with them as range extenders in series hybrids. Mazda had a concept with a direct injected rotary years ago but they've never brought such an engine to market. Also, I've heard running a rotary at a constant speed is more efficient, which would probably work well for series hybrids. Makes me wonder how such an engine would do with a CVT.

 

[05XR8]

It's tough. The OP refers to an era(whichever one that is, in our opinion) and multiple picks. So, I guess we continue to have fun.

I pick the ur-Quattro. Changed the automotive, let alone sports car, world. AWD, turbo tech, luxury interior, quick and fast enough, "wide" Ronal wheels.

 

[TheCracker]

I don't know what advantages an electric supercharger would have compared to a normal one.

Traditional superchargers create a parasitic loss. The energy it takes to power one comes directly from the crank. They may add huge globs of power by force inducing the air into the mixture, but they can take around 30% of the engines power to do so. An electric supercharger doesn't rob the crank of that energy. You need a lot of electrical energy to run one though, which is why 48volt electrical systems are being developed for automotive uses.

 

[Epic B]

Traditional superchargers create a parasitic loss. The energy it takes to power one comes directly from the crank. They may add huge globs of power by force inducing the air into the mixture, but they can take around 30% of the engines power to do so. An electric supercharger doesn't rob the crank of that energy. You need a lot of electrical energy to run one though, which is why 48volt electrical systems are being developed for automotive uses.

Factoring that in its safe to assume an electric supercharger would be more powerful and efficient.

 

[TheCracker]

Factoring that in its safe to assume an electric supercharger would be more powerful and efficient.

That is the general idea. It's certainly more efficient.

It's unlikely that 48volt systems will ever be used on purely ICE cars as those 48v systems are designed to be used on power units that require the energy, like hybrid engine stuff. Regular car electrics - lights, infotainment systems etc, will still run on regular 12volt circuits. A small capacity ICE powerplant supplemented with an electric supercharger used as a range extender is probably how they are most likely to be used.

 

[Danoff]

Another car I'm gonna vote for is the 911 Turbo, any of the ones with the PDK transmission (997 II, 991, 991.2), especially the current 991.2 Turbo S. Mostly, for these cars' apparent defiance of physics.

Porsche 911R probably gets closest of the cars I've personally driven, if we're to assume that a vital component of the ICE sports car isn't just that it's a sports car that happens to have an internal combustion engine, but that the engine itself must be somewhat central to the experience.

For me the pinnacle of the ICE sports car is... the entire 911 concept.

I agree with you that the 911 is the pinnacle of the ICE sports car.

You could also argue that it's taken them this long to get it right. The 911 is a great car despite its engine position, not because of.

Indeed. The 930 perfectly captured the 'live fast, die young' attitude of the 1980s, and all the suddenly-rich moneymen who bought them...

So I guess it was 1998 when Porsche introduced stability control to keep people from killing themselves with these cars due to spinning caused by having the engine in the wrong place. At a track day here in Colorado with the BMW club they said something to the effect of... "We haven't had an incident in 12 years and we'd like to keep it that way". When the Porsche club comes to the track they say "Someone died last year on this track, and last month we had someone do $50k worth of damage to their car. We'd hate to see that happen today. ". Not just an incident, a death. I don't think I need to do much to motivate the car's reputation as a widowmaker.

Mid-engine is the correct configuration for a sports car. I have no doubt that someone can come in here and tell me all the reasons I'm wrong, but over and over again performance cars have to go mid-engine to achieve proper balance. Even Porsche.

I think, for me, the 911 cannot be the pinnacle - or any other non-mid-engine'd car for that matter. So far, my role in this thread is just to throw stones at everyone's excellent posts. I'm none-the-less really enjoying reading everyone's thoughts.

 

[lbpomg95]

I personally think there's a case to be made for any of the Paganis, especially the Zondas. Between the noise, the engine, the interior and the craftsmanship that goes into each one I think they've overtaken the Ferraris and Lamborghinis as an overall package.

Then again, I've never driven anything close to a supercar (aside from sitting in and revving a Jaguar XJ220) so it's difficult to say. Someone mentioned the McLaren F1 so I'd agree with that, too.

 

[mustafur]

So I guess it was 1998 when Porsche introduced stability control to keep people from killing themselves with these cars due to spinning caused by having the engine in the wrong place. At a track day here in Colorado with the BMW club they said something to the effect of... "We haven't had an incident in 12 years and we'd like to keep it that way". When the Porsche club comes to the track they say "Someone died last year on this track, and last month we had someone do $50k worth of damage to their car. We'd hate to see that happen today. ". Not just an incident, a death. I don't think I need to do much to motivate the car's reputation as a widowmaker.

Mid-engine is the correct configuration for a sports car. I have no doubt that someone can come in here and tell me all the reasons I'm wrong, but over and over again performance cars have to go mid-engine to achieve proper balance. Even Porsche.

I think, for me, the 911 cannot be the pinnacle - or any other non-mid-engine'd car for that matter. So far, my role in this thread is just to throw stones at everyone's excellent posts. I'm none-the-less really enjoying reading everyone's thoughts.

It depends, cars like the 599 and LFA can acheive a rear weight bias despite being front engine(although its FMR) due to having the gearbox in the rear.

At that point it really doesn't matter where the engine is.

 

[Danoff]

It depends, cars like the 599 and LFA can acheive a rear weight bias despite being front engine(although its FMR) due to having the gearbox in the rear.

At that point it really doesn't matter where the engine is.

There is a difference between weight bias and inertia. I pulled this from wikipedia "The moment of inertia about the center of gravity is low due to the concentration of mass between the axles (similar to standing in the middle of a playground roundabout, rather than at the edge)". How much weight is on which wheels makes a difference, but another big difference is how the mass is concentrated. A mid engine car pivots more easily due to a concentrated mass at the center rather than having it spread out.

Here's another excerpt:

The main advantage of mid engine cars is that they have a low ‘moment of inertia’. This means when cornering it is easier to turn the car to a new direction, thus increasing the manoeuvrability and stability. In addition, less rotational momentum is generated, which can lead to oversteer.

Most sports car manufacturers aim for a 50:50 weight distribution to provide neutral handling characteristics, and with mid engine cars it is much easier to achieve this. Even though some front engine rear wheel drive cars may have a 50:50 weight distribution, they will have a higher ‘moment of inertia’ due to the majority of the weight being at the extremities. Think of twisting a hammer with a head at one end versus a head in the middle.

 

[mustafur]

But the Person is still in the middle, further complicating that.

And that is before we get to the compromise of cooling and the drag that comes for it to cool cars with engines behind the driver.

The LFA has a 48-52 weight distribution the gearbox is the second heaviest thing in the car with the driver likely the 3rd(or second) also being in the middle rear, combine those two they are likely heavier then the engine.

 

[Danoff]

But the Person is still in the middle, further complicating that.

From what little I've read on this, you want the driver's head to be as closed to the center of mass as possible, which is harder with FMR than RMR.

 

[homeforsummer]

engine in the wrong place

While I'd tend to agree that mid-engine is still the perfect layout (again, F50) I think Porsche has developed this concept so much now that it's a moot point.

There are even some advantages to the 911's engine layout. Natural traction for one. And the moment of inertia effect can be quite useful too - having that extra weight towards the rear is quite effective for getting a bit of extra rotation into a corner - not something you'd try on the road (at least not in ultra-grippy modern 911s where your cornering speeds would be unwisely high) but it's quite a satisfying feeling on a track.

Given modern technology has nullified its earlier handling foibles (and according to a couple of colleagues who've driven more Porsches than I've driven cars of any sort, the 911's handling hasn't been treacherous since the 993) I'd say the 911 has to be somewhere up there now. I tend to go for quite long periods between driving them, just enough to wonder what the fuss is all about, before driving one again and realising that they're genuinely excellent sports cars.

That said... I would potentially kick the 911R out for the Cayman GT4. I've driven both, but didn't have a "proper" go in a GT4, whereas I had a pretty good drive in the R.

Which has got me thinking what the last car I climbed out of absolutely blown away by was. On a track, it was probably the new Civic Type R, which is just insanely fast and capable, but I can't in good faith declare a turbocharged, front-wheel drive car the pinnacle of ICE sports cars even though it's one of the best drivers' cars I've driven recently. On the road... probably a Caterham Seven, which is one of the best sports cars ever, but then that doesn't have an exotic enough engine for a question where a great engine is integral to the answer.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

the 911's handling hasn't been treacherous since the 993

To expand on that, the 993 was when Porsche changed the rear suspension layout from a semi-trailing arm to a complex multilink design in order to make the car handle better.

Porsche know what they're doing, and they've slowly evolved the 911 in a more thorough way than perhaps any other car. If they'd started with a mid engined design, would it have been as successful? It might be a tad better to drive, but I would posit that part of the 911's appeal is its usability. It's a 2+2 which has somewhat usable rear seats and a decent size boot up front. It's not too big, nor too small. It's just efficient enough that you could daily one and not worry too much about fuel costs. And they've cultivated the right image around the car. If the 911 didn't have the broad appeal that it does, would it have sold as well? And thus, would it have lasted long enough to have been evolved into something so well sorted? I don't think so. I think that the flawed layout of the 911 is exactly its key to success. No other car model that I know of has lasted as long as the Porsche and remained successful in developed markets, and I think the combination of the layout of the car and the engineering put into it has made that happen.

 

[Sage Ages]

I thought they changed the rear suspension with the 964?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I thought they changed the rear suspension with the 964?

They've made changes in each generation, but to my knowledge the change from semi-trailing arm to multilink (which was the most major change) was 964 to 993.

 

[Tornado]

The big suspension party piece of the 964 was they got rid of the torsion bars in the front and tried to do some of the 928's trickery on the rear to diminish the camber changes; but the rear was still trailing arm.

 

[Eh Team]

I'm biased in this because I own one but I put forth to you the Subaru/Toyota BRZ/GT86. No it's not super fast however it does give you fun, a good noise, good handling, good everyday use, and while I did say it's not powerful it's light enough that the 200 hp gives you a nice push into the seat. It's fun, but at safer speeds.

 

[Tyger]

With regards to Mr Wankel, I do wonder how the Furai would have fared, but it was never clear where it was supposed to sit, and was perhaps more of a tech demo. Could have been "three rotors good", but we may never really know.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I'm biased in this because I own one but I put forth to you the Subaru/Toyota BRZ/GT86. No it's not super fast however it does give you fun, a good noise, good handling, good everyday use, and while I did say it's not powerful it's light enough that the 200 hp gives you a nice push into the seat. It's fun, but at safer speeds.

It's a great car, but to echo what others have said, I think the car in question needs to have a truly superlative engine, and unfortunately the 86 doesn't. It's a decent engine, but nobody would ever take that engine and put it into something else. The powerband isn't linear and it's not that potent for what it is.

 

[Tornado]

A K20 would fix it though.

 

[05XR8]

Or F20C.

 

[Danoff]

While I'd tend to agree that mid-engine is still the perfect layout (again, F50) I think Porsche has developed this concept so much now that it's a moot point.

There are even some advantages to the 911's engine layout. Natural traction for one. And the moment of inertia effect can be quite useful too - having that extra weight towards the rear is quite effective for getting a bit of extra rotation into a corner - not something you'd try on the road (at least not in ultra-grippy modern 911s where your cornering speeds would be unwisely high) but it's quite a satisfying feeling on a track.

It would definitely not be helpful for initiating rotation since the extra weight at the back increases moment of inertia about the center and increases traction at the back. What it would do is make it harder to pull the back in once it gets out, and I can see how that could be used, in certain circumstances, and might even be fun for maintaining a slide. But mid-engine is obviously superior overall or race cars wouldn't be built that way.

I'm not at all saying that 911s are not satisfying to drive on the track, or even that they're not great cars. I'm absolutely 100% sure that they are. I'm saying that they're compromised from the start, and I have trouble seeing that as the best ever.

If they'd started with a mid engined design, would it have been as successful? It might be a tad better to drive, but I would posit that part of the 911's appeal is its usability. It's a 2+2 which has somewhat usable rear seats and a decent size boot up front. It's not too big, nor too small.

2+2 is one of those things that sounds great in theory and never actually gets used. I wonder how many times I've ever seen someone use the back seat in a Porsche for people.

 

[lbpomg95]

This one will sound odd, but just about any Volvo with the old redblock 4-cylinder engine. It's by no means a pinnacle of engineering from any traditional standpoint (power, efficiency, torque, etc) but for longevity it's certainly impressive. Many Volvos with the redblock can manage in excess of 300,000 miles comparatively problem-free. I know of a P1800 (also an achingly beautiful car) in the USA that's done 3.3 million miles. Pretty sure it's had a lot of work done in that time but still an impressive feat.