• Road and Track's Jason Cammisa states a turbocharged base 911 model does not make sense and this is why he is wrong

      It is always amusing when the 'professionals' get things wrong. Road and Track has been around for quite a while and usually does good work. Their latest article on the rumored turbocharged 991.2 facelift (or 992 successor) not making sense is not their best work. Their 'senior editor' Jason Cammisa states that displacement is not the enemy as his argument against turbocharging the base 911 model. He is wrong as displacement is the enemy in the 911.

      Cammisa uses the 6.2 liter V8 LT4 from the C7 Corvette as evidence of a motor not needing to be turbocharged. He is partially correct here as an engine does not need to be turbocharged to offer good performance or good fuel economy especially with high compression direct injection motors these days. However, the only reason the LT4 works so well in the C7 Corvette is due to its displacement. It can run in four cylinder mode to save fuel because it is a 6.2 liter V8. Cutting a 3.4 liter 911 flat-6 in half to save fuel will not offer the same torque or power as the LT4 when it is running on half its cylinders.

      Turbocharging will eventually be used throughout the entire Porsche model lineup (with the GT3 likely the only exception). Porsche is not going to cram a big V8 under the hood of the 911 or Cayman. We know a new family of boxer turbocharged four-cylinder motors are coming and will be used in the Cayman and Boxster. It is just a matter of time before the 911 lineup becomes turbocharged as well likely using this same engine family.

      The article by Road and Track's Jason Cammisa can hardly be called an article. It's garbage. The Porsche flat-6 in naturally aspirated form can not be pushed much further. Displacement actually is the enemy. What are they supposed to do exactly? The GT3 already shows the limits of the engine in street trim. Porsche can probably take it to 4.0 liters, maybe 4.2, and that is it. What is next? 10,000 rpm (and greater reliability issues) redlines? That is not going to help fuel economy as if it did BMW M would still be using their high revving naturally aspirated motors instead of going the turbocharged route. High revving motors do consume more fuel than their turbocharged lower displacement counterparts despite Cammisa's claim this is not true based on nothing more than his opinion.

      Additionally, he states the 911 is the not the problem but that instead Porsche's sedans and SUV's need to become more fuel efficient. Um, Jason, did you happen to notice that the Panamera S ditched its V8 for a turbo V6 and the Cayenne S is doing the same thing? They gain torque, power, and efficiency by doing so. How have you missed this?

      The 911 is not a Corvette. It does not have a big V8 that can comfortably offer enough torque to keep revs low or move the car relatively easily when running on half the cylinders. Applying the GM LT4 V8 to the 911 lineup does not make sense with the current flat-6 architecture. These are completely different cars with completely different motors.

      Cammisa concludes his article stating that the 3.8 liter flat-6 engine of the 991 Carrera S gets 1 MPG better than the LT4 in the Corvette. Would it get that 1 MPG better than the Corvette if it had the same output? Illogical comparisons make for illogical conclusions. Are you hiring Road and Track? Because you need someone who can do better than this:

      This article was originally published in forum thread: Road and Track's Jason Cammisa states a turbocharged base 911 model does not make sense and this is why he is wrong started by Sticky View original post