Jump to content
Scott SS964

Is the GT3 as we know it about to disappear from the 911 model line up

Recommended Posts

 

As the EU demands that the CO2 levels be decreased to under 95 grams per kilometre over the fleet of new cars by the end of 2020 (with even much lower targets for 2025 and 2030). This means Porsche not only has to start offering fully electric vehicles (which it will from 2019), but has to hybridize the 911 as well.

As can be seen from the table in the attached article, the normally aspirated 992 GT3 may not be built, in fact they suggest that a GT model with a 3 litre turbo producing 600HP will be the replacement well i think i read that hmmmmm........

 

https://www.stuttcars.com/porsche-models/911/992/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small stressed boosted cars use way more juice when you stand on them than a relaxed larger engine, hence pollute more. My Passat R (boosted 2L) is averaging around 11L / 100 and I don’t stand on it very often at all. Official rating is 7.4 l per 100km. So only a lazy 48.5% increase on the official figures. I’d hate to see what it’d be if I drove it with a lead foot.

Back to the topic at hand, give me a hybrid GT over a boosted one please, just make the battery big enough that it doesn’t run out of puff like the i8 does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It takes fuel to make power so the more right foot the more fuel consumed and everything being equal a turbo uses more fuel than a bigger NA to match its power output? Its only at the lower end of the power range the smaller Turbo pulls ahead in consumption. 

Then there is the slight of hand where hybrid cars can start the official emissions  test with a fully charged battery and end it with a flat one. This give great numbers for the fleet average but crap results in the real world.  This rubbish is more about virtue signaling than getting actual results. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, sleazius said:

Small stressed boosted cars use way more juice when you stand on them than a relaxed larger engine, hence pollute more. My Passat R (boosted 2L) is averaging around 11L / 100 and I don’t stand on it very often at all. Official rating is 7.4 l per 100km. So only a lazy 48.5% increase on the official figures. I’d hate to see what it’d be if I drove it with a lead foot.

Back to the topic at hand, give me a hybrid GT over a boosted one please, just make the battery big enough that it doesn’t run out of puff like the i8 does.

As we all know, you can’t rely on VW’s claimed figures! ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Redracn said:

^ It takes fuel to make power so the more right foot the more fuel consumed and everything being equal a turbo uses more fuel than a bigger NA to match its power output? Its only at the lower end of the power range the smaller Turbo pulls ahead in consumption. 

Then there is the slight of hand where hybrid cars can start the official emissions  test with a fully charged battery and end it with a flat one. This give great numbers for the fleet average but crap results in the real world.  This rubbish is more about virtue signaling than getting actual results. 

 

 

I'm a student when it comes to the application of CO2 measurements/restrictions that are in place for the automotive industry however I am learning. I guess what you're saying is that the model, the set parameters that are used for measuring/producing results are at a level that is not suited to performance oriented cars. As you have pointed out both turbo and big capacity N/A engines under load are big emitters of CO2. 

Am I correct in my understanding that individual Automotive manufacturers are set an overall target across all model ranges produced; meaning if they have emission capacity available from producing Low E models  they can then produce a certain amount of higher emission models up to this overall target.

So as the EU governing body tightens the screws on emissions using the said measurement the large capacity N/A engine becomes obsolete.

Then turbo charged engines, Then......

I've enjoyed my large capacity N/A era and hope to for many years to come, just as the next generation will love the turbos and the next gen the hybrid electric etc etc.... life never stands still its always learning and evolving .......

 

In reading this back i'm really just verbalising my thoughts sorry ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight thread tangent/drift but I’m still yet to understand the “real world” outcome of imposing such targets. I get there is a responsibility to being more environmentally friendly (and I wholeheartedly agree with this) but........truth be told private passenger cars are only part of the problem. The technology with major transport infrastructure including trucks, planes etc still seems pretty inactive in terms of alternatives (unless someone can enlighten me?) 

Some may feel reassured that they are doing their bit for the planet in buying a high end sports car that has some green credentials and that’s great. The reality is though that typically these are lightly used vehicles so the “real” difference is marginal when compared to old mate driving his SUV a couple of 100kms a week. 

Commercial vehicle usage seems to be the elephant in the room but with the inherent cost of the technology it seems like we may have to rely on saving the planet 1 Porsche at a time. 

No doubt the landscape is changing (and it needs too) but I can’t help but see an overwhelming amount of missinformation when it comes to real world outcomes and projections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shhh - do some research and you'll find that cutting emissions of cars is just a smoke screen so that governments can be seen to be doing something about climate change, thereby buying big business time to conduct business as usual for another 20 years before the public gets wind.

All road transport worldwide (including trucks) by most estimates only accounts for 7-8% of total emissions. All total transport is about 14%.

The 314 or so cruise ships emit about 1/3 of the emissions of the entire global car fleet (thanks bunker fuel). Let that sink in for a minute.

Here is some useful data:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, spiller said:

Don’t cow farts produce more pollution than cars? 

That’s all I have to add. Carry on.

Correct and what he said , carry on .. if you are gonna burn fossil fuels do it in style , atleast people notice .. thats my outlook

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an efficiency point of view what matters is the kg of goods moved v’s the total CO2 emmitted over the life of the vehicle/ship doing the moving including manufacturing and disposal. Humans are just goods being moved from a to b. The hands down winner is a large ship. Sports cars while emitting more when in use than an economical car would still be high on the list of CO2 emitters /kg moved due to low km driven and manufacturing CO2 etc. i.e. a lot of CO2 is emitted to move not much freight a small distance. Trucks on the other hand are way ahead of single occupancy cars which are about the worst performers. 

So to get the CO2 emitted/kg of goods moved down we need to get out and drive the cars more. ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I eternally struggle with in this whole rush to the turbo and electric era for Porsche is why are not the other supercar makers doing the same? Sure some are but most still guzzle at a high rate!

From when I last looked into the CO2 figures, you can still produce cars that exceed the limits, you are just taxed higher, so the end user pays more - not sure if this is still the case or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Scott SS964 said:

So as the EU governing body tightens the screws on emissions using the said measurement the large capacity N/A engine becomes obsolete.

After WW2 small engines were the norm in countries rebuilding their economy. America after all escaped massive destruction. Lucky them. 7 litre engines,  lol.

In the 70s , large displacement engined cars were as welcome as ants at a picnic and several mfrs went out of business as a result.

We've been down the emissions pathway before and will drive that rocky road again & again.
In the meantime , enjoy what we have. Not just the driving but the whole "lifestyle" including the social aspect. I for one am not interested in joining the Prius or kluger club , nor indeed the Musk Appreciation Society!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, tazzieman said:

After WW2 small engines were the norm in countries rebuilding their economy. America after all escaped massive destruction. Lucky them. 7 litre engines,  lol.

In the 70s , large displacement engined cars were as welcome as ants at a picnic and several mfrs went out of business as a result.

We've been down the emissions pathway before and will drive that rocky road again & again.
In the meantime , enjoy what we have. Not just the driving but the whole "lifestyle" including the social aspect. I for one am not interested in joining the Prius or kluger club , nor indeed the Musk Appreciation Society!

Fossil Fuels Addicts and recovering addicts welcome round my house .. Turbo jaunt over the weekend 24l/100 , Esky Coffee run - 27l/100 by my measure, cant wait to get the V8 Rollin  , the GT3 is the most efficient car in the house i reckon ;)  We got nothing to worry about , we will all be classics and be driving classic cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, symsy said:

 We got nothing to worry about , we will all be classics and be driving classic cars.

And pollies will continue commuting in privately charted jets. "Carbon footprint? What's that all mean?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tazzieman said:

And pollies will continue commuting in privately charted jets. "Carbon footprint? What's that all mean?"

Well at least they're not going via their own cargo ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mike737 said:

Well at least they're not going via their own cargo ship. 

Scomo ‘s diesel gulping bus travels to Townsville empty while he rides solo in a RAAF VIP  jet. Setting the good enviro example. Let’s see if he has the balls to preach emissions doctrine to us fossil fuel junkies now. 

https://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/scomo-express-a-bus-with-no-passengers-as-pm-opts-to-fly/news-story/45ea71039e8cd30e453a410fdd86982b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×