How to Make Downsizing Not Suck: an OppoThesis

"Clemsie McKenzie" (thestirringcolumn)
10/14/2016 at 12:00 • Filed to: OppoThesis

We’ll come back to that beauty in a minute, I promise. Photo Credit: silodrome.com

I can’t have been the only one to get a bit sad when the base 911 turned to forced induction to meet emission regulations. Not only because it lost a part of that glorious sound, but also because of the opportunity it missed to make downsizing an exciting prospect.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand why downsizing is necessary these days. I wish it wasn’t, but car manufacturers all have to deal with it one way or another.

Downsizing generally means that to meet emission regulations, manufacturers reduce the displacement of an engine and then add some type of forced induction (generally turbocharging) to make up for the lost performance. And sure, that way you’ll get more efficient cars. But even with the advances of turbocharging technology and hybridation, it’s almost inevitable that you’ll lose some engine character, some soul. And while that’s all fine in econoboxes, it’s not exactly a great thing to look forward to, at least in my opinion. Not to mention that while they save fuel and emissions on the very predictable tests, they rarely do so efficiently in real life.

My favorite recent engine is the Aston Martin 6.0 V12, and from what I read, it’s dying with the V12 Vantage. Just listen to it:

It’s truly maddening to think that cars like this might not get made in a near future.

But here I finally come to my point: reducing displacement? Ok! Turbo? Nope!

To which most of you will spit: but man! The performance! The speed! THE POWER!!

And I understand your concerns. Really, I do. But I don’t think massive power is the way forward. There’s only so much you can put down with street tyres, anyway. Honestly, I feel like a 400hp engine would be largely enough for any RWD sportscar.

But we all know that part of selling cars is one-uping your previous model. And here comes my second and final point ladies and gentlemen: weight is your enemy.

Have you ever seen a 991 next to an older 911? It’s frankly massive. To me, 911s have always been about being lighter than other sportscars, and make do with less horsepower. A 991-2 Carrera S weighs 3,200 lbs. Now, you might say that’s not so much. But I remember a time when a sportscar weighing more than 3,000 lbs was seen as a boat. A 1980s 911 SC weighs 2,500 lbs.

But there you are againg, erructing in anger at your screen. “THINK ABOUT THE DAMN SAFETY REGULATIONS”, I hear you yell. Yes, fair point. But I’ll argue that with your smaller engine, you saved weight. With more and more readily available carbon fiber and derivatives, you save weight. Shrink the car a bit, and you save weight. There’s no reason a new Miata weighs less than an NA, and Porsche or Ferrari can’t shave a couple hundred of kilos off their sportscars.

Except for marketing, that is. You see, the main sportscars manufacturers are locked in a horsepower war. Again, when I was a kid, Ferrari’s mid-engined car had way less than 500 hp. The 488 has 670. That’s more than an Enzo made! Why? Because McLaren, Audi, Lambo, and even Porsche are doing the same.

And now we come back to that sublime Dino I posted up top. See, this is what Ferrari has to do now. Build a 2,700 lbs, 400 hp NA sportscar. Market it as the “purist’s choice”, charge more than a 488, call it a Dino, I don’t care. Just do it. Put a manual in there for good measure, too.

As soon as Ferrari does it, you’ll see that everyone else will too. Thus solving the depressing problem of downiszing and giving us better sounding, better driving cars.

Downsizing isn’t the answer; de-escalating is.

Other weird and sometimes quite disputable OppoThesis posts:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (8)

S65 > Clemsie McKenzie
10/14/2016 at 12:02

YES!YES!YES!

S65 > Clemsie McKenzie
10/14/2016 at 12:05

Also, this is one of the reasons I don’t like the “new” NSX. They had the chance to make a 2900 pound NA manual sports car, instead they went with a 3,803 lb fatty blob.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Clemsie McKenzie
10/14/2016 at 12:08

There’s no reason a new Miata weighs less than an NA, and Porsche or Ferrari can’t shave a couple hundred of kilos off their sportscars.

SO MUCH THIS!

Clemsie McKenzie > S65
10/14/2016 at 12:10

I agree! But I also think that companies like Honda/Accura won’t take the risk to jump first in that direction, especially with their halo model. We need Porsche or Ferrari to do it first, market it right, show the world that it sells. Then we can have a glorious NSX!

Clemsie McKenzie > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
10/14/2016 at 12:12

Plus, it’s a potential gold mine. Emphasize how hard it is to lose weight and you can bump up the price as you like.

BvdV - The Dutch Engineer > Clemsie McKenzie
10/14/2016 at 18:02

I fully agree, more cars should follow the recipe of the Alfa Romeo 4C.

Maybe Ferrari could just take the 4C, stretch it a bit, replace some aluminium bits with carbon, then just add a small V6/V8 (I’m sure Ferrari can still make a light sub-3 litre V8), add a manual and call it a day. This would give quite the enthausiasts car, weighing in at around 1100kg. And it would be a true Dino successor.

Clemsie McKenzie > BvdV - The Dutch Engineer
10/14/2016 at 19:15

That’s the dream! It would be an instant classic, too.

torque > Clemsie McKenzie
10/14/2016 at 20:18

I remember hearing the same thing by some smart guy but it was much more suscint something about “Adding lightness” :-)