i4 FE is up on the U.S. configurator

[VL3X]

4.2s is the manual version. Motortrend got 3.4s on PDKS. The official numbers for the PDKS are 3.7s

PDKS is a machine. PDK in the GTS 4.0 is a slightly different story.

No doubt. PDK is crazy fast as well as VW's dual clutch DSG. I have my MK7 DSG tuned by Unitronic... instant up/down shifts, higher clamping force, optimized drive/sort modes, and launch control. It's very fast on the track and daily driveability is greatly optimized over stock as well. This was my first experience tuning a "TCU" and it was well worth the $600 with my Stage 1+ ECU tune. They compliment each other well. Lightning fast responsivness on the track and still getting 36+MPG daily driving! APR also has a good breakdown of how they can tune the dual clutch trans.

It'll be exciting to see what comes out for the Emira, but from what I'm told Lotus locks down their ECUs (and probably TCUs) pretty well. You'll also be voiding the powertrain warranty when reflashing either.

All that to say, I don't really care which is faster. I enjoy my DSG GTI, but my Emira is going to be full driver engagement with the manual transmission and that's what I'm after. I'm still excited to see what those opting for the AMG i4 are able to squeeze out with a proper tune. A 500HP Emira is what we should have been offered from the factory!!!

 

[SlavaUkraini]

No doubt. PDK is crazy fast as well as VW's dual clutch DSG. I have my MK7 DSG tuned by Unitronic... instant up/down shifts, higher clamping force, optimized drive/sort modes, and launch control. It's very fast on the track and daily driveability is greatly optimized over stock as well. This was my first experience tuning a "TCU" and it was well worth the $600 with my Stage 1+ ECU tune. They compliment each other well. Lightning fast responsivness on the track and still getting 36+MPG daily driving! APR also has a good breakdown of how they can tune the dual clutch trans.

It'll be exciting to see what comes out for the Emira, but from what I'm told Lotus locks down their ECUs (and probably TCUs) pretty well. You'll also be voiding the powertrain warranty when reflashing either.

All that to say, I don't really care which is faster. I enjoy my DSG GTI, but my Emira is going to be full driver engagement with the manual transmission and that's what I'm after. I'm still excited to see what those opting for the AMG i4 are able to squeeze out with a proper tune. A 500HP Emira is what we should have been offered from the factory!!!

I believe Bosch is doing the ECU, so it will be pretty hard to crack (although not impossible), if they do it the same way as the new BMW ECU's that Bosch did. Currently, those can be sent to Russia and Finland to be flashed for unlocking. The bigger issue is that there is absolutely zero, and I mean zero way to do it without voiding the warranty. If you are okay with all of that, then it can be done at some point in the future. You gotta pay to play as they say.

The GT4 PDKS is slightly different than the PDK found in the GTS 4.0 in that its been tuned from Porsche's GT (hence the S after). The GTS 4.0 is not a GT division car. It's essentially always in "sport+" mode. It shifts even faster if you can believe that. The shifts are also harder/more aggressive, especially in higher RPM's. It can do a neutral shift by holding both paddles (which regular PDK cannot do). This programming makes sense as the GT4 has higher HP, higher redline and a wider torque band than the GTS 4.0. This makes me curious to see what programming the PDK found in the GT4 RS has...

 

[Johnson]

Does anyone have access to the torque curves for both engines? I’m guessing the peak torque for the i4 comes on later, so my driving is more suited to the v6 (I don’t drive anywhere near the redline in normal conditions). But I’d love to compare…

 

[ADC]

I'm holding out hope (pointless, futile, don't-be-ridiculous hope) that this is similar to the "gentleman's agreement" in Japan that 276hp be the maximum from the factory... "yes, of course we detuned it to 360hp so it wouldn't embarrass the V6" *wink wink, nudge nudge*

 

[Leonard]

I'm holding out hope (pointless, futile, don't-be-ridiculous hope) that this is similar to the "gentleman's agreement" in Japan that 276hp be the maximum from the factory... "yes, of course we detuned it to 360hp so it wouldn't embarrass the V6" *wink wink, nudge nudge*

I hope so for you. Also hope the V6 is 416bhp

 

[VL3X]

Does anyone have access to the torque curves for both engines? I’m guessing the peak torque for the i4 comes on later, so my driving is more suited to the v6 (I don’t drive anywhere near the redline in normal conditions). But I’d love to compare…

I've googled "evora gt dyno chart" in the past, but didn't get many results. These aren't exactly tuner cars, so there's limited data out there. The ones I did find had very linear power bands.. as with most superchargers.. and agreed with my butt dyno! The Evora GTs don't really feel fast to me since I'm used to turbo cars with heavy hitting torque curves, but the Evora is "deceptively quick" IMO. It's very smooth and you'll be at 100mph before realizing it.

 

[VL3X]

Found this on Lotus Talk... are the V6s really making just 320-360whp?! I figured there'd be minimal drivetrain loss with the mid-engine layout... this is.. disappointing and explains why my GTI felt quicker.

Here is a dyno comparing stock to 435 komo-tec tune

 

[ADC]

I dunno if I'd read too much into dyno runs that aren't on the same dnyo...

 

[Porter]

Looks like the i4 has +10tq and and a tenth of a second quicker to 60mph.

Makes sense. The gearing is likely the reason. DCT will have more gears, spaced more closely, and shorter overall gearing than the super long gearset on the 6-speed manual.

If the V6 simply had a shorter final drive in the diff it would make the car quicker in a pretty significant way, while also reducing mechanical torque slightly on the gearset. If I ever need a clutch replacement at some point in the far future, I may dive into it with a specialist.

 

[Johnson]

I found this torque curve from a presentation Mercedes did to dealers/journos when the M139 was released. As expected, torque arrives a bit later than the v6... but still bloody impressive for a turbo. These figures have obviously been improved on since the original launch:

https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/mercedes-amg-m139-more-power-less-lag-118926/

 

[Balboa]

So what do you think? Is this proce in line w expectations or have they jacked it higher than expected? Still holdong my breath to see ihiw much over $100K my 2023 Base V6 will sticker out when configured close.to an FEV6

 

[Porter]

Found this on Lotus Talk... are the V6s really making just 320-360whp?! I figured there'd be minimal drivetrain loss with the mid-engine layout... this is.. disappointing and explains why my GTI felt quicker.

No, the difference you feel is due to the difference in the shape of the torque curve. A GTI ramps torque very quickly as the small turbo spools at low RPM and peaks early. It feels very "lively" and has strong accelerative responses to throttle inputs.

A supercharged motor adds boost in a relatively linear fashion with RPM, it doesn't increase boost with load like a turbo engine. So it keeps a very similar torque profile to a naturally aspirated motor... that is, relatively flat, or ramping at a very controlled rate.

The difference in feel between the two acceleration profiles is due to the fact that the human body perceives the rate of accelerative change at an order of magnitude greater than it does steady acceleration, even if the forces involved are similar. So you can have a measurably slower car that "feels fast" and a measurably faster car that "feels flat". The latter will be more controllable, consistent, and performant in scenarios exploring the limit of handling, whether on track or on a winding road.

We dealt with this a lot in the early days of broad aftermarket engine management tuning availability and dyno tuning services, in the early 2000s. Some customers wanted the car to feel fast (by the seat of the pants), others wanted the car to go faster (by the lap timer)... and yet others wanted to "make a number" on the dyno. The third category was primarily interested in cars because of their ego, rather than an actual love of driving. They're the primary reason that I left the industry.

 

[VL3X]

No, the difference you feel is due to the difference in the shape of the torque curve. A GTI ramps torque very quickly as the small turbo spools at low RPM and peaks early. It feels very "lively" and has strong accelerative responses to throttle inputs.

A supercharged motor adds boost in a relatively linear fashion with RPM, it doesn't increase boost with load like a turbo engine. So it keeps a very similar torque profile to a naturally aspirated motor... that is, relatively flat, or ramping at a very controlled rate.

The difference in feel between the two acceleration profiles is due to the fact that the human body perceives the rate of accelerative change at an order of magnitude greater than it does steady acceleration, even if the forces involved are similar. So you can have a measurably slower car that "feels fast" and a measurably faster car that "feels flat". The latter will be more controllable, consistent, and performant in scenarios exploring the limit of handling, whether on track or on a winding road.

We dealt with this a lot in the early days of broad aftermarket engine management tuning availability and dyno tuning services, in the early 2000s. Some customers wanted the car to feel fast (by the seat of the pants), others wanted the car to go faster (by the lap timer)... and yet others wanted to "make a number" on the dyno. The third category was primarily interested in cars because of their ego, rather than an actual love of driving. They're the primary reason that I left the industry.

Makes sense.. though I'm sure the GTI being ~300lbs lighter helped the feel too. Also didn't help that the Evora I drove was on a public street and I only really got to open it up when accelerating onto a highway on-ramp.

Here's a dyno of my GTI's modest stage 1+ tune. It certainly does show a greater torque curve early on when compared to the above Evora charts, but then it beings to taper off slowly, where the supercharged 2GR holds the torque throughout.

 

[Balboa]

No, the difference you feel is due to the difference in the shape of the torque curve. A GTI ramps torque very quickly as the small turbo spools at low RPM and peaks early. It feels very "lively" and has strong accelerative responses to throttle inputs.

A supercharged motor adds boost in a relatively linear fashion with RPM, it doesn't increase boost with load like a turbo engine. So it keeps a very similar torque profile to a naturally aspirated motor... that is, relatively flat, or ramping at a very controlled rate.

The difference in feel between the two acceleration profiles is due to the fact that the human body perceives the rate of accelerative change at an order of magnitude greater than it does steady acceleration, even if the forces involved are similar. So you can have a measurably slower car that "feels fast" and a measurably faster car that "feels flat". The latter will be more controllable, consistent, and performant in scenarios exploring the limit of handling, whether on track or on a winding road.

We dealt with this a lot in the early days of broad aftermarket engine management tuning availability and dyno tuning services, in the early 2000s. Some customers wanted the car to feel fast (by the seat of the pants), others wanted the car to go faster (by the lap timer)... and yet others wanted to "make a number" on the dyno. The third category was primarily interested in cars because of their ego, rather than an actual love of driving. They're the primary reason that I left the industry.

This argument makes perfect sense - yes turbos feel livlier than superchsrged once spooled up. But they omit one crucial characteristics of turbos - LAG

 

[Porter]

This argument makes perfect sense - yes turbos feel livlier than superchsrged once spooled up. But they omit one crucial characteristics of turbos - LAG

To be fair, modern engines with small turbochargers (or twin-scroll, or other clever workaround) don't have very much lag. Particularly if the engine has enough displacement to really drive a turbine housing well from relatively low RPM. The days of a 1 second wait for the engine to "wake up" when the accelerator is pressed are thankfully over.

BUT... turbochargers work within a specific volumetric range for their size and design, and every turbo has a set of engineering limits before they start adding more heat to the air than increase in pressure (adiabatic efficiency). That puts limits on how much power an engine can make while still keeping the throttle response relatively lag-free. It's very, very difficult to make big power from a small engine with minimal lag. Or they can do it for very short periods but then the heat starts to ramp and the tuning pulls things back. Everything is a compromise. But hey, as engineering has incrementally improved over the last 20 years those limits keep increasing, and the compromises become smaller. It's been fascinating to watch.

Still, naturally aspirated engines and supercharged engines do have significantly faster return to specific output on throttle-off/throttle-on transitions, and are more consistent in their outputs compared to throttle inputs generally. Turbocharged engines tend to be more inconsistent in output in response to complex dynamic inputs, though advanced engine management strategies are improving this.

 

[Balboa]

To be fair, modern engines with small turbochargers (or twin-scroll, or other clever workaround) don't have very much lag. Particularly if the engine has enough displacement to really drive a turbine housing well from relatively low RPM. The days of a 1 second wait for the engine to "wake up" when the accelerator is pressed are thankfully over.

BUT... turbochargers work within a specific volumetric range for their size and design, and every turbo has a set of engineering limits before they start adding more heat to the air than increase in pressure (adiabatic efficiency). That puts limits on how much power an engine can make while still keeping the throttle response relatively lag-free. It's very, very difficult to make big power from a small engine with minimal lag. Or they can do it for very short periods but then the heat starts to ramp and the tuning pulls things back. Everything is a compromise. But hey, as engineering has incrementally improved over the last 20 years those limits keep increasing, and the compromises become smaller. It's been fascinating to watch.

Still, naturally aspirated engines and supercharged engines do have significantly faster return to specific output on throttle-off/throttle-on transitions, and are more consistent in their outputs compared to throttle inputs generally. Turbocharged engines tend to be more inconsistent in output in response to complex dynamic inputs, though advanced engine management strategies are improving this.

Inconsistent- you nailed it. I had a twinscroll RX-7 in 1993 that was sublime. My wife's 2015 RR Evoque Turbo i4 has atrocious lag. When you step in it you never really know what's going to happen.

 

[forest]

I found engine performance curves for AMG A45S (421PS) and EXIGE 350 (stock and computer tuned).
For reference.

 

[ksegg]

I just want base spec and individual package pricing.

That's what I've been waiting for too. Which is going to be a WHILE since BE for U.S. isn't even available until 2023.