[maranello71]

A Maserati engineer admitted to me that the Granturismo S "could take a lot more power but we weren't allowed". Dimex in Germany has for some time been offering a very expensive upgrade of the 4.2 to 4.7, with a staggering 520 HP.

How about an electronic tweak to release the hidden horsepower on the GT-S? Since the engine ALREADY is a 4.7, 500/520 HP should not be impossible at relatively little cost. Then this car would seriously kick a lot of (AMG and Porsche) @ss.

Formuladynamics, any plans?

 

[M!]

A Maserati engineer admitted to me that the Granturismo S "could take a lot more power but we weren't allowed". Dimex in Germany has for some time been offering a very expensive upgrade of the 4.2 to 4.7, with a staggering 520 HP.

How about an electronic tweak to release the hidden horsepower on the GT-S? Since the engine ALREADY is a 4.7, 500/520 HP should not be impossible at relatively little cost. Then this car would seriously kick a lot of (AMG and Porsche) @ss.

Formuladynamics, any plans?

maserati rated the GT-S' 4.7L V8 at 440bhp. (vs 8C at 450bhp)
500/520 hp is 60/80 hp more... that's 14%/18% more power you are asking the chip to do.

i wonder how much of an electronic tweak alone can bump the hp in this engine.

 

[BigFoot]

The GranTurismo S that Maserati is working on for the FIA GT4 series will have about 450hp, so not a big power hike.

 

[johnei]

The GranTurismo S that Maserati is working on for the FIA GT4 series will have about 450hp, so not a big power hike.

Yes but I think that would have to be working within the regulations. I suspect the engine is capable of a lot more, but it may require more than changing the engine management.

 

[FormulaDynamics]

We certainly believe there is more in that 4.7L engine. We've benched out several upgrades for the GT-S.

Any GT-S owners able to get a car out this way? Please contact us, we'll take good care of you and your Maserati.

Best Regards,
-- Jeff

 

[GrndLkNatv]

Yes but I think that would have to be working within the regulations. I suspect the engine is capable of a lot more, but it may require more than changing the engine management.

Well let's think about it a little bit. Ferrari get's 503 bhp out of the 4.2 liter engine in the 430 Scud which is 119.76 horsepower per liter. So the 4.7 liter engine is the same block, just larger bore and different stroke and no direct injection, etc. So with some tweaks, 562 bph should be possible.. Now if Ferrari would just come out with an 8 liter V12!!!!

The FXX Evo is 860bph in 6.2 liters or 138bph per liter and the F60 2.4 liter F1 engine is 375bhp per liter.

 

[johnei]

Well let's think about it a little bit. Ferrari get's 503 bhp out of the 4.2 liter engine in the 430 Scud which is 119.76 horsepower per liter. So the 4.7 liter engine is the same block, just larger bore and different stroke and no direct injection, etc. So with some tweaks, 562 bph should be possible.. Now if Ferrari would just come out with an 8 liter V12!!!!

The FXX Evo is 860bph in 6.2 liters or 138bph per liter and the F60 2.4 liter F1 engine is 375bhp per liter.

I'm not saying it is impossible. Just that it may require a lot of work. I think we've already established on here that the Ferrari is using a flat plane crank and the Maserati (and Alfa) is using a cross plane. Changing that would fall into the major changes category for me.

 

[maranello71]

maserati rated the GT-S' 4.7L V8 at 440bhp. (vs 8C at 450bhp)
500/520 hp is 60/80 hp more... that's 14%/18% more power you are asking the chip to do.

i wonder how much of an electronic tweak alone can bump the hp in this engine.

Consider this:

1) Maserati insiders admit that the engine is "artificially restricted" - i.e. the full-load fuelling curve in the SW is significantly lower than it could theoretically be, within the safety limits for the engine (temperatures, pressures).

2) Even the official 440 HP seem to be questionable - it is likely the cars come out with much more. A press car tested in Italy was clocked at 4.5s to 62mph, 9.8s to 100mph, and did the quarter mile in 12.8s. Considering that it weighs 2 tons, I calculated it would need close to 500 HP to achieve these numbers.

Conclusion: I'm confident that by SW alone we could easily find 50HP. After all, the SW modifications on the Gransport 4.2 are good for up to 30HP. I have no doubt that on the bigger engine we could extract more.

 

[M!]

Consider this:

1) Maserati insiders admit that the engine is "artificially restricted" - i.e. the full-load fuelling curve in the SW is significantly lower than it could theoretically be, within the safety limits for the engine (temperatures, pressures).

2) Even the official 440 HP seem to be questionable - it is likely the cars come out with much more. A press car tested in Italy was clocked at 4.5s to 62mph, 9.8s to 100mph, and did the quarter mile in 12.8s. Considering that it weighs 2 tons, I calculated it would need close to 500 HP to achieve these numbers.

Conclusion: I'm confident that by SW alone we could easily find 50HP. After all, the SW modifications on the Gransport 4.2 are good for up to 30HP. I have no doubt that on the bigger engine we could extract more.

i m not very confident that you can extract 50hp on software alone on an NA engine.
do you have any example of any tuner doing software only and getting 11% extra hp?

 

[M!]

and BTW how do you calculate the HP from those numbers?

 

[flashgordon]

i m not very confident that you can extract 50hp on software alone on an NA engine.
do you have any example of any tuner doing software only and getting 11% extra hp?

Maserati engines are essentially Ferrari engines that are de-tuned on an incremental basis (e.g. a little bit here and there) and hence have to be built back up the same way. An ECU mod will give 20HP, exhaust mods another 25 HP, a high flow intake another 5HP, pulleys another 15 HP, etc., etc.

These engines can crank out some serious HP in an additive way without a lot of effort but it takes some thinking to optimize modification results. I would suggest Formula Dynamic as your first stop.

 

[M!]

Maserati engines are essentially Ferrari engines that are de-tuned on an incremental basis (e.g. a little bit here and there) and hence have to be built back up the same way. An ECU mod will give 20HP, exhaust mods another 25 HP, a high flow intake another 5HP, pulleys another 15 HP, etc., etc.

These engines can crank out some serious HP in an additive way without a lot of effort but it takes some thinking to optimize modification results. I would suggest Formula Dynamic as your first stop.

he says SW alone. that's only 20hp. not 50hp.

perhaps he is basing that other 30hp on maserati underrating this engine.

 

[Tezta]

DMS has an ECU program for the GT-S and it increased hp by around 35.

 

[M!]

good. so it cannot be 50hp if these guys are already selling the tuning.

 

[Maserati Blue]

Politics within Fiat Group don't allow the Maserati to become a direct competitor to Ferrari, thus the cars have to be within specific limits. Story goes that management decided that Ferrari will be more "sporting" while Maserati will be more "touring", with the exception of the MC12 and newer Birdcage (which are not mainstream cars anyway, but more like showoffs).

I personally wouldn't touch my engine and loose its reliability. If i wanted a faster car, then i'd buy a faster car

I do like mods like the DBW by FD, which improves the car and has no side effects or reliability issues whatsoever.

 

[maranello71]

he says SW alone. that's only 20hp. not 50hp.

perhaps he is basing that other 30hp on maserati underrating this engine.

That's exactly what I am saying. Believe me I know exactly what I am talking about. The "full load curve" in an engine software is a set of data that matches engine speeds (from idle to 7500 rpm in this case) to maximum fuelling quantities allowed at each speed.

And the maximum fuelling for each engine speed can be determined as follows:

a) by temperature limitations either in the cylinder heads or in the exhaust
b) by pressure limitations
c) by a completely arbitrary choice by the manufacturer to limit power output to a predetermined value for commercial reasons

I believe that for the GT-S we are talking about case (c) above. It is nothing new. BMW has done it for years. Its 2.8 and later 3.0 liter aspirated engines regularly receive power hikes with every model year. Do you think they are redesigning expensive mechanical components or finding innovative new technologies every year? No way! The engines are designed from the beginning with a maximum target in sight. Then for commercial reasons you release a power hike every year just by flashing a new sw on the ECU, and let the public go "ooh" and "aah" at the auto shows.

For the GT-S, it is all about finding where the physical limits defined by conditions (a) and (b) are. And I am sure they are very, very far from the totally arbitrary 440 HP that we see today.

 

[michaeladler]

You sure sound like you know engines, very interesting comments you made. I do know this-if I was launching the Gran Turismo in 2008 like Maserati did, i would make sure it could do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. It would then beat the Aston Martin V-8 Vantage and I bet they would have sold a lot more of them than they have! I almost did not buy one because it's publised 0-60 is 5.1!

 

[GrndLkNatv]

The optimum amount is 14.7 parts air to one part fuel at all rpm ranges however if I remember correctly Jeff says the Maserati is set up in stock format to be run on the lean side at low rpm, thus reducing the low end torque and hp, and then comes into it's own at higher rpm. I also remember him saying his chips run the optimum down in the low rpm and then provide the correct mixture and timing for a real rush at 4k and above and sure enough his ECU does that. Jeff also gave me a high altitude agressive 93 octane option and in that mode with the DBW my Maserati has more low end grunt than my 68 Camaro SS 327.

That's exactly what I am saying. Believe me I know exactly what I am talking about. The "full load curve" in an engine software is a set of data that matches engine speeds (from idle to 7500 rpm in this case) to maximum fuelling quantities allowed at each speed.

And the maximum fuelling for each engine speed can be determined as follows:

a) by temperature limitations either in the cylinder heads or in the exhaust
b) by pressure limitations
c) by a completely arbitrary choice by the manufacturer to limit power output to a predetermined value for commercial reasons

I believe that for the GT-S we are talking about case (c) above. It is nothing new. BMW has done it for years. Its 2.8 and later 3.0 liter aspirated engines regularly receive power hikes with every model year. Do you think they are redesigning expensive mechanical components or finding innovative new technologies every year? No way! The engines are designed from the beginning with a maximum target in sight. Then for commercial reasons you release a power hike every year just by flashing a new sw on the ECU, and let the public go "ooh" and "aah" at the auto shows.

For the GT-S, it is all about finding where the physical limits defined by conditions (a) and (b) are. And I am sure they are very, very far from the totally arbitrary 440 HP that we see today.

 

[sjn2004]

i m not very confident that you can extract 50hp on software alone on an NA engine.
do you have any example of any tuner doing software only and getting 11% extra hp?

I think what he is saying is that the engine is being held back electronically to make sure it leaves a gap between Maserati and Ferrari. A few years back it was reported that the 3200 was electronically detuned to make sure it didn't produce more power than the 360.

The suggestion is, if you can remove this detuning software, the engine can perform to the best of its ability.

 

[maranello71]

I think what he is saying is that the engine is being held back electronically to make sure it leaves a gap between Maserati and Ferrari. A few years back it was reported that the 3200 was electronically detuned to make sure it didn't produce more power than the 360.

The suggestion is, if you can remove this detuning software, the engine can perform to the best of its ability.

That's what I mean.

About the previous post: 14.7 is the stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. It is not true that this is the "ideal" ratio. Sure, it is ideal for emissions, since the 3-way cats cannot cope with a ratio that strays too far from 14.7 (hence the O2 sensor that provide a feedback loop to keep the engine from running too rich, and as a consequence limit the amount of power). Full load operation is outside the "emissions control zone" in most countries (I believe also in the USA), as both the ECE and US light duty transient cycles used for emissions calibration are at very light load. So there is scope to go a bit richer where the emissions are not regulated, and gain a little more power as the excess fuel also helps to cool down the cylinder heads.

I believe that even without disabling the feedback loop of the O2 sensors (which would require complex SW reprogramming) it would be possible to increase the fuelling curve of the 4.7 to reach full-load figures close to 500 HP. Add a set of low resistance air filters, a fuel cooling system and low restriction catalysts, and I am sure that we would go beyond 500 HP without having touched the engine mechanically.

There are limits, of course: it could be that the camshafts have profiles that do not allow an aggressive gas exchange at high rpm, thus limiting the amount of air that you can get into the cylinders - and hence limiting the max theoretical power (fuel needs air to burn...). It wouldn't be too difficult to redesign the cams but it would require a lot of experimental work and an instrumented engine to assess what the temperature/pressure limits are.

In conclusion, I think that without opening the engine you could probably achieve 500 HP within the safe temperature/pressure limits that the engine can take without compromising reliability. And because the engine is so big, you won't need to increase the red line either - 7500 rpm on a 4.7 litre is plenty enough to pump a lot of air into the cylinders!

As a second stage, one may contemplate playing with more aggressive cam profiles and maybe push the rev limit a few hundred rpm higher - although this would cost more and would inevitably result in a peakier engine, with less torque at low rpm.