Sport Auto - Interview with Nitschke about the future of M, a M supercar, AWD, Hybrid

[X3paul]

Originally Posted by N & M

A season does not make an entire record. I believe the brand powers that be have relized that something went wrong in the pursuit of ultimate segment supremacy and now they are seeking to recapture thier lost mojo.

The only obstacle in my opinion is economics as they have been investing in different directions and now have to somehow find the resources.

Not only i think you are wrong on saying the "powers" are seeking to correct mistakes of the past I know for a fact that they are going in audis direction. Ever since the bmw board noticed that audi sold almost as many cars as they did with half of the investment audi puts into dynamics, they went that way. why do u think the current 5er is a worse car dynamic wise than the E60? and the trend continous...previous x3 vs current...x5, z4 etc. Just the fwd issue in the 1ser x1 and trust me in a few gen even the 3er will be fwd. why do you think one of the reasons for the 4ser 2 ser name is? marketing and in the longterm future fwd/rwd models. We here at this forum are a minority. do you think a brand that sells almost 2m cars a year cars cares about what 50000 customers think?? cmon lets get real. M cars I8's these are all for branding, name, perception. The bread and butter doesnt care about 0-60 redlines at 8000rpm, 50:50 etc. bmw is making a loss fir every i8 i3 it builds but the marketing...the brand image thats worth milliions. however having said all that i do believe that tge simple fact is this: bmw can not compete with the gigantic VW group. so they no alternative than to dumb down its products.

[N & M]

Originally Posted by Levi

Off-topic: In the interview he confirmed the study and development of V6 for M3/M4.





Brand? Brands are totally irrelevant for me. A good car is a good car whatever its brand. Honda S2000 over BMW Z4 sDrive20i. See what I mean?

What do you mean by magic? For me S2000 and NSX were "magic". Despite many years of absence, why cannot that "magic" return.

Read my post and you will find that I agree that Honda can build a great car, but it does not have the refinement and polish that makes it special in the way that BMW does. Sorry, that is what the world perceives and values in a brand.

[N & M]

Originally Posted by X3paul

Not only i think you are wrong on saying the "powers" are seeking to correct mistakes of the past I know for a fact that they are going in audis direction. Ever since the bmw board noticed that audi sold almost as many cars as they did with half of the investment audi puts into dynamics, they went that way. why do u think the current 5er is a worse car dynamic wise than the E60? and the trend continous...previous x3 vs current...x5, z4 etc. Just the fwd issue in the 1ser x1 and trust me in a few gen even the 3er will be fwd. why do you think one of the reasons for the 4ser 2 ser name is? marketing and in the longterm future fwd/rwd models. We here at this forum are a minority. do you think a brand that sells almost 2m cars a year cars cares about what 50000 customers think?? cmon lets get real. M cars I8's these are all for branding, name, perception. The bread and butter doesnt care about 0-60 redlines at 8000rpm, 50:50 etc. bmw is making a loss fir every i8 i3 it builds but the marketing...the brand image thats worth milliions. however having said all that i do believe that tge simple fact is this: bmw can not compete with the gigantic VW group. so they no alternative than to dumb down its products.

Sorry but the 5 is still dynamically a benchmark. My view again as in my previous post is that they are now reliving that dynamically they need more focus in thier cars and are investing in that direction.

[X3paul]

Originally Posted by N & M

Sorry but the 5 is still dynamically a benchmark. My view again as in my previous post is that they are now reliving that dynamically they need more focus in thier cars and are investing in that direction.

what investment r you talking abou? the fwd platform? the 1.5 l 3cyl? and the only reason for cfr is for fuel cons targets not lower center of gravity and better chassis. And sorry but the E60 might not be a better car, but its a better drivers car. And so is the 1st gen x3 vs current and so is the z4 etc etc.

[N & M]

Originally Posted by X3paul

what investment r you talking abou? the fwd platform? the 1.5 l 3cyl? and the only reason for cfr is for fuel cons targets not lower center of gravity and better chassis. And sorry but the E60 might not be a better car, but its a better drivers car. And so is the 1st gen x3 vs current and so is the z4 etc etc.

FWD is key to creating synergies with Mini. It might not be BMW stardust but if you are seeking to stand toe to toe with VAG group and be a big enough player to make money and pay for the nice cars you want, you need it.

The 1.5 engine is key to this downsizing trend to ensure that we have a sustainable environment and part of modular engine range that moves up to the 3.0 six which is an amazing power plant. Again it is part of the economies of scale thing which gives us the nicer indulgences we needs at the performance end of the range. By the way that engine in the i8 is amazing and statement of engineering.

I loved the E60 and think the current car is better in every way bar the weight it is has put on which again is going to be addressed in the next generation model when CRFP is hopefully added. By the way compared to its competition excluding the Jaguar XF the 5 is simularly heavy.

[Roundown]

Originally Posted by IB M

NA motors dead at BMW perhaps but not at other brands. NA motors will become more exotic and rare. S54 and S65 will become more desired and fondly remembered among M enthusiasts. Newer Turbo and SC cars will be fastest and win lap time bragging rights.

After- I just can't stomach HPDE'ing a BMW with a turbo engine when I can buy a Porsche that's NA.

I don't car about 0-60, I car about delivery and response.

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by X3paul

Not only i think you are wrong on saying the "powers" are seeking to correct mistakes of the past I know for a fact that they are going in audis direction. Ever since the bmw board noticed that audi sold almost as many cars as they did with half of the investment audi puts into dynamics, they went that way. why do u think the current 5er is a worse car dynamic wise than the E60? and the trend continous...previous x3 vs current...x5, z4 etc. Just the fwd issue in the 1ser x1 and trust me in a few gen even the 3er will be fwd. why do you think one of the reasons for the 4ser 2 ser name is? marketing and in the longterm future fwd/rwd models. We here at this forum are a minority. do you think a brand that sells almost 2m cars a year cars cares about what 50000 customers think?? cmon lets get real. M cars I8's these are all for branding, name, perception. The bread and butter doesnt care about 0-60 redlines at 8000rpm, 50:50 etc. bmw is making a loss fir every i8 i3 it builds but the marketing...the brand image thats worth milliions. however having said all that i do believe that tge simple fact is this: bmw can not compete with the gigantic VW group. so they no alternative than to dumb down its products.

Both the i3 and i8 are profitable to the company.
The i3 in particular as it is now BMW are gathering huge fleet and government contracts for i3s. As they are for the new 2er Active Tourer.

Because BMW and SGL are selling CFRP to other industries for other applications.
The initial investment is being re-cooperated also.
Its the envy of the industry, by investing and building your own Carbon fibre you cut out supplier cost which is why BMW can equip models like the M3 with a CFRP roof panel within the price but Mercedes cannot.

One example is the Mercedes SLS final Edition. The price over the standard SLS is for the Carbon bonnet.

[RPiM5]

Originally Posted by Hoopumpers

Almost had another V10 M5

I know man. I know. But, although the naturally aspirated engine may be dead, this doesn't mean that ///M can come up with more exciting turbo engines. Imagine if we had a Twin Turbo V8 engine in the M5/M6 that revs up to 8,500rpm like the McLaren 12C does? Also, it is possible for ///M to design and build an all new V10 engine, like Scott26 had alluded to, but it'll be Twin Turbo. I'd take a Twin Turbo V10 engine over a Naturally Aspirated V10 engine any day of the week. However, the direction that Nitschke is talking about leads me to believe that even ///M will continue down the path of smaller and lower displacement turbo engines that will be more fuel and emissions efficient but deliver more performance. Maybe a 3cyl 1.5L Twin Turbo engine that makes 450hp one day and gets 60mpg? The future is still unwritten.

There is also the rumored higher performance version of the i8 to be due out in the near future, with a rumored minimum 500hp from a hybrid drive train setup. That would be very cool.

However, with all of that said, specifically with regards to the BMW M5, if BMW ///M decides to put any kind of 6 cylinder engine in the future M5/M6, I'm out. I don't care if it will be Twin Turbo or Quad Turbo, or have a hybrid drive train. I know the M5 originally began with a 6cyl engine, but I think it'll be losing too much character if they put one back in, because I know it will be muted. The only 6cyl Twin Turbo engine I've ever heard that sounded exceptional with some aftermarket work, is the Nissan GTR. Not even the new 6cyl Turbo Formula 1 engines sound as good as some production car turbo engines today. Namely the S63tu engine or the McLaren 12C engine.

[RPiM5]

Originally Posted by cSurf

After- I just can't stomach HPDE'ing a BMW with a turbo engine when I can buy a Porsche that's NA.

I don't car about 0-60, I car about delivery and response.

Even Porsche is dropping it's lower level NA engines and trading them for more torque Turbo engines. The GT3 may be the last NA engine that Porsche makes in the far future.

[Roundown]

Originally Posted by RPiM5

Even Porsche is dropping it's lower level NA engines and trading them for more torque Turbo engines. The GT3 may be the last NA engine that Porsche makes in the far future.

That suits Porsche- they want their customers buying 911s.

On an air strip or on the street- turbo engines are rewarding. For driving these cars at the limit, these power plants are a necessary compromise (vs. where development would otherwise trend if uninhibited).

I posted the following in a thread on a similar topic- stills sums up my feelings pretty well.

"I've owned two N54s an N55 an S65 and frequently HPDE with my father-in-law in his 981 S. IMHO, the N5x engines aren't that useful on a track (the brilliance of the 1M's chassis- over a standard 1-er notwithstanding).

Turbo lag that's nearly imperceptible on the street becomes much more apparent when you're on/off throttle quickly or attempting to make small adjustments mid corner. Moreover, a difficult to modulate wall of torque isn't ideal (on most tracks) in a chassis prone to snap oversteer. Pretensioning in the S55 helps this- so I've heard- but at great expense/complexity. At the moment, turbo charging, for a track car, is (to me) too much of a compromise.

If you haven't driven an NA car with a linear power band (peak power at/near redline) on a track, you should. It's a totally different experience. All the complaints about a lack of torque- often from those who have driven an S65 (or similar) on the street- melt away when you can keep that engine (or similar) in the ballistic zone above 7K RPM.

Around town/on the highway, I'd take the N5x. On a track, or if I could only have one car (having driven both) its a NA. But that's just my opinion. "

[davesaddiction]

Originally Posted by modkrazy

Translation: we did it because we had to, not because we wanted to. I'll stick to my "true exotic".

Exactly.

[clar]

Completely agree! NA offers such pin sharp modulation on the track it's night and day when compared to turbo engined cars. In my recent track outing at Sepang with my Speciale, the flexibility I had with the throttle allowed me such great control of the car's balance it might as well be bolted to my spinal cord. The M4 drivers were complaining of some turbo lag, but apart from that, the cars were good on the track.

Originally Posted by cSurf

That suits Porsche- they want their customers buying 911s.

On an air strip or on the street- turbo engines are rewarding. For driving these cars at the limit, these power plants are a necessary compromise (vs. where development would otherwise trend if uninhibited).

I posted the following in a thread on a similar topic- stills sums up my feelings pretty well.

"I've owned two N54s an N55 an S65 and frequently HPDE with my father-in-law in his 981 S. IMHO, the N5x engines aren't that useful on a track (the brilliance of the 1M's chassis- over a standard 1-er notwithstanding).

Turbo lag that's nearly imperceptible on the street becomes much more apparent when you're on/off throttle quickly or attempting to make small adjustments mid corner. Moreover, a difficult to modulate wall of torque isn't ideal (on most tracks) in a chassis prone to snap oversteer. Pretensioning in the S55 helps this- so I've heard- but at great expense/complexity. At the moment, turbo charging, for a track car, is (to me) too much of a compromise.

If you haven't driven an NA car with a linear power band (peak power at/near redline) on a track, you should. It's a totally different experience. All the complaints about a lack of torque- often from those who have driven an S65 (or similar) on the street- melt away when you can keep that engine (or similar) in the ballistic zone above 7K RPM.

Around town/on the highway, I'd take the N5x. On a track, or if I could only have one car (having driven both) its a NA. But that's just my opinion. "

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by cSurf

That suits Porsche- they want their customers buying 911s.

On an air strip or on the street- turbo engines are rewarding. For driving these cars at the limit, these power plants are a necessary compromise (vs. where development would otherwise trend if uninhibited).

I posted the following in a thread on a similar topic- stills sums up my feelings pretty well.

"I've owned two N54s an N55 an S65 and frequently HPDE with my father-in-law in his 981 S. IMHO, the N5x engines aren't that useful on a track (the brilliance of the 1M's chassis- over a standard 1-er notwithstanding).

Turbo lag that's nearly imperceptible on the street becomes much more apparent when you're on/off throttle quickly or attempting to make small adjustments mid corner. Moreover, a difficult to modulate wall of torque isn't ideal (on most tracks) in a chassis prone to snap oversteer. Pretensioning in the S55 helps this- so I've heard- but at great expense/complexity. At the moment, turbo charging, for a track car, is (to me) too much of a compromise.

If you haven't driven an NA car with a linear power band (peak power at/near redline) on a track, you should. It's a totally different experience. All the complaints about a lack of torque- often from those who have driven an S65 (or similar) on the street- melt away when you can keep that engine (or similar) in the ballistic zone above 7K RPM.

Around town/on the highway, I'd take the N5x. On a track, or if I could only have one car (having driven both) its a NA. But that's just my opinion. "

Porsche might very well want their customers to buy 911's, but the NA versions will disappear in the near future (which is what RPiM5 alluded to). So, no you can't buy a NA Porsche 911 pretty soon. Rumoured to start with the 2015 facelift (apart from the GT3 most likely).

And, yes there is nothing like the response and character of a NA engine But to compare a N5x engine with a S65 or S55 is not really apples to apples...

Porsche 911 turbo rumours/reports:

http://jalopnik.com/all-porsche-911s...-ma-1647591298
http://www.insidercarnews.com/the-po...turbo-in-2015/
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/10/19/p...-range-report/

[RPiM5]

Originally Posted by clar

Completely agree! NA offers such pin sharp modulation on the track it's night and day when compared to turbo engined cars. In my recent track outing at Sepang with my Speciale, the flexibility I had with the throttle allowed me such great control of the car's balance it might as well be bolted to my spinal cord. The M4 drivers were complaining of some turbo lag, but apart from that, the cars were good on the track.

I also completely agree. However, I will say this. Modified cars are a different story. There isn't a hint of turbo lag on my straightpiped F10 M5. It literally feels like a naturally aspirated engine. I've driven it on the track and it felt every bit as responsive as my old NA V10 E60 M5. But, being above 7,000rpm on the track and you still have another 1,000 to 2,000rpm to use is an experience in itself.

[X3paul]

Originally Posted by cSurf

After- I just can't stomach HPDE'ing a BMW with a turbo engine when I can buy a Porsche that's NA.

I don't car about 0-60, I car about delivery and response.

+1 . i think the only new car for me in the near future might be a cayman gts. I just havnt had the time to drive one yet. I was considering an i8 but the cheap interior and in some ways the "flashiness" of the car made me think about the cayman + I3 (i love it btw) for the price of an i8 will be happening in 2015

[N & M]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

Both the i3 and i8 are profitable to the company.
The i3 in particular as it is now BMW are gathering huge fleet and government contracts for i3s. As they are for the new 2er Active Tourer.

Because BMW and SGL are selling CFRP to other industries for other applications.
The initial investment is being re-cooperated also.
Its the envy of the industry, by investing and building your own Carbon fibre you cut out supplier cost which is why BMW can equip models like the M3 with a CFRP roof panel within the price but Mercedes cannot.

One example is the Mercedes SLS final Edition. The price over the standard SLS is for the Carbon bonnet.

Thank you Scott26; Game, set and match.

[RPiM5]

Originally Posted by X3paul

+1 . i think the only new car for me in the near future might be a cayman gts. I just havnt had the time to drive one yet. I was considering an i8 but the cheap interior and in some ways the "flashiness" of the car made me think about the cayman + I3 (i love it btw) for the price of an i8 will be happening in 2015

That would be an excellent combo. Cayman GTS track days/fun + BMW i3 for daily driving. I would be a little nervous driving an i8 everyday worrying about rockchips, bad drivers, and acts of God.

[elusivegene]

Does he mean X1M is excluded...

[Twitch Massacre]

Originally Posted by Inge_F

Next gen. 458 will be a turbo. Ferrari must have turned sad then... Or they have just realized that they also must comply with EUs emission regulations, Regulations that's being completely ignored by most contributors to this discussion it seems... Or all discussions related to NA vs FI-engines for that matter, at least on this forum that is.

I've heard the rumors countless times but to be honest most of it is speculation so far. Don't get me wrong, I fully expect this to happen, but regardless it does not mean it is the right move or for the betterment of the vehicle for that matter. As you yourself stated, it is one forced by regulations. The fact remains that Lamborghini made an unbelievably good car in the Huracan without having to bow to regulation, using a great naturally aspirated engines and resulting in one of the fastest cars I've ever experienced personally. A question I get asked all the time is do I prefer my new F13 M6 over my old E63 M6 and the answer I always give is yes, but no, the F13 is the better and faster car in all aspects, except the experience of actually driving it fast, and that's because of the responsiveness and sound of the old V10 vs the new TT V8. Change isn't always for the better.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Twitch Massacre

I've heard the rumors countless times but to be honest most of it is speculation so far. Don't get me wrong, I fully expect this to happen, but regardless it does not mean it is the right move or for the betterment of the vehicle for that matter. As you yourself stated, it is one forced by regulations. The fact remains that Lamborghini made an unbelievably good car in the Huracan without having to bow to regulation, using a great naturally aspirated engines and resulting in one of the fastest cars I've ever experienced personally. A question I get asked all the time is do I prefer my new F13 M6 over my old E63 M6 and the answer I always give is yes, but no, the F13 is the better and faster car in all aspects, except the experience of actually driving it fast, and that's because of the responsiveness and sound of the old V10 vs the new TT V8. Change isn't always for the better.

I think it's more than rumours and speculation...

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/n...08t-2014-06-04

Ferrari has promised us a thoroughly refreshed version of the 458 next year. And they're being entirely open that it'll get a turbo.

The refresh is in line with the company's long-term plan, as reiterated by Fiat Group boss Sergio Marchionne just last month. Each main model gets a four-year life, then a refresh to take it onward for another four years. This has been the strategy for the past several years. Marchionne called these intermediate models "M" for modified (remember the 512M, 456M and 575M Maranello). But most have actually been sold under other names. Like when the California became the California T.

In fact the thing's a bit late: the 458 Italia was actually announced nearer to five years ago, at the 2009 Frankfurt show, But Ferrari has been going flat-out with new cars lately, finishing the 458 Speciale, LaFerrari and California T.

Anyway, what do we expect from the 458M, or whatever it's called? (We do have an idea for the name, as I'll explain in a bit, but it's no more than pure guesswork)

Carrying on with the naturally aspirated engine wasn't an option. Ferrari's powertrain director Vittorio Dini told me recently that that heavenly, crazy and wild V8 in the 458 Speciale - with its 9000rpm, 14-to-one CR, and 605bhp from just 4.5 litres - is the final epic goodbye howl of the firm's naturally aspirated V8 line.

Why? Because Ferrari must steadily reduce its CO2 average. Maranello doesn't have to meet the same CO2 targets as Fiat or Ford of course. It gets special small-manufacturer exemptions. But the threat is that if it doesn't show a downward trend, the exemption will get pulled. The 1999 360 Modena rated 415g/km. The 458 Speciale is down to 275g/km, and the new car has to be lower again.

CEO Amedeo Felisa, himself an engineer, told me, on the day we drove the California T, that turbocharging is the way to do it for 'the next model' (i.e. the 458 successor) too. The electric hybrid system on the LaFerrari would add even more efficiency than turbos, but it's too expensive and heavy and complicated.

He said it with the expression of a man who had been massively stressed delivering LaFerrari - notwithstanding its brilliance - and wouldn't be doing it again soon. "It was as hard as we ever imagined it would be." Felisa added that another hybrid Ferrari wouldn't happen until there is a major breakthrough in battery performance, and he said that's at least five years away.

I asked why they ended up with a capacity of 3855cc for the California T's turbo V8. He said it's under four litres, which is important for tax reasons in some countries. I observed it's some way under 4000cc, and he smiled and said, "Yes we can go higher." I'm taking that to mean the 458 successor's engine will be very close to 4.0 litres in capacity.

So, some pure guesswork about the name, because I'm too lazy to keep typing '458 successor'. Let's call it 408T shall we? Ever since the 2.0-litre V6 206 Dino, many of the two-seat mid-engine Ferrari GT sports car have been named by that logic: capacity for the first two digits, cylinders for the last. There were even two mid-engine prototypes called 408 in 1987, designed by Mauro Forghieri just before he left to design Lamborghini's F1 engine.

Felisa is adamant the new generation of turbo engines won't actually have dramatically new characteristics. They will feel like the N/A engines they replace, he stresses. So the new engine in the 408T (see how that trips off the tongue?) will be related to the one in the California T, but rev higher, as well as being bigger. Those two things both point to more power: together they point to a lot more power.

The California T has 560bhp. The Speciale has already taken the 458 family over 600bhp, so the 408T will probably go towards the McLaren 650S's 650bhp. The California T has complex exhaust manifolding to preserve the Ferrari flat-crank V8 aural timbre. In the 408 it will have to be louder than that. The Cali T also has an unusual boost map that constrains low-rev torque in the low gears. This gives the impression of quick response, and encourages you to rev high to get the full performance. The same technique will suit the 408T too.

But the California T has small blowers to cut lag. They restrict the exhaust at high revs, which is why the red-line is 7500rpm. The only way to get higher revs, says Dini, is bigger turbos, and they give some low-rev lag. But it's likely that's the way the 408 will go, to mimic the 458's high-revving character. The new engine will also get a dry sump, whereas the Cali is wet-sump, so there are many differences.

The 408T's basic structure, in aluminium, will not change greatly from the 458's. But the design and aero will be developed. The California, remember, had a complete reskin bar the roof. The changes to the mid-engined car will be less drastic, because the 458 already meets Ferrari's current styling memes.

What will change the looks is the need for new cooling, because there will need to be extra intakes and outlets for the turbos' intercoolers. Plus it will need extra engine bay draught, to stop the red-hot blower housings from causing meltdown in their surroundings. Ferrari won't want a repeat of the embarrassing and costly fires that beset early 458s.

Overall weight should drop a little: the new turbo V8 family is slightly more compact and lighter than the old naturally aspirated engines, and the Speciale's shell shows how Ferrari's ceaseless refinement of its many aluminium alloys keeps shaving off a few kilos here and there.

So it'll be faster. But I asked Felisa how much the straight-line performance war could go on. "For sure we are reaching the end of that road," he answered. He then surprised me with a pretty major shift in philosophy. "We need a more complex measure. Even for the Fiorano lap time, we are at a limit."

And so he said a Nurburgring test was more appropriate. Gulp. Ferrari has always shied away from that measure - we suspected because the Italians didn't want direct comparisons with Porsches and the rest who quote a 'Ring lap time so freely.

Felisa elaborated by saying it wasn't just the lap time that mattered, but the feelings and sensations. The stuff you can't actually measure. By way of explanation, he added that when they developed the FF, its distinctive silhouette meant they couldn't drive it on their local roads because the disguise would be blown. So they used Alfa Romeo's photographer-proof track at Balocco. "Then at the end we got it back to our own mountain roads, we had to do the setup all over again. We are of our place."

So whatever engine tech they use on the 408T, and however much they test it at Der 'Ring, the thing should feel pretty mega when it's hooning up and down the hills south of Maranello.

[Inge_F]

Originally Posted by Twitch Massacre

I've heard the rumors countless times but to be honest most of it is speculation so far.

Yeah, I think its more or less commonly accepted as certain by now.

Originally Posted by Twitch Massacre

The fact remains that Lamborghini made an unbelievably good car in the Huracan without having to bow to regulation, using a great naturally aspirated engines and resulting in one of the fastest cars I've ever experienced personally.

I`m sure its a great engine in a great car, but Lamborghini can lean on their mothership, (Audi->VAG-group) when it comes to emission regulations, and thus make them able as a part of the whole group, to produce a acceptable overall emission number for the fleet. I believe another forum member has explained this more closely in several posts already.

[RPiM5]

Originally Posted by Inge_F

Yeah, I think its more or less commonly accepted as certain by now.

I`m sure its a great engine in a great car, but Lamborghini can lean on their mothership, (Audi->VAG-group) when it comes to emission regulations, and thus make them able as a part of the whole group, to produce a acceptable overall emission number for the fleet. I believe another forum member has explained this more closely in several posts already.

I think Lamborghini gets the same exemption as Ferrari does regarding fleet C02 emissions average since both companies produce very few cars compared to giants like VW and Toyota. Either way, I haven't exactly heard of any future planned Lamborghini model going Turbo. So that might say something about them.