Portofino Launch and picture thread

My dealer in Cali said ~3 weeks

 

Thank you...T

 

Chassis looks to be a big change from the old one. The first generation aluminum chassis really looked like a not very optimized assembly of standard extrusions with cast frames/bulkheads for suspension pick-up.

This new chassis seems more bespoke, with properly stamped panels assembled almost like a molded carbon frame. It has deep sill sections and driveshaft tunnels, and smooth transitions between sections.

I don't see how this particular chassis can be shared with a mid-engined model (as several articles last years seemed to imply) bu I suspect it is more to do with maintaining a common design philosophy instead. There may be though the possibility to re-use, for example the the firewall/door leading edge structure across different models.

Any info on whether they have retained the single upper arm rear suspension?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

^ Cool.
Cali 30 for comparison.
http://www.carbodydesign.com/2012/05/ferrari-california-frame-technical-analysis/
T

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Well, I've just only been away for a bit so now we have a new Fcar in the works and all hell's broken loose!

I've read up on this thread now and I don't want to rehash what's been said so I will try to add some new perspectives...

1) Firstly, please keep in mind, even thought the Portofino (beautiful name) replaces the California, PORTOFINO IS NOT AN UPGRADED OR REVAMPED CALIFORNIA. The California was a retro-design, meant to harken back to a classic icon from the late 50s!!! The Portofino only continues the California offering of a V8 hardtop convertible GT and nothing else. That's why it doesn't look like the California, except in function. IMO, the Portofino is an extension of the modern Ferrari design language that started with the FF.

2) Secondly, companies like Apple and Samsung, Nikon and Canon have brought easy hi-resolution photography to the everyday snap-shooting public but unfortunately, most people, including many (most) journalists still do not know how to pose or shoot proper photos of cars ...or people. In the old days, we had to spend a lot of time to line up a shot, partly because we had to fuss with the equipment, film and lighting. Nowadays, software takes care of everything and people snap away merrily, get super sharp, saturated, high contrast photos that are full of optical distortions. Most car photos I see are distorted representations.

You can't make a final assessment based on photography.

3) Thirdly, the Tifosi guy or Tifosi gal who owns the actual cars know a lot more about those cars than you or any journo. Why? Because they spend so much more time with those cars, you can never experience those cars to the same extent as they have.

So it's risky business if you haven't own the car before and you decide to make a bold and risky remark about someone else's car. It's not just because the owner might like the car, it's because he knows the car better than you do. It doesn't matter if our often silly, wise-cracking TV culture likes quick, one-sentence pronouncements, if you haven't or don't own the car, all you can really give is a limited layman's impression.

4) Fourthly and finally, there is a big difference between EYE-CANDY and SUBTLE DESIGN DETAILS. With eye candy, they jump at you and consume your attention. Eye candies are not hard to incorporate because they are so easy to pick out and form into a repertoire. With subtle design details though, they are the result of a great deal of original design thought and work. They are meant to be revealed slowly to someone who spends a lot of time with the objects, someone whose eyes are not dulled by repeated exposure to the same objects because the observer's mind is continuously looking for more details and meaning in the object.

Eye candy is like watching TV. Your are fed images. Subtle design details of merit are like reading a good novel and trying to understand what the author is trying to say. It's like Einstein, having understood relativity (seen the details), proceeding to seek his unified field theory (the central theme).

Classics tend to objects that are complex, not readily fully comprehended at first glance, objects that provide amusement for a long time because you have to study them and see the details to gain full appreciation in the mastery of the work.​

I was hoping the Portofino would be a hybrid but it looks like I will have to keep myself busy for another 6 or 7 years at least. My initial reaction to seeing the Portofino was that it looked really good. However, subsequent photos of the car seem to indicate a busy design that perhaps incorporates too many disjointed novel ideas. I would have to see the actual car and spend some time with it to come to a clearer understanding. To me it's a bit like the MAC 720S. I haven't bothered to look at a 720S yet because I can't and wouldn't be interested in buying one till they have a convertible.

 

Yep and like the 488, it's drawn with the fat marker, not the thin one of the 458 or F12.

 

Like I said, I will have to see the Portofino in person for a bit before I can say anything reliable about it. However, I do know a lot about my Cali30 so in order to lend you some of my experience, here are some photos that I carefully took. A good photographer sees an image and then makes his or her camera reproduce that image. Usually, the camera will not reproduce the image unless you move away from the object to eliminate the wide angle lens distortions. The key is that you have to be able to see the image and keep it in your mind's eye while you manipulate the camera, lighting, angle and distance to reproduce what you saw in your eye.

These images were all taken about 2 months ago. Enjoy the retro design!

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

STILL BEAUTIFUL!

 

Saw the car in person at IAA. Very very nice and frankly those that have not seen it in person should reserve their judgement until they have seen the car. Vast improvement on the Cali.

 

I guess you don't get what I said earlier about these 2 cars. The Portofino is not an upgraded California. The California was a retro design while the Portofino clearly looks like a fully modern design.

I also said the Portofino looked very good at first glance. I have yet to see one in the flesh but some things about its design are starting to sink in and I can comment on those impressions. I tend to agree with Brian L, the new car seems to be fighting for attention alongside other new, less exotic cars that appear to incorporate similar design impressions. This is a common problem with many modern car designs. In the old days we would say the new car (be it German or some other erstwhile staid and traditional brand) looked "Japanese". In the case of the Portofino, even though it does try to extend the vocabulary of the FF/F12/812, elements of that "language" are still new and have naturally also been used by other brands that market modern designs.

The result may be that Ferrari is now competing with those brands to see who has more eye candy and that is why some of us think the Portofino (and 812) design is too busy. We sometimes say over-wrought. The upcoming remake of the Toyota Supra is an extreme example that comes to mind.

The California didn't have that problem because it based its design on cues from an iconic FCar so it really didn't have to get attention by winning a shouting match with other new cars. The challenge with the Portofino design lies in finding a way to effectively "trademark" modern design elements when they can be so easily borrowed and interchanged between less exotic brands. Ferrari seems to be trying to outdo by applying sheer volume. One possible outcome is that it could result in elements that look neat but do not seem to cohesively blend together. The California had some of that problem because it was arguably a derivative of the wonderful 599 design. Is it really a compliment to be a baby-599? Not. What actually saved it was its legitimate design connection to the 250 GTO convertible. Ferrari does not have this legitimacy to fall back on with the Portofino and we see clear elements from the F12 and 812 being combined without drawing from a prior model that helps to legimitize the combination of styling cues. While I think this is not a problem stylistically, it does make it harder for Ferrari to stamp a timeless ownership on the design cues.

Most high end car makers try not to get caught out as copying other brands. Marketing high end products is all about exclusivity. You have to be seen to have exclusive designs and prevent competitors from copying. Unfortunately, if an exotic brand decides to compete in a market where new designs are fair game, it will have its work cut out for it. This is why some other Fchatters have wondered if the Portofino design will stand the test of time. I think there's some truth to that. There was another car at the IAA that felt like a styling competitor to the Portofino - have a look at the TVR Griffith. I'll post pictures when I get off my iPad.

This is why exotic brands tend to be conservative with designs and is why the retro design of the California has its merits. People who like modern designs with bold lines and who find retro designs too soft often don't realize the marketing reasons and limitations behind them. It's also why Japanese cars have such a hard time gaining traction in the exotic market. I hope Ferrari succeeds but it needs to make sure the Portofino stands out as a brand icon. In the past, it would combine technical innovations with "proprietary" design cues, like first paddleshifter DCT, direct injection, F1sound... etc. Along those lines, I was looking for some " junior" implementation of KERS but it was not to be.

I hope you understand the sum of what I am saying. The Portofino is a good looking modern Ferrari that may have a harder time establishing and distinguishing itself as a brand classic because it has to compete on its own merits along with other good-looking modern-looking high performance cars.

 

Here's a composite photo view of the TVR Griffith. As I said I think it is a STYLING competitor (not a market competitor) to the Portofino. The Griffith is basically a reborn British market muscle car arguably with Fiorano good looks.

It has a 6MT, a Cosworth 500 HP V8 engine, considerable aero, modern electronics and a decent interior. It's also only £90,000.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

No way I'd call that a styling competitor

 

I respectfully disagree.

While the cars don't have to and really shouldn't look identical, they have similar body and roof lines, body size, with the TVR clearly displaying a similar nose, sculpted body panels, vertical front and rear fender slits (à la 812) and a large rear diffuser. The TVR also has more interesting wheels that work better with it than those on the Portofino. It's a Gordon Murray design (MAC F1), if you didn't know. So it's not to be scoffed at. The car will do 200 MPH.

No coincidence, it's also being shown off in a familiar RED, instead of the traditional British racing GREEN.

 

The TVR's engine is also naturally-aspirated.

 

IMO it does not have to be a brand classic. It just needs to appeal to enough people who prefer it over other competing cars. I owned a Cali and liked it but found it a bit too soft for spirited driving. The Portofino seems to have solved that problem and IMO looks really good in the flesh.

 

Brand classic is the aim. Normal rules of capitalism do not apply. They sell plenty of these new F cars, always.

The Cali T, or T HS would have solved your problems with the Cali. They solved it long ago.

 

If the Portofino is to appeal to the general market for hardtop convertible GTs, Ferrari would have to accommodate that by dialing down the edginess of the car or they would get customer complaints that it's difficult to live with. You cannot have it both ways. Look at every exotic car in the market and you will see I'm right. Ferrari actually has the ability to make any of its cars do what you would like but your preferences are not in the majority for their GT market.

FWIW, if you think all Calis are too soft you should try my Cali30. I drove it on a former F1 circuit some weeks ago and the F12 in front of me was slowing me down in the corners. The F12 has much more torque and HP so he was faster in the straights and coming out of corners but going in, I was all over him. I caught up every time he slowed for a corner. That was weeks ago. At the moment, my car probably has another 15-20 WHP and likely also more torque, better tires/traction and also twice as loud as the F12.

If you leave the Cali the same way as it was shipped from the factory, that's what you will also get at best.

 

Quick sidebar: What all did you do to your car?

 

..sport muffler, much better wheels, stickier tires, X-pipe, sport cats and a bunch of external cosmetic upgrades. Additional upgrades are on the way. It's in my nature.

 

Yea I do that also. Thus the reluctance to part with the last NA 911. Pics??

What wheels and tires?

 

Great photos.
Thanks for sharing.

 

I like your 'eye candy' assessment with the 812 being the "biggest" culprit in every sense of the word.

Some of the Toyota design details are almost a caricature of their previous design efforts when the look was too vanilla bland...

 

Brian, I'll PM you.

 

My god that thing is terrible

 

This is so very well said.