Preference...front or mid engine? Design trends?

As far as Ferrari is concern, mid engine and rear engine has been the trademark for ferrari for decades, and made lots of incredible history in racing using mid and rear engine. Ferrari mid and rear engine have been winning championship for decades on all types of race tracks or circuit on any given time of the year. History alone will tell you who has more success, mid/rear engine or front engine. So as for myself I prefer the mid engine

 

If you want Ferrari to be the apex of performance street automobiles, then you should look at what the ultimate unresticted race vehicles are doing; which is mid-engined.
If you want GT/Touring then front is fine.( Like everyone else.)

 

What LightGuy said.

 

I like them both.

The 550/575M are, IMO, Pininfarina's best modern Ferrari designs in part because of those long bonnets. The Daytona also has that lovely, chunky and long front end. As GT cars, these are timeless.

But there aren't any front-engined F1 cars, and Ferrari's about performance (F40, Enzo, etc.), so for the sports cars I like the mid-engined cars. There's also something very exotic about it, because it underscores the hardcore sporting nature of the car -- you wouldn't stick the engine amidship in a minivan, SUV, sedan, etc. Mid-engined also gives the design team some fascinating challenges, and gets them to really work.

The big gaping hole in Ferrari's lineup is a mid-engined V12 successor to the 512TR/F512M. There's the nimble F430/Spider, and the imposing, elegant GT car, the 612. The 599 has its fans and detractors, but in any case it looks plain next to the 512TR, for example. (And the Enzo is too rare to be counted as that hole filler...)

I'd like to see the Pininfarina team put away the computers for a bit and come up with an exotic mid-engined car to replace the 599. The Boxer gets my pulse going, as does the 'baby' Ferrari of the time, the 308/328. We need more of that.

 

The mid-engine Ferraris have a great feel on the track. They pivot around corners and break-away in a smooth, controllable fashion when the cornering forces start to exceed the tires' adhesion. So, for cornering dynamics, my vote is for the mid-engine cars.

However, I agree the look of the 550, 575, and 599 are stunning with the front engine layout. And, if you want to carry a set of golf clubs, the front engine cars have a good size trunk.

I'd like to see Ferrari build two 12-cylinder 2-seater models: a front-engine GT such as the 575 & 599 and a mid-engine successor to the Testarossa (in addition to the current 8-cyl mid-engine F430 car and front-engine 2+2 612). I realize the Enzo was a mid-engine 12-cylinder, but they didn't make enough of them to go around and the price point was a little high too.

 

For me its all about getting a 50:50 distribution of weight

For a decent front engined car the engine needs to be mounted behind the front axle to give better weight disribution.

Rear engined cars (engine mounted behind the rear axle) are often tail happy (too much weight hanging out the back) and can provide lots of fun but will catch out far too many.

Mid engined cars are the most balanced and rewarding to drive with a neutral centre of gravity. Thus giving a predictable and enjoyable experience.

Pininfarina will never create another Testarossa/512 TR/ 512M. Whilst it looked very striking in appearance, its rather bulbous rear end was a result of the engine being mounted above the gearbox thus giving a high centre of gravity and rather unpredictable handling.

 

Agreed that the mid layout is best suited for performance but.... if I could be granted one wish..it would be for Ferrari to roll out a rag top modern interpretation of the California Spyder.

 

Front engine cars like 456, 550, 575 push (understeer). On the plus side, gobs of torque.

I like the handling of mid-engine and the wonderful engine sound right behind your head. I also like the looks with the window over the engine.


Life is too short not to own a Ferrari and be an F1 racing fan.

 

Mid engine is the best for performance but I perfer the looks and proportions of a front-engined car.

 

If you want to sit in it , Front Engined, if you want to watch it race, Mid-Engined.

 

I can't speak of performance personally, since I've not driven that many Ferraris. For looks though, all my favorite cars have been mid engined.
I would like Ferrari (pininfarina) to come out with a really good looking front engine v12 GT, then we'll see if I can change my mind. The 599 is far better looking than the 612, but still shy of the stunning Aston.

 

i most admire the classic front-engined V12 Ferraris, ie, the GT 250s and 275s. and i like Ferrari's recent attempt to capture the essence of these cars with their new classic-inspired 612 and 599.

yet as for modern Ferrari, i love the timeless look of the 3x8 Ferraris. so i guess i like both depending on what series we're talking about.

 

I prefer front engine.


Guy Webster
Pasadena

 

I agree, a mid 12 is needed. I'm curious though, why you think the computers have to be put away to achieve it?

 

I appreciate both designs, and the dynamics of both layouts.

That said, I'm sure my first Ferrari will be mid engined, I just feels more "right" to me for an extreme sports car.

 

I think the best 'lines' on Pininfarina's designs have been things a computer wouldn't 'think' of or encourage. For example, the rear fender kick-up on the 250GT Spyder California; the air intakes on the 206/246/308/328; the beltine and eggcrate grille in the 'maw' of the Daytona. There are many more. But if you put those in a wind tunnel, or ask a CAD/CAM program whether it's efficient or efficiently produced, elements like those will be rejected.

Look at the exterior door handle on the 599, then look at the Mitsu Eclipse. I'm not suggested Ferrari sourced those handles from the same bin, but you can bet the same models predicted that design was best for airflow. The lever handles on the 246, Daytona and 308 fail the test, yet those cars are icons.

I don't suggest that there should literally be no computers put to the task of assessing the shape of a car. But I'd like one of those brilliant designers to just say no once in a while and do something just to spite all those scientists.

 

+1

i'm not anti-computer by any means. they make life better, overall. but it would be interesting to see a Ferrari designed from the ground up employing some antiquated design and build techniques to achieve a modern body shape with minimal to zero computer modeling during design; the very presence of the computer introduces digitally-influenced modes of thought and design practices.

as a side note: consider the Porsche 928. i love that design personally, perhaps most of any mass-produced Porsche. but the car is actually more aerodynamic going in reverse, with the tail end heading into the wind.

the 928's front, as aerodynamic as it appears, has more coefficient of drag than the rear. computers did exist in the mid-1970s as did wind tunnels, but the final design was chosen more on basis of aesthetics than what was more aerodynamically efficient or computer-modeled.

 

Why not mount the transmission behind the engine? That's how my car is and it's very low indeed!

Ken

 

I see your point. A good example of style over function is the sail panels on our cars, (which I love). I can't see those surviving a computational fluid dynamics analysis!

 

And mine. I'm guessing they did what they did to reduce the length of the 12cyl package. Much like what was done to get the transverse V8 to fit in the 308.

 

For me the quintessential Ferrari comes with a V 12 in front.
The 612 and the 599 are proof that the formula can be made to work quite well.....and we don't need no stinkin' F-1 shifter....

 

550/575 is not too shabby either, and the 550 didn't even come with an F-1 shifter!


Onno

 

I like the mid engined cars but in my opinion Ferraris are becoming too big, what we really need is a smaller mid engined car, 355 proportions would be ideal..