Ferrari performance increases

WRONG QUESTION:

This is the correct way to phrase it as just wanting a car and buying one are two different things.

Would you BUY or REPLACE your Ferrari with a newer one if it was no faster than one you currently have (classics excluded -- we're talking modern cars here) while the competition went faster?

 

Not important at all.

I would actually have more respect for Ferrari if they retained their current performance standards and simply strove for less weight, better looks, better sense of "passion" (old car feel many reminisce about), etc.

If Ferrari built a carbon Elise competitor that was a modern take on the 328 with 400hp, it would be game over.

Edit: I voted for the size and weight option.

 

Here's another way to put it:

If the new Italia were no faster than say, a 348, would you still consider buying a new one -- at $220K or any price?

 

Or, another way:

Given that most think the 355 is a better looking car than the 348 (my apologies to 348 owners as I mean no disrespect), would you think as highly of the 355 if it were no faster than a 348?

 

You're not answering the question. What IS the current performance standard? A 360? An F430? The new Italia? Better than the McLaren? We all know the speed/performance = cost. So, you would be willing to spend more to go no faster?

If you're right, then everyone should be asking for their Italia deposits back and start emailing McLaren. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.

 

I think this is kind of an interesting subject. For the 430 owners the next car will be faster but is it really necessary. I think Ferrari should strive to improve all aspects of their cars. The 430 is a great car and fast. I am asking myself if I need more.

 

No, I don't think so. You want to "freeze" performance at some mythical point where YOU are happy. Then, above that, you don't care as long as the car looks good.

Some would say.. that's a poser's attitude (I won't because I freely admit to being a poser -- you'll never see me on a track going 10/10ths).

Let's say in the future, Ferrari is FORCED to decrease performance because of regulations (it certainly could happen). Would we still be happy or would we bemoan the "good ol' days" as they did with muscle cars?

Look at the utter hatred spewed in the so called "hybrid 599" thread for this idea.

Why do we buy Scuds and 16m's at 50 or more K just so they can go faster by a few tenths? Do they look $50K better? I don't think so. It's the performance that excites us.

If the Scud were no faster than a standard F430 coupe, how many would they sell? How about... zero.

 

With regard to the original question, I think increased performance without sacrificing aesthetics is closest to the "right" answer. We pay the Italians extra for style. AMG Mercedes and Porsche can get us to 60 mph fast enough to put your digestive tract into reverse.

But I strongly feel smaller proportions and decreased weight lead to both improved performance and aesthetics -- so some of the answers aren't mutually exclusive. Specifically, the 246, 308 and Boxer have always looked uber-exotic, because of all their curves and tight dimensions -- these are all sports car, not lounges with alloy wheels.

 

Amen. Sign me up.

 

And I would agree with you completely. But, if the next car were slower than the car it replaced, I'm sure you would find that disappointing -- as I would.

 

It would be interesting here if some Scud owners would say they happily paid more for their car because it was better looking and not because it was better performing.

I kinda have a feeling... that's not gonna happen.

 

There's fast, and then there's quick.

I see any number of people driving fast. In a straight line. Even an SUV can do 45 in a 30 zone ... eventually. I'd see it all the time, some places: people who will zoom down the straights come to nearly a full stop to go around a gentle curve.

The EVO is gawdawful fast. Behind the wheel, zero to 60 feels a lot faster than 5 sec. (And most of it is shifting -- with both scrolls pumping, it runs the tach in a blink).

But it only knows one way to get around a corner.

By contrast, the 328 won't do zero to 30 in a car length, but it has a huge box of cornering tools. It doesn't need to slow as much for a turn, even with skinnier tires.

The EVO is fast. The Ferrari is quick.

Every review has noted how easy it is to drive an EVO fast.
Porkers and other sports cars are crammed with stability management and driver aids.

What makes a Ferrari is that it's a tool, not a crutch. It's a car to refine a driver's skills, rather than to mask them (or the lack of them).

A machine that complements the driver -- not one that compliments him.

Despite use of a similar phrase by another marque, a Ferrari is *the* ultimate driver's car.

Just my tuppence worth. Other owners no doubt see it differently.
(I do, after all, have a fairly "down and dirty" example of a Ferrari. )

Maybe I'm not describing this right.
It's like the difference between steering a car and wearing it.
There's more road feel, more involvement. It's like you're a component of the package, not just sitting back guiding it.

It's like they say about airplanes: anyone can pilot a bird from "A" to "B", but to dance on a wingtip takes a flier.

A Pitts isn't the fastest plane on the field, but it's one of the ones you fly, rather than just aviate.
A lot of birds are described as "the Ferrari of airplanes" -- but none of them are the big honkin' private jets -- they're all the small, maneuverable ones.
The quick ones, not the fast ones.

A Ferrari doesn't have to beat a Bugatti on the salt flats.
(But then, I used to have a lot of fun on gravel in a Fiat that could only hope to hit 100 HP on a really good day.)

 

+16

You'd have to be borderline insane to exceed an F430's limits.

 

Then, you don't see the reason for a McLaren to exist? Is it just a meaningless technical achievement and nothing more?

 

Now, now, now, don't go all Colin Chapman on us.

But back to the question at hand.

On the street, there is little justification for getting from 0-60 iany faster than 5.0 seconds, and many places you can get a speeding ticket for "display of speed" {I just wish the lawyers/lawmakers understood the difference between speed and acceleration, but I digress}. Most of the cars we are talking about are way faster than this.

On the street there is little justification for being able to corner any faster than 1.0 Gs {see above for "display of speed" even without chirping the tires.} Enabling higher cornering speeds invariably leads to loosing control at higher levels of energy and consequences. Electronic aids reduce the number of incidents while making those incidents that do happen worse.

So, at the level of "on the street" where the public stumbles along blissfull ignorant of physics and their fellow man/woman, we have reach an essential pleteau--the current stuff is already faster than we need or can use.

This leaves back roads where the constabulatory visiblity is very low, and race tracks where these cars can be used as designed. Thankfully, we are witnessing a revolution, today. Much like Golf Clubs began springing up i the 1910 and 1920s Race-track-ranches are springing up, where these cars can be used as designed, properly, and given the through thrashing that they so need.

So, given the availability of race tracks where we can go, there is no particular reason not to allow cars that are streetable in every other way to be bought and sold, driven and maintained. Just don't even for an instant think you can actually use such performance on the street.

So, there was no correct response in your listing for my feelings.

 

I already asked and the answer is no. I've had my 430 for 4.5 years, put in lots of track miles and road miles. Yet, there is much more potential for me to learn and exploit. So, I can give the local dealer my car plus a check for 150-175K for an incremental increase in performance owing mostly to improved computerized stabilization gizmos. No thanks.

But Bdelp is right. Buyers need a reason to step up to the new models and performance is a big lure, albeit with a big price tag. Absent a performance increase, Ferrari and other performance manufacturers would have to come with another reason to buy and I dare say anything other than performance is subjective and very risky marketing.

Dave

 

The Scud is better looking and MORE RAW than a standard F430. I could care less about it being faster. What I would care about is the no carpets and carbon fiber door panels and less sound proofing that make the car lighter and feel less refined and more raw. This causes the engine to sound louder and makes your heart beat faster and makes you feel like your driving something more exciting even though it is not faster.