While I am in agreement about the importance of beauty (and the lack thereof in today's design world), in debates about the FF, we run into the age old issue that it is fruitless to argue about tastes, ie de gustibus non est disputandum. Like you, the FF does not suit my current aesthetic taste in cars, I readily admit that those were defined by Ferraris past. And what's to say that those defining cars were not held to be ugly in their day? In the same way, the FF might eventually emerge as a car that defines and, therefore suits the tastes of individuals (including today's detractors) in years to come.
Very well said. I admit the FF is far from being the supermodel of the car world but a lot of the shape was dictated to by purpose, could it have been better look, of course it could. Will demand drop after two years, we dont really know but will be interesting to see. Will it depreciate as fast as the 612, again an unknown. As someone else said, its a car to complement another Ferrari. Looking at the latest issue of topgear, picture with an FF next to a Zonda F and strangely enough the Ferrari has its own unique charm.
True - and to me and clearly others (but not everyone) the FF has that quality Do cars have to be beautiful to be desirable though? Look at the Enzo - a car that managed to get hit by the ugly stick a few times on its way down the production line - it is a desirable and sort after car
The FF, along with its recent predecessor 2+2's, will be punished in the market, simply because the Ferrari market does not value 2+2's highly. It makes no difference how practical or useful it is. It simply doesn't get the same level of adoration as the two seaters
The V12 GT's, when 2 seaters, don't get that much adoration either. Seems people just want to attract the chicks (or dudes - I'm not judging) and be loud. Onno
I'm coming around to the FF. I will admit that when I saw it live I was very impressed with the front side but the back still makes me cringe just a little. I know I know, odd thing to say considering I'm buying one but I can't help it. I won't use it as a daily car. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with it to be honest. Tahoe?
To each their own. But, IMO, no. They may be technological "wonders", but I don't like the looks of then. Never did. Never will. Don't care for the Cali, either. But, hey, they're selling as many as they can build, so clearly there are plenty of people who disagree. Your money, your choice. CW
Ferrari could have easily designed a car that visualy appealed to the majority, but instead it pushed the envelop in terms of esthetics and overall concept. It is only natural that a big chunck of the onlooking public will react in a negative way. At first glance at least. Once we learn more about the car and what it is all about, perception tends to shift more to the positive. And however you may judge the result in the end, I think any manufacturer that dares to take these types of risks, should be applauded. Having said that, I think the FF is a great addition to the long tradition of front engined 12 cylinder 2+2 GT's, allthough it is clearly looking ahead, into the future.
translated... why would ferrari build a gorgeous car (so old school) when they could build something largely objectionable? ferrari chose to push the envelope in terms of esthetics similar to let's say...pontiac aztec? of course i am simply poking fun
I beg to differ: the Aztec is what happens when you let the focus groups (read popular opinion) run free. The 911 is what happens when you let the engineers run free...
I'm intrigued with the comments on the FF. But what has made me feel compelled to post here is the comment about the 911. While I fully support the 911 as an engineering marvel, I would hardly say that it is what happens when engineers run free. Particularly in the last decade or more, the 911 evolution has been driven by its brand/model equity. When Porsche named the 98 Le Man-winning mid-engined car, 911 GT1, I quietly wished they made the switch at that time. As a marketer, I can understand the leveraging of the rear engine heritage; but as an engineer, I would have switched to mid-engine. At least, I'm glad they introduced the Carrera GT, 918 Spyder and then another mid-engine production model to compete in the 458 price point. Ok, rant over. Back to FF, I applaud Ferrari for taking some risks on the design. While the aesthetics will indefinitely remain subjective, I would agree that there will be more multi-Ferrari owners buying the FF than otherwise.
It would be interesting to see some of the alternative design ideas that were rejected. I read here somewhere there was a good bit of controversy concerning the final choice.Has anyone seen these or know of them first hand? Got the wife a new turbo Cayenne today; not an FF but then there's this price thing,not to mention availability.
On Porsche, I think the irony is that technology has taken what was basically a 1960s design and overcome its limitations. It's almost entirely an engineering challenge/riddle, because the design department has been on holiday since 1963, and based on performance figures it seems they've done it. I also think the 997/991 are among the best looking cars on the road today, save for Aston -- maybe because they have a functional aesthetic that makes everything else look unnecessarily blinged out. On the FF, I think Ferrari has really struggled since the end of the big front-engined era of the '60s to come up with a coherent design language for its cars. The Daytona/Boxer/308 wedge-with-waistline was in many ways the end of the age when Ferrari always had the right answer. Almost everything since has been an attempt to recapture the magic by grafting design cues onto something ordinary. It's technologically impressive, but practically speaking not much more so than a number of other high end AWD vehicles.
about the 911....it is actually a marketing masterpiece. the car is 'wrong' but for decades now it continues to sell. IMO, that's what is amazing about a 911. I thought the hopeless rear-engine thing would've died some natural death a long, long time ago....The fact that the engineers make a rear engined car handle well after, what?, 40 years??, is not so astounding. very cool, but not that amazing. (drive a 458 and you see amazing) we put a man on the moon much faster than that!
To put it simply, no. It's the dumbest looking Ferrari ever. Nothing wrong with your asking but it is a new low for the Marque.
who the hell is going to buy a FF? seriously? California, I can understand...but $350k for a hatchback? you can have a 1 year old Panamera turbo S for $80k by the time FF'***** our shores!
I am fortunate enough to have some nice cars but yesterday I drove a new Panamera Turbo and it was the best all around car I've ever driven, bar none. If I can figure out a way to mentally deal with that rear end I'll get one as my DD. I guess I could always back it in when I park it. Once inside the car all is well since only those outside can see how bad the rear end looks.Ranks right up there with the 928. The new limited edition 918 Spyder looks like it might be the real deal. About two years away I think the dealer said.
Who would buy? Someone who has to have a naturally aspirated V12 (hey, who wouldn't like the sound, instant throttle response, and prestige?), would like something more special than the Panamera (~20k units per year), doesn't like the look of the Panamera, and likes the look of the FF. Importantly, it is someone who doesn't cross-shop a used Panamera Turbo S against a $350k Ferrari.
That is not really my point. It is about stepping away from what is predictable. Aston Martin builts beautiful cars, but fails to surprise for over almost two decades now (or whenever the DB7 was introduced). In an even more extreme way, there is of course Porsche. Trying to fit everything, including a big SUV and a four person GT, into a variation on the 911 theme. Ferrari doesn´t do that. Ferrari doesn´t limit it itself to what was once a succes. It keeps looking forward, searching for new automotive designsolutions. And yes, sometimes that doesn´t pan out all that well. I for one think the California is a hidious car with many, many design flaws. The FF hits the mark perfectly in my opinion. It has a silhouette that can be easily recognized and allthough it is far from what Ferrari has ever done in their past, it is also very recognizable as a Ferrari. Extremely sexy and potent, yet seriously practical. Where do you get that these days? Again, just my opinion. It is a GOOD thing that the design of a car sparks discussion and controverse, no matter on what side of the discussion you find yourself on. I applaude Ferrari for not taking the easy route and instead have the balls to give us something to have a strong opinion about.
