Enough with the Flappy-Paddles only

I respect your thoughts.

I have owned a 328 GTS, 512 BBi Boxer, and 612 (paddles). I've also raced in a 355 MT and 355 Paddles back-to-back at Road Atlanta race course, which is certainly no oval. I even raced the Boxer once (still traumatized from that ), but have not been fortunate enough to race the 458.

I know the 458 is a great car, but I'm more interested in being a great driver. I want a car to help me do that - not do it for me.

 

Tried a 458 and a Mclaren. I was in the market for one of these. I found the driving expoerience on the street to be uncompelling. Maybe in germany or South Africa where you can go all out a lot of the time its a different proposition.

Some people here say they work great in traffic. For me thta is not really a major criteria for a weekend drive.

 

Amen, I also want a car that will be a great and rewarding drive not only when rung out to 9/10ths and more.

 

I think the cayman GT4 is going to cost more than a 991. And if the 991 RS comes witht he rumored MT its going to be pretty expensive. Lastly ytou are aware of the new price for Gt3 4.0RS's right? and their current price? I guess there are a lot of peopel out there who are idiots who rpefer slower manual cars. Because you could buy two new 991GT3's for the price of one slightly used RS 4.0, and a RS 4.0 is harley an old classic.

Then look at Ford Gt prices, or RS 4.0 prices vs say used ferraris, 430 scud?. I dont think the Mt has hurt resale. In fact from what I hear at my local ferrari dealer a 430 Mt or 599 Mt is worth 15-20k more. They have also lost sevceral longtime ferrari customers because there is no longer a Mt and the cars feel like video games. yeah the paddles mean in terms of sales you take two steps forward for each step back, but why not have 3 steps forward.

Since Ferrari covers a number of market segements they might as well offer a MT segement too. I mean they serve up the cali, which is a chick car mercedes Sl wanabee competitor, so i hardly think they woudl eb going off the reservation by offering a raw machine.

 

I can put my Toyota Tundra in a "manual" mode where I can use the stick like a sequential in a race car. So I guess it is a manual and one more like true race cars than paddle cars for that matter.

Dave

 

And a station wagon that is apparently good in up to a 1/2" of snow. At least it can be parked anywhere without worry as another Mazda 3 in a parking lot doesn't get noticed.

 

While I appreciate the sentiment of this thread, reality is that the market (Ferrari's customers) has spoken, and they (the customers) overwhelmingly want automatic transmissions. Want a fast car with a manual, go buy a C7 or wait 7 months and buy a REALLY fast car with a manual (C7 Z06).

Jimmy

 

Southnc is correct, and his experience level makes his statement all the more compelling. But the last post is also correct in that if Ferrari had a market for MT, they would sell them. As I alluded to in my 8 point questionnaire, I don't think Ferrari's current offerings are for me, nor (and I'm guessing here) do I think their profile buyer is an avid FChatter. Undoubtedly, there are FChatters who have done far more with cars than I have who love today's Ferrari menu, but I am guessing that buyer is not the norm. Who is today's Ferrari customer?

 

Have you shared this with Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull/Renault etc., engineers?

They seem to be under the illusion that their drivers have more control with throttle and flappy paddles.

 

I don't know of any race cars with torque converters so, no, huge difference.

I had something similar in a BMW 3 series 10-12 years ago (Steptronic), and neither that nor the old school stick shift are anything close to the level of control of a modern DCT. I don't think I used the "manual" mode of the Steptronic automatic after the first couple of days I owned it.

I think there will always be three pedal manuals in Toyota pickups and other vehicles where performance doesn't matter. Per the OP, though, Ferrari is far enough out of the economy segment that I wouldn't expect them to go back.

 

If you lookat the recent past, the reason ferrari designed a limited production run for the 288 was because the buyer they imagined was "not the norm" and so they saw few sales, ferrari could not imagine mroe thana few hundred 288's and thought they woudl ahve trouble sellign thoise, esp witht he Tr comming out. Had the the F40 come before the 288t it too would have been limited to 250 cars to meet regulatory requirements of group B. Fact is Ferrari stumbled upon a core client demographic they never knew or thought existed. Peopel who wanted raw performance in a viceral machine and wert prepered to put up with discomfort etc to have it.

The 959 was objectively better in every way than the 288. Yet what are their relative values today, which one was in more demmand then. There is a a market of peopel wealthy enough to buy raw viceral cars. There was a market for them in 1984 with the 288 but ferrari thought those wealthy enough for a 2888 would prefer a boxer/Tr.

Are you arguing that those who bought F40s would have prefered Trs because they were better in traffic and the Ac was better and they were easier to drive? Its really two different client demographics and currently ferrari is serving one and placating the other with part measures like the speciale.

The enzo and laferrari takes the whole raw concept and turns it on its head, once again with tech and refinement. There are not chilldren of the 288 or F40 they are something different, perfomance from tech for its own sake.

Would you believe that Gm could sella 75K camaro? They can because there is a core performance client out there who value the rawness and intesity of the machine even if a GTR is "faster" on paper. The buyer of a 75k camaro probably also owns a ferrari or porche.

Look at it this way, the 997 Gt3 was never the fastest car out there, not even the fastest porche, but it was probably the most desireable (amongst a demographic wealthy enough to affiord them) and most fun to drive.

I bet if ferrari made somethign 355 sized 2800lbs or less, no PS, using the current 458 speciale motor and ssupension bits, maybe detuned slightly(so the 458 numbers look better) with slightly betetr torque and a classic Mt. You know a car that would be slower on that all important yet irrelevant 0-60, a car slower on mst tracks due to shift being slower than paddles. But a superlative drivers car in every way, somethign durable and trackable in way that modern ferraris are not. My bet is that they sell 750-1000 per year for 5 years.

True it needs a smaller lighter body than a 458, but if alfga can develop a 4c and make money at 70k, think what ferrari could do at 250-300k.

Sign me up.

I am building aSPF Gt40 with all the really great bits for close tot he same money, simply because no one builds soemthing like described above.

 

Boxerman, I like your idea for a de-contented Ferrari. I will disagree with you on one thing, which is that if they made such a car for maybe $135,000 (911 turbo money, in other words) I think they would sell at least 5,000 per year. The first would be to me!

 

Ferrari didn't limit the number of three-pedal manual F430s. Customer demand did. Few people bought them, so Ferrari stopped offering them.

As to raw and visceral, it would be nice if they'd make smaller cars again, but that has nothing to do with paddle-shift manuals versus three-pedal manuals. A modern F1 car is pretty raw and visceral.

 

Have NO idea (nor do I care) what goes on at the F1 level. They have a different goal than I do.

I care about the enjoyment of driving.

And that enjoyment is diminished by automatic transmissions, electric throttles, electric steering. 12 way dampened suspensions, active handling, communication devices, fancy stereos, and the added weight of having all this crap.

 

And I don't think there is sound argument against this.

It is the lazy, inattentive drivers of today that had caused the problem.....wish all these fockers would just take the bus, so nothing would interrupt their important calls, texts they HAVE to send, and their 32 oz lattes.

 

You forgot about the new space-saving electric hand-brake

I still remember the first time I saw a new Porsche without a hand-bake (how will I do my famous hand-brake turn?). Funny, but the new designers didn't think that's very important anymore (style department needed the room) so the hand-brake no longer fits. Take out the third pedal, take out the hand-brake and you take away some of the driving tools that we all grew up with... when it came to testing one's skills as a driver (vs pushing a button and having the computer do it for you).
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I have first hand knowledge of at least one customer who wanted a manual 430 and not enough were allocated so he was out of luck. Ferrari charged about 12K more for paddles yet other manufacturers were able to provide it for 3K or so. Think profit had anything to do with their position?

Also, check Webster for the definition of "automatic." You will not find "torque converter" mentioned anywhere. "Automatic" is a description of operation. The characteristics of the mechanical device being operated have no bearing on the definition.

Dave

 

I find it really interesting that there is so much argument for Ferrari to bring back the manual tranny but as said before, the people who are ACTUALLY buying new Ferraris are opting for the F1/DCT. Thus Ferrari not offering the manual anymore. I'm glad I chose getting one of the last of the 6-speed manual 430s, as I think myself and Dave(alias "Hardtop") are the only two I know of who are original owners of their manual coupes. And as far as manual vs auto, I really go by the feeling that if you track your car you should go with the DCT. But if you just drive your car leisurely on the weekends I think a manual will be more fun and involving. Just my 2 cents.

 

This has got to be one of the most bizarre statements about performance driving I've ever read! - It's more accurate to scrub off speed by slipping the clutch rather than using the brakes or throttle!

How did racing drivers like Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, Fangio, Gilles Villeneuve, Sir Stirling Moss, Mario Andretti, Phil Hill, Ayrton Senna et al, not realise that rather doing all of that heel 'n toeing crap, all they needed to do was slip the clutch to scrub speed off! - What a bunch of amateurs!

 

My size 14 feet are too big to drive like the old-timers....so yes, feathering the clutch works great.

 

if you really drove a stick, you wouldn't be spewing the disinformation about your concept of "feathering the clutch"... how does one come up with erroneous concepts as this... one can't make this up and keep a straight face... the pitiful part is he believes it's correct

 

And that car would have the following characteristics:

3.0 Litre V8 engine making 300 HP mounted mid-ship
6 speed transmission
RPM limited to 150 MPH
2600 pound all up curb weight
A-Arm suspension front/rear
225 fronts 275 rears on whatever wheels were appropriate
modern A/C capability
no electric motors {windows, doors, vents, headlights,...}
ABS is the only nanny
MSRP $120,000

 

Thanks for posting these pics.

This is a prime example of what devolution in driving skills has done to cars.

Oh well...

 

Spec Miata. I am being completely serious. Forgive me I don't recall if you are the person in this thread that didn't want to race. If so, Subaru BRZ or the scion equivalent.

I haven't raced a 458, just driven the street cars.

THE DCT transmissions are significantly different and better than the ones in your list. The early F1 boxes I didn't like at all.

The traffic issue is a big deal for me and I like the "best of both world" current cars. The McLaren is simply amazing. As is the 458. I think what you are describing is that the modern cars are really too fast for and practical use.

Honestly if you want to really use a large percentage of a cars performance potential anyplace close to public, you pretty much need a slower car. It has occurred to me that while I love the 458 I might have more fun in a 599 to drive to dinner and a BRZ (or an old Acura NSX).

The performance envelope of modern cars is insanely huge. I remember when the 5.0 Mustangs came out in the early 90's and they were mid 6 second cars. Now a new Escalade is that fast. I love the progress, but it does mean that the really fast cars get harder and harder to find room to use.