Why No Ferrari Production Mid-Engine 12 Cylinder

Aside from the Supercars, why did Ferrari cease making a production mid-engine 12 cylinder? Maybe there’s a confirmed reason I’m not aware of. One would have to think they would do very well with one. My guess is, even better than their front engine GT’s. It will be interesting to see if there is any hint of one to come in the soon to be revealed five year roadmap.

 

La Ferrari anyone?

 

As I said, aside from the Supercars.

 

What's your definition of a super car? Limited production? To me the La Ferrari is pretty much at the price point today that a 12 cylinder mid engine car would be -- at least $1M. Look at Pagani.

When you get to $1M cars the market is really limited in size.

Then look at the 488 at $300K. It goes 210 MPH. Who needs more really?

 

Everyone understands the term “Supercar” within the context of this forum.

Back to the main question - is there any particular reason why Ferrari didn’t continue with a production 12 cylinder, mid engine car after the Boxer/TR/M run?

 

Well, the terminology can be quite misunderstanding, as it seems that everyone uses different terms for different things. As for Ferrari’s way to separate the categories you are right. Ferrari differentiates GT, sports car and super car. However that is very far away from the “common” understanding (if there is any).

Anyway, interesting topic.

 

There are really only two Fcars that ever fell into that category. Those being the BB and the Testarossa. I think it would make a great revival as I've always loved the Testarossa (particularly the 512TR).

I don't see it happening as more models offered means the costs for R&D go up as do manufacturing costs as they now have to add more to the production process with new parts and assembly methods. Ferrari has a limited number of cars they can build a year and to keep it as profitable as possible they need to keep the number of models offered to a minimum. You'll make more money making 10,000 of the same thing than 10,000 of 10,000 different things as an exaggerated example.

My question is then, why does the FF exist? Do they actually make money off of those things? Sales numbers and depreciation seem terrible...who would want one?

 

Okay, for anyone not familiar with the term “Supercars”, I are referring to the following cars:

288 GTO
F40
F50
Enzo
LaFerrari

Okay, now that that’s clear, is there any reason why Ferrari ended the Boxer/TR/M lineage?

 

Good points. Interesting, back in the 70’s and 80’s Lamborghini had the Miura, then the Countach. Ferrari had the Boxer and TR. Lamborghini continued that family line with the Diablo,
Mercialago and Aventador, yet Ferrari went back to front engine GT’s. I understand that front engine GT’s are in the Ferrari bloodline but it would have been awesome if they did have a 12 cylinder mid-engine throughout those years. I personally think they would have had more impact on the brand. Just my thoughts.

 

IMO they don’t do a rear V12 cuz they want to save it for the limited edition cars


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

Even though they're not priced liked supercars ($1mm+), I've always considered the V12 Lambos to be supercars. The Diablo was always compared to the F40 and F50 and not the Testarossa even though their production overlapped. There really isn't even a sports car made today that would fit that TR category...the Aventador is a lot different imo.

 

It is possible that they are up against the average fuel mileage issue. V12's drink a lot more gas than Turbo V8's. The amount of power these things are making now is pretty incredible.

Let's face it... Ferrari loves to make a buck. If they thought they could make a bigger buck making more V12 mid engine cars they would.

 

That is very possible but gas guzzler tax is not that crazy compared to the cost of the car


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

But they may have an issue of average fuel economy across the fleet.

 

A thread of speculation

 

HA. That’s all it’s meant to be, just speculation. Still, when I think of the awesome 12 cylinder mid-engine models they could have been turning out since the mid 90’s, it’s a shame it didn’t happen. Would be great if they brought it back. I think today’s younger buyers, and future Ferrari buyers, would likely be more interested in an aggressive mid-engine offering than a 12 cylinder GT (assuming it was one or the other).

 

agreed..
however another point is now that they make the turbo V8 mid engines they can get all the power they need with an 8 cylinder mid engine ..of course why not offer the 12 cyl version of the same car like so many other manufacturers do..

 

You’re likely right.

 

Pretty much half of FChat is speculation


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

But gas guzzler tax is reasonable compared to typical MSRP


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

I remember reading, after the 512M, that Ferrari wanted to return to front engine V12's because of heritage. I think it's logical, the way the lineup is today. A mid V12 below the halo cars makes no sense to me.

The FF and Lusso have sold very well compared to previous 2+2's by the way, due to the AWD and reliability factors. I think the 2+2 GT's will be gone with the FUV though.

 

It's a great question and as the owner of a F512M and 550 I have the last of the line of what you are talking about, and the first of the new line.

There are a lot of interesting reports out there from the 1990s, Rossocorsa it's worth Googling them, about Montezemolo and the thinking behind the reintroduction of the front engined V12s. As a summary, he wanted Ferrari to sell more cars, for everyday use (sound familiar?) and the mid 12 cyl is never going to be as practical as a front engined car with a traditional boot/trunk. Space for golf clubs, visibility, general usability, parking, and a host of other things. That is very much what the Ferrari insiders were talking about at the launch of the 550, which then leads to the 575, 599, F12 and Superfast.

It's also worth noting the historical context. When Montezemolo took over Ferrari was not in a great state. 348 had poor reviews, Mondial also, 2+2 V12 in the shape of the 412 was dying, Testa was going down the road of the exciting but crazy and uncommercial Lambos. We may now think (I do) of the mid engine 12s as thrilling, but then they were reworked versions of an early 70s car (BB) that had replaced Daytona and followed Lamborghini. Montezemolo introduced the 456 which was decades in front of the 412, and the 550 seemed equally newer than the F512M - even though it was actually slower and heavier (my own experience would support this). But the 550 was the precursor of the crazy fast F12 and Superfast. And,as someone pointed out, the 488 is as fast a mid engined car as you could hope for.

Although, the 488 is more competent than exciting. I sometimes drive my manual 430 (more fun than the 488) and F512M back to back. They should be quite similar - similar power outputs, performance, weight, set up - but there's something about the 12 cyl mid engined. But to hark back to your original point, there's just not enough of a market for them. Sadly.

 

Superb write up. Thank you. Though, I will disagree about that 488. I love my GTB and I find it incredibly thrilling.

 

If my memory serves me well, it also had to do with the "not so satisfying" dynamics of the rear-mounted flat 12 engine, as for weight distribution and road-holding.

A 12 cylinder engine is long, be it a V12 or a Flat 12, so the solution adopted by Ferrari in 1971 for the project "superberlinetta", which was destined to become the 365BB, was to put the gearbox under the flat 12 engine (or should I say, mounting the engine on top of the gearbox). It solved also the difficult problem of routing the exhausts, which had been a drawback on the Formula O and Prototypes Flat-12.
But the trouble is that by elevating the engine itself over the gearbox, a substantial portion of the weight is higher than it should be from a optimum roadholding point of view. Also regarding the theory of polar-moment inertia, which mean most of the weight should be "inside the four wheeels", it is not satisfying either as a part of the engine is over the wheel axle and protruding at the rear of this.
And during the early nineties Ferrari decided that this architecture was really not able to sustain the development towards better performance and better road holding production cars. Putting the gearbox where it should be (= behind the engine) would have given a rather long base car, which was not desirable for a production car.

Of course, we all now that Paolo Stanzani, facing the same problem of a too-long-engine, adopted a different solution for the "Countach": he installed a longitudinal V12 in the rear position, but reversed, that is with the gearbox in front of the engine, between the passengers; then a returning shaft runs from the gearbox to the differencial at the rear. The engine needs only to be mounted slightly higher, to clear the shaft's passage, the penality in roadholding is minimal and the wheelbase can still be rather short. This engine architecture is still the same for today's "Aventador" I believe.

Perhaps Ferrari doesn't want to adopt an engine architecture pioneered by Lamborghini?

Rgds

 

Even Ferrari wants to sell more cars to more people.
A front engined V-12 is not so close a competitor to a mid engined V-8s. Typically two different buyers.
Mid engined both would eat on each others numbers.