The Jeremy Clarkson 812 SF Review

I guess Clarkson wants the very old Ferraris (i.e. 275 GTS) that were, to his own words, rubbish in regards to built quality, but had a heart and a soul, and when you drive them you feel "special".

 

Imho the 812 would make a lot more sense in the line up if it had the 4rm system, even if just optional

 

I love the 812 and will drive mine as I want when it arrives. But I love Clarkson’s articles and TV too. He is a person with a certain style and approach to life that is different to mine but I enjoy what he says and his viewpoint. This thread does sound a bit playground-ish and I’m sure the good people of fchat are secure enough to allow someone to have an opinion like Clarkson’s without it disturbing the enjoyment they get from the car they liked enough to spend a lot of money to buy.

I see what he is saying. The size of the 812 compared with other ‘normal’ road cars is not really relevant because they can’t do 0-60 in 2.9s. As was already pointed out, the length of the bonnet also adds to the sense of size so combining this with the sheer performance, it is much easier to thread a 488 through a mountain pass - where is the sense in making such a long-bonneted, powerful car? The fact that the car he drove has harnesses would have done nothing to improve this feeling. He acknowledged the brilliance of Ferrari’s development in allowing a 789bhp rwd car to be tamed for the road at all, just questioned the sense of it. Remember he writes with extremes. Is it really interesting if he doesn’t? I don’t mind if some of the world doesn’t understand why I love and buy Ferraris. I am sensitive to the fact that there are many perhaps more worthy uses for the money I spend, but somewhere deep down, the history and heritage of Ferrari and thoughts of those brave men in their front-engined cars from years ago starts to rouse something in me. The searing - and soon to be considered ancient - soundtrack stirs the soul yet further and the vague notion that I have learned some ability to deploy this and it feels wonderful completes the trick. It is illogical. He’s so right, but yet, that’s partly why it’s also so irresistible to me, and in truth, on another day, perhaps him too.

 

The problem with Clarkson is he picks on things that niggle him like the harness which 95% of people won't order. I don't expect a balanced 'review' of any car from him but try to enjoy his sense of humour.

 

I think is prose is reactionary at its very best. He wants people to talk about it, he wants people to disagree and taking an extreme viewpoint just allows for that. Its all subjective after all. I love the harnesses in a Ferrari, they make me feel part of the car, like I am wearing it.

As another poster said, there is no logic to these cars its the intangible feeling they give and that is almost indescribable.

 

I'm a spoiled (arguably) white man and I love to see the ME kid's cars decorating our streets every summer.

Personally I'm not going to diamante stud a Lambo, but if somebody else wants to, well its fine with me.

I'm a car enthusiast, 60's V12 owner but not a snob and, like dustman, I enjoy all car cultures, watching low riders, hot rods, furious Japs. All of it.

Top Gear is better than Grand Tour...

 

Nothing he said was racist whatsoever.

 

Man, I'm going to catch some hate for this, but here goes...

Jeremy Clarkson is right.

But I'll go one step further: the Portofino is a better car than the 812.

I have felt for a long time that the GT 12 cylinder Ferrari cars have been getting way too big. They are hideously over styled because they have stopped building "tourers" in favor of building dedicated track monsters. The 599xx is the worst thing to happen to the brand since the 400 and the Mondial. It sent Ferrari in search of track times with a car who's layout is not designed for racing. There's a reason why race cars put the engine in back, and why all the fastest cars are built that way.

GT cars are supposed to be for road driving, not track smashing. Even the flying yester-tech brick that is the Dodge Viper seems to understand this. It's a 175 inch car that you can easily "run to the shops" in. The 812 is pushing midsize proportions and even the F12 has complaints about parking and turning.

If you want to go fast on the track, why would you even buy a GT car? You can get a USED Huracan for $200k and destroy every front engined car Ferrari makes. The 812 is a horrible bargain, it's impractical, it's over priced, and in the end doesn't even do what it's supposed to do: beat mid engined cars on track day. You ain't safe on the streets, either. Hell, you spent damn near half a million dollars just to get smoked at the stop light by some long haul truck driver in an $85k Dodge Demon on drag slicks. Hope you didn't raid the kids' college trust for that.

Ferrari is indeed making cars for celebrities, athletes and sheiks because that's who buys most of their cars. But you know what? You can sell those people a practical car that actual can be used as (you guessed it) a car. Their best selling model is the Cali, the original of which was decidedly controversial in it's styling. With the Portofino they've built a car that is BETTER LOOKING than the 812 (or F12 for that matter), because it actually looks like a car and not like somebody's wind tunnel experiment. Oh, and it comes in convertible. Has plenty of storage, is easy to park and see out of.

"But, but, but...", I can hear you saying, "it's not a real Ferrari/sports car!" Hogwash. The Porto comes out of the box with 6 bills under the hood and when Fabspeed gets their hands on that ECU it will be pushing nigh on 700 ponies with a reliable tune on it. VERY few of you are going to be able to use more than that on the track, much less on the road no matter which car you're in.

And that brings me to my last point. Now I've been broke, lived in my car, and I've had money, lived the good life. So maybe, having experienced poverty and being new money, I am biased. But I don't see the point in spending all that money on a car I'm not going to drive. This for me is what kills the F12/812 vs Portofino discussion. The Porto is a car that is designed to be a car. The 12s are cars that have been designed as show pieces that are impractical for literally every purpose including the track day mission for which they have been tuned. The only purpose in buying one, as Jeremy rightly points out, is bragging rights.

So yeah. You get to look down your nose at me at the stop light on Sunday afternoon. But in my Porto, I'll have the joy of driving my Ferrari through the Hollywood hills to work on Monday while your 812 is under a tarp somewhere and you're toiling through traffic in your hideous Panamara.

 

I drive possibly the largest Ferrari ever built 12cyl FF it’s not unwieldy at all it’s 1 inch longer than
a Honda Accord, The 812 is the same length as the Accord just accept that modern cars are bigger
safety regulations have seen to that.
D.

 

Sure.

 

Factually untrue. This is not a matter of opinion, what you've said here is demonstrably untrue.

The 1972 365 Daytona, the grandfather of all these modern GT cars was 174.3 inches.

Modern big engined cars:

2017 Dodge Viper: 175 inches

2017 Audi R8: 174 inches

2017 Lamborghini Huracan: 175 inches

2017 Corvette Stingray 177 inches

2017 Jaguar F type 176 inches.

All of these cars are decidedly modern, and all are within 2 inches of the Daytona. It has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with the track focus of the Ferrari GT 12 line. Lets talk about the real reason Ferrari stretched the wheelbase...



This is the F12, engine in chassis. To build a more balanced track car, Ferrari needed to make the GT cars front-mid-engined. Well, there's only so far back you can push the engine before you're competing with the firewall and foot wells. So, like the chopper motorcycles of old, Ferrari engineers "stretched the forks" and push the front wheels forward. This put the engine behind the front axle, but stretched the wheelbase out to a ridiculous 107 inches. THAT is what forced this car to be so big, that gigantic wheelbase. Not some nefarious "safety" regulation.

And, to be clear, what prompted this change: the totally unnecessary and impractical track focus that also ruined the GT's styling with all that aero.

Facts matter. Even in this era.

 

I think you’re making a lot of assumptions here and ignoring a whole lot of automotive development and learning. True to say that mid-engines cars have better balance, but that is not the whole story. Exhibit A; the Porsche 911. For front engined cars the logic has always been about keeping weight over the turning wheels on track and packaging. For many reasons this is where Ferrari’s heart always was - front engined V12s.

Nowadays there are still customers who want a front-engined V12. Packaging is much more accommodating for a long road trip than a mid car, this I know extremely well. Plus, the V12, an engine of such wonderful sound, pull and feel that justifies any deficiencies in the car around it. Except that if you drive lesser GT cars, even those with nice V12s, the F12 and 812 just make those cars seem soft. Why is it illogical to want a V12 sports car that is outrageously fast?

For my own experience, having a Ferrari front-engined GT needs to mean a number of things - better packaging than a mid car; better power, performance and driving experience than other brands and its predecessor; the imperious Ferrari V12. And I’m neither Sheik nor famous. And the Portofino, fine car that it is, would not do for me what the 812 can.

 

You didn't really address my central point, so I'm not quite clear what you're on about with this first section.

None of this addresses the issue at hand.

1) Clarkson made a claim: The 812 is too big.

2) The Shotgun concurred with this claim: The 812, and the GT 12s in general, are too big.

3) Papau refuted this claim: Sinister "safety regulations" forced Ferrari to make the car bigger.

4) The Shotgun proved Papau's refutation false: Using facts and video I was able to show the real reason the 812 got so big: Track Focus.

You didn't address any of this. You sort of went off into a side tangent of sorts. And yes, I referred to myself in the 3rd person. Because it's fun to do that.

Neither Clarkson nor I have a problem with a car that is outrageously fast. You can make a 300hp car outrageously fast if you make it weigh 2800 lbs. Making the car smaller would accomplish this. The 812 is a boat. It's only nimble because there are 8 zillion processors in control of the car. Clarkson's argument is that he'd rather be the one controlling things and not the computers. That means a smaller car.

I will break with Jeremy in saying that 500 HP is probably more reasonable for a modern lightweight GT car than 300. A 174 inch, 2800lb car with 500 horses would be a blast to drive, and you could control it without all of NASA and MIT helping keep you out of Devil's Gulch.

The first thing I thought when I saw the Portofino was this: If you offered it with a V12 option, nobody would even bother with the 812. I still believe that. Yes, some purists like you might still demand it. But the practical footing of the Porto, combined with it's convertible top, would make it a very tempting alternative. Again, it really is more about bragging rights than driving experience. For the difference in cost between an 812 and a Portofino, with aftermarket work you could turn that Porto into a more effective track car than any stock 812.

 

I am not sure if your post is satirical or not. It's shorter than a c-class Merc, has a large boot and lots of headroom - how exactly is this not practical? In fact I just went to get a weeks worth of groceries and took the 812 because... why not? It was at the track 2 weeks ago and drove it there and back in comfort.

I actually find it more practical than any other supercar I have owned!

 

Now were talking about comparisons. A horse is impractical compared to a motorcycle, but not compared to an elephant.

The 812 is practical compared to, say, an Aventador. But not compared to Portofino or even a Corvette. How much depreciation are you looking at for every mile you put on that thing? And good luck doing any custom work on the thing without nuking your warranty. Now these things are true of Ferrari and Lambo cars generally, but they come at an extreme price with the 812.

And this is the point. The 812 is more car than you need for practical purposes, and less car than you need for a day at the track. Sure, it's fun to drive out there. But don't tell me you were eating Huracans out there in that thing. You weren't. It's not magic or witchcraft, it's called AWD.

To me, and to Clarkson, this is what makes the 812 such a lousy investment. You can't use it without killing it's value, and if you do use the thing it doesn't do anything outstandingly well. For that kind of money it should be the best at something, and it just isn't.

 

Can I quote you again "The 12s are cars that have been designed as show pieces that are impractical for literally every purpose"

The 812 has a boot over 3 times the size of a hurucan and it's shorter than a C-class. The fact you call it impractical for every purpose is quite frankly delusional.

As for what it's best at? Not a big thing, but the engine is kind of a big deal... a naturally aspirated V12 with 800hp that revs to 8,900rpm. If this doesn't excite you, I think the portofino is the ferrari for you

 

That would blunt the experience. According to Ferrari, the 4RM's purpose is all weather capability.

 

800 horses to do what? The car can't put that power down, and Clarkson made that clear. You can't use that power on the road, and you're going to get whipped by a Huracan on the track. So what's the point of all that power running through just two wheels? You can't use it.

We're back to Clarkson's point: you want the bragging rights of saying "I've got 800hp" regardless of how useless that power is 99% of the time. It's not functional horsepower.

The Dodge Demon. This car has huge slicks and designed to do 1 thing: kill everyone when the green light flashes. It's got just a few more horses but beats the 812 to 60 by MORE THAN HALF A SECOND. It has two usable rear seats and a trunk you could fit a dead body in.

Is it worth $450k+ just to say "I have 800hp" even though you're going to get smoked at the stoplight by an $85k car?

All you're doing is proving Clarkson right: the 812 is for posing, not driving.

 

800 HP is usable, under the right conditions. 4WD adds weight, has more parasitic losses and numbs the car's feeling. It has other advantages of course.
The match between a Huracan and an 812 is track dependent. In twisty, technical tracks, the smaller Huracan will have the upper hand. It's the other way around in long, fast tracks though.
That Demon is a joke. It needs racing petrol to make full power and drag tyres to get any traction, not to mention the silly "bicycle" front wheels. On road tyres it wouldn't even see where the 812 went. Not that it ever hit the claimed figures... By the way, all cars would achieve significantly better times on drag tyres.

 

I would re-read the article - JC specifically mentioned he's impressed how well it puts it's power down...so does Chris Harris and many many other credible reviewers.

Is 4wd good for launches? Yes my daily (F90 M5) will take me off the line initially. In fact, I'd say a portofino would never catch it - it also seats 5 comfortably, has a big boot, better tech and visibility and it's half the price. Does this make it better? No. But by your logic yes.

As for the power being useless 99% of the time. Seems to me a 4wd aventador can only launch better and that's about it - hardly 99%.



It's clear to me you've never driven one. Maybe try one - you might actually like it!

 

Be real, no one sane enough would attempt to drive ANY car on slicks on regular roads.
Demon loses most street contests because of poor traction, the half a second advantage over 812 you mention, happens only on a drag strip, with slicks and little wheels up front.
Following further your line of thinking, why would you spend a quarter of a million on a Portofino just to be blown away by a family sedan at every speed? (E63S, M5)
....and as you said yourself about 812 vs Porto, both way more usable and practical then the entry level Ferrari?

 

Hahahaha!!!
So silly to claim the 812 is trash because it is less practical than the Portofino. If you want practical then get a minivan or a truck.

Just so much silliness in this discussion. The Portofino is a brilliant car. I’ll be replacing the CaliT with it. The 812 is a brilliant car. I’ll be replacing the 488 with it. These cars are not investments. I will never track them. They are simply a pleasure to drive.

Sorry if that gets under your skin.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

You're just trying to be another Social Justice Warrior seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

 

Agreed 100%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

All of them decidedly NOT V12-engined...

So
2017 Corvette Stingray: 106.7 in wheelbase. Completely reasonable.
2018 Ferrari 812: 107 in wheelbase... Ridiculous?

.3 inches more to fit 4 more cylinders within the wheelbase... I'd say, great job Ferrari