That actually is pretty cool. Amazing what can be done with computers. Funny how the car looks real, but the people standing in the grass look like stick figures!
Could someone please tell me where to find this sketch in High Definition? Image Unavailable, Please Login
I like the overall shapes of this car, but I quite dislike front and rear light. Also the front spoiler feels a bit excessive. But the air intakes and the volumes above the rear wheels look very sensual! Finally, I can't just understand the choice of a 6 cylinders, when an 8 was more obvious. Ciao! Nic
I looked for explanations in the net but did not find anything else than "this turbo 6 is faster than the 8 of the F8 and its sound is brilliant", and Mr. Galliera trying to explain why they did not want to use the Dino name (which I do not completely trust - I simply believe that in today's world any different badge would have lowered commercial margins, while I also think that the name Ferrari Dino 296 might have even raised them). I might imagine that in today's world a V6 can be more efficient and offer more power density per engine volume and weight, while the engine elasticity given by more cyclinders is less relevant than in the past, yet a V8 is a V8, isn't it? Anyhow the 296 imho is the better looking in the current lineup, so most buyers will forgive the 2 missing cylinders. Still, it's a pity, because V8s are not V12s, and V6s are not V8s. In fact my other huge regret - for those who could have afforded one today or an eventual me in the future - is that after the Testarossa Ferrari constrained the rear V12s to the hypercars only: what if they kept developing that fantastic BB concept? What if they kept putting the V12 in the rear of truly beautiful, F-affordable, urban road usable cars?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I don't like the 296's looks, but our personal opinions are irrelevant to others. Regarding the V6, they have explained that they wanted to reduce the wheelbase in order to make the car feel more nimble and the shorter V6 enabled that reduction. Also, it helps with CO2 emissions, as it is a smaller engine and having less cylinders also means having less frictional losses, compared to a similarly sized V8.
Ultimately, though, the choice of going with a 6-cyl was driven by the need (desire?) to reduce engine displacement to 3 L. Using the established—by almost all manufacturers of production cars—norm of 500 cc per cylinder for a turbo for best efficiency, the math results in a 6-cyl. design.
Well, I am heavily biased and likely wrong, but I tend to think that another top driver was cost. The Ferrari V8 and V12 are so iconic that I can hardly accept reducing the number of cylinders for whatever technical reason.
Higher numbers of cylinders were initially purely driven by technical reasons - since the smaller cylinders allowed higher specific outputs. Technical developments have (for better or worse) made lower numbers of cylinders more efficient, which is a fact we have to live with.
It would have been much cheaper to continue with the old V8, which already had its costs amortised, rather than develop a brand new V6!
Oops. I think the car looks slick as hell. I see it's a "hot Vee" V-6. Just like the F1. I'll bet there's a whole bunch of F1 in that engine. Now about those Camaro tailights.
Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login photo- Walter Vayr
Just saw this in my local showroom. Most beautiful classic lines ......till...........one sees the rear lights . It's such an anticlimax. They are not angular, dimensional or 3 D or aesthetically flowing from the beautiful sculptural sides. They are ...just.....nothing !! Just two plain LED strip lights flatly inserted . What was the Designer thinking after designing such beautiful flow of lines elsewhere . The Ridge in the centre of those short LEDS make them look like sunglasses in a cartoon. It's not going to be easy for me to let go of my 488. Ah well.....
