812 Replacement Rumors

Some of the F167 images I have seen, suggest that the car could be smaller than 812 (not only by reported 3-4 cm reduction in wheelbase/length, but also by other body dimensions). If true, this approch could bring some modest weight savings.

 

I’m totally with you on this, the cars are getting bigger and heavier requiring more trick electronics to make them useable to the bulk of drivers that use them. My vote for 167 would be smaller, lighter and with simpler controls. Won’t happen, so I guess I’ll see what they come up with before committing - just good looks won’t do it for me.

 

I'm sure many on here remember the promise of the Millechili "A lightweight two-seater (2200 pounds or even less) loaded with Formula 1 technology", to be the successor to the Enzo, but instead of adding power, Ferrari would add lightness. Instead got the 3700lbs LaF with hybird and troublesome battery packs.

 

I agree that a lot of Ferrari’s are bloated luxo purses for men. HOWEVER we cannot pretend that it is ALL at the fault of the manufacturer. The wretched laws and regulations that are intended to kill the automobile as we know it play a huge role in this. Even the hallowed Valkyrie ended up being hundreds of pounds heavier than intended and it is $3MM. They cannot make every car the lightest and the lightest car can’t even be as intended. Further more the client base of mostly posers don’t care. For F’s sake these guys actually want a Ferrari SUV. Doesn’t this tell you something about the client base? This doesn’t let Ferrari off the hook or justify them not lobbying for more performance friendly regulations and pushing the envelops in regards to weight and performance and make cars for the core driver focused clientele.

 

And then Ferrari used the same underpinnings for the Bulbous Millennium Falcon rear ended SP3 without the batteries and electric motors and weighing almost the same!


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

Mclaren managed to get its 765lt weighing 1351 Kg / 2978 lbs and its working withing the same regulations and price point.

Porsche build GT3's and GT2's that are under 3000lbs and cost a lot less ( which i would argue they are better made, but that's a whole other can of worms).

A lot of the Ferrari client base will buy whatever Ferrari build them, just look at the price of the Purosangue. It's why Ferrari are getting away with building bloated profit driven cars.

 

Read the last sentence of my post.

 

What's a Porsche fan doing in the 812 Replacement title?

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ferrari-s-new-v12-flagship-gt-spied-testing-will-debut-may-2024-226837.html#

 

I have owned, and currently own cars from both Maranello and Stuttgart, and my personal opinions are based on my real life ownership experiences.

I'm guessing due to your line of questioning me, you must be a current front engine v12 Ferrari owner or on the waiting list for the 812 replacement?

 

I'm coming here to get information about F167. Someone with the nickname chicken is writing Porsche technical specifications, I don't understand why you are here.

 

For me, the thing that makes the F12 and 812 and their predecessors stand apart is that Ferrari V12 magic. I can't think of any engines that I'd put in the same zip code. (Perhaps a few seven-figure hypercars.)

I'd love to see smaller dimensions and less weight too. But yeah, if we get a 10k rpm NA V12 in a reasonable package (i.e., not a PS), sign me up. Even if the chassis isn't perfect, it will be good. And that engine would be enough to make overlook an awful lot of shortcomings...

 

I personally find his posts informative, so can you please stop posting like a kindergartener. You started out by talking down on Day355, and now you're talking down on Chicko. Please behave. It's a lot nicer for all of us if we can keep the tone civil and accept others' opinions.

 

Just as i thought.

 

One of the worst sports cars I have driven was the lightest of them all, an Elise. So, I don't subscribe to this mantra. It fealt heavy and unwieldy, with its unassisted steering rack and brakes. Ferraris that weigh twice as much feel much lighter. That's all that matters! I won't even go into numbers...

By the way, the 992.2 GT3 RS is heavier than the plain GT3. Weight is just a number. Yes, being lighter is theoretically better, but having heavy technology that "negates" the weight can be even better.

 

If Ferrari wanted to they could "lighten" all their cars by adopting CF. If McLaren, Aston (Valhalla), Lamborghini etc etc could do it so could Ferrari. As an owner of all 4 brands (Pcar, Fcar, Lcar and Mcar) and having owned many derivative's of them all each has they own nuances and likes and dislikes. While weight might not be the "cure-all" it shows Ferrari's lack of using well adopted techniques to lighten their cars as being lazy and relying on good looks and their enormous brand.

I for one will still buy the F167 as one needs a V12 NA in the garage, but for the price (and I am sure it will be an eye watering gouge), they could at least have used some weight saving materials like the others have done.

 

Well, all I know is that I’m excited to spec the 167 when I can. I understand all the talk about weight etc. I am not after top performance, just the fantastic sensory delight of the v12 and brilliant handling in a gorgeous package that allows all day driving in comfort. Our 812 will remain in the stable because it is our first V12 and I have no plans/desire to sell her. For daily driving under the radar, a manual 911 GTS is a fun alternative.

Perhaps some will call me a poseur since I don’t track or even really care much about the numbers. That’s ok. But the entire experience driving the car is fantastic and that’s why I’m all in.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

What Elise's did you drive? I had one years back and it was just bloody marvellous on the right road (Scottish B roads especially). The steering at anything above parking speed was beautifully judged and was brimming with detailed communication and feedback. The brakes were so precise and sorted that i never once locked a wheel by mistake, even in the wet (no ABS). Unlike heavy modern cars, the suspension had lots of travel, but the body control was second to none. No matter what surface, the car just breathed with the road. Being 6 foot 2 inches, it was a complete pain to daily drive, which i did for many months as it was my only car at the time.

 

Artura is really really great to drive. A real deal. It weighs less and have carbon tub.
Simpler brake and same engine. The Mclaren steering magic.

The thing is though….

296 GTB is just better car.

For the fairness for Mclaren, even the comparison between the two is a success.

So sometimes weight matters but other times like daily driving, the overall packaging matters.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

Regarding the question of weight at Ferrari, there are several explanations. The first is that when Ferrari analyzes its feedback from marketing research, it shows that what the customer wants is always more power, and that getting the power today is much cheaper to implement than a significant reduction in weight. The vast majority of customers do not know how to use 500 hp but want 1000.
The second is that an important work on weight reduction with carbon chassis is to lower margins. McLaren has made carbon and its weight control a key element in attracting the customer to the driving experience. For Ferrari, this is not necessary, the badge is responsible for motivating sales.
The best driving experience I've had in recent years is the Lamborghini STO. The grip in the trim changes is amazing, as is the rigidity and balance of the chassis. We would all have liked Ferrari to make this car, but they don't make it, simply because it only thinks "power" to match the demand of the vast majority of customers.
In my opinion, there was room for another strategy, which is to abandon the race for ridiculous power on the open road today, and to concentrate on the (smaller) dimensions and on the engines of the hybridization with only NA and less power at the finish. In the end, I think it would have been more homogeneous, more noble and always sold out, because as you know, unfortunatly, even with 4 cylinders the cars will continue to sell with this nice badge on the front.

 

Imagine how good the 296 could be with a carbon construction and a lot less weight ( and better steering).

 

Called the GT3 and it won the Nürburgring 24 Hours (Non Hybrid)

 

An S2, 111s, 160 HP with a Rover engine. Power was lacking, but I didn't mind that too much; I never expected a Lotus to have a great engine, anyway. The brakes were more of a problem, as I prefer an immediate bite, without having to go through a slack. My huge grievance though was the steering rack and the turn in. Unnecessarily heavy steering effort that translated into little turning. I like a light rack that you guide with your fingertips and that hunts apexes. You shouldn't have to wrestle a car into a corner; it should be laser guider by your thinking! Cars you have to fight with, are just bad cars.

 

Or for less $$$$ the 296 Challenge.

 

The 296 GT3 is still a Ferrari (aluminium construction) and the non-hybrid part is dictated by the regulations. Lest we forget, the racing 911s are made of steel...