812 Replacement Rumors

IMHO, increased electronics on any Ferrari is a bad idea. It’s never been the company’s strong suit. The electric seats on our FF are glitchy, and I far prefer the simple manual adjustments on the racing seats in our other Ferraris. Also prefer the hydraulic steering on older models to the electric steering on the 812. Same is now true for the haptic controls. More gizmos just leads to more maintenance headaches and doesn’t generally enhance the drive experience. I know some may argue that the stability programming is a true advance and that may be true. But I don’t ever miss it on older cars like our 1997 993TT.

 

My respect goes to you too, my dear sir, as we all know that you are a huge enthusiast, with vast experience and an admirable car collection. Please let me have my own opinion though, regarding older cars. I will never like an old 911. Anything older than a 996 is just weird and unbalanced, in my experience. It is not a matter of set up, but of basic balancing and physics. I get it, Singer might have worked some wonders, but a 964 will never become well balanced, like a 991, unless I am grossly mistaken.

 

And yet they have the best control electronics of any car (they make you feel like a driving god).

 

Singer manufactures maybe 100-120 cars per year. Singer Classic is now finished (under 450 cars in 14+ years), DLS (75 cars), DLS-Turbo (99 cars) and Turbo Study about 250+ orders to date.

Having visited the factory and seen how the cars are manufactured I am in awe of the workmanship, attention to detail and quality. The level of "bespokeness" and personal "wishes" possibilities are infinite.

Singer is a must at some point in ones car journey

 

I’m doing exactly that but not Pagani or Singer initially. I suspect Singer will follow shortly.

 

There is a fine line between usable tech and overkill, tradition and advancement.

Having safety systems to protect you available to control 800/900/1000hp is wise and potentially life saving.

Tech for the sake of tech like haptic controls takes away from the usability of a high performance car and is distracting if you are driving the car as Enzo would have liked. Not to mention it will date almost immediately and the current digital dashboards are just plain ugly and cumbersome.

Why can’t we have both? Wonderful aids like SSC with various levels of help and active suspensions but have a stunning and usable dashboard like the ones in a Pagani or De Tomaso?

 

I am sure you will really enjoy the process .

 

Hang on, have you not just said in this thread you have E-type Jags? In my experience they are one of the most over hyped and worst driving cars ever, and i have driven a few.

 

The 993TT is incredibly well-balanced and intuitive once you’ve learned “slow in, fast out” and to avoid throttle lift oversteer which honestly applies to most sportcars that don’t have SSC or something similar sorting out your mistakes. You can feel literally every pebble on the road and feel incredibly connected. Older 911’s are often faulted because the back end wants to come around on you if you suddenly cut the throttle, but this behavior was more pronounced in our far newer F12 (which we still loved).

We upgraded the front tires from 225’s to 245’s on the 993TT when we started tracking the car to dial out some understeer. Over 8,000 of its current 46,000 miles were acquired on racetracks like VIR, Mid Ohio, Road America, Putnam Park, etc, which speaks to the usability, capabilities, and balance of the car. And it was incredibly reliable with no driver’s aids or electronics beyond ABS to create repair headaches. And it weighs only 3,350 lbs despite a steel body. Sometimes, less really can be more.

 

The challenge is, the super late turn-in approach that makes the old 911s manageable for us mortals doesn't get the most out of them.

In fairness, I don't have that much experience on track with 911s. But my understanding (which seems logical to me) is that the way to be quick in a 911 is to drive it like a mid-engined car. It just leaves you very little margin for error. A mid-engined car (at least a good one) allows for bigger adjustments to speed and rotation with the throttle without producing a tank slapper. If you're Hans Stuck, you can still wring it's neck without that margin for error. For the rest of us, we have to drive them at 6/10 (slow in), whereas we might get a better balanced car to 8/10.

It's why I never really warmed up to 911s. My time with them on track never inspired confidence. I'm no Stucky, so I either had to force myself to be conservative at turn in, or had to dial too much corner exit understeer into them. (Incidentally understeer seemed to be the approach the factory took circa 2000.)

I haven't driven many 911s in the last 20yrs. I'm sure they've continued to make them better. Though I still don't get why they stick to that layout. Seems like an unnecessary handicap their engineers are forced to overcome.

 

Well, they tried, but you know how car guys are: they don´t like changes. We have a lot of that here too.

Yet, with modern technology, I don´t think it´s a big issue anymore, they can dial anything with electronics, like those fighter planes that are made to be inherently unstable.

 

I really should try one. Have to admit the new GT3s look pretty spectacular...

 

Ferrari have never pursued ‘analogue’. They have only ever been about one thing; making a car go round a track faster. Maybe two if you include the whole GT thing. But Enzo didn’t strike me as someone who much cared for nostalgia. He had a pretty simple idea. He just wanted to win. To want Ferrari to make low power, low tech, analogue cars is to completely misunderstand who they are and what they have been. F40 fits the analogue, nostalgic bill….today. But it didn’t when it was designed. Turbo instead of n/a to get high power from a lightweight unit, carbon exterior and lightweight build for lap time gains, first to 200 mph, technology transfer from the racing department, analogue dials because there weren’t any digital ones possible within the development budget, aerodynamically modern looks for the time. They just wanted to go fastest around a track. Despite it fitting that bill 35 years later, they weren’t trying to build a nostalgic, analogue car at all.

No problem to want that kind of car but you just have to look elsewhere. GMA is an ideal place, but of course you have to pay big to play. But there are others. Whoever said earlier that this philosophy would have produced an Italian Morgan got it spot on. So dashboards from yesteryear, old-school chassis dynamics and tech, yesterday’s aerodynamic styling is not Ferrari’s bag. That’s not to say haptics are welcome because they actually don’t work well currently. But the solution they will come up with is not to revert to analogue dials. Porsche make haptics work passably in the Taycan so it can be done.

The n/a Speciale engine had a compression ratio of 14.5 to 1 (from memory). Not a chance to meet the forthcoming Euro 6 emissions plus the fleet average CO2 in Europe with that. Easier for Porsche because of all those ‘unpopular’ hybrids they were making. Easy enough too for Lambo because of their pooling with VW. Ferrari pooled with nobody so had to deal with it themselves. Good job they did too, getting the extra power and developing a brilliant turbo engine to boot. Not as sweet as that n/a V8 but much better than the Mac TT V8 IMO. And of course part of their thinking was that they could maybe keep only one of the n/a V8 or V12. Did they choose wrong? I doubt any of us think so.

We can lament the search for ever-increasing power but that has always been Ferrari. Have they ever launched a car less powerful than the model being replaced? If we expect them to do that now, who is changing the goalposts? It’s not them.

So for some people, it seems there is only one conclusion. Time to buy products from other brands. Why should Ferrari change 75 years of culture and history because we fancy a needle instead of a digit? Sometimes we grow out of stuff. But it’s us who change, the brand usually continues doing what it’s programmed to do. Apple is another perfect example. When the iPhone launched in 2007, it was an instant hit. It was a brilliant but obvious product development for them - they were bound to do it. And of course, Apple continued doing what they were bound to do. Then lots of people got offended with them (trapped in the Apple-sphere, ever escalating costs etc.) and decided they wanted to change. Fair enough. Put your money where your mouth (or heart) is. That’s the way this works. No point being grumpy with Ferrari for them doing what they have always done. Others are not too unhappy and will continue buying until they reach a point they do become unhappy (which may be never) and still others will suit the new way and become customers for the first time, possibly becoming interested in the back catalogue in the future. For those leaving the brand’s new products, the back catalogue holds tremendous fun and I thoroughly recommend it.

 

Both our F12 and 812 also required a “slow in, fast out” approach on track and were less enjoyable (to me) on the racetrack than the more manageable 993TT. Of course, the F12 and 812SF are tuned for street use and excel in that environment.

The 993TT is AWD and allows 5 to 40% of the torque to be transferred to the front wheels as needed. This allows you to get the power down earlier and essentially “claw” your way out of the corner. So it might have had advantages over earlier 911’s. The larger front tires and our aftermarket Bilstein PSS-9 / 10 coilovers certainly helped, too. Like any car tuned primarily for street use, some tweaking helps a ton on track.

I’ll be the first to agree that mid-engined is the ideal setup for the track. I campaigned an SR3 RSX for a few years in Radical Cup. But I’d take a rear-engined 993TT over nearly any front-engined car on track.

 

They really are and per my previous post, I started buying modern 911s, progressed to GT products and have now gone backwards too - a 73 longbonnet E and an 89 930 Turbo LE. Both absolutely brilliant, analogue, old-school 911s. I really love driving them, especially the 930 turbo. Our current GT3 Touring is one of the best semi-daily cars we’ve owned. Stunningly good car.

 

I think there is a huge weight difference between a 993 TT and a F12/812!

Lets be honest here the 599/F12/812 are cars that can do track work but are not designed with that primarily in mind, this is unlikely to change with the 812 replacement and nor should it in my opinion. In the real world more mileage is done on the road than on track.

 

I had a look at a 992 GT3 RS a few weeks back and to me its just too compromised for road use, especially any road that is less than totally smooth. Ferrari GT cars will hopefully never ever be that compromised, it would be possible to drive a 812 as a daily, would be possible to take to take the track and then go for lunch afterwards, for me that is the genius of the V12 GT, this dual purpose and yes there are some compromises inherent in that but I'd wager less than there are in a GT3 RS overall but again everyone has a different use case.

My passenger laps in a 812 are still quite vivid today, driven with "enthusiasm" it seems to handle track work quite well.

 

Fair enough. I actually have stopped buying new Ferraris, although I still love the ones we have that span 2014 to 2020 (hardly old). I also love the Iconas but don’t believe haptics, electronic steering, or even hybrid technology on the recent mainstream models improve performance, driver enjoyment, or long-term reliability. Not crazy about several of Manzoni’s recent exterior designs either.

Did you see the quote by Verstappen that F1 in Vegas was 99% show and 1% sport? It catered to the see-and-be-seen crowd more than true motorsports enthusiasts. I don’t want to be overly harsh or critical of modern Ferrari because I’m still a big fan, but I think they’ve moved in a similar direction in recent years. More focused on flash and adding tech for the sake of tech to cater to a similar crowd. Maybe the right move economically but I am more attracted to older Ferraris, Singer, Porsche, Pagani, etc., now. Must be getting old myself…

 

This certainly seems like the thing he cared most about. But I'm not sure what that implies about the road cars.

How strong were his convictions about what his street cars should be? My sense (am I wrong?) is that the street cars were a means to an end. Unlike most manufacturers, he didn't win races to sell more cars, he sold cars to finance victories. (Apparently a hell of a way to build a brand.)

He built cars that I think he was proud of, but he seemed willing to adapt to customer preferences. He listened to what Chinetti thought about the the US market (the California, for example, wasn't about maximizing performance). He made concessions in the interest of comfort, luxury and reliability in some of his cars (the 250 GT Lusso had single overhead cams and three carbs to make it easier to live with, and the engine was pushed forward in the chassis to make for a more spacious cabin).

So yeah, I may not like it, but if the customers want Purosangues, I suspect Enzo would have made them. Likewise, if customers wanted him to keep making NA V12s, I bet he would have obliged - even if it wasn't the choice he'd make for his race cars.

---

Also, even when he started driving a Ferrari as his personal car, didn't he choose to drive the 330 GT 2+2? Not the 500 Superfast or even the 330 GTC.

---

This is absurd.

 

My only regret in life was not having bought my first Porsche & 911 until I was 49.

Oh I forgot, in speaking with my guy yesterday, it seems the Factory is wanting more control over who will get one of their cars. Having a history of V12s or having had an 812 or having a non 812 V12 currently in your garage will not cut the mustard and guarantee you one, at least on the first few rounds of 167s. That should open up later (as they did with the PS).

So keep your cars & sell only after they’ve punched your ticket. I know it doesn’t apply to many here but thought I’d throw out that tidbit bit for others who will sell to upgrade.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

Yeah, never had one on the track. I can definitely believe it. (Though like you said, the track isn't their natural environment.) They're also so damned powerful, you better get that wheel pointed straight nice and early!

Makes sense. I only drove RWD 911s.

 

Very well said

 

I’m not really suggesting we all have to love what happens - I’m with Verstappen, there is a real risk F1 becomes more show than go. But it’s obviously what was going to happen as soon as somebody paid Bernie billions for it, they want their return. Usually our propensity to accept this kind of debased purity is more than we think - F1 has actually been going this way for decades yet growing in popularity and retaining most fans too. But will it reach a point that nobody watches it? Probably not. But it maybe that those who loved it in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, 00’s may not love what it becomes in the the 20’s. Do they stick or twist? Hard to say but I’m betting many will twist.

As for Ferrari, I get the criticism about adding tech for the sake of it. But I don’t think it’s right. The pursuit of extra power has always been with them and it has led here. Need extra power but lower emissions and want instant torque and response? Hybrid is a natural solution. Want to build 1,000 hp cars you can sell to the public? ABS, torque vectoring, side slip control, e-diff etc is a must. Want to derive some benefit from the development of race cars and put these into roadcars? Here’s the manetino, then the e-manetino, then other functions. You can at least see why they think haptic controls are needed. They just didn’t get it right yet. I don’t think they would consider their technology unnecessary. It’s only unnecessary if you want Ferrari to build something they never promised to. To cater for some of this sentiment they started the Icona line, which I think makes good sense and proves there is a market for a simpler product. But it is driven by beautiful exterior styling, expensive build and limited numbers. It’s a collector car. One interesting thing they could perhaps do in the future is a cheaper Icona line as an alternative to 296/SF90 but the volume still has to be low because I don’t think the market is big and they still have the emissions issue to deal with. Low volume pushes the price up. And if they made a non-hybrid SF90, didn’t they just do that with 488/F8? In the end, I think it’s quite hard to try and cover both bases at scale and I doubt many people are that interested. Selling us a newly styled F8 with a few more bhp and an extra number on the side slip version for another £100k. I wonder how that goes…not well is my guess.

 

I've never been in favour of making the dead speak, it's a guarantee of making a mistake because the political contexts and cultural eras are far too different. Nevertheless, I have had a lot of discussions with one of his oldest dealers in the world, who knew him well, G. Cavallari. What I can tell you is that Enzo made the cars he wanted to make, and the customer had to adapt and buy it, or not... There is a famous anecdote regarding a person of royal blood who he would have said nearby, you take the car like this if you like it, or you don't take it... Today, one might think that things have changed with the arrival of marketing ++, but in fact it is not possible to compare.
Today, there are perhaps more Apple people in the company than there are in Apple, and who wears Apple Watches . So, we shouldn't be surprised to see geek cars appear, since those who make the product plans are geeks themselves.
Enzo made cars that looked like him, with very specific ideas about the V12. Today, it's all over the place without worrying about the brand's legacy, and it's up to marketing to create slogans and motivate sales... the badge is enough to sell, so there is no interest for them to make an effort or question themselves.
When you manage to sell a mass-produced V6 with planned obsolescence for half a million, and there are endless waiting lists, it most certainly means that you are in a different relationship with the brand, where enthusiasts have given way to consumers.
The Ferrari we grew up with, and loved, no longer exists. You just have to be clear-eyed and accept that and that those who continue to buy (I respect this) don t try to justify or convince themselves that they are buying a Ferrari as history has defined the myth. With the exception of 167, the whole range could wear another badge, it wouldn't shock anyone...