Comparing the 812 Competizione vs 12cilindri

They theoretically could have done that when they developed the V6 hybrid. And they chose V6. To do a small V12 hybrid seems not to make any sense. It feels like old ground now and I know we’ve all discussed it before. But, say, a 4.0l V12 producing 500hp and another 300-500hp of electric power, depending on application, would be expensive to develop and produce, hard to package because of length of the ICE and the need to fit in more powerful electric motors and a battery and not versatile enough to cover enough spread in the Ferrari line up. The lower torque than a turbo and still-high weight would also be a disadvantage. High compression is problematic for emissions so they would more likely have to dial that back rather than move it forward.

To Caeruleus’ well-made point about balancing ICE and EV power, I hadn’t thought about it before but I think it is relevant. Such a unit might not be as palatable as it sounds in terms of feeling inside the car.

The ‘new’ V12 has to be small enough to be significantly lower weight and size, meaning also much lower power and more required from the electric. Without knowing all the details, I can see how Leiters might have concluded it isn’t workable.

Also, speed at which an engine adds revs has much to do with the weight of the internals and especially the flywheel. Ferrari would have to make their engine fit numerous applications and some of them would just be terrible with an ultra-light, fast revving flywheel.

 

Just the difference in weight. The Revuelto is about 200 kg heavier.

Static (unloaded) increase in RPM is not really relevant, as it is mostly a function of power/weight and gearing (aero at high speeds too) when actually accelerating.

 

Allow me to disagree.

How is a new V12, even a smaller one (~4.0L), going to produce only 500 HP?

I'm talking about a V12 starting at over 750 HP, a whole new architecture.

525 HP is a N/A 6-cylinder number (992 GT3 RS), and this engine is old architecture: derived from the previous model, the 991.2 GT3 from 2017, which was already a major change from the new-at-the-time 3.8L of the 991.1 GT3 in 2013.

As for the V6, IMO it's a purely economic and ideological choice by this management.

I know we'll never agree on this subject, but it's always good to have this kind of discussion here.

 

This is a very good question.

I think that even expanding the role of the hybrid a little, but without using turbos, would give a better feeling.

Also because I imagine that hybrid units tend to evolve over time, becoming stronger, lighter and more reliable.

Turbo + hybrid, at least for me, is too much of a compromise.

A basic example: IMO a 296, if it were V6 N/A with ~500 hp ICE and ~250 HP hybrid, would be much better in sensation and less complex than the 663 HP with TT + 167 HP hybrid. And the performance would be very similar, if not the same. An increase in hybrid performance compromises the sensorial experience much less than the existence of two turbos.

 

Discussions about a V12 hybrid are very interesting, but there are no such plans at the moment.

 

Yes. With a post-2026 homologation, I'm quite worried about the sound of the V12...

 

Ferrari tends to do one exhaust for all markets. Mclaren by comparison offer a louder exhaust for North America destinations than their EU version on the 750S for example. It seems to depend on motivation or lack of in some cases.

 

Or….they could have taken the 812/12C NA V12 engine and stuffed it into a mid-engine setup with $200,000 spent on weight savings and made it look like this. They could easily have sold 3,000 for a $1,000,000 each. Almost like a Ferrari version of a Porsche GT3. It does not have to be SF90 fast. Indeed, 830 hp at 3300lbs wet would have been fine for most enthusiasts. The incessant pursuit of speed is madness especially when all these road cars are 0 to prison in 3.4 seconds.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You guys are talking about complete re-designs including a new chassis/body. If you are going to go there then just make the V12 much larger and call it a day. Save weight with no electric motors, batteries, cabling and high voltage converter electronics and all that ECU software design, integration and test.

This is not the hyper series we are talking about that enthusiasts fantasize about running Le Mans on the street. Just spend the extra money on meeting emissions with a gigantic NA V12. No one would want anything else for the non-hypercar. They can do it if they were to decide to.

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Happy to disagree and discuss! The V6 is theoretically easier to get higher power from because there’s less internal friction for a given capacity. I think there’s a diminishing return if the cylinders get too large though (maybe somebody could confirm that?) which is why V12s are chosen for very large capacities.

i don’t think you would necessarily get enough improved output per litre simply because the engine is newer. It still takes the things required to extract more power out of the same cm3 of fuel - les internal friction, higher compression ratio, higher revs, better breathing etc.

There aren’t any cost-effective materials advances that I’m aware of that will help with the friction, higher compression means higher emissions (and the requirements are now much more severe), I guess they could go for higher revs but there is a reliability implication.

I’m no engineer so perhaps someone here who is could explain if it’s even reasonably possible for them to get huge output from a ‘small’ capacity V12 that has to be reliable and cost-effective to produce and operate? And would such an engine family be future-proof?

 

This would be a great direction for the VS. Maybe it will even be the final VS, who knows? But an aggressive engine map with 200kg out would indeed be a great car.

 

As a further thought, one technology that I heard about was Porsche’s 6-stroke engine idea. If I’ve understood correctly, this is where you get the normal four strokes but then the cam has an arrangement that allows an additional half-cycle to occur without releasing the exhaust gases. This does not apparently add power but reduces emissions for the equivalent power. It produces a very different kind of sound. This would not necessarily allow a smaller V12 but a greener same-size one to maintain its high power.

 

Large capacity V12's are intrinsic to GT cars that I cannot see this trend changing out of choice, as far back at the 400SA the big GT cars had big capacity engines. Perhaps turbo charging say a 4.5 litre V12 may be the answer with a slight reduction in weight. GPF have already muted the sound and turbo's would mute it more though it has to be said Aston's turbo V12 actually sounds ok in videos.

 

It’d be an interesting question to find out if those espousing a small/lght Ferrari V12 engine would satisfy their appetite if it were turbo-charged? I suspect that’s not what they have in mind.

Perhaps Ferrari understand that the V12 is such an emotive thing that to turbocharge it is unacceptable in a way that turbocharging a V8 isn’t. So they built a V8 turbo.

 

It would be but if the turbo charging could be as well integrated as it is on the 296 and there was the same top end power and high revs it might be a solution (granted the solution I would prefer would be smaller NA v12 and less weight to move, offset the drop in power with a drop in weight to keep the power to weight ratio competitive).

 

SP3 $2.25M and 599 produced for about $1.35B in total revenue
??? $1.0M and 3,000 produced for about $3.0B in total revenue (maybe they could go $1.25M and 4,000 produced for $5.0B)

At least the rest of the poors like me would have a shot.

 

We have been testing this engine on the bench for a while with a cut-off at 10,000 rpm. This is certainly the last gift that this V12 will give to all enthusiasts...

 

Your explanation makes sense. Maybe a larger V12 would be better in a new V12. The F140 is almost 23 years old. I wonder what the potential would be of a new V12, of the same size, with today's technology, know-how and resources.

Thank you for posting this. I really didn't know about this patent, it's very interesting.

It seems like something solid, and if it is introduced in production cars, it will be a revolution, and could start another cycle of continuous evolution in ICEs. After the beginning of a revolutionary technology, the period of evolution of the new technology begins (example: DCT).

Maybe the 6-stroke is an answer to the point you made in the post above: extracting more power per cm3 of fuel.

I read in an article that it works best with 6 and 12 cylinder engines (multiples of 3).

I can imagine what a gem this 12C VS will be. Thank you for sharing some details.

Even though the new V12 is not in the current management plans, I see that the decision to develop a new V12 will be inevitable in the future, fortunately.

Ferrari would not survive without a V12 N/A. And the F140 is at its limit.

If the situation is seen from above, like on a chessboard, it is clear that the house of cards has already begun to fall, regardless of the annual balance sheet figures. The official sales figures do not even remotely reflect reality.

Even though there are people happy with Ferrari portfolio and current direction, there are many, many people seriously dissatisfied, like never before. Many serious people are giving up on "playing the game".

For those who understand Italian, here is an article that summarizes the opinions of many:

https://mowmag.com/attualita/-ferrari-con-elkann-e-senza-montezemolo-ha-perso-valori-e-tradizione-non-e-piu-un-auto-ma-un-oggetto-d-investimento-parla-l-ex-dirigente-del-cavallino

I see the current situation as a bubble: partners and shareholders are filling their pockets because they are surfing on a myth that, in itself, produces spectacular results. But the fall (bursting of the bubble) is already on the horizon.

But when I talk about a fall, I'm talking about the direction of this management. Our beloved Ferrari will still live its glory days again.

Everything is cyclical: I don't think that such strict regulations will last forever (because just exist to force electrification), electrification is proving to be a failure, directions are already changing.