When does Ferrari realize it is not just 0-60?

I just don't see how you can show Ferrari are becoming obsessed with 0-60 or any other magazine tester times.

Doesn't it just make sense that as the cars become better times lower? I don't believe corporate Ferrari ever produce 1/4 mile times?

Many companies are running their cars around the Nurburgring, I personally would love to see Ferrari do that but I just don't think it's their style. Ferrari may consider that show-boating, as numbers just don't seem to be their focus.

Does it strike you that maybe the reason we hear 0-60 so much is because it is simply a prominent test and sort of a standard (weather it's valid or not) just like horse power???

lol, And what are you talking about "the olden days??" Sure Mercedes built a better road car than Ferrari in the 50's - Ferrari were still a relatively new company. And if you want to accredit Chinetti for being the one who pushed Enzo to sell road cars, Chinetti was racing LeMans until 54' anyway.

Simply put my friend, I think you have to blame the magazines for this one. Their redundant tests - the same ones we've been hearing about for thirty years - have put the 0-60 and many others into our heads and when a new car is released, it's all we hear. But horse power is the same. Lotus doesn't seem to care though....

I really doubt that Ferrari produce a car with Road & Track's slalom. And as for the GTR shoot-out we all rolled our eyes at, you blame the magazine for it, NOT the company. Quite a few vehicles used are privately owned, the magazine can ALSO go to a company and ask for their contribution. C&D simply did not do either.

It's just not a valid argument. I think it is more amusing how we are so think into the company we can toss it around for this type or debate!



_J

 

I agree its all marketing and in pursuit of propriety.

Some can hardly be labeled as a roadcar they are more like hybrid-track cars such as Radical or Donkervoort Just looking at the numbers from the Nburg times its not really fair against a normal production car with all its additives of a roadcar even after deletion of accessories your dealing with more metal (bigger frame).

http://www.*************/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=3&fID=0&tID=10073

 

Well, if Ferrari was only worried about 0-60, they surely would not have created the new California. The California caters not to the 0-60 crowd but to the general masses. You can't have it both ways my friends.

 

++1



_J

 

Thank god you're here to correct us about cars, dragsters, and motorcycles. We aren't talking FF, RUF, Rice inc 1000bhp Supras, 962's (NOT production, nor is street GT1, otherwise include F50GT, F-1 GTR, yadayada), or a 1200bhp Ed Pink highboy. And fyi, a fueler is NOT a funnycar nor a hybrid.

Point is we need lighter cars, more elemental cars. Safety regs screw us, or literal safety does (see various Loti ripped up and drivers killed on street after a hit). Mandatory airbags, pedestrian safety, crashability, and smog/CO2/energy recovery are in the way.

I'd buy a new 166 Barchetta, we had an original, and it was a blast. I will buy the Millechile, which hopefully will be the start of the new line of cars like this from Ferrari, where less is more. Not a Ferrari SL-California

Lots of new F-car customers want stuff that is expected in lux cars, but never considered as recently as the Maranello or 360. I have stuff on my 599 that actually works (unlike old days) and makes it incredibly useable as a car. It is big, and somewhat heavy, but when used as a Ferrari should (probably <20% of owners use them this way) it feels and acts smaller than it is. It is as good as the old cars, in a lot of ways better. But it isn't an Atom, or a Lotus (or an alloy SWB for that matter).

0-60, 0-100, 0-186 are moot if the car isn't fun. A Veyron is a fast parade float. F-1's were better by far. But the fun is not as useable as lower speed stuff. An autocross vs. Lemans. Same thing holds for 'Ring times. Unless your commute includes the 'Ring, WGAF.

 

This is an interesting debate. I think Ferrari have focused on making cars that are blindingly fast, and luxurious... I dont know about how fun they are to drive. a 430 is super fast and handles like none other, but I dont know how much driving thrill you get at regular speeds... My 328 is slow by todays standards, but when you get it up in the mountains on winding roads its super fun, at 50 - 70 mph... shifting, trail braking etc... the steering loads up its the "traditional" Ferrari flavor. you have to muscle the car a bit, and be smooth to make a good day behind the wheel.

I think that has all been lost today. The new generation I guess want a fast luxury car, and That is what Ferrari and all the others ( except Lotus ) are giving them.

I dont want a stripped out MG type of car, but does a sports car have to weigh over 4000 lbs? or 3000 for that matter?

more than anything, cant the new cars be pretty again? something that you want to lust after, make a drive of 30 min to the local dealership so you can just get a look at one? I dont think I would walk across my street to look at a 430, 612, 599 etc... they just don't draw me in... maybe its my age? I dont know. the Bugatti draws me only because of the name and the overall power, it is far from pretty!

 

IIRC, Ferrari added power steering to its sports cars with the 355. Much as I share your enthusiasm for the 328 steering (which uses the 288 GTO steering rack and no power assist), I suspect it might be a hard sell in today's market. Which is a shame -- one of the delights of the mid-engined configuration is that you don't need power assist on the steering, and it makes about as great a contribution to the driving experience as does the manual shifter.

The modern consumer has spoken, and maybe driving with a cell phone and turning the wheel with a finger have won out.

 

Power assisted steering is on the Mondial T/348 series.

 

Which is why some people loose interest post F40...

 

Not to mention Bullfighters' not wanting ABS either

sigh, us newbies

 

Well, at least none of us have the motorized/talking ashtrays of the newer cars.

 

I agree with production levels, but why do you want present and future cars to cost more? So older cars will appreciate? At the current price, one day I will be able to afford an off the show room floor fcar, but if prices keep going up id have to take the back door.

 

my take on it ---I'm sure many of you have read this by now (about paddles for sake of "efficiency" at expense of actual enjoyment):

http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=209077

 

For me, A Ferrari is more about the whole experience than 0-60 times. My Mondial 3.2 is NOT going to win any speed contests. However, I find it so involving to drive. Modern cars just don't do it for me. Electronics just remove you from the driving experience. I think Ferrari is trying to really solidify the link between their formula 1 program and their road cars. I respect the new crop for its performance and engineering--but I am no more impressed with them than I am for a modern Porsche GT3.
If I was at the helm, Ferrari would be building a slightly larger Lotus elise type car with a small block v-8 or v-12 screaming at 9K rpm--even if the car made only 300HP! When I was growing up, almost every Ferrari write up talked about the knife edge handling, the engine song and the skill required to drive these cars fast. The new Ferraris seem almost too easy to drive fast. Granted, I have not driven any Ferrari made in the last 20 years, but I have not had any interest in doing so either. For me, the 355 was the last great Ferrari, and if I ever get to add another Ferrari, it will be that one (or an F40 if I hit the lottery).

 

I think the HP numbers can/will be reached regardless of overall design... as a designer I know that the cars can be designed in a much more beautiful way. Look at the Glickenhaus car (P4)... its performance numbers are actually better than the Enzo. It is remarkable to me to put a 328 or 355 next to a 430... the 430 is taller and seems narrow by comparison. Ferrari should have 3 distinct cars...at big touring car(comfort), a two seater gt (comfort/performance) and a lightweight, highly styled, high hp car that makes all of its compromises in driver comfort. Not to say it should torture you but something like Ferrari's version of an Elise/Exige.... for those of us that arent big fat bottomed lawyers/businessmen(no offense). When I go to the dealer now the cars all seem to be merging... a 612 isnt far off a 430 on the inside. Perhaps Mr. Glickenhaus and Pininfarina should take up Ferrari's design house... Clearly, the 355 was the last "styled" car... I wonder if the "60s era" guys were saying this about the 328/355 era?

C.

 

I just want to correct this comment, no 348 has power steering fitted its one reason most 348 owners prefer them over 355`s.

Regards,
Phil.

 

As I thought - thx Phil.

I'd guess as tires got wider Ferrari eventually compromised and went to power assist.

 

+1 : Very well stated and true.

thanks for clearing that up, Haven't studied the 348, and assumed [I know] that since it came after the T, and shared some engine parts, that they would input the steering portion too.

 

Great post guys.

I agree with most all of you. It seems as if all the tests the car magazines put these cars through are the only important ones. And I know personally, when I see a new car in a magazine, the performance spec chart is the first I thing tend to look at. It gives a good idea about what kind class the vehicle would be in - aside from it's price tag. It seems this is where marketing has taken us. Most people who are "into cars" memorize horsepower and 0-60 times and compare them based on these figures alone. I have read many articles published in magazines that are for example comparing a new exotic to a Porsche. Sometimes, the other car IS faster. Not really a big deal, especially to the Journalist who says "...but if you've never owned a Porsche, it's a whole different game."

It is hard to respect the feel of a car and the personal satisfaction one can give you through pictures and print. Just my two cents.

 

Well, the Dino 246 wasn't badged as a Ferrari, had plenty of Fiat engine bits, and it was a comparative bargain. It really didn't have to be a barn-burner.

Porsche was in its golden era of racing when the original 911S came out ('68-'73) -- the whole company was riding on that car, literally. It had to kick a$$ and take no prisoners, like the Daytona did for Ferrari.

Ferrari can't go back to slow and charming. You're an idealist longing for yesterday. I get it, but that's why we have Ferraris from decades ago. (That's why we have Sinatra recordings in a world full of hip hop...) Aerodynamics and computers have changed everything, the same way smog/crash regulations did. You can't have a classic steering wheel and an airbag. You can't have Borrani wire wheels with 345-width tires. You can't have a classic instrument cluster with a digital odometer. You can't have a clean rear deck with a mandated high-mounted brake light scarring it. Etc.

 

line in the sand has been drawn: there is no going back, once it is crossed [luckily, like BF says....we keep the older cars]

 

Did you miss the whole California thing ?

Unfortunately this monstrosity is Ferrari's answer to this request.

 

Yes, isn't that what Ferraris' are really about.
Please Ferrari, come to your senses and go back to your roots..

 

8C is deadly beautiful