512BB v Testarossa v Countach

So, I was asked by someone to compare the above on another website, and thought this might be of interest here too.

Quote

Prompted by Browngt3's post in the classic Ferrari section inviting thoughts on driving impressions and ownership, now I'm a few months into 512BB ownership I've jotted down a few thoughts on the above in a new thread.

I suppose that everyone has different things they are hoping to get/achieve from driving and owning these cars, so this is necessarily a very personal viewpoint. Quite a lot of the numbers are from memory which might not be perfect!

These are old cars and I've only driven one of each of them, so while I think that each of them is a good example, I don't have a benchmark and of course the condition of old cars, mechanically and cosmetically, varies a lot. For what it is worth the 512BB is 1977, and was fully restored by a well respected specialist, finishing in 2016. It won some prizes for condition as recently as last year, and did very few miles since restoration (off the top of my head I've done as many in the last few months as the car covered since restoration). it has 31k miles on the clock but that isn't really relevant as it was completely rebuilt. It is RHD and last had a major service this year.

The Testarossa is a 1988 Euro-spec car, so LHD, and has similar mileage. I've had it about eight years. Previous documentation is patchy but I bought it off a garage owner who specialised in maintaining Ferraris and similar vehicles, and rally support. It was his personal car for several years and my impression is he is a very good mechanic. I would say it is in very good condition but not concours and had a major service last year. I will abbreviate the Testarossa to TR but please don't confuse this with the 512 TR which is a different model.

The Countach is a 1986 RHD QV with less than 40k miles and I've had it a bit over two years. It too has been regularly serviced all it's life and has had all new bushes/rose joints a few thousand miles ago. Overall it is in very good condition and mechanically it might qualify as excellent. I am not aware of any mechanical jobs that are outstanding on all three cars.

Weight and size

Without looking them up, I think the weight is pretty similar for all three cars, in the 1400kg ish or a bit more range. The TR and Countach have alloy panels, though the TR is a fair bit bigger than the 512BB so the alloy panels perhaps balance the size difference, in terms of the weight. The Countach is the shortest of all (over a foot shorter than the TR), it really is small considering it has a large V12. The 512BB is narrower than the other two by about six inches. In modern terms these are all pretty small volume especially when you consider the height.

Performance

Well, this was the most important thing to me as a kid but now things are different. In terms of power figures the order is Countach (455hp) TR (390hp) and 512BB (360hp). Performance is also in that order. Even though these are now very old cars of course at the time they were each one of, if not the, quickest cars available. The Countach I would say is significantly quicker than the TR, especially at the lower end. The TR has the least drag, though, so probably at high speeds this evens out a bit although I can't claim to drive at very high speeds frequently enough to study that! I don't have a modern supercar, and I'm sure that any modern supercar will blow them into the weeds, but what I will say is that they all still feel quick even now. The other point to mention is that they are all normally aspirated large capacity V12 (5 litres for the Ferraris and 5.2 for the Countach) so they have plenty of torque and they just keep pulling smoothly and strongly.

Handling

The first thing to mention is that all three have unassisted steering. Unsurprisingly when stationary it is relatively heavy but you won't be likely to be spending a lot of time in that state. When driving, all three have rewarding steering. The Countach is the most precise, closely followed by the TR. The 512BB has precise steering but the tyres have high sidewalls and as such I think there is quite a bit of "give" in them. As such, small movements do change direction but not as immediately as the other two. However, the steering on all three is lovely especially when compared to some of the regular modern cars.

I'm no car control expert, the only one I've had sideways is the TR, which went sideways a couple of times in damp conditions. It was not deliberate, I caught it quickly, but you're conscious there is a big engine quite far back and relatively high up (the gearbox is below the "flat" 12). In normal enthusiastic use, I'd say the TR benefits over the 512BB because of the more modern low profile tyres. The Countach is better still, the gearbox is more or less between the seats so the weight distribution feels better and it has low profile tyres. The rears are also huge, you'd have to be going some to unstick them, in the dry at least.

Ignoring the "on the limit" point, which is pretty difficult to analyse if you've only had one on the limit, I'd say the Countach is by far the most precise to drive. The suspension is rose-jointed and as such there isn't any play in the joints (assuming they are in good condition). Aside from the precision, the structure also feels significantly stiffer than the Ferraris - it has a spaceframe chassis which I suspect is a lot more rigid than the others. I've not done a track day in any of them and I doubt two of them would get through the noise test, if not all three.

Having said all that, the steering on all three is really nice and one of the good things about driving them which you can enjoy at any speed (apart from parking).

Transmission

All three have dog-leg five speed boxes. The Countach lever goes straight down into the 'box. It is heavy and precise to my mind. The Ferrari open gate has been written about many times, so I'll just say it works really well, and is part of the experience. It also looks great 🙂. So far as the clutch is concerned, the Countach clutch is quite heavy, but the 512BB clutch is heavier still. I'm not sure if that is just my car but it saves on gym membership. The TR is the lightest as you'll have deduced by now.

Brakes

These cars can still go quickly but the brakes remain old-fashioned and anticipation is your friend. The 512BB is the weakest, then the Countach and the TR is the best. None have ABS of course!

Noise

I lack the skill to describe the noises really well, so I'll restrict myself to a few comments. Firstly they all sound BRILLIANT! The noise is one of the best things about all three, and I struggle to think of many cars that sound better (though the GMA T50 is one). They are all NA 12 cylinders but they do differ. The Countach at lower revs actually sounds a bit muscle car but at mid to high revs really screams. It has a sports exhaust on it, and six twin choke carbs add intake noise. The 512BB has an Ansa exhaust and four triple choke carbs, and that sounds more cultured than the Countach, a really "quality" sound if you see (hear?) what I mean. The TR has some kind of sports exhaust on it, I'm not sure of the make but it is "just right". It is a little noisy but sounds like an old F1 car when it is at high revs. The TR is injected, so no carb sucking noises.

Having said that I lack the skill to describe the noises really well, I realise I also lack the ability to choose which I like best. They are all different, but probably I'd put the TR and 512BB on the same plane. I have heard the standard TR exhaust is really quiet, though, and I don't think I've heard a better exhaust on a TR than mine (bias admitted). But the noise these cars make is fantastic even when going slowly.

Practicality

An odd heading, none of these are "practical". But I'd say the TR and Countach have actually got decent boot space if you want to go away. The 512BB also has a small boot but some space behind the seats (the TR also has space behind the seats). Aircon works pretty well in the TR, reasonably in the 512BB and on my Countach it doesn't work that well though it does work to some extent and I have been able to improve it. I think it needs further tittivating before coming to a verdict. It is more important in the Countach due to the tiny window opening.

One point to note is the doors on the TR are really deep because of the strakes, so you need a wider garage than usual to get in or out. The Countach, by contrast, has doors that go straight up, but about six feet high so you need some height - you can't put it under a ramp easily, for example.

Rear visibility in the Countach is woeful, in part because of the hump over the carbs on the QV model.

Fuel economy

All three have exceptional fuel economy whilst stationary......

Maintenance

It is difficult to be specific about this because routine maintenance is one thing and repairs are another. For routine maintenance the 512BB and TR have belts and most people seem to change them on a four or five year cycle, with minor services in between. The engine comes out, but it is designed to, so that isn't as bad as it might sound. There are a number of specialists who offer a fixed price for that job. Of course, there will be "while you are there" jobs that arise when removing the engine.

The Countach has chains rather than belts so doesn't need that periodic engine removal for servicing.

By contrast, I believe a clutch change on a 512BB or TR isn't particularly hard, but a Countach requires engine and box removal and the clutch parts are very much more expensive.

Aside from regular servicing, if you need repairs then obviously there is scope for costs to rise significantly. Routine parts for these cars are not a major issue but other parts can be very hard to find in some case and correspondingly expensive. Fortunately I've not had much that falls into this category but if you get an example that needs much work this will be more of a factor. Purely because of the production numbers, subjectively bits for Testarossas are less expensive and more readily available. There is also the "hunt the parts bin" entertainment option.

Mechanically, though, the engines on all three are reputed to be very strong. There are reports of weak diffs in the TR and (perhaps to a lesser extent) in the 512BB.

Styling

This is totally subjective of course. To my eyes the 512BB is such a beautiful shape, and the big orange indicators are unique. It is a lovely blend of elegance and taut muscle. The TR, when it came out and for a long time after, I didn't like that much. It had a really tough act to follow. However, time has been kind to it and perhaps because it was unique I think it has aged really well. The Countach is just spectacular. It looks amazing and it is hard to believe that it was first on the road 50-odd years ago.

I don't tend to show my cars that much, and when I do I tend to leave them and walk around, but the reaction to these cars is pretty universally positive. One thing I didn't expect is the impact the Countach has on people - I think the Cannonball Run and all those posters, plus the rarity are the reasons. Even quite keen car enthusiasts say they have never seen one/only seen one etc.

Other thoughts

Having tried to analyse this somewhat, and I have found it an interesting exercise, of course the most important point to evaluate is how the car makes you feel. Each of them is a really special experience if, like me, you like Italian cars from that era. They also had a place in my mind growing up, be it Top Trumps, the aforementioned Cannonball Run, or Miami Vice etc.

They look fantastic, sound fantastic and feel fantastic. To my mind the Countach stands out as it is the most spectacular in terms of looks, the sharpest to drive and the fastest. It is more difficult to separate the 512BB and TR but I'd say I prefer the looks of the BB but the drive of the TR. The TR is the easiest to just hop in and drive anywhere. There are probably things I've forgotten to mention but I hope that BrownGT3 at least is still with us after my essay!
Unquote