News

Automobile Magazine clocks the Portofino's 0-60 at a "SCINTILLATING" 3.1 seconds

Discussion in 'California/Portofino/Roma' started by Golden Steed, Oct 12, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Golden Steed

    Golden Steed Formula Junior

    Apr 11, 2018
    624
    Full Name:
    Golden Steed
    https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2018-ferrari-portofino-one-week-with/

    I mean. Dayum.

    The Cali T came in at 3.3, and we knew this car was faster. Ferrari under sold the time as 3.5, specifically to get this reaction. And it worked. These aren't just "super car" numbers. The Ferrari Enzo's time was 3.1.

    The "not a real Ferrari" argument just got it's pecker slammed in the door.
     
    crinoid, F2003-GA and 4th_gear like this.
  2. Carnut

    Carnut F1 Rookie
    Rossa Subscribed

    Nov 3, 2003
    3,696
    Gladwyne PA
    Full Name:
    Morrie
    My Calf T is my 7th Ferrari and I have never thought of it as not a Ferrari. Now I might be wrong but I don't think anyone used 0-60 to judge whether these cars were a real Ferrari. Ferrari makes it, so it is a real Ferrari. I went from a 360 spider (a gearshift car owned now by a member that lives near me) to a F1 575 back in 2005, this time I went from a 430 F1 to a CA T they were all Ferrari's though with very different driving dynamics. Just like the Porto and the 488 today, they are both certainly Ferrari's, but very different cars. As most know I see cars without emotion, merely as machines and they all have different purposes.
     
  3. greyboxer

    greyboxer F1 World Champ

    Dec 8, 2004
    10,796
    South East
    Full Name:
    Jimmie
    Fake news - as with the similar test you posted a couple of months ago there is no evidence that they performed their own acceleration test merely quoted someone else's (Ferrari ?) figure
     
  4. Golden Steed

    Golden Steed Formula Junior

    Apr 11, 2018
    624
    Full Name:
    Golden Steed
    There are 3 plot holes in this story.

    1) Automobile Magazine is not Bloomberg. They are a respected car publication that does indeed do their own testing.

    2) If you'd read my OP, or any of Ferrari's literature on this car, you'd know that the number they claimed was much more conservative (3.5).

    3) The Cali T is verified to have run at 3.3 and we know this car is lighter, more powerful, and more aerodynamic. 3.1 is very realistic.
     
    LucasFerrari likes this.
  5. F2003-GA

    F2003-GA F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Nov 2, 2003
    11,229
    Florida
    Full Name:
    Jaz
    Impressive
     
    Golden Steed likes this.
  6. Golden Steed

    Golden Steed Formula Junior

    Apr 11, 2018
    624
    Full Name:
    Golden Steed
    I just realized that 3.1 was the 599 GTO's number as well.

    This means you're getting an SA Aperta with a folding top for 1/10th the price!
     
    LucasFerrari, tomc and of2worlds like this.
  7. F2003-GA

    F2003-GA F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Nov 2, 2003
    11,229
    Florida
    Full Name:
    Jaz
    :D
     
    of2worlds likes this.
  8. TheMayor

    TheMayor Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    76,750
    Vegas baby
    Makes you wonder why you need a 488.
     
  9. Golden Steed

    Golden Steed Formula Junior

    Apr 11, 2018
    624
    Full Name:
    Golden Steed
    I've always felt, and anyone may feel free to correct me, that the appeal of the mid-engined rides was that they were street legal race cars. Low, loud, and fast with track level handling. You get to play Le Mans on the highway.

    I've never been into organized motorsports, Formula or Indy. We were street racers from North Cali. Old school Mustangs, Cougars and Cutlass Supremes. No paint, just primer and engines that were pumped up with cheap Edlebrock carbs and Hooker headers. The appeal of Ferrari GT cars is that you can drive them like muscle cars when you feel the urge, but still use them as actual cars day to day.

    I've said before that if you had asked me to build a Ferrari I would have built the Portofino. I prefer the V8 sound to the V12 and like the idea of the rear shelf (it's not a seat, come on) for road trips. Yes, the 812 has more power, but only because the electronic gremlins are driving the thing. The Porto could be well driven by a non-expert like me with the knob set to "ESC off" all day every day without incident. Unless you drive like Miss Daisy, or are truly proficient, an untethered 812 would kill you with extreme prejudice before the dealer's cashier's check cleared.

    The 488, then, is a matter of driving tastes. I'm not interested in channeling my inner Lewis Hamilton on the 405. I want to punk rice rocket at the stoplight and make pretty girls forget how ugly I am between Nobu and my place. This car does those things.
     
  10. TheMayor

    TheMayor Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    76,750
    Vegas baby
    I wish they would make this car as a SWB version with no back seats. I think it would be more square and sportscar like. But they will never do it because of the roof mechanism
     
    Texas Forever and Golden Steed like this.
  11. tomc

    tomc F1 World Champ

    Apr 13, 2014
    19,987
    DFW, Texas
    Full Name:
    Tom C
    Oh, Shotgun, this may be your best line yet! Bravo.
    T
     
    daytona355 and Golden Steed like this.
  12. Golden Steed

    Golden Steed Formula Junior

    Apr 11, 2018
    624
    Full Name:
    Golden Steed
    A 175 inch 2 seat version with a soft top would be the ideal. But that's a niche car. I always wondered why they were so insistent on making it a hard top, then a car exec friend explained it to me: hard top convertibles are cheaper to produce. See, if you make a soft top and a coupe you have to make two cars. If you make a hard top convertible, you can sell one car to both markets. So from a production and business perspective, there's no way to sell the car we'd like except as a short run exclusive.
     
  13. TheMayor

    TheMayor Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    76,750
    Vegas baby

    Agreed. I wish Ferrari would think outside the box a bit more. I think this car as an SWB would be really cool. They made the Barchetta from the Maranello. It had this freaky top. I don't see Ferrari doing that kind of stuff anymore
     
    Texas Forever and Golden Steed like this.
  14. Carnut

    Carnut F1 Rookie
    Rossa Subscribed

    Nov 3, 2003
    3,696
    Gladwyne PA
    Full Name:
    Morrie
    I have one of those it called the AMG GTS (modified). Sits right next to the Calf T, and though they may be close in every way on paper, they are very, very different. I advise everyone to get some seat time in one, put it in sport + manual mode turn off the traction controls, and if you are not amazed at what that machine can do, you should turn in your license.
     
    Texas Forever likes this.
  15. inox

    inox Karting

    Oct 11, 2017
    99
    While I agree the figure is possible, I don't think they tested it.

    The author uses consistently the phrase "My test car" and not "Our test car", implicating there was no test team involvelved. And there is absolutely no mention of any performance related testing.
     
  16. wrs

    wrs F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Jul 11, 2015
    5,098
    Austin, Texas
    Full Name:
    William
    Since I recently tested my 488 using LC in RACE and only got 3.2s with a 1.88s 60ft on a road where I have tested many other cars, I doubt the 3.1s claim. The car is heavier and has less hp than the 488, therefore, based on my own testing, I call BS. I used Vbox which is a very accurate method for testing.
     
    of2worlds likes this.
  17. of2worlds

    of2worlds F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 6, 2004
    14,050
    ON
    Full Name:
    CH
    Chris Harris was right!!! :D
     
  18. ryalex

    ryalex Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Consultant

    Aug 6, 2003
    21,999
    Las Vegas, NV
    Full Name:
    Ryan Alexander
    Once you get under 4s it's a lot about the traction/initial bite of the tires and gearing. Thats how the original Cali with DCT posted 0-60 numbers as good as a 430. A 430 would roast a Cali on any course though.

    A rolling 5-60 figure is more applicable to real world driving.
     
  19. Golden Steed

    Golden Steed Formula Junior

    Apr 11, 2018
    624
    Full Name:
    Golden Steed
    You're not really disagreeing with me. I do believe I read that Ferrari gives "juiced" cars to journalists. The 488's official number is 2.9 seconds. That's been independently verified. You're saying the real number for your car is 3.2. That's a 1/3 second difference from the cars tested by numerous car publications.

    Given that discrepancy, is it not reasonable to assume that the 3.3 number for the Cali T and the 3.1 number for the Portofino are no more doctored than the 2.9 number for the 488? And as such, no more or less legitimate?
     
    LucasFerrari likes this.
  20. wrs

    wrs F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Jul 11, 2015
    5,098
    Austin, Texas
    Full Name:
    William
    I think my 488 would represent a super juiced Portofino and yes traction is key for 0-60. Here is what I think about the 3.1s time, it's a time using a 1-ft rollout and not from a complete standstill. 1/4 mile times are all recorded with a 1-ft rollout. I am reporting a 1-ft rollout on that 0-60 for my 488, the standing start time was 3.5s. There is almost always about .3s difference in the two. I think Ferrari only claims 3.0s for 0-62 but don't know whether that is 1ft rollout or not.

    I ran my tests using LC in RACE mode. I didn't change the tire pressure but I did have the bumpy road setting on. If I were to use ESC off or CT off then I think I would be dealing with more wheel spin. The fact that I ran the quarter in 10.9s @ 134mph with 1.88s 60ft makes me believe that this is typical for the car. There are better numbers reported in the media for the car but you would need much better surface and DA conditions to get them I think. I had a really ideal day on a surface that isn't the best but it's OK if I got a 1.88s 60ft with a RWD drive car.

    The other thing I wonder about with many of these 0-60 measurements is what means are they using to get the numbers? Some of the magazines do use Vbox and will tell you that they are using a 1-ft rollout when stating 0-60 time. I think if Portofino owners went out and measured their cars, they would be hard pressed to get 3.5s from a stand still since that is what my 488 did in good conditions with stock tires and using the factory settings on the car.

    Just my $.02.
     
    Golden Steed and ryalex like this.
  21. Golden Steed

    Golden Steed Formula Junior

    Apr 11, 2018
    624
    Full Name:
    Golden Steed
    This is an excellent write up.

    So, to summarize, there's apparently a whole lot of cheating going on. By Ferrari, by the testers. And in a scientific study with a fixed control and variables, you'd see slower numbers across the board, not just with the Portofino. Is that about the size of it, or am I missing something?
     
  22. wrs

    wrs F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Jul 11, 2015
    5,098
    Austin, Texas
    Full Name:
    William
    #22 wrs, Oct 27, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2018
    Thanks.

    I think that is a fair summary but I wouldn't call it cheating to be fair. I would call it tweaking to get the best result. I will be doing that myself to see if I can match or better the reported number for my car but it means more trips out to my test spot and more tweaks to the car setup.

    I am giving the nod to the 1-ft rollout number as being legitimate to report and I know some magazines use that but I don't think all of them do. There is a setting on the Vbox that let's you select that and if they just read the results off the screen, in that setting that is what they report. I think since the 1/4 mile tests are reported that way then it's legit to measure 0-60 in that way too. This is also consistent with what Ryan suggests, a rolling 5-60mph test. Look at the starting speed of the car after 1ft, 4.88mph.

    Image Unavailable, Please Login

    I would think that the magazine guys have stuff going for them that the average car owner doesn't, same with the Ferrari testers. They have a place where they can go to test the car regularly that has good traction, level surface and no other interference. Given this, they also have plenty of time to work to get the best number and they have experience doing it with a lot of different cars. I found that with my Porsche 991tts I was sometimes able to even outdo the reported number for 0-60 (2.9s). In that case, 2.9s is from a standing start. There were also many other runs where I got 3.1 or 3.2s 0-60 from a standing start.

    In the final analysis, your car is only as fast as you can get it to go at the time and conditions of the test. Other cars and drivers may be faster or slower and so reporting a single good number (glory run) is misleading. I think the car companies probably report numbers they are able to repeat but they have good drivers, good conditions and plenty of time to adjust the car for the best consistent result.

    A 3.5s 0-60 is good and 3.1 is even better but I think the average car owner probably won't get those results measured from a standing start very often.

    Again, just my $02.
     
  23. Texas Forever

    Texas Forever Four Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2003
    43,626
    Texas!
    Frankly nobody should be doing 0 to 60 under five seconds on public roads. Besides on public roads, it’s all about torque. That’s what I liked about my old Maranello, the loud pedal felt like a bottomless well. I always lifted before I got there.


    Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat
     
    anunakki likes this.
  24. anunakki

    anunakki Five Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Oct 8, 2005
    52,695
    Las Vegas Nevada
    Full Name:
    Jerry
    I have a hard time understanding why anyone ordering a Portofino cares what the 0-60 is as long as its under 5 seconds. If you want to race around the streets like a teenager there are plenty of other cars to choose from, and if you want to go to the track there are definitely much better choices.

    The Portofino has a completely different purpose.
     
    azlin75 and Texas Forever like this.
  25. azlin75

    azlin75 Formula Junior

    Jul 16, 2017
    764
    Kansas
    Full Name:
    Shawn Hicks
    I agree, but I think the point of testing “the numbers” shows how the platform has improved over the California and California T. And while the California has proven it has some performance on the track it will never be a 488 and I doubt the portofino will either.

    The California models and the Portofino are really nice drivers with some decent horsepower and handling, and honestly fit the bill for the type of car I now prefer. 10 to 15 years ago I would have been all about the mclaren the 488 and the like but as I’ve gotten older I prefer something with a bit more overall comfort and useability with enough grunt to satisfy the remaining speed demon in me. If I really wanted something to tear up the pavement I’d probably purchase a hellcat though again I’d probably opt for the charger variant. Just my personal taste, and having driven the 488 I can speak to how nice of a car it is and how much I enjoyed it I just prefer the California/Portofino more.
     
    anunakki and Texas Forever like this.

Share This Page