© 2019 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Sign up to receive latest updates for Ferrari News, Threads, and Classifieds
Discussion in '458 Italia/488/F8' started by PA Wolfpacker, Aug 7, 2019.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
The rear is shared from the current corvette, nothing Ferrari about that.
Picture is from the Camaro which is pretty similar
Image Unavailable, Please Login
I think it’s a good looking car and a lot of car for the money. I don’t think it will effect Ferrari values at all. And no one would pick a C8 over a 458 unless it’s purely because you can’t afford the 458.
Still Chevy will have a winner here.
Comparing the Corvette to Ferrari, while an enormous compliment to the former, is patently absurd. The C8 is manufactured to a specific price point since the car is aimed squarely at a target market. A mid engine, 495 HP, nice looking sports car for the price of a Ferrari carbon fibre option package is quite an accomplishment.
Reality dictates that only a tiny percentage can afford
or are willing to spend a sum of money on a car that can buy a nice home in many parts of the country. The Corvette appeals to the market that can and will spend $60K on a sports car. I have nothing but respect for the accomplishment achieved by GM with the introduction of the C8. The law of diminishing returns applies to virtually all commodities, whether it is high end audio equipment, wine, food and certainly exotic cars. A 488 is not 5 or 6 times better than a C8 but in order to purchase a sports car that is significantly superior , one must spend 500-600% more.
If the C8 comes with sticky buttons, watch out!
The and only then it will be the real Ferrari competitor LOL
Dodgy paint quality?
LOL!, exactly how many mid-engine (new) cars are available on the market today? And when did mid-engine become generic?
Still curious how sub 3 second times (pista times-720hp) are possible with 495 hp (F430 power)?
This is exactly my point. GM offers an affordable mid engine V8 and the internet goes nuts. I only wonder once the initial buzz wears off if some people regain focus and realize it ain’t pretty and that it probably doesn’t cost much more to put the engine in the middle, since the Corvette already uses a dedicated platform.
The generic comment was referring to the overall shape and proportions.
I’m usually not this critical but I take exception to the C8. I feel like the poor design execution has been overshadowed by other metrics to the point where the internet has granted GM a pardon. I had high hopes for the car.... until the spy photos started surfacing. Perhaps the Z06/ZR1 variants will look better.
My last 3 cars were ordered new from Ferrari. I never would have even thought twice about looking at a Vette. After the introduction of the C8 I am seriously considering the spider version. It is a combination of how great I think GM did with the C8 and the changes with Ferrari. The F8 is not sufficiently different from the 488 to justify the price, the SF90 scares me considering recent problems with battery drains on the 488 and finally the one car I might desire (812 Spider) I more than likely not be qualified to purchase.
Thinking of picking up a C8 and give Ferrari time (hopefully the introduction of the “little brother”) to generate something truly new and exciting.
First, let's see what the car can really do. Assuming it is true however, not surprised.
Second, is traction. Corvette has much bigger tires in the rear thereby limiting the traction loss other cars experience. Ferrari is considered classically under tired for its power thereby limiting its mechanical grip. Just look at tires the Porsche GT3/RS use. It truly enhances their ability to put down great acceleration out of corners. Another example of this phenomenon is the Nissan GTR. Its launch traction is what gives it such fantastic standing start times vs more powerful cars..
Third, in response to the 430 comment (having had one by the way), the Corvette has around 120 more pounds of torque than the 430. This goes a long way towards getting that car up and going. Speaking of torque, don't forget that the 488/Pista are torque limited in the lower gears. This will affect their 0-60 times. To your point, a 20-100 mph blast might show the limitations of the Corvette power.
Fourth is weight. Ferrari has yet to quote a weight that exists at sea level on earth. The Corvette may well be a few hundred pounds less than Ferrari with "fluids". I never could drive a car that was "dry".
The GTR is also awd
Horsepower = torque x RPM. One of the fun things about Ferraris is the fact you have to rev the engine to get at all that power. This is the opposite philosophy of most US cars- which prioritize lower torque. You've heard the old saying "you buy horsepower, but you drive torque".
Gearing. This multiplies torque. The C8 has an 8 speed transmission. Supposedly the under 3 second C8 needs the Z51 option which has different gear ratios. I would imagine these are more aggressive. I can't find the specific ratios for the C8, and its also the final drive ratio. So I can't do the comparison to the Ferrari, but here are some numbers
Corvette C8 = 495hp / 470 ft lbs
Grip= 305 section tires at rear
Ferrari 488 Pista 710hp/ 568 ft lbs
Grip= 305 section tires at rear
Consider the Ferrari reduces torque in lower gears so you can better put out the power and it makes the car feel more revvy/ fun to chase the revs- and its not much of a surprise they have similar 0-60 times.
I think you would see the Pista pull away at higher speeds where it can really make use of the HP difference.
The real thing to wonder at is this change of engine position is basically responsible for the Corvette going from 0-60 in around 3.7 seconds to 2.9 seconds.
The 911 comes out of corners so well because of the placement of the heaviest component- the engine- right over the driving tires.
So the C8 is really awesome.
But a Ferrari is about way more than numbers. If I were looking at the C8, it would definitely cross my mind that I can have "Ferrari performance" for a bargain. But "Ferrari performance" isn't a Ferrari. I'd take the 458, but I also would understand someone wanting the new car with new features and a new warranty etc.
Glad you clarified my comment.
My point was traction is essential for maximizing 0-60 times. More so then its effects in a straight line when up and running.
Should be 2X Corvette C8's over a used 458?
Totally. Theres a great video, but I forget where I saw it, that explains, with actual math, why rear mid engine will get you better 0-x times than front mid engine or front engine. Rear engine (911) will be even better. That said, I really do love a well done front engined car for street driving, its just fun and Im more used to the dynamics at play than what you find in a 911.
Another thought: all the supercar makers have gone/ are going/ mid engine? Why? I suggest its more than physics. I also think mid engine gives them the most design freedom and the market place equates front engined cars as looking too similar (too "Corvette") and mid engine lets you design things that really stand out/ more "spaceship"... I think this means there are going to be less and less front engined supercars.
There is also the handling aspect. Having the weight more central helps lower intertia as you turn the car (like a light flywheel). Supposed to help make a car easier to turn and balanced.
Sent from my SM-N920V using FerrariChat.com mobile app
I am a Corvette owner and I always loved the Corvette, but I consider the C8 as a not so much of a pretty car... Also I personally think they should have continued to offer the Corvette with the engine in the front and probably only make the ZR-1 with the engine in the middle, because the car has lost some of the "Corvette charm" with that configuration. And also the big trunk space, which was one of the main reasons for many people to buy a Corvette. I suspect the ride would also be more rough than a C7 and many people (me also) use it as a daily driver. As for the comparison between the C8 and an used 458 - the price range is still very different, so not really a comparison there. However, I would go for a 458 only for the looks alone (as I haven't even sat in a C8 yet).
The rear end of the new vette is just awful. I couldn't buy one for that reason alone. It looks like a camaro.
Porsche has always maintained that the weight over the rear tires is what helps the GT cars get their fantastic track times - they maintain that they get traction coming out of turns under power under that is greater than a front engined or even mid-engined car.
One other thought that comes to mind is electrification. Not counting the current 48 volt mild-hybrid of Mercedes, I wonder if a mid-engined arrangement allows them to have the physical room and a better weight balance powering the front wheels electrically in the future.
Let them explain to us then why their hypercars and dedicated race cars (even the 911 RSR has its engine placed as forward as possible) are mid-engined...
It really isn't as simple as you state, certainly not with respect to the 911 RSR.
For what it's worth, Porsche shifted the 911 RSR engine placement (more rear-mid engine placement versus full rear engine placement) because of Balance of Power rules. Because of BOP, which attempts to evenly match the power-to-weight ratios of each car using air-intake restrictors and ballasts, mid-engined cars (like the Ford GT or the 488) could use aerodynamic wizardry (like rear diffusers) to gain competitive advantages that were stripped out when BOP took power/weight out of the equation. The 911, on the other hand, has a disproportionately large amount of weight on the rear axle, contributing to compromised handling and increased rear tire wear. Having an engine in the back also gets in the way of running a larger diffuser, like the Ford GT and Ferrari 488. Switching to a more mid-engined biased layout was Porsche's way of leveling the playing field, even if it loses its rear-engine traction advantage.
Which brings us full circle to the point of rear-engine versus mid-engine in terms of pros/cons. Neither type of engine placement is an all or nothing, as both have their minuses and pluses.
On a rear engine car, the engine placement provides a lot of power and traction to the back wheels, which makes them quick to accelerate. Although, that same power to the back wheels can come back to bite them, and they are also prone to oversteer because the power and weight in the back makes the car prone to swing around to the front (like a volleyball on a tether). But in the hands of a competent driver and the proper suspension and chassis tuning, a rear engine car is lethal.
By contrast, a mid engine car, while more perfectly balanced and thus more stable (especially in corners), it is not without downsides, especially in a spin out. Because the weight is so evenly balanced, a mid-engine car is harder to control when it spins out, as neither the front nor the rear wheels have more weight on them. It also has less traction accelerating out of corners because there is less grip (vis-a-vis a rear engine car).
All of this is to say that it depends. It depends on the driver, more than the car and its engine layout, when one wants to argue the best layout and placement of the engine.
Most mid-engine cars are 55-60% rear biased statically, plus the effect of weight transfer during acceleration. That number is very close to a 911, without all the other downsides. Let's face it, overall it is by far the best layout, even though every configuration has a strong point.
Don’t forget the contribution of downforce thru aero features. Making the aero active allows for downforce when needed and when it is not ( in acceleration).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk