Ferrari performance increases

I did answer the question, which was about continuing to improve the standard of speed. What I meant by saying that continuing to improve the standard isn't important to me was that the current standard is fine, even though for me, it's probably a bit too intense for road use. If Ferrari froze the standard at 458 levels I'd be completely cool as long as they focused on the things I consider important, like weight and overall feel. But it won't happen. And I'm not going to complain (other than the occasional rant, mind you) about the fact that standards continue to improve. As someone else said already (I think it was you, actually), that's the nature of sports cars.

I saw you admitting that you're a poser (just quoting you, no name calling here )--well, I'm a bit of an old man. I really like the Italia. It's very pretty, fast, comfortable, etc., but I know that if I were to buy into that type of ownership experience I would, inevitably, always be on the lookout for the next best thing. That's why the older I get, the more I would prefer to OWN an older car. I'd love to drive the balls of an Italia, I just don't care to have one.

In contrast, I love everything about a 328. Hell, I even love that it's sort of slow. Why? Cause it would give me more time to focus on what I really care about--the sound, the feel, the wind in my hair, etc.

There are exceptions with newer cars: I'd own a CS or an F50. They're raw--again, feeling. The F50 particularly because it has no driver aids to speak of. The last of its kind.

And about spending more to go faster--that's the problem. You start slowing cars down in this particular segment and people will complain, even though other areas that are more important to me might improve. It's just the nature of things.

It would have to be a totally different car.

A Dino, perhaps?

 

Decreasing power slightly while decreasing weight significantly could potentially maintain performance or lower it.

It depends on what the public is ready for. Eventually, cars will get to the point where they aren't any faster. Tire physics demands this, unless we all want to run around on slicks, which isn't legal (or safe, even thought it would be tons of fun).

If the public can be made to understand that performance would be maintained by building a car that is conceptually different, i.e., less powerful but even more less fat, then it might work. It would be an interesting marketing strategy, but not one that I think Ferrari (or any other sports car manufacturer outside of Lotus) is willing to take.

We're too addicted to technology.

And all this may be a bit Colin Chapman, but I think he was on to something. Weight is indeed the enemy to every aspect of car performance. If two given cars have the same power, chassis, engine type, etc., but one weighs 500lbs less than the other, the lighter car will be faster every time.

Cheers.

 

"It is very important and should be strived for but not at the expense of aesthetics"

this is my view

the worship of the wind tunnel and "horse by committee = a camel" design has to stop

 

faster than 170mph? No thanks, what drives me nuts is the lack of low end torque..something less that 6k rpms to get moving.....that is what I liked about the torque monsters when I was a kid....anyway, that's how I measure speed - seat of the pants.

 

Forced Induction = The Future = Plenty of low end torque.

 

I voted for "...not at the expense of aethstetics" simply because the 348 and now the 308 that I own are clearly not fast, but in my eyes both very good looking cars. The sex appeal of a Ferrari is the sound and the look of the car.

That being said, I do think that Ferrari should continue to push forward for better (or at least more efficient) power, but like Bullfighter said, can you really use more performance than what you have in a 430? With the exception of on a track, where exactly would that be?

Anyway, an interesting debate, and I am looking forward to seeing in which direction it takes this crowd.

MB

 

I know you would expect me to say this but... I disagree.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the poll. The people voting are being honest. They're just not the ones who would pony up the funds to buy a new car because.... they are already satisfied with what they have. Even worse, most would say they LOVE what they already own. That's a pretty tough crowd.

Most of the people on this forum would not consider buying a new car because they like what they already own. Just like you, what you have is good enough (and there is nothing wrong with that).

It's like asking a vegetarian if they prefer the taste of pork or chicken. The answer is neither. They'd prefer a carrot and would not even consider buying either at a grocery store. Now ask the same person but he's starving to death. The answer is either. SAME PERSON... different conditions, two completely different answers.

Don't believe me? Ask the survivors of Donner Pass...

Ask the owner of a 42 inch plasma if he would spend another 2 grand to buy a new 55 inch plasma. Some would say yes, most would say they don't see the point. 2 grand for another 13 inches? It's crazy...

Now, ask someone who is in the market for a new TV. The 42 inch is a grand but the 55 inch is 2 grand. If you had the money and wanted the best TV you could find (aka the "Ferrari" of TV's), why not buy the bigger and better? Most would.

So, what you have to ask is potential new car owners, not satisfied owners.

And, it's not just Ferrari owners. I would say it's the same for Porsche owners, Vette owners, Lambo owners... anytime you're in the market for a new high performance sports "dream car".

If owners truly accepted LESS performance for their new cars, then why does every performance car get quicker with every model? Are these marketing or engineering guys just crazy for wasting all the R & D money and increasing the vehicle cost? Should they just make prettier and prettier cars instead? When you can define "prettier", you may have a point.

Why do some vibrantly defend the Nissan "Godzilla" by constantly referring to it's impressive stats -- but not it's looks?

How many have complemented the new McLaren's stats and technology as the reason to buy one-- but not it's style?

When the Corvette went through it's bad days in the 80's and was detuned to as low as a wimpy 190 HP, did sales go up or down? DOWN -- big time. Did the Corvette die? No, it increased performance and increased sales.

What killed the 60/70's Muscle cars? Was it that they stopped looking cool or did the performance fall off?

Why is the Mustang II considered a joke by Mustang lovers? Could it be.. the lousy performance from it's predecessor?

Would a new car customer accept paying a premium for a new car that was no better performing than it's predecessor? I still doubt it.

 

Unfortunately, this is the truth.

 

"what killed the 60's 70's muscle cars"........the government did.

 

The government did not say "stop making these cars". It put new standards in place that forced the cars to have less performance.

In addition, rising costs of fuel and insurance forced people into less expensive machines.

Less performance... less sales. Always has, always will.

 

However, for what it's worth, the era of the muscle car has returned. It's the 60s and 70s revisited and has been for years now. The reintroduction of many nameplates from the past, with performance beyond the original cars of the 60s and 70s, has been going on for a while.

Government regulations now are being met with hybrid platforms, or super clean burning combustion platforms, that are making inroads into high-performance cars. This maintains sales of the supercars and high performance sports cars that enthusiasts want.

Alas, the fear going around the car enthusiast community over performance "inevitably" suffering is, in my opinion, unfounded. Performance today is staggeringly high in even cheaper models of cars. Today, for example, a Nissan G37 sedan has more horsepower and performance potential than many of the famous muscle and pony cars of the golden era of yore.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say but I'd add that the car makers need to diferentiate replacement products has lead to cars that grow in size and weight mostly because its easier to sell bigger is better than it is to convince buyers that less is more.

 

I prefer lighter weight with less HP than more HP and more KGs.

But i still want a Ferrari to look striking or sensual. Not something bland as the new Mclaren.

The 458 brought back the gorgeous Ferrari styling (esp the profile which is a 10+). Performance seems to be incredible. The only thing i dont like is the increase in KGs.

 

I'm not sure it would have to be a modern take on on previous model! But 600kg to 700kg, with a small, light and efficient 400bhp high rev power-plant ( 2.4 V8, with F1 architecture), would produce stunning results in handling, braking and most importantly, driver pleasure!

 

Then there are the Fake-Ass Schumys who like to say their car is faster than the competition as they sit, rotting in their garages.

The <10% who actually use it for what it was meant for......

 

Sorry but you ARE asking for "no better than what we have now (again- whatever that means) performance in favor of better looks. You assume there is some kind of "speed of sound" barrier that doesn't need to be broken. Well, you may be right but in the world of sports cars, it doesn't work that way.

I say performance drives new car sales. You say it doesn't. I disagree when it comes to these kind of cars.

NOBODY is arguing that decreased weight and size is a bad thing or a good thing. It's not part of this argument. In fact, I agree with this. But, if the next car was more expensive and not as good a performer as it's predicessor, would it still be successful OR be viewed as less than the earlier car? I still vote most would say --- LESS.

If the Italia had worse or no better performance than the F430, do you think people on this forum would still be praising it while the McLaren blows it away? Seriously.....no freaking way. "Hey! Sure it's slower but it's lighter! Na, na!" Right...

When you buy a Ferrari, you buy a fantasy. Just because it goes incredibly quick and you'll never be able to get there on city streets does not mean you DON'T FANTASIZE being able to do it or appreciate the technical achievement that makes it possible. There is no rational reason to buy a car that does 202 MPH -- aside from the fact that it can do 202 makes me happy.

 

There also exists fierce brand loyalty in this market. While most guys will buy the F or L just because of the name, they all want to say theirs is faster....

 

I think the disagreement is between what makes Sense (Jerry's contention --which I don't disagree with-- and is very logical) versus what Sells (my contention which is not logical but emotional).

 

What is important to both F and L is being faster than the other.

How they achieve this is subjective.

 

Yep...

 

Is that it? Can I go now?

 

No, you need to write at least six more words while I write six more paragraphs.

 

Not boat size, motion of ocean...