That is a question no-one has yet answered in nearly two thousand posts ! Maybe the Roma is like the SF90 condemned to spending an eternity in development......
I think we will see delivered Romas on the road within the upcoming spring/summer. The SF90 on the other hand... not even sure if it's worth the wait.
Interesting center console...does that tablet function like an iPad, similar to Tesla? Sent from my 16M
That is my understanding, I haven’t been able to see it is person but looking forward to it’s tour of the US dealers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[QUOTE=" The SF90 on the other hand... not even sure if it's worth the wait.[/QUOTE] The SF 90 will be this year, in the UK as well [ we are normally last as we have the steering wheel on the right side]
I am hearing from the factory “no more Lusso”. Such a shame for us shooting break fans. I once had a BMW ZM coupe so I would be really quite interested in a shooting break 2 seat Roma. 2 seats with loads of luggage space is a fine Grand Touring spec. The Roma/Lusso cross that was rendered looked pretty cool too. Mind you, I don’t ever want to sell my Lusso.
I like the interior very much, and also the exterior colour, i would just remove the shields that imo are "excessive" on this model.
Thank you and I hear you, having the debate in my head as well. Knowing the US market I am hesitant to exclude the Shields...... I am having the same debate about the led steering wheel. Have always had it on my others but they were all mid engine and I just don’t think the led wheel fits the car or my needs with this car..... but again super hesitant not to add it in this market. Thoughts? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does anyone know if the Roma’s rear seats offer even a slight bit more room than the Portofino? Also, do they have a slight rear slope or are they vertical (uncomfortable) like the Portofino?
Here's one of my photos again. There's plenty other ones in this thread. Marcel Massini Image Unavailable, Please Login
I agree with you, i also think the led steering wheel is a bit "too much" for such a car with such a "classic" and "classy" look, but i don't know if that will hurt the resale value, i would think not.
Nice spec.......I know it’s heresy but I am not putting the shields on the wings.....( not to repeat debates about heritage or why you should) simply to accentuate the beautiful flowing lines of the Roma. Otherwise for this car- keep it simple, as you say- and use it daily. Sent from my iPad using FerrariChat.com mobile app
The F12 is an amazing car. Quick story, my first F12 was a Rosso Corsa F12, and it was insane. I lusted after that thing the second I saw it and ended up buying it from the Aston/Bentley guys our in Tysons. One day coming back from C&C, I was setup by an unmarked and cited for racing. I got nervous and ended up trading in my wonderful F12 for a white on red DB11. Needless to say, after about a week of driving the DB11, I knew I had made a big mistake. The Aston/Bentley guys got another F12 in on trade after about a year and I was there that same week to trade the DB11 back in for another F12. There is no comparison. Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app
Pass. IMHO. Which could be completely wrong. I have an812 and PF with but I think this one is a little more under the radar. Starting to build mine tomorrow and going w/o. I think if resale is center than I might do w both shields and leds but I am going to do mine in a classic grey tone without both and feel it fits the historical elegance better.
I'm a bit late with my review of Roma, but here it is anyway: Styling In the general shape Roma is the most beautiful Ferrari in current lineup. Sides are a perhaps a bit dull though and maybe those Portofino style small side vents could have given a bit more Ferrari feel. While it certainly looks like an Aston Martin, its signature element, the beautiful sharp nose, saves the day and makes it a classic Ferrari. Dimensions Width development: California-T 1910 mm >> Portofino 1938 mm (+2.8 cm) >> Roma 1974 mm (+3.6 cm) Length development: California-T 4570 mm >> Portofino 4586 mm (+1.6 cm) >> Roma 4656 mm (+7.0 cm) The wheelbase has remained same since California/Portofino. While the overhangs and width have increased in each iteration, interestingly the boot space has decreased every time. Roma (272 l) has 20 liters smaller boot than Portofino (292 l) and up to 68 liters less than California T (340 l). California's official figure may be a bit optimistic but for sure it is still over 300 liters. While Roma's boot is a bit smaller, it is certainly more user friendly now that roof mechanism is gone. Cockpit dimensions have probably remained the same since the California, and the extra width appears to have gone directly to wider wheel arches. Performance Kerb weight development: California-T 1730 kg >> Portofino 1664 kg (-66 kg) >> Roma 1570 kg (-94 kg) Power development: California-T 560 hp >> Portofino 600 hp (+40 hp) >> Roma 620 hp (+20 hp) 0-200 km/h development: California-T 11.2 s >> Portofino 10.8 s (-0.4 s) >> Roma 9.3 s (-1.5 s) Weight reduction has been significant since California-T (160 kg). Half of this is explained by removal of retractable roof. The improvement in acceleration is bigger than expected, partly helped with the new 8-speed gearbox (with additional gear and faster shift times). 812 Superfast is still faster to 200km/h with a time of 7.9 s, but the difference (-1.4 s) is not so significant anymore. Infact, Roma (1570 kg) weights 60 kg less than 812 Superfast (1630 kg). In addition, Roma (760 Nm) has more torque than 812Sf (718 Nm). Roma's weight/torque ratio is then almost 10% better (Roma: 2.07 kg/Nm, 812Sf: 2.27 kg/Nm). Although 812Sf has a clear power advantage, in every day usage Roma may provide more punch when cars are not pushed to redline. It will be interesting to see whether Ferrari can keep their V12 range on the top as the challenge from their V8 turbos is clear.
Oh boy, that torque argument again... Torque on the flywheel is meaningless, the power figure is much more telling.
My late father used to say "Power is what everyone thinks they want, torque is what they feel...." My first and only GTO was built by Pontiac in 1965. What pushed you back against the seat when I opened the secondaries was torque.
No. By default car widths always exclude the mirrors. If mirrors are included, it is separately mentioned.
Either you understood wrongly what I wrote or did not understand the video you shared. This is what I said: "Although 812Sf has a clear power advantage, in every day usage Roma may provide more punch when cars are not pushed to redline." I assume we both agree Torque x Revs = Power. Max Torque Roma: 760 Nm @ 3000 - 5750 rpm 812Sf: 718 Nm @ 7000 rpm Max Power Roma: 620 hp @ 5750 - 7500 rpm 812Sf: 800 hp @ 8500 rpm Now, with identical gearing Roma produces more power at least on the rev range 3000 - 5750 rpm, meaning that it will accelerate faster when both cars are starting from same engine speeds on mentioned rev range. However, I included a word "may" in my quoted sentence because of two things: 1) 812Sf contains faster throttle response due to its naturally aspirated engine 2) Max power of 812Sf is attained 1000 rpm higher 8500 vs 7500 rpm. Typically higher rev range means shorter gear ratios. So if you attain same speeds with same gear, 812Sf will get 13% gearing advantage over Roma, oversetting the torque per weight deficit of 10% with an overall mid range punch of 3 %. However, as the torque/weight comparison was done with max torque levels, things may again turn around. 812Sf produces less torque at 3000 rpm than its peak torque at 7000 rpm. Also, 812Sf contains one gear less (7 vs 8) and its gearing needs to be tuned to higher top speeds (340 km/h vs 320+ km/h), so in theory Roma could have more tightly set up gears. All in all, you are right that Power is essential for absolute acceleration using high revs. But acceleration in mid revs is where maximum Torque is more important. However, if we compare ordinary Diesel cars (revving to 4000 rpm) to Gasoline cars (revving to 6000 rpm), the difference in gearing is so large (50%) that Diesel car with 300 Nm torque is basically equivalent to Gasoline car with 200 Nm.
I am sorry, but you were both wrong. The V8 F1 cars only had about 270-280 Nm of torque, but were monstrously quick as they developed some 800 HP. What you want is power, which translates on torque on the wheels (multiplied by the drivetrain). You make my point.