Mega Thread: The 430 Replacement (F450, F500, etc)

Absolutely. Everyone knows that fchatters know more than Montezemolo anyway.

 

Car companies never announce anything about new cars until they are ready to. But like I said, I am just repeating what I read on here... so who know.

 

Lol.

Luca needs to swing by FChat once in a while to get the scoop.

 

Ferrari told the DOT some time ago that a new V8 model would be out late in 2008. They will be unable to sell 430's here after 9/08. I sincerely doubt they would let their largest market lose their bread and butter model. Dealers especially would need the cars and Ferrari would not want to take a hit in the goodwill dept. If there is a 430, Light Pista or whatever, it will likely follow the pattern of being limited production and offered only in the last year of production. I would bet there will not be a V10 for 2 reasons: 1. no longer used in F1 and 2. looks too much like copying Lambo/audi.

Dave

 

Agreed.

 

well said

 

Can't wait to see what the finished product will look like.

Hopefully they don't use a V-10.

 

call me stupid, but a couple of observations.

in may 2003, i was on my honeymoon and went on a factory tour. 360 challenge stradale's were everywhere to be seen, even us models. ferrari had a good supply available for release. i didn't even see a challenge stardale stateside for some time after that. f50's are all 95 models, but we can track and see there were production f50's that came into the us legal, due to build date afterwards. enzo's are all 2003, but we can see enzo's in the us that are after 2003. frankly, ferrari can builkd cars that meet annual "rules" and not deliver them until after the fact. the rules dictate that a car has to have been built by a cretain time, not when it is delivered.

having said that, there isn't going to be a new "dino" (although, the latest rumor is that fiat will offer a "dino"). the shortened maserati qp chassis for the platform is all good and well but that car has been abandoned (in coupe form), i photo'ed the prototype at the factory in feb 06. the spider/spyder is still an item, but to what extent, who knows.

it is clear, there will be 430 "challange stradale" type car called the 430 scuderia.

it is clear that their will be a ferrari "gt california" in the very near future. will it be a front engine v8 or a .......?

who knows......

ferrari is like all businesses, they are apt to make changes as needed. even when it comes to cars, they have to decide eventually. look at the 430, the spy" shots that did surface have a different front end (one that looks like the gallardo). the pf design was so many months before, they changed. if you don't think they did, look at the rest of the car (which many people doubted as being rel spy photo's) it looks exactly like the production 430

 

Pardon my ignorance, but what US legislation prevents the sale of F430s beyond 2008?

 

Tell autoweek to shove it up its ass. It's a non-sense magazine.

 

Seriously doubt it will be a V10. If the future is a TT V8 for the Enzo replacement, the F430 replacement will NOT have 2 more cylinders than their supercar.

 

It would just make no sense though...Ferrari doesn't need a more affordable car! They produce too many cars as it is!

 

This subject has been discussed at length in many threads, but the concise version is a follows:
The 430 does not conform to the DOT airbag regulations that became effective in 2006 regarding passenger side airbags and seat sensors. Ferrari applied for, and received, a waiver to be able to continue producing the F430 unril August of 2008. This is a consent decree between the Federal DOT and Ferrari. Ferrari agreed to cease production and importation of US version F430's as of the end of August 2008.

 

+1

 

also, ferrari developed that maser block into a ferrari engine, they would not want to scrap this after one generation if at all possible, the R/D can be amortized over another whole generation of cars if they make it a 4.6 liter, which I believe is the capacity limit of this particular mill.

 

Good synopsis, but for the gory details:

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-23093]


Ferrari S.p.A and Ferrari North America, Inc. Grant of
Application for a Temporary Exemption From S14.2 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Grant of Application for a Temporary Exemption from S14.2 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice grants the Ferrari S.p.A. and Ferrari North
America (collectively, ``Ferrari'') application for a temporary
exemption from the requirements of S14.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (``FMVSS'') No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. The
exemption applies to the Ferrari F430 vehicle line. In accordance with
49 CFR Part 555, the basis for the grant is that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to a low-volume manufacturer that has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard, and the exemption
would have a negligible impact on motor vehicle safety. The exemption
is effective September 1, 2006 and will remain in effect until August
31, 2008.
In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), we
published a notice of receipt of the application \1\ and asked for
public comments.\2\ We received no comments on the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ To view the application please got to: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm
(Docket No. NHTSA-2005-23093).

\2\ See 70 FR 71372 (November 28, 2005).

DATES: The exemption from S14.2 of FMVSS No. 208 is effective from
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1, 2006 until August 31, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Feygin in the Office of Chief
Counsel at NHTSA NCC-112, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 5215, Washington,
DC 20590 (Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax 202-366-3820; E-mail:
[email protected]).


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Ferrari applied for an exemption in July of 2005. Ferrari is a
well-known small volume manufacturer of high performance automobiles.
Its vehicles have been sold in the United States for several decades.
Because of high costs of development and because of very small sales
volumes, the product cycles of Ferrari vehicles last longer that those
of mass-produced vehicles. One of these vehicles is the Ferrari F430,
which was originally designed in the mid-1990s, and is scheduled for
production until late 2008.
On September 1, 2006 certain ``advanced'' air bag requirements will
go into effect for small volume manufacturers. Despite good-faith
efforts, Ferrari has been unable to find a practicable way to bring the
current F430 into compliance with these new ``advanced'' air bag
requirements. Because the sales of F430 account for approximately 85
percent of its U.S. sales, Ferrari's inability to sell that vehicle
until the new fully compliant model is introduced would result in
substantial economic hardship.

II. Why Ferrari Is Eligible To Petition for a Temporary Exemption

A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its
total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production
does not exceed 10,000, as determined by the NHTSA Administrator (15
U.S.C. 1410(d)(1)). Ferrari's total production is approximately half of
that amount. Fiat S.p.A., a major vehicle manufacturer, holds a 56%
interest in Ferrari. Consistent with past determinations, NHTSA has
determined that Fiat's interest in Ferrari does not result in the
production threshold being exceeded.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See 54 FR 46321; November 2, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The statutory provisions governing motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301) do not include any provision indicating that a person is a
manufacturer of a vehicle by virtue of ownership or control of another
person that is a manufacturer. NHTSA has stated, however, that a person
may be a manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured by another person if
the first person has a substantial role in the manufacturing process
that it can be deemed the sponsor of the vehicle. The agency considers
the statutory definition of ``manufacturer'' (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) to be
sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances.
In the present instance, the Ferrari F430 bears no resemblance to
any motor vehicle designed or manufactured by Fiat, and the agency
understands based on the information in the petition, that the F430 was
designed and engineered without assistance from Fiat. Further, the
agency understands that such assistance as Ferrari may receive from
Fiat relating to use of test facilities and the like is an arms length
transaction for which Ferrari pays Fiat. Accordingly, NHTSA concludes
that Fiat is not a manufacturer of Ferrari vehicles by virtue of being
a sponsor.

III. Why Ferrari Needs a Temporary Exemption and How Ferrari Has Tried
in Good Faith To Comply With FMVSS No. 208

Ferrari states that the F430 was originally designed in the mid-
1990s and designated as the 360 model. The petitioner states that the
Modena (coupe) version of the 360 was launched in 1999, followed by the
Spider (convertible) version in 2000, and the Challenge Stradale in
2003. Production of these vehicles continued until the end of 2004.
According to the petitioner, shortly thereafter Ferrari began an
aesthetic redesign of the vehicle, relying on the same chassis. Ferrari
stated that the redesigned vehicle, the F430, will be produced until
late 2008. According to Ferrari, 2008 will mark the end of the life
cycle for the 360/F430 vehicle. The petitioner states that the 360 and
F430 were designed to comply, and do comply, with all of the FMVSSs in
effect at the time the 360 was originally designed. The petitioner
stated that the provisions of FMVSS No. 208 established in 2000 (65 FR
30680; May 12, 2000; Advanced Air Bag rule) were not anticipated by
Ferrari when the 360 vehicle model was designed.
Ferrari stated that it has been able to bring the F430 into
compliance with all of the high-speed belted and unbelted crash test
requirements of the Advanced Air Bag rule. However, it stated that it
has not been able to bring the vehicle into compliance with the child
out-of-position requirements (S19, S21, and S23), and the 5th
percentile adult female out-of-position requirements for the driver
seat (S25).
Ferrari stated that despite efforts to involve numerous potential
suppliers, it has not identified any that are willing to work with the
company to develop an occupant classification system that would enable
the vehicle to comply with S19, S21, S23, and S25. Moreover, Ferrari
stated that it is unable to reconfigure the F430 to accommodate an
occupant classification system and air bag design that would comply
with these requirements.
Ferrari has requested an exemption for the F430 from the advanced
air bag provisions in FMVSS No. 208 during model years 2007 and 2008
(i.e., September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2008). Ferrari claims that
compliance with the advanced air bag provisions would result in
substantial economic

[[Page 29390]]

hardship and has filed this petition under 49 CFR 555.6(a).
Ferrari stated that its inability to sell the F430 in the United
States through 2007 would lead to a substantial loss of sales and
revenue. Ferrari stated that in 2004, sales of the 8-cylinder 360
models, those models being replaced by the F430, accounted for 86
percent of its U.S. sales. Ferrari projected that if it were unable to
sell the F430 model in the U.S., it would realize a decrease in net
profit of approximately 44 million Euros ($53,000,000) in 2007. Ferrari
stated that such consequences demonstrate ``substantial economic
hardship'' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
Ferrari has requested that additional specific details regarding
its finances and financial forecasts be afforded confidential treatment
under 49 CFR 512.4, Asserting a claim for confidential information. We
have determined that this information is to be afforded such treatment.

IV. Why an Exemption Would Be in the Public Interest

The petitioner put forth several arguments in favor of a finding
that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest.
Specifically:
1. Ferrari states that the vehicle is equipped with a variety of
``active safety'' systems beyond that required by the FMVSSs and that
these systems ``significantly improve vehicle handling and enhance
controllability.'' Such systems include the Manettino control system,
which adjusts vehicle handling and stability to specific driving
conditions; the Control Stability System, an electronic stability
control system; Electro-Hydraulic Differential, a system that manages
torque distribution between the two rear wheels to improve stability;
Continuous Damping Control, a system that adjusts to road conditions in
order to improve braking; and a ``Sky-Hook'' strategy \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The ``Skyhook'' strategy detaches the vehicle body, as a
sprung mass, from what is taking place on the axles and wheels by
calming the movement of the body * * * In addition to improved
comfort, this provides for optimal control of the vehicle body at
all times.'' Page 10 of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The petitioner states that the F430 also has a variety of
passive safety features not required under the FMVSS, including seat
belt pretensioners and a fuel system that complies with the upgraded
fuel system integrity requirements in advance of the compliance date.
3. Ferrari notes that the requirements for which the F430 does not
comply are primarily designed to protect children from injuries due to
air bag deployment. Ferrari argues that it is unlikely that young
children would be passengers in the vehicles covered by the exemption.
4. Ferrari states that the F430 will have a manual on/off switch
for the passenger air bag. Ferrari also notes that a child restraint
system that automatically suppresses the passenger air bag when
properly installed would be available upon request of a consumer at no
cost.
5. Ferrari states that the F430 was designed and marketed as a high
performance, racing type vehicle, and therefore would have negligible
on-road operation. Thus, Ferrari states the impact of the exemption is
expected to be minimal.
6. Ferrari argues that granting the exemption would increase
choices available to the U.S. driving population in the high-
performance vehicle segment.
7. The petitioner argues that granting the exemption would maintain
the viability of U.S. firms associated with the sales and maintenance
associated with the F430. Ferrari projects the F430 to be a major part
of Ferrari sales in the U.S. during the two-year period for which an
exemption has been requested.

V. Agency Decision

We are granting the petition. The ``Advanced Air Bag'' requirements
present a unique challenge because they would require Ferrari to
completely redesign its vehicles two years before it planned to do so.
While the petitioner was aware of the new requirements for some time,
it continued its good faith efforts to bring the F430 into compliance
with the applicable requirements until such time as it became apparent
that there was no practicable way to do so. No viable alternatives
remain. The petitioner is unable to design a new vehicle by the time
the new advanced air bag requirements go into effect on September 1,
2006. If the petitioner is forced to discontinue selling the current
model, the resulting loss of sales would cause substantial economic
hardship. In addition to loss of prospective sales in the United
States, its biggest market, Ferrari would also be unable to recoup all
of its investment into developing the current model.
While some of the information submitted by Ferrari has been granted
confidential treatment and is not detailed in this document, the
petitioner made a comprehensive showing of its good faith efforts to
comply with the requirements of S14.2 of FMVSS No. 208, and detailed
engineering and financial information demonstrating that failure to
obtain the exemption would cause substantial economic hardship.
Specifically, the petitioner provided the following:
1. Chronological analysis of Ferrari's efforts to comply, showing
the relationship to the rulemaking history of the advanced air bag
requirements.
2. Itemized costs of each component that would have to be modified
in order to achieve compliance.
3. Discussion of alternative means of compliance and reasons for
rejecting these alternatives.
4. List of air bag suppliers that were approached in hopes of
procuring necessary components.
5. Explanation as to why components from newer, compliant vehicle
lines could not be borrowed.
6. Corporate balance sheets for the past 3 years, and projected
balance sheets if the petition is denied.
We note that Ferrari is a well-established company with a small but
not insignificant U.S. presence and we believe that an 85 percent sales
reduction would negatively affect U.S. employment. Specifically,
reduction in sales would likely affect employment not only at Ferrari
North America, but also at Ferrari dealers, repair specialists, and
several small service providers that transport Ferrari vehicles from
the port of entry to the rest of the United States. Traditionally, the
agency has concluded that the public interest is served in affording
continued employment to the petitioner's U.S. work force. As discussed
in previous decisions on temporary exemption applications, the agency
believes that the public interest is served by affording consumers a
wider variety of motor vehicle choices.
We also note that the F430 features several advanced ``active''
safety features. These features are listed in the petitioner's
application.\5\ While the availability of these features is not
critical to our decision, it is a factor in considering whether the
exemption is in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See page 10 of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We also believe this exemption will have negligible impact on motor
vehicle safety because of the limited number of vehicles affected (not
more than 2,000 for the duration of the exemption), and because Ferrari
vehicles are not typically used for daily transportation. Their yearly
usage is substantially lower compared to vehicles used for everyday
transportation.
In addition, Ferrari has voluntarily included two alternative means
for passenger air bag suppression for the protection of children being
transported in the right front seating position. First,

[[Page 29391]]

Ferrari has provided a manual on/off switch. This will enable the
passenger air bag to be manually turned off when a child is present.
Second, Ferrari offers a special child restraint system that
automatically suppresses the passenger air bag when it is properly
installed in the right front passenger seat. Ferrari offers this
automatic child restraint system at no cost to the consumer, upon
request. Both of these features offer passenger air bag suppression
capability in the event a child needs to be transported in the right
front seating position, and support our findings that this exemption
will have negligible impact on motor vehicle safety.
We note that the agency examined the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling System
Crashworthiness Data System (NASS CDS) data for years 1995-2004. These
data indicate that over the past 10 years, there were no NASS CDS
cases, and two FARS cases involving 360 Modena or the F430. Neither of
the two FARS cases involved children or small women. Thus, there were
no children or small women involved in crashes of Ferrari 360 or F430
included in these databases.
We also note that, as explained below, prospective purchasers will
be notified that the vehicle is exempted from the advanced air bag
requirements of Standard No. 208. Under Sec. 555.9(b), a manufacturer
of an exempted passenger car must affix securely to the windshield or
side window of each exempted vehicle a label containing a statement
that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture ``except for
Standards Nos. [listing the standards by number and title for which an
exemption has been granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No. --
----.'' This label notifies prospective purchasers about the exemption
and its subject. Under Sec. 555.9(c), this information must also be
included on the vehicle's certification label.
The text of Sec. 555.9 does not expressly indicate how the
required statement on the two labels should read in situations where an
exemption covers part but not all of a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard. In this case, we believe that a statement that the vehicle
has been exempted from Standard No. 208 generally, without an
indication that the exemption is limited to S14.2, could be misleading.
A consumer might incorrectly believe that the vehicle has been exempted
from all of Standard No. 208's requirements. Moreover, we believe that
the addition of a reference to S14.2 without an indication of its
subject matter would be of little use to consumers, since they would
not know the subject of S14.2. For these reasons, we believe the two
labels should read, in relevant part, ``except for S14.2 (Advanced Air
Bag Requirements) of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection,
exempted pursuant to * * *.'' We note that the phrase ``Advanced Air
Bag Requirements'' is an abbreviated form of the title of S14 of
Standard No. 208. We believe it is reasonable to interpret Sec. 555.9
as requiring this language.
In sum, the agency concludes that Ferrari has demonstrated good
faith effort to bring the F430 into compliance with S14.2 of FMVSS No.
208, and has also demonstrated the requisite financial hardship.
Further, we find the exemption to be in the public interest.
In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that compliance with
the requirements of S14.2 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection,
would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard. We further conclude
that granting of an exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i), Ferrari F430 is
granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 06-1, from S14.2 of Sec.
571.208. The exemption is effective September 1, 2006 to August 31,
2008.

49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and
501.8)

Issued on: May 17, 2006.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-7754 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

 

Hi everyone, this is my first post.
Take it easy if it is a repost.
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/ferrari/ferrari-f450-ar39707.html

 

great first post , but it ain't gunna look anything like that .

 

1) +1 Welcome
2) +1

 

Thanks

+1.
I don't like it either, even this 2010 Murci.
Some how they are similar??

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/lamborghini/lamborghini-murcielago-ar40196.html

 

Posted on 07.16.2007 11:57 by Simona Alina

Posted on 07.23.2007 15:15 by Simona Alina


Looks to be just an artist impression by her/him, looks like she/he has too much time on her/his hands

 

Gee, pretty good for a transvestite.

 

That's what you get when you clone aa 430 / Saleen S7 / P4/5 together.

 

that thing looks plain ugly the nose is just all wrong.............i was thinkin this thread had some proper spy pics of the new car ........some1 delete this thread pls or change the title of it..............

 

just found this
Image Unavailable, Please Login