Message from CEO of Ferrari on Manual Transmission

No, with all respect to you Brian, a Ferrari legend, I do not assume that at all. If I wanted straight line speed for the buck I'd buy another car.

My observation was about perception of performance, and actual performance, using the different transmission types. I didn't make a judgement call on which is better, I am very happy with my slightly clumsy manual gearshift in my cars, both of which had F1 options, which I did not choose.

My objective point, though, is that if a manual gearshift process takes a set amount of time, limited by human inadequacy, then that time is proportionately more noticeable, the faster the car. An extra second to shift manually added to two point nine is a lot more than an extra second added to four point nine. So, paddles are faster - much faster as the cars become faster.

Whether I care doesn't really matter, and I don't, which is why all five of my Ferraris are gated manuals.

So..I agree with your points completely. It's about operating a machine, for sure; sensations rather than figures.

 

I find it so funny you guys haven't figured it out yet.

Ferrari does not care about YOU.

They care about sales. YOU are not sales. "Other people" are sales. They are doing really, really well without YOU. If they weren't they would make cars for YOU. But, they don't.

Can we get this straight and move on? It ain't happening.

 

I see. Yes, I agree it is proportionately more noticeable but I suspect it is inconsequential to those that make the choice for a manual transmission.


The fact remains, as I said before the choice has been made for us.

 

Correct - But we can still B*tch about it

 

LOL!!!!!

So true...

 

You are talking to THE manual guy, you dont need to preach to the choir, all my cars including the new ones are manual.

I get the 355. It didnt really work that great compared to a modern stick like the 997 Gt3 which is the gold standard imo for modern manual cars. I have driven a CGT extensively, its great although the steering was not as good as the 997, youll note it does not have pwertarin integrated dynamic controls. Also spoken with people who have driven the 599 stick and 430. The 599 stick in particular is not a happy combo. A motor and stick have to be well suited to eachother. The 355 was simple car mechanicaly/electronicaly compared to what they make today, even the carrera Gt was.

Short gear ratios with high revs work great on track, less so on street.

Essentilay the modern cars are fully integrated digital compared to analog, thats not just about transmision. If you want to convert a digital drive by wire car with all types of integrated suspension and dynamic controls tied into what the motor and transmission are doing there is a lot more to it than just adding a stick.

If you had driven a 997 with a stick or a M5 you would understand what I am saying.

Your stats are about hp and weight, there is so much more to good powertrain integration on an electronic car than gear ratios, and the effort and cost of doing so is what makes it so difficult to just offer the option for a few cars or convert them.

Cant even believe I am posting this as people accuse me of making 5000+ posts in favor of the manual. I like to deal with reality and what is possible, what is possible is also related to what it takes and I think you fail to appreciate what it takes to make a good harmonious stick version of a modern digital ferrari.

I do think that if ferrari wants to hit 10k cars they will offer a manual model. But i can also say that THE RUMORED 2500lbs 580 hp ttv6 dino I would be happy to drive with a paddle if there is no stick, because that sounds like a track orientated car and for that I get the paddle schtick in a modern.

the reason I built the car below over buying a new 458 had to do with the entire 458 experience, it was it was not just about transmsion.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

There is loss, but not as much as you think.

A few tenths of a second at most. I can live with that.

0-60 is one shift. Even if my arm and leg were atrophied to point it actually did take a full second, I could still live with that

An example-

Porsche 911, Manual or PDK? | Evo

 

Yes I know you are a manual trans guy, I meant agree to disagree on whether or not a modern Ferrari could be a good match to a manual transmission.

I've heard some do not like 430/599 stick but all complaints seemed related to flywheel inertia, or lack thereof, not power delivery.

New Z06 can be had in stick with traction control, active handling and 650hp. I don't see why the power would make active handling a problem. The system can deliver whatever final torque the system desires no matter what is available in reserve. Either way, if Chevrolet can do it I'm certain Ferrari can as well.

Also we are in disagreement is short gears/high revs don't work on the street.
Downshifting and putting the engine in the rpm range it needs to be is a joy, not a chore to me.

I have more fun driving my 355 over my previous C6Z -because- of the short gearing and rpm's despite the fact that the car is much slower in comparison.

Of course I don't think anything we have to say here is going to result in a new manual Ferrari being built, I just will never agree that the reason is it couldn't be a proper match to their engines or powertrain management.

 

We agree, its all a matter of tuning though, and they dont want to make the effort.

the vette as you may have seen in one of my earlier posts has a motor with chateristics idealy suited to a stick.

BTW the most fun modern, well let me say the nicest modern I have driven is the carrera Gt. The only thing it lacked imo was great steering feel. Motor build transmission all were superb. On steering feel an d shift quality the 997.2 GT3 was hands down the best.
The 458 and mp12 I drove that same day were by comparison tot he Gt3 miles off.

Lets see what Ferrai comes up with in the future I think we would all like them to return more to being a sportscar than a fast branding car company, regardless of transmssion.

 

I would like to see a new DINO with a shifter maybe even two options non turbo manual v6 and then a turbo with a typical dual clutch auto.. seems to work for the 911....
Something about a little less power and the fun of shifting and great sound of non turbo....
or the turbo...make the car 911 size or less and sell the heck out of them...say start around 200 typical equip for the manual non turbo and 250 for the turbo....
just an idea...or maybe mid engine boxer six.....hmm that seems to work also

 

But you are OK with the new Ford GT only coming with an auto box.

 

Ford pretty much followed Porsche's idea: Make their "best" performance car only available with DCT, and then offer slightly compromised (and more affordable cars) in MT only.

So, Porsche offers the 911 GT-3 with PDK only, BUT offers both the Cayman GT-4 and Boxster Spyder in MT only.

Ford offers the GT with DCT only, but offers the Mustang Shelby GT350 / 350R with MT only.

All of these cars are successful. Why can't Ferrari do the same?

 

Yes, agreed they do not want to make the effort, that is what boils my blood

Yes you did mention the vette but why do you feel like the characteristics of that engine are more suited to a manual trans? Earlier torque and less rpm just means it has taller gearing.

Paddle shifting a DCT, you still have to choose the correct gear so if you feel the newer engines are too peaky and lacking midrange, the same would apply to the 7 speed DCT as it would a 6 speed manual.

With stock 458 7 speed DCT you have-

1st gear 47mph 9000rpm -drops to 6400 on the 1-2 shift (-2600)

2nd gear 66mph at 9000rpm -drops to 6700 on the 2-3 shift (-2300)

3rd gear 90mph at 9000 -drops to 7100 on the 3-4 shift (-1900)

4th gear 113mph at 9000 -drops to 7200 on the 4-5 shift (-1800)

5th gear 142mph at 9000 -drops to 7300 on the 5-6 shift (-1700)

6th gear 174mph at 9000 -drops to 7400 on the 6-7 shift (-1600)


Now lets figure a manual trans with the following ratios and a 4.5 final drive-

1st 3.10, 2nd 2.16, 3rd 1.61, 4th 1.27, 5th 1.02, 6th .82 We now have-


1st gear 54mph at 9000 -drops to 6300 on the 1-2 shift (-2700)

2nd gear 77mph at 9000 -drops to 6700 on the 2-3 shift (-2300)

3rd gear 104mph at 9000 -drops to 7100 on the 3-4 shift (-1900)

4th gear 131mph at 9000 -drops to 7200 on the 4-5 shift (-1800)

5th gear 164mph at 9000 -drops to 7250 on the 5-6 shift (-1750)

and 6th can still reach 204mph at 9000


Highway cruise-

7 speed DCT 60mph 7th gear- 2,550rpm

6 speed manual above ratios/final drive 60mph 6th gear- 2,650rpm



^^^ I just did that to illustrate, there really isn't a -huge- difference in functional gearing between a 7 speed and 6 speed if the ratios are spaced out properly.

Especially for a 458 engine that makes peak torque at 4000rpm and peak horsepower at 9000rpm....I really can't see how that's too peaky to lose one gear in the trans.

 

Interesting
Gt40 with 422 final.
1st gear at 7k rpm 56 mph
2nd 88
3rd 123
4th 154
5th 180

I geared everything for acceleration at speed, paying no heed to cruising revs or 0-60
So having 7 gears gives a lot of options.

One thing about your stats and my experience. If the motor needs lots of revs for power, you dont drive around pulling 6k+ constantly, so to move it always serious downshifting.

I saw that on a recent drive where I was in my BBI and a friend in his 458. the Tq of the BBi just made the power so much more accesable and controllable than the 458 which was either on or of.

Same on a vette, the low down tq and wider spread just means at normal revs you can move with less shifting.

I think one of the things we are not looking at is where the TQ has its peak and where the hp does.

If its just revs gearing and HP then motorcycle engines at 200hp would make great car motors and they dont. Its th reason why the Caterham firebalde didnt last in production and the car engined ones do. Try drive radical and you cans ee in an exagerated form why high rve pwerbands dont work well in cars other than on track. Now you can work around this with paddles becasie the downshifts are so painless and easy, not to mention 7 speeds.

The 355 is rightly considered one of the greats, and many prefer it to the cars that came after because its so alive. But we also hear it lacks Tq lower down(as do honda vtec) and needs to be kept on the boil(somehtign ferraris love to do), fine when driven all out in anger, or sedately when performance not drawn upon but it creates a gap in the middle. Same reason why the S2000 went from a 2.0 to a 2,2 just made it more street driveable with some loss of revs on top.

In any event being able to call upon gobs of Tq at low revs means for street driving you simply need to downshift a whole lot less unless needing all out go, it means you dont need to keep the engine screaming, and this works well with a manual as we see in the new vettes. It also happens to be the power charateristics of the 488, so all I am saying is that whatever deficit people may think a 9k rpm motor lacks with a stick, the new ferrari turbo motors dont have that issue.

The 1.8 in my elise is consdered a low Tq motor that needs revs to erform, Its part of the character when driven a intended, but then in lotus one has diminshed expectations, and many supercharge to add TQ as much as anything else. The new Exige has a V6 and if you drive a 350 hp exige V6 and a superchaged intercooled moddeed exige witht he same Hp there is a vast performance difference.

In any event I personaly think that what diminshes the entertainment value of a 458 from a 355 is much more than a stick. The lack of manual in newer ferraris is symptomatic of the entire blanding of the driving experience below 9/10ths.

here is hoping that 2500lbs 585 hp dino we read about recaptures the rawness and magic the newer cars lack (below all out pace) regardless of transmision. IMO the 355 was the last ferrari to really have that raw intimidating on edge magic when driven quick, fast or extreme. Well people say the CS has it too after which the cars were described to me as havign a Japanese feel.

 

Agreed!.... but to touch on these points-

The question is, is this a negative for you? I find it entertaining to drive a high strung high rpm engine. Not to say that a lower rpm torque monster isn't fun as well, but I don't mind adapting my driving style to the particular characteristics of an engine.

100% agreed about the overall blanding of the driving experience. I could write a sizable list of everything I dislike about newer cars in general but would forgive many sins in order to see a shifter between the seats again

 

That's too much logical sense my friend it just won't work

 

One of the things that irks me about Porsche is the whole upmarket/downmarket thing. The base Boxster-Cayman can easily run $65K+ with options, and it's a relatively slow car in the $50K+ market segment. Yes, you can get more performance in the Boxster-Cayman S, but then you're pushing $80K. But then there's the Boxster Spyder and Cayman GT4, so if you pay a bit more you can go a bit faster still.

If you're buying a Porsche sports car, why should it be intentionally underperforming? It's a Porsche. They should all be 'S' models.

I like that Ferrari only pushes out their best. If you go to a showroom and buy/order a 488, it's Ferrari's best production car, with what they've determined is the best engineering/configuration. Given that they have their own world famous test track and charge the moon for their cars, I expect something that's the state of the art. If I want old school, there are thousands of carburetted, three-pedal Ferraris available in the secondary market.

I don't think we need a dumbed-down version of the 488 or F12. It's a Ferrari. It's supposed to be the ultimate sports car.

 

I like this angle on things. I think you are chipping away at some of what they must discuss at some level over there.

 

I would agree that Porsche "limits" the Boxster / Cayman models somewhat to protect their base 911 cars - and I don't like it either. However, in the twisties, I wouldn't equate these models as slow by any means. They are as quick as virtually anything out there. Of course, if your into the 0-60 thing, that is another story.

Unfortunately, most of those old 3-pedal Ferraris are now relegated to languishing in collectors garages. Way over-priced and under-performing by today's standards, they are no longer a credible option to most enthusiasts IMO, unless you are very wealthy.

Much of the point here is that these MT only cars are aimed at drivers interested in a more connected experience, as apposed to an ultimate experience. Today's ultimate cars seem so disconnected, they practically drive themselves. Yes, you can turn SOME of that stuff off, but why should I have to pay for expensive things I just don't want?

 

I watched a great video on your car (well, another superformance GT40 ). What a car!

That is the kind of rawness I see in a Noble and very few other cars being offered today.

 

Agreed.

My 997.2 carrera s model can easily keep up with its near-contemporary Ferrari (the F430, though admittedly barely a contemporary) on a track, and the "less capable" Boxsters and Caymans are pretty much as fast or faster, depending on the track.

Now Porsche sees the light and offers the GT4 (massive hit) and will take one step back to go two forward with a manual option GT3. And I would be shocked if the next GT3 did not perform on par or ahead of its DCT rival at Ferrari.

I think DCT is fantastic, it really is. But in cars that are more recreation than anything else, why not sacrifice a couple tenths to add that recreation element? Otherwise everyone should be prepared for cars that use GPS on the track to determine throttle application, racing line etc, and people just sit inside as passengers. Because the same arguments hold there too...

I am a buyer of DCT cars and manual cars, but I am not a fan of limiting the choice. It is more a hope than anything, but when you see the used stick models commanding absurd premiums (that I would not pay btw) then there is a business angle to the car companies providing those options too... at least until that trend goes away.

Porsche is pretty savvy about these things. Ferrari could execute the exact same strategy (and perhaps they will eventually).

 

Arcade videogames try to maximise driving pleasure and do without gears altogether, just saying.

There are more exciting things that could be implemented instead of manually changing gears like controlling active aero, kers and dampers on the fly etc

 

I have one of those racing setups at home. I still opt to shift manually, where "car appropriate" and it is great fun to practice heel/toe outside a public road environment. Yes, you can have tons of fun left foot braking and doing sub 7 min nurburgring laps in a video game, but that is driving at literally 10/10ths. I hope to god nobody drives like that on regular roads...

And that is when driving in a more sim-based game. There are also arcade games that are wholly unrealistic, and that I personally don't find enjoyable...

Perhaps the next stage of driver enjoyment in 20 years will be programming the best route from A to B... oh, wait, the computer can do that better too...

 

I like to have a blend of Tq and rpm appropriate to the transmission choice. As an exagerated example 1k prm powerband between 8-9 wouldnt work.

Like you I also love a motor that has the feeling of climbing on cam at a certain point and can build revs and power steadily chasing towards the redline.

I think the dfferences in the moderns would not be cured by a stick, there is so much isolation and numbing that the tranny is possibly the least of it.

 

Sports cars are about recreational entertainment in drivign as much as about "performance" the great ones do both, feedback and tactility in all senses is a key componant.
Many a modern seeks useability and ease of use coupled with extreme performance for a few laps. The price is that these are now really really fast GT cars, lacking in the driving entertainment stakes when driven below 9/10.

i do agree that the absurd premiums for newer stick ferraris is all about specualtion rarity. When it was a 15% premium that could be attributed to enthusiasts. What we see now is absurd premiums driven by checklist specultors. BTW my sense from looking at the latest hemmings ask prices on TRs is that the market has reached a zenith and inventory is sitting.