PSk, I hope you detected a hint of sarcasm in my post. Adjusting 48 desmo valves (which would actually be like adjusting 96 normal valves) would be a major headache I agree. Just doing 8 on a V-twin is a hassle every 6000 miles. My original owner's manual (from 1990), had clearance checks specified every 1860 miles. On the other hand, having to replace $30k worth of ceramic rotors and pads after a few tracks days as with the Enzo actually seems much worse than the labor for the valve adjustment. I didn't know that Ferrari had helped with the desmosedici, although they did aid in the initial development of what eventually came to be the MV Agusta engine. Why not just turbo the 612 engine and make the next supercar a slightly retro, front-engined GTO styled car. There has to be a limit when the performance/practicality ratio has to be pushed too far toward performance, even for Ferrari. The Enzo seems to be pushing it to the limit, IMO.
Yes, Now I do know of a number of Enzo's that are driven almost daily but there are those who are "Art" in someones "Look at Me" collection
After the Enzo, hmmmm... So many ideas, but Id like to see a RWD NA V-12 under 4 liters Lightweight spartan body, shaped like the 250 LM if its mid-engined, the 250 Berlinetta Lusso if the engine is up front. 2 seats, no AC (well, if its front engined then maybe as an option) , no power steering, limited ABS, limited Traction Control, Around 430HP and maybe 2100lbs, redline at 10,000, flat underbody but no wings, chained rather than belted. That wont happen, but Id really like it to.
ALRIGHT!! Great thread and some very nice ideas posted here! TO me, I'ld LOVE to see the next super car be either a high revving V10 with a small engine (3.0-4.0 liters) capable of around 500-600HP @ around 10K rpm (with a red line around 12k) or.... a new Twin Turbo (or quad turbo?!?!) V8 with a 3.0-3.5 liters engine; 5 valves per cylinder; with a Valve timing and electronic lift control as seen already in the Modena and 355, a light weight chassis, an F1 speed with 7 speeds and 3 cones on the first 3 speeds....................... Something that could give the Bugatti Veyron a run for its money... at least until they both get to 200MPH, 'cause a 8.0 liter will always have better top speed. One thing that has been on my mind though is if will ever be a computer adjusted gearbox... I mean something that could be programmed for optimized use like when someone would start the car it would be adjusted for top accelaration and as speed rose it would get "longer" so that top speed could be increased accordingly.... Great hum? lol Just my 2 cts Cheers
What i would like to see Ferrari do is to have some space aged computer gizmos....a cool tachometer/speedo, F1 incorporated design motifs, and maybe some speed holes...haha. I would like it if Ferrari had these options- a Ferrari with a built in turbo (4) like the Bugatti veyron? A special edition carbon fiber body (i mean the bare carbon look)? thats pretty much it.....Ferrari has already surpassed other supercars IMO.
style wise, I'd like to see the enzo smoothed over like the 360 (or murcielago) and get rid of those ugly angles. Performance wise I think they are already hitting a wall, the enzo would be capable of much higher speeds if it didn't have all the downforce, but ferrari want handling to come before high speed records, and make sure nothing can beat it around it's home track
Sorry missed the sarcasm , but agree that the ceramic rotors are a joke. I also believe that the service intervals for Ducati valve checks is now 12000 (kms or miles, not sure), so getting more practical every year. Do not quote me , but we discussed this on the old forum: http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages/14/250044.html Agree again. Ferrari should follow the Lotus example IMO! Pete
Can be done with the Constant Velocity Transmissions (CVTs) that you will see the little commuter cars coming out with soon (if not already). Basically there is no gears as such just a transmission that keeps the engine at peak torque all the time during acceleration!!! Williams I believe tested this concept and were heaps faster!!! BUT how fncken BORING!@!!. The engine would be screaming away at the same revs, making the same monotonous sound!!!!. I could not stand it myself. I can't even stand the boredom of automatic cars ... Pete
The Honda Jazz has it, and so has one of the Audis. Brilliant concept. It's been used on scooters for years. It's not really all that boring. Whilst the revs stay constant at full throttle, they do drop on cruise or light acceleration.
Amen to tha Pete !!! I am amazed at all the posers that are just downright rude !!! I have been a TRUE FERRARISTI and TIFOSI (that means fan in Italian for you uninitiated OWNERS) since I was 5 years old and when I purchased my first Ferrari 2 1/2 years ago I was in heaven. But then again I can actually identify a cam belt on my car, pay attention to the maintenance, and have actually driven it (heaven forbid) OVER 100 mph and can correctly pronounce Scuderia and Stradale
F40...mmmm, yes that is my main love in the Ferrari world. I wish they would go back to a basic, raw, sports car like that again.
Cool as it might be, I think the current trend is in person names: Enzo, Scaglietti. So what would be next? Pininfarina? Bertone?
Only me and ''Challenge'' who believes of what it could really happen next after the Enzo :the F60. I'm surprised.
My ultimate Supercar (the next F car) would be something that features a 12 Cylinder Engine, and as much as I love turbochargers, I have to say go with a NA design, that revs up to 10,000 RPMS. I hate V10's the noise is awful, they are poorly balanced, and luca said he wouldnt use them if it werent impractical not too, even in F1. I would like to see both a lightning fast F1 shift (7 speed) as well as a gated 6 available. You could actually have two, one with a targa top, and the 6 spd, a la F50, one with the hardtop and the sequential, slightly lighter, stiffer. Would like it to weigh in at about 2500 lbs. Max Power wouldnt need to go up much, but it would if it redlined that high.
Also a few questions on the F50, I can see not having any traction control, but why no ABS? its just better, and even a traction system can be deactivated, so what gives? Also, does anybody know the REAL performance of this car? Ive heard 3.8 to 60, and a to 100 in 8 sec. 197 Top end. Is this right? and if so, does it humble the McLaren's pitiful non ABS and....86 skidpad number!!! ugh!
They won't do it but I would like to see some kind of redo of the F40 type car: minimal driver's aids, minimal interior, race-type styling, and small, high revving 12. No Desmo valve adjustments or leaky Ducati coolant bottles either. The problem is that Ferrari treats this as a way to make the most advanced high performance car possible so they go all out on the technology (except for the interior carbon fiber, which they use antiquated methods).
Maybe because experience drivers don't want the lack that comes with ABS. ....( thats what Gordon Murray explained talking about the McLaren F1 which doesn't have ABS. I know Road & Track got 0-60 mph in 3.6 sec and 0-100 mph in 8 sec with the F50. As for topspeed..202 mph is what Ferrari claimed but I dunno if anyone ever got to 202 mph.
Smaller 600 cc motorcycle engines redline in the 15,500 RPM range and have strokes in the 40mm range and make 110 HP (almost 200 HP/litre). Larger 1000cc motorcycle engines (not Hardely) are now reving to 14,000 RPMs and makeing 180 HP with strokes in the 43 mm range. These engine/bikes will run for 50,000 to 100,000 miles assuming you don't stuff them into the hillsides..... This demonstraits that it is possible to build streetable engines that are light in weight, produce produgious power, and rev to astronomical RPMs. Lets assume one would loose 10% by controlling emissions to modern emission standards and one would also loose power by reducing the rev range from 14,000 RPMs to 12,000 RPMs. This implies that a 4.0 litre version reving to 12,000 RPMs would produce 493 HP and 300 lb-ft of TQ. A 6.0 litre version would produce 740 HP and 450 lb-ft of TQ. All that is required is a short stroke and an good combustion chamber and good breathing. Ferrari is already pretty go at both of these. In a very real sense the breathing is easier at higher RPMs because the intake and exhaust manifolds/headers are so much smaller and therby easier to package. As to the car to put it in: Bring back a modern interpretation of the 288 GTO!
