RE: Ferrari 488 GTB: Time For Tea?

[kambites]

fblm said:

mrclav said:

People who don't like progress can either choose to accept change or be left behind.

I choose to be left behind.

Me too.

I can't see myself ever buying a car manufactured after my current one for my own use. As and when it gets replaced, it will be with something older. Probably quite a lot older.

[mark0006]

Keanu Reeves Drives 488 GTB

He has been known to be a car and motorcycle guy.



From the article:
It’s not just the specifics of any Prancing Horse that stand out, but also the way Ferrari handles its customers. They have a special something put aside for every single sportscar buyer; it’s a culture they build around fast, luxury and classy autos. That is why when a Hollywood A-lister like Keanu Reeves visits the Italians’ headquarter he’ll spend the day.

7 pictures and full article

.

[mrclav]

Guvernator said:

Let me ask you a question? Do you really think Ferrari would have dropped their NA V8 if they hadn't been forced into it? I'm not a turbo hater as I have had some cracking turbo cars, nor am I an old luddite, I work in an industry that is literally nothing but change.

What I am questioning is the reason for going turbocharged in the first place which isn't about making the car better, it's about making politicians happy\more money which in my opinion is never a good reason. Progress is good, IF it's for the right reasons.

In answer to your question - maybe, maybe not. You assume a LOT. Who knows if they were actually forced? Without being part of the board at Fiat you can't actually be sure. There are so many other factors involved, the specific requirements of different markets for instance being a very important one. The Far Eastern market for example, which didn't really exist 15-20 years ago, is now a serious factor in profits and thus cars are being built taking these places into account. This is the thing people on here always seem to forget - car manufacturers, even Ferrari, are about making money, and NOT appealing to the minority.

Fact is, Ferrari has previous form with turbos (which are in two of the most evocative, sought after and downright awe-inspiring cars ever made) meaning it could well have been a possibility that they wanted to go that route of their own accord and not because they simply had to. If the F40 and 288 didn't exist then I'd say your question would make more sense to me.

You say that turbocharging the 488 isn't about making the car better but is a political thing - if turbos help an engine produce more power and make the car more efficient then how is that purely from an objective point of view not better? Yes, legislation has had a factor in forcing car-makers to come up with alternative ways of making cars produce less emissions but I think that there's always a chance some other tech will come along to replace turbos i.e. hybridisation a la LaFerrari.

I'll finish by asking YOU as question. Do YOU think that the 288 and F40 are better for having turbos in them or not? If you think they are better then it's illogical to presume they were just a result of Ferrari experimenting whereas the 488 is a product of politics. Unless you're privy to some information we know nothing about of course...

[anonymous-user]

mrclav said:

In answer to your question - maybe, maybe not. You assume a LOT. Who knows if they were actually forced?

No maybe about it. Ferrari have said exactly that many times; along with the move to hybridisation for the v12's, smaller capacity turbos are the only way they can increase performance and meet future emissions regs, specifically co2.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/ferrari-adding-turbos...
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a2469...

[Guvernator]

mrclav said:

In answer to your question - maybe, maybe not. You assume a LOT. Who knows if they were actually forced? Without being part of the board at Fiat you can't actually be sure. There are so many other factors involved, the specific requirements of different markets for instance being a very important one. The Far Eastern market for example, which didn't really exist 15-20 years ago, is now a serious factor in profits and thus cars are being built taking these places into account. This is the thing people on here always seem to forget - car manufacturers, even Ferrari, are about making money, and NOT appealing to the minority.

Fact is, Ferrari has previous form with turbos (which are in two of the most evocative, sought after and downright awe-inspiring cars ever made) meaning it could well have been a possibility that they wanted to go that route of their own accord and not because they simply had to. If the F40 and 288 didn't exist then I'd say your question would make more sense to me.

You say that turbocharging the 488 isn't about making the car better but is a political thing - if turbos help an engine produce more power and make the car more efficient then how is that purely from an objective point of view not better? Yes, legislation has had a factor in forcing car-makers to come up with alternative ways of making cars produce less emissions but I think that there's always a chance some other tech will come along to replace turbos i.e. hybridisation a la LaFerrari.

I'll finish by asking YOU as question. Do YOU think that the 288 and F40 are better for having turbos in them or not? If you think they are better then it's illogical to presume they were just a result of Ferrari experimenting whereas the 488 is a product of politics. Unless you're privy to some information we know nothing about of course...

Of course the 288 and F40 are better but as I stated before, they were designed in a totally different era with radically different design goals. Do you think when they were designing the F40 that words like mpg, co2 or drive by noise tests were ever mentioned? I think Enzo would have probably laughed at the idea.

As for Ferrari being forced to go the turbo route\downsize, it isn't an opinion I've come up with or something I've made up on my own, I'm not that clever.
It's what I've read time and again from many journalists and from engineers who are actually designing these new cars and the words that come up all the time in those articles is "due to new legislation". Don't get me wrong, some clever people are making a really good stab at trying to work within the rules while still letting us have our cake and eat it and I applaud them for it but what we've ended up with is akin to a low fat cake. It might look just as good but it just doesn't taste the same as the one which has 2000 calories.

[mrclav]

Guvernator said:

Of course the 288 and F40 are better but as I stated before, they were designed in a totally different era with radically different design goals. Do you think when they were designing the F40 that words like mpg, co2 or drive by noise tests were ever mentioned? I think Enzo would have probably laughed at the idea.

As for Ferrari being forced to go the turbo route\downsize, it isn't an opinion I've come up with or something I've made up on my own, I'm not that clever.
It's what I've read time and again from many journalists and from engineers who are actually designing these new cars and the words that come up all the time in those articles is "due to new legislation". Don't get me wrong, some clever people are making a really good stab at trying to work within the rules while still letting us have our cake and eat it and I applaud them for it but what we've ended up with is akin to a low fat cake. It might look just as good but it just doesn't taste the same as the one which has 2000 calories.

Enzo may have laughed then but he'd still have to live by the laws imposed today whether he liked it or not if he still was going to be in the business of making cars. I personally would prefer to live in a world where there was low fat cake rather than no cake at all.

[mrclav]

fblm said:

No maybe about it. Ferrari have said exactly that many times; along with the move to hybridisation for the v12's, smaller capacity turbos are the only way they can increase performance and meet future emissions regs, specifically co2.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/ferrari-adding-turbos...
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a2469...

Notice the second article contains a quote that conceals who said it...

Lamborghini still make cars without turbos. The reasons for this are still uncertain but maybe VAG can offset emissions due to economy of scale better than Fiat? Either way it doesn't matter as the traditional N/A engine is dead whether you or I like it or not. It's just a matter of time.

Edited by mrclav on Saturday 6th June 01:00

[MitchT]

RumbleOfThunder said:

Performance alone. The TT will wipe the floor with any NA V8 Ferrari could provide. They'd need one of their large V12's to achieve the same numbers.

It's not about 'wiping the floor' with another car though - it's about how much pleasure you can experience. What's the point of having a stratospherically capable car if all that actually means is that you can't red-line it on a winding B road and enjoy the howl of the engine because it's simply too fast? Personally I couldn't care less if someone in a TT leaves me in a cloud of dust. It's what I get from the car I'm driving that matters to me, not how my car compares with the one someone else has.

The reviews that are emerging suggest that the 488's exhaust note is far better than Ferrari's own films led me to believe, which is a relief, though it's still no 355. But, my concern with this car is that it is simply so capable that you can't realistically push it on public roads the way you might be able to push a 355. Personally I'd rather have something with lower limits so I could be more involved with it more of the time.

It's not about being stuck in the past, it's about choosing the most enjoyable experience. You only live once.

Edited by MitchT on Friday 5th June 23:17