RE: Ferrari GTC4 Lusso T for Paris
Saturday 24th September 2016
The new Ferrari GTC4 Lusso is a car we're big fans of at PistonHeads, its ability to combine rabid Ferrari V12 performance with exquisite luxury quite some party trick. Now the flagship of the Ferrari range is to receive a new model, the GTC4 Lusso T.
A "rich, powerful soundtrack" is promisedYes, like the California T, that's a 'T' for turbo. Also like the California, and indeed the 488 GTB, it's the 3.9-litre twin-turbo V8 that powers this GTC, Ferrari describing it as the "latest evolution" of this unit. So don't, whatever you do, call it a straight swap... Power is rated at 610hp at 7,500rpm, with peak torque of 560lb ft from 3,000-5,250rpm and variable torque curves (also as seen in the California and 488) between third and seventh. The V12 car, for reference, boasts 690hp and 514lb ft.
Ferrari GTC4 Lusso T for Paris
690hp V12 too much? Try the new entry-level V8 turbo, with 610hp...
A "rich, powerful soundtrack" is promised
Moreover, this is not simply a V8 in place of the V12 for a GTC4. Unlike the existing car, the V8 ditches the four-wheel drive and is rear-wheel drive only. Just when you thought Ferrari was going all grown up and sensible. Not only does this save 50kg (now 1,740kg dry with "specific optional extras"), but also tips the weight balance a little more in favour of the rear (now 46:54). Ferrari says this brings "superb occupant comfort and sportiness with... thrilling driving dynamics". Performance remains firmly in the supercar realm: top speed is said to be in excess of 200mph, with 60mph coming up in 3.5 seconds.
Much of the rest of the technology from the GTC4 Lusso is carried over to this T, including four-wheel steer, third generation Slide Slip Control and the Dual Cockpit as well.
The GTC4 Lusso T will receive its first public show at the Paris motor show very soon; there are no further details on price or availability yet, but you would have to assume neither can be far off. Would you have it over the V12?
 |
 |
Discussion
What better car for a skiing trip? It's hard to think of anything worse to tackle narrow, icy roads in than a front-engined, rear-drive car, worth as much as an average house and nearly as wide and heavy, with fat performance tyres. Oh, and DSG so you've got to second-guess a computer making those crucial initial clutch inputs on snow or ice.
The V12, with its 4WD, would make sense for that, sure, but this RWD one seems quite ill-suited. I like it a lot, sure it would be a great drive in normal circumstances, but not for snow and ice.
Since the V12 car has a clever arrangement where drive to the front wheels comes off the front of the crank via a separate gearbox and clutch, I assume it wasn't felt worth the re-engineering to adapt this arrangement for a totally different engine, which presumably wasn't designed to drive both ends of the crank.
Given the loss of four cylinders and two driven wheels, I'm amazed if it's really only 50kg lighter than the V12 car - surely the V12 is more like two tonnes ?
The V12, with its 4WD, would make sense for that, sure, but this RWD one seems quite ill-suited. I like it a lot, sure it would be a great drive in normal circumstances, but not for snow and ice.
Since the V12 car has a clever arrangement where drive to the front wheels comes off the front of the crank via a separate gearbox and clutch, I assume it wasn't felt worth the re-engineering to adapt this arrangement for a totally different engine, which presumably wasn't designed to drive both ends of the crank.
Given the loss of four cylinders and two driven wheels, I'm amazed if it's really only 50kg lighter than the V12 car - surely the V12 is more like two tonnes ?
samoht said:
Given the loss of four cylinders and two driven wheels, I'm amazed if it's really only 50kg lighter than the V12 car - surely the V12 is more like two tonnes ?
They've quoted a dry weight (no fluids or driver) with lightweight options specified...so the 1,740kg is a little misleading...That said, the V8 will have a pair of turbos plus plumbing/intercooling, so may not weigh THAT much less than the V12, fully-dressed. It'll contain the mass further back in the chassis though...
Slightly odd one this.
If Ferrari can pretty much sell every car that it makes, why come out with a cheaper ( and, I therefore assume ) lower margin version of the 12 cylinder one ?
Their CO2 numbers have been coming down with the switch to V8 turbos, so assume that this did not drive it.
Lovely car but can't quite see what's in it for them. Anyone who can afford this model can also afford the V12....
If Ferrari can pretty much sell every car that it makes, why come out with a cheaper ( and, I therefore assume ) lower margin version of the 12 cylinder one ?
Their CO2 numbers have been coming down with the switch to V8 turbos, so assume that this did not drive it.
Lovely car but can't quite see what's in it for them. Anyone who can afford this model can also afford the V12....
samoht said:
What better car for a skiing trip? It's hard to think of anything worse to tackle narrow, icy roads in than a front-engined, rear-drive car, worth as much as an average house and nearly as wide and heavy, with fat performance tyres. Oh, and DSG so you've got to second-guess a computer making those crucial initial clutch inputs on snow or ice.
The V12, with its 4WD, would make sense for that, sure, but this RWD one seems quite ill-suited. I like it a lot, sure it would be a great drive in normal circumstances, but not for snow and ice.
Since the V12 car has a clever arrangement where drive to the front wheels comes off the front of the crank via a separate gearbox and clutch, I assume it wasn't felt worth the re-engineering to adapt this arrangement for a totally different engine, which presumably wasn't designed to drive both ends of the crank.
Given the loss of four cylinders and two driven wheels, I'm amazed if it's really only 50kg lighter than the V12 car - surely the V12 is more like two tonnes ?
Autocar reports the 4wd as an option, until we all know the specs from Paris we can all but speculate as to what this car will end up with mechanically.. I suspect this is more a move from Ferrari to get the fleet average CO2 down to keep the bods in Geneva happy with the V8T engine.The V12, with its 4WD, would make sense for that, sure, but this RWD one seems quite ill-suited. I like it a lot, sure it would be a great drive in normal circumstances, but not for snow and ice.
Since the V12 car has a clever arrangement where drive to the front wheels comes off the front of the crank via a separate gearbox and clutch, I assume it wasn't felt worth the re-engineering to adapt this arrangement for a totally different engine, which presumably wasn't designed to drive both ends of the crank.
Given the loss of four cylinders and two driven wheels, I'm amazed if it's really only 50kg lighter than the V12 car - surely the V12 is more like two tonnes ?
Oh, and since it's got so much weight over the rear, I suspect, with the appropriate tires, it'll do just fine on snow and ice. However, I thought the 6.3L V12 in this car surely is represented both in the F12 and the LaFerrari too?
Regards
Edit to say the autocar article is slightly ambiguous to me as a non native english speaker/reader in that it does/doesn't explicitly say both 4wd and V8/V12 will be options. One for the english lit. pedants out there?
Edited by MrwReckless on Thursday 22 September 18:54
I'm guessing this has been made mainly for the Chinese market? I'm sure I read somewhere that they have punitive taxes on cars over four litres - which is why so many prestige/luxury/performance cars have been released recently with engines no bigger than this.
I would imagine the monthly cost between this and the V12 isn't that great, and customers who aren't in China probably won't give the V8 a second glance. If it was my money then it would be V12 all the way.
I would imagine the monthly cost between this and the V12 isn't that great, and customers who aren't in China probably won't give the V8 a second glance. If it was my money then it would be V12 all the way.
Vroom101 said:
I'm guessing this has been made mainly for the Chinese market? I'm sure I read somewhere that they have punitive taxes on cars over four litres - which is why so many prestige/luxury/performance cars have been released recently with engines no bigger than this.
I would imagine the monthly cost between this and the V12 isn't that great, and customers who aren't in China probably won't give the V8 a second glance. If it was my money then it would be V12 all the way.
It must be one hell of a tax, if you can afford a new Ferrari then surely a little bit of tax on top isn't that big of a deal? I'd be interested to know how much they'd get stung for the V12 and V8 versions. I would imagine the monthly cost between this and the V12 isn't that great, and customers who aren't in China probably won't give the V8 a second glance. If it was my money then it would be V12 all the way.
Mafffew said:
I'd be interested to know how much they'd get stung for the V12 and V8 versions.
The V12 one goes for around CNY 5,388,000 i.e. £617,000.(source http://price.pcauto.com.cn/sg13847/)
Mafffew said:
It must be one hell of a tax, if you can afford a new Ferrari then surely a little bit of tax on top isn't that big of a deal? I'd be interested to know how much they'd get stung for the V12 and V8 versions.
A "little" bit extra in a lot of countries is 50%+ compared to the UK. Many people in the UK complain about how expensive driving is (generally comparing it to the US) but the UK is still far cheaper than many other countries round the world.
matsoc said:
The simply idea of a Ferrari model with more than 1 engine options is wrong.
This. V6 488 anyone? I can understand it for the markets like China where a huge cost saving could be had on account of lower taxes, but for other markets I can't imagine it being a big seller. Not that any Ferrari 4-seater ever is.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff