RE: Ferrari Portofino: Driven

[Wills2]

I really like that, pity it's not n/a though.

[AWG]

I like it! Love the interior too, crazy dash with far too much going on makes me want one even more!
Headlights look very S15 Silvia to me

[E65Ross]

JuniorD said:

The interior looks like a dogs dinner.

And a pointless 10.5 inch touch screen, which you won't be able to read when the roof is down and/or your sunglasses are on.

Have you ever heard of anti-glare screens?

[Yipper]

[cypriot]

erm... mx5 anyone?! looks identical!

[E65Ross]

TWPC said:

Looks similar to a C7 Corvette to me.

front engined RWD 2+2 sports car looks similar to another front engined RWD 2+2 sports car surprise. When you actually look at them closely the differences are most certainly there.

The most telling thing though, if you parked both side by side, would someone confuse the corvette for the Ferrari. I doubt it.

Even if it is in the same colour

[635csi]

shoestring7 said:

BVB said:

Interestingly the California it replaces was the car that almost all female Ferrari customers bought. About 80% of it's sales were to women. The Portofino is stunning and I'm sure the ladies will be queuing for ownership.

This is bks.

Ferrari bloke said:

Quietly in 2008 Ferrari admitted that its then new California sports car was designed to appeal to women. In that respect it has failed – very few women bought this near-200mph folding hard-top sports car, although a lot of men did and 70 per cent of them were new to Ferrari ownership.

"The same sex, but a different type of customer," says Nicola Boari, head of Ferrari product marketing.
[/quote/]

SS7

Well, my wife bought a Cali T HS. I thought it drove rather well with the HS pack, not half as well as the Lusso T* she is replacing it with though . So I guess that does confirm that the Cali T was both attractive to women and an entrance model for the range.

• like a jet fighter with a boot, since you ask

[suffolk009]

M1C said:

pppppppppppppppp said:

suffolk009 said:

You mean he's trolling us?

I wouldn't blame him . Every second fking article on this site is now full of comments complaining about what appears to be a reasonably decent piece of English. So he throws in a few more adverbs than are strictly necessary. So what?

What do you need? C-a-r g-o f-a-s-t. C-a-r l-o-o-k s-h-i-n-y.

If you don't like it, move on. You didn't pay anything to read the article. Nobody forced you to.

As for the car, I agree with whoever said the interior is a mess. Why can't car interiors be simple and elegant any more? Surely Ferrari should be leading the way here? It's a nice machine though.

It's not as simple as that. Cacketts style it just way OTT! I mean look at some of the quotes taken from the article in previous posts. It's just way OTT and doesn't tell us anything about the car, it's just overly floofering around with words for flooferings sake!

As mentioned in a post above, it's clear that Cackett hasn't actually ever been near the car, let alone "DRIVEN" one.

Perhaps he publishes such supervacaneous prose to distance himself intellectually and artistically from the internet masses sat at home banging away on the internet about a new Ferrari.

[anonymous-user]

cypriot said:

erm... mx5 anyone?! looks identical!

YYou always get comments saying "looks just like XYZ" on these articles when they don't, but saying that the Portofino looks even remotely like an NC MX5 is the most idiotic I've seen.

[635csi]

nickfrog said:

Totally subjective I would have thought. Owners seem happy, non-owners less so. The non-Ferrari owning PH crowd is hard to please and very particular about cars they will never own.

Yes they are a hard crowd for sure. On design and proportion Ferrari are constrained like everybody else by US and European safety regs. My old 575 (a "big" V12 Grand tourer) was very svelte compared to our Cali T (a "small" V8 Grand tourer). The Lusso is ginormous but on the longer wheel base looks quite nicely proportioned, at least for a bread van.

[The Surveyor]

I really like this Portofino.

It looks much better in the grey where the creases and lines are more visible, something that tends to get hidden on red, and I even like the interior despite it being just a little too fussy. It's a really desirable car.

The one concern from the article would be the ride, if it's to be driven regularly as a sporting GT (a DB11 competitor) there should be no comments about the way it rides at low speeds, that should be a given.

At this price bracket it would be a tough call between this and the expected Aston Martin DB11 volante for a good looking convertible GT for everyday use, if I was after something more sporting for occasional use, the McLaren fanboy in me would lead me to a 570 Spider.

[Wills2]

cypriot said:

erm... mx5 anyone?! looks identical!

By identical you mean they have 4 wheels, 2 doors and a roof that comes off?

[Ares]

Wills2 said:

cypriot said:

erm... mx5 anyone?! looks identical!

By identical you mean they have 4 wheels, 2 doors and a roof that comes off?

Ooooh, me, me me..... It's got a grill too Sir. And a windscreen...

[The Selfish Gene]

PH really is full of haters. The car is bloody fabulous.

Just be thankful we are still getting V8s!!

I reckon you could put a naked Claudia Schiffer up and half of PH would say - "too blond", "too perfect" " bet she would take all your money"

Fact is - most people can only dream of owning a car like this. Thus they hate.

[J4CKO]

TWPC said:

Looks similar to a C7 Corvette to me.

I thought the front had a Corvette vibe as well, looks great though.

[rampageturke]

pppppppppppppppp said:

suffolk009 said:

You mean he's trolling us?

Every second fking article on this site is now full of comments complaining about what appears to be a reasonably decent piece of English. So he throws in a few more adverbs than are strictly necessary. So what?

[HeMightBeBanned]

Come back Dan Trent. All is forgiven.

[M1C]

Theres something very 550 Maranello about those rear haunches.

[SpeckledJim]

God, that was hard work. I had three or four attempts at this:

• The total tonnage of such artistry is intended to land somewhere between pushing the button and depressing the accelerator. And it does: the V8 barks and snarls and does nothing that isn't zingy or rousing. Conversely though, it can't do understated or mellow either.

I think he got confused halfway through his own sentence.

• The total tonnage of such artistry is intended to land somewhere between pushing the button and depressing the accelerator. And it does: the V8 barks and snarls and does nothing that isn't zingy or rousing. Conversely though, it can't do understated or mellow either.

OK, I've unravelled that and it turns out it IS zingy and rousing, gotcha.

• The total tonnage of such artistry is intended to land somewhere between pushing the button and depressing the accelerator. And it does: the V8 barks and snarls and does nothing that isn't zingy or rousing. Conversely though, it can't do understated or mellow either.

OK, given we now know it is zingy and rousing, that makes sense.

• [i]The total tonnage of such artistry is intended to land somewhere between pushing the button and depressing the accelerator. And it does: the V8 barks and snarls and does nothing that isn't zingy or rousing. Conversely though, it can't do understated or mellow either.

But that's not what conversely means. The two things it links aren't in contradiction.

• The total tonnage of such artistry is intended to land somewhere between pushing the button and depressing the accelerator. And it does: the V8 barks and snarls and does nothing that isn't zingy or rousing. Conversely though, it can't do understated or mellow either.

With reference to what? That underlines both sentences as negatives yet the first sentence states a positive.

Word porridge with much too much honey and not nearly enough salt.

[Digger]