512 TR? What's it like?
Discussion
Just wondering, not planning to buy one, very happy with the 355 
Anyway, I've always been a fan of the Testarossa (I guess a part of me wants to be Sonny Crocket), but when I spoke to someone that had owned one, they said it was a bit of a dog to drive. I was just wondering what the 512 TR was like? I don't really know much about it to be honest, was it well received when it was launched? What's it like to drive? I presumed it was very quick seeing as it had more power than a 360? Also, what's the reliability like, I know earlier Ferraris were a bit temperamental (to put it nicely) was the 512 tr?
Thanks in advance
Anyway, I've always been a fan of the Testarossa (I guess a part of me wants to be Sonny Crocket), but when I spoke to someone that had owned one, they said it was a bit of a dog to drive. I was just wondering what the 512 TR was like? I don't really know much about it to be honest, was it well received when it was launched? What's it like to drive? I presumed it was very quick seeing as it had more power than a 360? Also, what's the reliability like, I know earlier Ferraris were a bit temperamental (to put it nicely) was the 512 tr?
Thanks in advance
lambo_xx said:
Just wondering, not planning to buy one, very happy with the 355
Anyway, I've always been a fan of the Testarossa (I guess a part of me wants to be Sonny Crocket), but when I spoke to someone that had owned one, they said it was a bit of a dog to drive. I was just wondering what the 512 TR was like? I don't really know much about it to be honest, was it well received when it was launched? What's it like to drive? I presumed it was very quick seeing as it had more power than a 360? Also, what's the reliability like, I know earlier Ferraris were a bit temperamental (to put it nicely) was the 512 tr?
Thanks in advance
Dog to drive? Utter rubbish, obviously they couldn't handle it! I will admit they are not the quickest car in the world, can be quite heavy in the age of girly power steering, ABS, etc, it is a PROPER Ferrari-if there is such a thing. Testarossa certainly isn't a track car either, brakes are, well old, its got a big arse, but handling wise isn't too bad-as demonstrated at Dunsfold a few weeks ago Anyway, I've always been a fan of the Testarossa (I guess a part of me wants to be Sonny Crocket), but when I spoke to someone that had owned one, they said it was a bit of a dog to drive. I was just wondering what the 512 TR was like? I don't really know much about it to be honest, was it well received when it was launched? What's it like to drive? I presumed it was very quick seeing as it had more power than a 360? Also, what's the reliability like, I know earlier Ferraris were a bit temperamental (to put it nicely) was the 512 tr?
Thanks in advance
Best thing to do, is post on Club Scud as Hedge (Marc) and Tignaut (Neil) are ex 512TR owners and will give you an excellent insight into them
Edited by yellowtr on Thursday 4th June 12:07
Silver Pellet said:
deevlash said:
512 trivia fact, it has a 180 degree v-12, not a boxer engine.
What's the difference?Edited by deevlash on Thursday 4th June 00:59
here you go;
a boxer engine (like in the scooby) is flat, and so is the TR engine. But its about the firing order, in a boxer the pistons "box" ie the opposing ones hit the top and bottom of their stroke at the same time, whereas in a "V" engine they dont. A boxer has 1 crank pin per piston whereas in a 180 degree v engine 2 pistons share 1 crank pin.
thats a boxer engine, I cant find a gif of a 180 degree v but the pistons on opposing sides would be hitting the top of their stroke out of sybch with each other.
I owned a 512tr for 2 years and loved it, i know it has a big back side and handling not as nibble as the smaller ferrari's but i had no problems with it what so ever very reliable didnt break down on me once in 2 years.
i had a tubi system fitted so sounded great, its not that powerful but the V12 engine is smooth as silk and a great tourer as i covered 6000miles trip through europe.
Al
i had a tubi system fitted so sounded great, its not that powerful but the V12 engine is smooth as silk and a great tourer as i covered 6000miles trip through europe.
Al
Sorry to bring back an older thread but the engines that Deevlash describes are actually horizontally opposed flat engines and not true boxer engines at all.A true boxer engine is like the ones fitted to the old Chieftain tank.This engine has a flat configuration with two crank shafts,one at each side of the block,and the opposing pistons face each other in a shared cylinder bore.As the crank shafts rotate,the pistons move towards each other in the cylinder,like two boxers touching gloves and then move away from each other,hence the name boxer engine.
4rephill said:
Sorry to bring back an older thread but the engines that Deevlash describes are actually horizontally opposed flat engines and not true boxer engines at all.A true boxer engine is like the ones fitted to the old Chieftain tank.This engine has a flat configuration with two crank shafts,one at each side of the block,and the opposing pistons face each other in a shared cylinder bore.As the crank shafts rotate,the pistons move towards each other in the cylinder,like two boxers touching gloves and then move away from each other,hence the name boxer engine.
excellent! more geeky engine trivia I didnt know about! 
knobber said:
Drive a 512 M. Truly a different car to the TR
Do you say this from an informed personal viewpoint?I would say the improvement from TR to 512TR was a big jump, in aesthetics, power and handling. However, the jump from 512 to M was nowhere near as great, small tweaks if anything. Power was practically the same and the aesthetics, well, the front end look of the M is definitely love it or hate it (and the wheels!).
I would agree with your comments there on TR over the former model. The m was, though, much more refined in my view, it just felt better built and generally better put together. The aesthetic improvements (yes including the wheels) gave it a more contemporary look and feel. Although I think you will find that most of the physical improvements relating to performance were aerodynamic vis-à-vis improved down force due to redesigned floor pan etc. All very handy when tooling along the King’s Road.
I do speak from experience as I used to sell them and had many issues with the few TRs I handled. The two Ms I sold (I believe there where only 21 cars imported into the UK but don’t quote me) had none and I had a bit of a soft spot for them in any event as it was the end of an era really. Athena posters have never been the same since.
The last one I sold three times. First to a man who had it from new and covered only 500 miles or so. It came back in part ex and was then sold to a young guy who put another 600 miles on it when back it came some twelve months later. It then went to its final owner who had a great collection of cars in London. After a while he took it to his second home in Cyprus. I say “final owner” as he took it to a garage to have an oil change over there and the technician who then road tested it, crashed and wrote it off. Shame, I'd love that car now. It’s worth noting that the values of these have remained flat for the past 8 or so years. I wonder how cheap these will have looked look in ten years time.
I do speak from experience as I used to sell them and had many issues with the few TRs I handled. The two Ms I sold (I believe there where only 21 cars imported into the UK but don’t quote me) had none and I had a bit of a soft spot for them in any event as it was the end of an era really. Athena posters have never been the same since.
The last one I sold three times. First to a man who had it from new and covered only 500 miles or so. It came back in part ex and was then sold to a young guy who put another 600 miles on it when back it came some twelve months later. It then went to its final owner who had a great collection of cars in London. After a while he took it to his second home in Cyprus. I say “final owner” as he took it to a garage to have an oil change over there and the technician who then road tested it, crashed and wrote it off. Shame, I'd love that car now. It’s worth noting that the values of these have remained flat for the past 8 or so years. I wonder how cheap these will have looked look in ten years time.
knobber said:
most of the physical improvements relating to performance were aerodynamic vis-à-vis improved down force due to redesigned floor pan etc. All very handy when tooling along the King’s Road.
knobber said:
I do speak from experience as I used to sell them and had many issues with the few TRs I handled.
Fair enough.knobber said:
It’s worth noting that the values of these have remained flat for the past 8 or so years. I wonder how cheap these will have looked look in ten years time.
I have been thinking the very same myself for the last year.Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff