RE: Ferrari 488GTB: Driven
Discussion
The main reason I would have bought a 458 over the equivalent McLaren was the NA engine. I know Ferrari are being forced down the turbocharging route but not sure it is a step forward. No doubt it won't stop Ferrari selling them and there will be a waiting list as people go for the newest and quickest car.
swimd said:
This. Ever since he left /Drive and went on to do his own thing, his reviews are very one-sided. This is perfect, this is outrageously quick, this feels great, yadda yadda. He doesn't dare to bite the hand that feeds him. A shame because his reviews used to be quite honest and refreshing.
There is definitely an element of that with Ferrari. You don't really want to get on the wrong side of the MAFIA !
Much as I enjoyed reading about the sheer abilities of this car it does all seem to be getting a bit silly, doesn't it?
I wonder if a window is beginning to open for slower but more engaging cars from the big names - Cayman GT4 for one example. Still keep building your flagship 488s and your bonkers 911s for the bankers and sheikhs to keep your place in the supercar pantheon, but start offering Dinos and fast Caymans for the real enthusiasts - manual boxes, less power, less electronics etc. Of course you can still utilise some trickle-down tech from the flagships to improve emissions and so on too.
Everybody wins?
I wonder if a window is beginning to open for slower but more engaging cars from the big names - Cayman GT4 for one example. Still keep building your flagship 488s and your bonkers 911s for the bankers and sheikhs to keep your place in the supercar pantheon, but start offering Dinos and fast Caymans for the real enthusiasts - manual boxes, less power, less electronics etc. Of course you can still utilise some trickle-down tech from the flagships to improve emissions and so on too.
Everybody wins?
Its funny, this is just evolution of the sports car...the big names, the not so big names, they release the 488 or the type-r...people slate it, hate it others love it, some buy it...in a hundred years from now it'll be the same thing repeating it self over and over again, when us lot are old fogies we'll see the latest supercars and sneer at them for all being so different to what we remember, but the manufacturers have to cater for the next gen of car enthusiasts. So many people comment on these cars without even seeing one up close, not saying its wrong, just makes me laugh.
DonkeyApple said:
And there is also the issue that there is absolutely no pleasure to be gained from taking a road corner at 60 in a car that can do it at 150. But taking that corner at 60 in a car that really is better doing it at 50, well that is exciting and rewarding.
^^^^this this THIS^^^^matsoc said:
Certainly it is very true that 660hp are not needed for driving pleasure. But I don't agree on 90s cars to be the last generation of powerful cars enjoyable on the road for 95% of the drivers. You are not considering that cars were improved over the years! And I am not talking about electronic aids. I has owned a 993 for 2 years (285ps). Great car but when I first experienced a 997.1 GT3 it shocked me how 415ps felt more exploitable. I can say similar things also about Ferrari. I once sadly crashed a (not mine) 355 coming back to Italy from Germany in a rainy night and this could had been altered my judge but again a F430 despite 110 more hp is easier to drive quicker even with CST off based on my experience.
I would say more like 99.5% of drivers would fail to anywhere close to the limits of a GT3 on the road...and it has got pretty substantial rubber.I'm not trying to be pedantic or a purist, I love power, I'm just saying that if you apply the argument that 660bhp is too much power for pursuit driving (manual box, no aids, reasonable rubber) I'm saying we reached that point a long long time ago. Supercars have always been about speed and technology. Coming on every thread (not aimed at you)and complaining about them losing touch is like being into sailing and complaining about power boats.
Supercars have only started selling in big numbers since they became accessible to the average driver.
I tried to get excited by this car but I just can't.
Beautiful? No. Pretty even? Not even close. It's a bit of a dogs dinner. It doesn't even sound that good.
As for the 'embargos' I mean seriously, really? Wtf?
That all kind of sums up modern Ferraris, they're all about marketing, PR and carefully controlling their image and not about making cars that make your dinkle tingle.
Can you even imagine any kids putting a picture of that on their bedroom wall?
I'm sure it's a technical marvel and goes like stink but jesus, where is the 'my god I have to have one'? It's about as desirable as a flash Italian toaster.
I'm sure they'll sell them by the bucket load and have waiting lists yadda yadda but when(if)my numbers ever come up I'll be heading towards the showrooms of a couple of other Italian makers...
Sorry
Beautiful? No. Pretty even? Not even close. It's a bit of a dogs dinner. It doesn't even sound that good.
As for the 'embargos' I mean seriously, really? Wtf?
That all kind of sums up modern Ferraris, they're all about marketing, PR and carefully controlling their image and not about making cars that make your dinkle tingle.
Can you even imagine any kids putting a picture of that on their bedroom wall?
I'm sure it's a technical marvel and goes like stink but jesus, where is the 'my god I have to have one'? It's about as desirable as a flash Italian toaster.
I'm sure they'll sell them by the bucket load and have waiting lists yadda yadda but when(if)my numbers ever come up I'll be heading towards the showrooms of a couple of other Italian makers...
Sorry
Dagnut said:
PunterCam said:
"Because, really, all we want to know is just how fast the 488 GTB?" - Well, no, not really. Obviously it'll be faster than the old one - Ferrari are a business with a marketing department. It won't be as fast as the next one though. Just like all mass-produced sports cars. I'd like Ferrari to "do" an F50.
That graph and the sounds from the video - looks like Ferrari haven't done quite all we (I) were(was) lead to believe. Drop off after 6k, limited torque in low gears to make it "feel" bett... you know, I don't even care. It sounds like something fiat would do to make a warm punto feel a little snappier. It's computer code and automatic gearbox trying to make up for actual mechanical excitement, and it bores me. And it sounds crap, sadly.
It looks alright, but so did the 458... Apart from the looks and the interior, which are Ferrari and distinctive, the specs could be Audi. Even the 'effin Germans are still making high-revving atmospherics! What a funny world. It's not an irrational hate people have towards turbos - we dislike them because they aren't as good. They don't come close.
Boring? I would you love to see you manage a 660bhp car without electronic aids...this hero purist bullsThat graph and the sounds from the video - looks like Ferrari haven't done quite all we (I) were(was) lead to believe. Drop off after 6k, limited torque in low gears to make it "feel" bett... you know, I don't even care. It sounds like something fiat would do to make a warm punto feel a little snappier. It's computer code and automatic gearbox trying to make up for actual mechanical excitement, and it bores me. And it sounds crap, sadly.
It looks alright, but so did the 458... Apart from the looks and the interior, which are Ferrari and distinctive, the specs could be Audi. Even the 'effin Germans are still making high-revving atmospherics! What a funny world. It's not an irrational hate people have towards turbos - we dislike them because they aren't as good. They don't come close.
t is getting tiresome now.Yes we all prefer manuals, Yes we all prefer N/A..but what are Ferrari to do..how could you make a 660bhp N/A V8 in a production car and keep in under 200k and 7 litres?
The car has to be competitive and Mclarens where getting to far away, I don't buy any of the emissions cr@p with this car its all about performance, this engine gives them scoop to hit 700-750 if they need to and they probably will, no doubt McLaren will get there quicker.
king cares. What happens when the McLarens get "too far away"? Nothing? Because it's not a race? Because it's a road car built for a bit of fun - an expensive toy? 0a said:
I found the Chris Harris review very boring and I normally like his stuff. Watch it and then go and watch the F40 vs F50 video he did...
There was less mindless drifting because they don't have the time to fanny around at Fiorano, but actually I preferred it because I could get some idea of what it was like to drive. You know, like a review, rather than a load of noise and tyre smoke.0a said:
It was reviewed in the Telegraph today and they concluded it was very fast, less good looking, and didn't sound that good.
I found the Chris Harris review very boring and I normally like his stuff. Watch it and then go and watch the F40 vs F50 video he did...
Aah yes, The Telegraph, that bastion of supercar journalism. I'll go with the overwhelming view that it's fI found the Chris Harris review very boring and I normally like his stuff. Watch it and then go and watch the F40 vs F50 video he did...
king astonishing.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff