http://www.autoblog.com/2010/02/09/ferrari-chief-reportedly-admits-v6-a-possibility/ Ferrari Chief doesn't rule out a V6
Makes sense -- the focus now is on lightness and efficiency. If they try, maybe Ferrari can produce something that will run with a Porsche 997 Turbo.
Good point, and of course Ferrari would only want to win races against Porsche, so IMHO the Ferrari cost would be at least the same as Porsche's GT3 when it was introduced, due to much needed carbon fiber material. Porsche touts the flat 6 as superior to a V6 because the flat has a low center of gravity (which is very evident in turns), and bears down on the rear. Porsche has been very successful with cars that use the same engine from street to track to street with very few mechanical difficulties. That's where Porsche has an edge with a 6 over many other marque 6s and some 8s. If Ferrari would build a V6, and it were to be tracked in the same class against Porsche, it would have to be a mid-mount V6 with a low center of gravity (ixnay on the added weight distribution to the bottom). So, my guess is that a lot of expensive carbon fiber would be used above the chassis in order to combat and even out the otherwise needed lower weight. This will be a very expensive Ferrari, and will have to compete with both the Evo-punks as well as the Porsche weekenders.
Couple of independent points: I would like to see a modern 3.0 litre V8 street car with F355 power output levels (HP/litre) in a Dino sized (2500 pounds) sports car (minus the usual added frills: power windows, power locks, power steering, power seats, computer controlled tranny, computer regulated shocks) just a good honest bare bones sports car with A/C (I live in Texas) with a good power band and no particular need for going faster than 160 MPH. In fact, I have been contemplating something like the Cyclone V8 which is essentially 2 Yamaha 1 litre cylinder blocks, 5 valve heads, pistons, rods, intakes, attached to a machined block to support same. 2.0 litres, 300 HP, 14,000 RPMs, 180 pounds. Would make a perfect engine for a Miata... ----- A V6 can be a very CoG efficient engine architecture, especially if produced on a 120 degree bank angle. One could even make a V6 with a 180 degree bank angle--the difference between this and the P-car engine is how the throws on the crank are arranged. A 120 degree V6 would have plenty of room for ground effects tunnels that the 180 degree V6 or flat 6 do not. It would suffer very little from the CoG compared to a 180 of flat six. It would be miles ahead of your typical 60 degree V6. The Cayman is a much nicer road racing car (as a starting poitn) than the 911 derived cars. Stiffer chassis, better weight distribution--all that is really needed is the engines from the 911s to go romp over the 911s. Porsche doesn't because of customer perceptions--that is they need to protect the high dollar end of the flat-6 cars.
Well, Jaguar lost a WHOLE lot of customers on the XJ-220 when they went from a promised 12 cylinder to the delivered 6...
Some may scoff at that but I tend to agree. Perhaps they go to $120k (to better fit into Ferrari's cost structure) and maybe 2000 production to make it profitable. But a small, lightweight, significantly less expensive V6 Ferrari would be very welcome (particularly at the track). To me though, I think too much is made of what to call their cars. If it's good, it makes its own heritage, regardless of the inspiration. That said (!), I think a "Dino-like" lightweight mid-engine Or a "Barchetta-like" lightweight front engine/rear drive roadster would be interesting. Frankly, the latter one intrigues me more, if only because of Ferrari's 125S/166SC roots. It might not be hardcore enough but FR is typically a more accessible, easier to drive fast package and might not encroach on the 458 (as the Cayman clearly is to the 911).
Are you saying the the 458 is better or worse then the new 997 Turbo? Frankly, I think the 997.2 Turbo is a bit faster.... Steve
I can't wait for: Ferrari SUV 4x4 Ferrari Van Ferrari Disel Ferrari tesla electric Ferrari with automatic gear box (someone have one ) Ferrari sedan like Panamera or Rapide micro Ferrari a.k.a. Toyota IQ LOL
Jaguar got ahead of themselves when they introduced the XJ-220 in 1988 claiming V-12 power and 4WD... The prototype/show car was a non-runner as there was no room for fuel tanks AND the engine AND the 4WD system. The V-6 from the MG Metro 6R4 Group B rally car (which has an unusual 90 degree cylinder bank arrangement) was put into place when it was under development with TWR. Which pumped out a respectable 540 HP. And it fit with plenty of room in the engine bay
A Ferrari V6 would be bangin' if the whole package weighed...oh...2400 pounds wet. It won't happen, but I'm just sayin.
My old V-6 NSX would beat the latest V-8 Ferrari at the time..so it can be done if the weight and handling are on par...I hope Ferrari does push forward with it...
Those of us old enough to remember the first HP war also remember it ended badly. The same type of political climate is emerging now i.e. better efficeincy, lower emissions, more safety stuff that adds weight. Remember the early 80's when 200HP was considered powerful? I think of it as the automotive dark ages. Could they return? Stay tuned. Dave
Fine with me, as long as they keep the V8's. Ferrari had some 4 bangers too that won races. Remember the 500 TRC and others?
I think you're right. "Better" encompasses a lot of territory -- there are reasons to want a 458 instead of a monster 911 -- but cars with larger engines need to justify them. If the 458 can't outgun a new 997 Turbo, it suggests that Porsche have done their homework while Ferrari aren't getting full bang for their displacement buck. Agreed on the power luxuries. Properly pared down, a V6 Ferrari (or boxer-6 Ferrari) should be able to outperform a 458 or the luxury cars (599/California/612). Porsche got the Boxster Spyder down to 2850-or-so pounds starting with the relatively conventional Boxster S. I'm sure Ferrari could do better with a new, purpose-built lightweight sports car.
It didn't happen the first time either. Weight on the Dino, if my memory serves, with a couple passengers and a tank of gas is 3300 lbs +-. Gonna go look that one up. [edit]euro car weighs 2820 lbs empty. No spare, no gas, no passengers. Figure 350 lbs for passengers, 125 lbs for gas and 40 lbs for the spare, soo.... 3330 lbs. US spec cars wiegh a bit more with the smog stuff.[edit] DM
The '80s were terrible. And they could return, unless Ferrari and others send their next-gen designs to Jenny Craig. If they can lighten up the cars, then we don't need 700 bhp and heavy V12s. I'm blown away with what Porsche have done with the latest 997 Turbo. It's a relatively clean car with performance parameters that exceed almost anyone's limits as a driver. One thing we got out of the last Era of Fuel Economy was fuel injection, so the opposing view would be that automakers are inherently lazy and innovation-averse until their lobbyists are unable to push back any longer. At various times, we also got seat belts, safety glass, collapsible steering columns, etc., so while government has made some dumb automotive regulations it has also pushed technology forward in ways that benefit the driving enthusiast by keeping him alive longer. I love vintage cars -- and own one -- but bottom line is that we've never had faster, safer more efficient cars. At some point, electric vehicles may well leave Ferrari 458s sucking their non-exhaust non-fumes.
