Ferrari FF vs F12, much slower?

It is significantly slower in acceleration. Figuring 0-60 in 3.6 vs. 3.0 sec, that's nearly 20% slower, which is readily perceivable. This is exactly what you would expect for the ~ 10% added weight and ~ 10% less horsepower of the FF.

My FF feels a bit slower than my 458 in the lower gears but comes on at higher speeds. I figure the 458 is about midway between the F12 and FF in acceleration. Also the FF has much taller gears than the 458, which matches the V12's tuning for better low speed torque. This gives the impression of slower acceleration but at high speeds it sure has long legs.

To me the most impressive thing about the FF's driving prowess is the agility and handling for its size and mass. It really has no equal in that category which includes the Panamera and M5. This is not to mention the foul weather capability.

 

For safety, you can buy one of these for the back.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Last year I took my FF to a measured mile on the Battle Creek Michigan runway, doing 176 in the mile. There was a 458 there that had work done to make it faster and he could only make 172. My grocery getter beat him and he was quite unhappy about that. My ego had a great day!

It would be interesting to see what an F12 would do in a mile from a standing start!

Rick

 

I would still expect an F12 to do better, but not by as much as one would think. The FF has very tall gears that make for strong acceleration at high speeds. You can ride 4th gear to 134 mph (only 113 in the 458). The FF is really a six-speed car with a very deep overdrive. Also at high speeds the weight difference doesn't matter; it is all a matter of horsepower, gearing, and aerodynamics.

 

I like how my FF drives better in most ways...

 

Actually the F12 is vastly quicker:

Ferrari F12 Berlinetta vs Ferrari FF [42113858]
Ferrari FF vs Ferrari F12 Berlinetta - FastestLaps.com

 

I think it's almost all impression. My wife and I have done many tests in the 458 vs FF and if I creep on the FF in the beginning it's only slightly, then the FF pulls away very slowly. From a rolling start, the best I can do is hang with the FF until about 90 then she pulls away slooowly.

If you asked me prior to these tests, I'd say the 458 was leagues faster - but that's now what I know down to sound and short gearing.

 

This is about right: somewhat less than 20% quicker at low speeds. But notice that there is only 1.4 sec difference (out of about 20) in the standing kilometer, with more than half of that coming from the first quarter mile. That is not a lot and goes to the point about high speed performance, gearing etc.

Ferrari will of course make sure that its flagship V12 sports/GT car will be quicker than its 4-wheel drive 4-seater. But it is surprising to me how small the difference actually is.

 

Interesting (I assume you're in the 458). I would have expected the 458 to be quicker also, though the FF pulling away above 90 is not surprising.

 

I beg to differ sir. A 1.4 sec difference for the standing kilometre is glacial! At the exact moment that the F12 crosses the line, it is already doing some 180 mph, which means that within 1.4 seconds it will have travelled some 115 metres longer than the FF that will be crossing the same point 1.4s later. Being more than 100 metres in arrears after just 1000 metres is mega! Keep in mind also that the F12 will still be pulling on the FF after crossing the 1000 metres mark.

 

No argument though it is a fun problem to look at.

BTW I noticed that the F12 is already 0.8 sec ahead in the standing quarter so it adds only another 0.6 seconds in going from about 130 mph to the standing km.

Also BTW I looked up the drag coefficients of the two cars. The F12 is really VERY slippery: drag coefficient = 0.299. The FF is pretty good at 0.329. I suspect that the rear hatch break-off on the FF makes for some of that difference. The difference will matter at high speeds.

We are dealing with two very high performing cars here. Check out for example the comparison between the FF and the Panamera Turbo. The turbo gets an initial jump from its great low speed torque but after that the game is over. http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel3858-4018.htm

 

0-300 f12 23~24 and ff 30~31

 

I would rather say that the FF is traction limited, as the 4WD system it has is different one to the Turbo's. Torque is one thing that the big Ferrari V12s don't lack. Other that than, the Ferrari eats the Porker alive!

 

The site lists the peak Porker torquer as coming at 2250 RPM which is almost diesel like. (I think the S is a little higher). The engine redlines at 6000 RPM. I drove one and would liken its appearance more to a dachshund than oinker, but that it a matter of taste. The car was just no fun at all. Comparing the Panamera Turbo to an FF which is close to the same size is much like comparing the 991T to a 458. The Ferraris cost twice as much but you do get something besides more Italian style for those bucks -- the engine!

 

+1 plus the SOUND and the Ferrari Experience.

Rick

 

Yes. Ferraris have always been about the engine, and everything else that comes with it, and the style.

 

Having vmaxed the FF vs a 458, Speciale and f12, only the f12 had the legs.
Both 458s ran out of puff in the 2miles of runway and could not break the 200mph mark which the FF did on the speedo - and just misse through the laser traps hitting 198 consistently (indicated 203). The 458s hit low 190s at best. The f12 managed to get to around 203/4 in the same distance.

However in the real world the ff has a significant advantage over th f12 off the line because of the 4wd - to beat the ff the f12 driver needed to hook up a good start otherwise it would wag its tail and lose traction.

I am pretty sure that on real roads in real conditions the FF would remain large in the f12s mirrors unless Alonso is driving the f12...

 

Another interesting experience. Thanks for sharing.

There is much more than just road tests and numbers to these cars.

 

Indeed. Though the f12 in launch mode was a proper beast! With traction engaged the f12 had the legs on everything bar the P1, which seemed somewhat 'normal' up to 60mph then just warped off down the road like nothing else I've ever seen...

In real world driving I don't see how anyone can feel that a car capable of pulling 0-100 in the 7s is slow. My Maserati 3200GT always felt ballistically fast and that would hit 60 in 5 only if abused and with perfect manual changes. With DSG boxes now the challenge is somewhat reduced, if not the thrill!

I guess as hot hatches suddenly are capable of 0-60 in 5s supercars have to try that bit harder, but it does beg the question of where does this all end?

 

While the V12 does have good torque figures, it's high up on the rpm range, the Turbo S has more at 2k rpm than the V12 has at it's peak. That's a massive deficit. For launches from rest, HP doesn't matter, it's how much low end torque and traction. Both have excellent 4wd system so the difference is purely down to the lack of low end torque in the FF.

 

I am sure that you have heard the term pre-revving. You don't launch from idle engine speed. Low end torque is meaningless when the launch control holds the engine at 3000 revs before dropping the clutch. Not to mention that these cars can chirp their tyres even with 1000 RPM on the tachometre.

 

Pre-revving goes both ways. Both cars in launch mode pre-rev the engines to be at the sweet spot, but the Turbo S has higher torque figures in the whole rev range.

Not knocking the FF, I have one on order coming this Nov. As you have read it on the other site, I am cleaning house to switch to Ferraris.

 

Torque at the flywheel is a deceptice concept. What matters is torque on the ground. Anyway, I think we both agree that the FF is the faster car. I hope you enjoy yours in good health.

 

I don't know if there is much more to be said about this, but I did a little on line research on the issue of low speed torque and found the following numbers given by the factory for the RPM at which the engine gives 80% of its peak torque:
FF... 1750 RPM
F12... 2500 RPM
458... 3250 RPM
All three engines give PEAK torque at 6000 RPM.

What this tells me is that the FF has been tuned to be able to run in a higher gear at low RPM and still have enough grunt to give some acceleration. The 458 is not; you have to constantly keep the revs up to get meaningful acceleration. The F12 is in between.

It seems to me that this is in keeping with the intended use of the three cars and explains some of the different "feel" we get in driving them.