Lord Of The Fliers- 348 vs NSX vs 964 Turbo vs Esprit to LeMans, Autocar & Motor 1993

itsablurr · Mar 18, 2016

Picked up a few old 80s/90s publications featuring the 348 itself and against its contemporaries, to put together with all of the other collected 348 paraphernalia. I thought it was a pretty good read. Unfortunate that there is no bbcode img tags on fchat to embed photos into text body, and attachment sizing is low-res. I'll find a large format color scanner and perhaps PDFs would best capture the content. The article can also be seen here in embedded format: Esprit Road Tests
............

Autocar Magazine
July 1993, Stephen Sutcliffe

Le Mans on race weekend is the scene for a showdown between the four most useable supercars.

Beaming into the 911's rear-view mirror, I had to pinch myself. Emerging from the belly of one of Sealink's finest was a dazzling silver Honda NSX, its chin kissing the tarmac almost by way of a greeting as it crept down the exit ramp. Then came a bright red Lotus Esprit S4, followed noisily by the prima ballerina of our extravagant convoy, a beautiful Ferrari 348tb piercing rosso red, naturally.

Thinking back now, we must have been mad not to point those four pretty noses in the direction of St Tropez to go and live the life for a few days. It was, after all, a once-in-a-life-time opportunity. But we had another goal. We were headed for Le Mans, to the greatest motor race in the world, armed not only with the four best usable supercars money can buy but also a series of questions that needed answers. Would the new GT class a category instigated by the Automobile Club de L'Ouest for this year's race and one for which this magazine has long been campaigning to allow more recognizable road car-based racers to take part again be a success, for instance?

Certainly the 911, Ferrari and Lotus, all three of which were due to be represented in tomorrow's race, were sending out the right sort of messages during the short blast from Calais to Paris. But would the GTs really look and sound exciting enough truly to thrill when running side by side with the fabulously noisy, disturbingly rapid Group C monsters from Peugeot and Toyota, or should they just stick to doing what they do best being great road cars? Also, we were here to pick a winner from this quartet of expensive, exclusive and, above all, exotic machinery from the UK, Japan, Germany and Italy.

Ultimately, our goal was to establish who, out of Lotus, Honda, Porsche and Ferrari, makes the best real-world supercar in the business. And if the drive to Le Mans and back which would involve climbing in and out of them more times than most owners would in half a year, covering 5,000 combined miles, burning 300 gallons of fuel and then taking them to Millbrook for a full workout wasn't good enough to backdrop from which to draw a winner then it's doubtful whether any of us should be allowed to continue working in this business.

Crawling out of Paris in the thick of the densest French traffic jam any of us can ever recall, three things about our convoy were already becoming apparent. The First how much more attention and affection the French public had in reserve for the Ferrari was perhaps predictable, especially since the 348 had already blown the others into the water at Dover when it came to impressing the locals. Even so, the crowds that gathered like bees to honey wherever and whenever we parked it, and the comparative lack of enthusiasm for the other three, still came as something of a shock. Then again, the French have always had good taste.

The second early realization was just how much easier the Porsche and Honda were to live with in the infuriatingly bunged-up Peripheries traffic. In the Ferrari it was the weight of the clutch and the heavy unassisted steering a nightmare below 5mph that made us wish we'd come in a Toyota Corolla for an irrational hour or two. In the Lotus it was a combination of the appalling reflections in the screen and three-quarter windows, added to the fact that none of us could see more than a French front number plate out of the Esprit's letterbox of a rear window. That and the tantrum thrown by the highly sprung four-cylinder turbo engine the idle speed when walkabout for half an hour as the outside temperature soared.

The real shocker, only three hours into the journey, was that the Porsche was proving to be the car that everyone wanted to drive least. Its suspension had thumped its way down the auto route with about as much subtlety as a head-butt, the roar from its huge tyres had battered our ears into cabbage and yet somehow it felt soft, as if Porsche had altered the 911 Turbo's basic personality to make it less of a pure sports car and more of a GT.

The kickback through the steering was still there, but the feel, the non-stop conversation you had looked forward to whenever you'd stroked the wheel of a 911 previously, was no longer there. And the noise, that wonderful spine-chilling chainsaw-in-cotton-wool howl that every 911 has made since day one, appeared to have gone AWOL, too.

Sitting in the jam gave us time to ponder some other anomalies and annoyances. Like the Esprit's pathetic ventilation and ludicrously close pedals; the Ferrari's painfully awkward first-to-second gearshift (the lever is stupidly reluctant to disengage one gear or enter the next); the NSX's quite brilliant driving position with its all-electric seat adjustment, and the Porsche's superior visibility and general maneuverability in traffic.

Finally we get clear of Paris, out on to the auto route towards Le Mans. Over the next half an hour or so I chew on a few factual nuggets and begin to consider some history, of the race we are about to witness and the cars from which we are about to witness it.

The 911 is the oldest car here. And the newest; although the Porsche concept of slotting a flat six engine into the back of an inverted bath tub of a car is 30 years old this year, the gun-metal 3.6 Turbo you see here the fastest production 911 yet is absolutely brand new. And the changes compared with even last year's 911 Turbo are many.

For starters, this is the first time the 3.6-litre engine (already seen in the back of the Carrera 2 and 4) has been turbocharged; the old Turbo made do with the ancient 3.3-litre motor, which produced 320bhp compared with the 3.6's lip-smacking 360bhp. And naturally Porsche has beefed up the bits you'd expect to keep that extra power in check' the brakes are bigger and the spring/damper rates have been refettled.

Visually thee 3.6 Turbo rams home the message harder than any other 911 that it is serious about going places rapidly. The massive new 18ins alloys 10ins wide at the back, 8 ins at the front and wearing 265/35 and 225/40 Yokohama's respectively are hardly subtle in their approach but are about as effective as it gets when it comes to wheel warfare.

By contrast, the 348 looks almost dainty and certainly no different than it did when Ferrari announced at its 1990 launch that this was the car to replace the 328. But that's because it is the same, on the outside. Underneath Ferrari has executed a number of modifications, most of which were in response to criticism that the car was 'tricky' when pushed close to its limit, and too firm of ride. Hence the springs are now softer, the dampers are stiffer and the rear upper wishbones have been slightly repositioned.

The quad-cam 3.4-litre V8 engine has gained a catalytic converter since we last encountered it, too, along with shorter gearing to counteract the small power drop down from 300bhp to 295bhp. And the car now weighs a little less because one or two lighter components have been adopted, notably the new Japanese starter motor.

Mind you, that's nothing in comparison with the health farm from which the 18-year-old Esprit has just returned. The most significant area to have been toned is the steering, which gets power assistance for the first time and is all the better for it. But visually, too, Lotus's last surviving soldier, the S4, has been subject to the surgeon's knife; it gets more sober rear wing, new wheels, a modified bonnet, new front spoiler and side skirts and, at last, Vauxhall door handles in place of the dreadful Morris Marina cast-offs, while the cabin has been restyled. It's not a radical rethink, but the GM switchgear, beautifully sculpted steering wheel and relocated instruments, all housed in a Kevlar lookalike dashboard, are certainly a big improvement.

Even the four-cylinder turbo engine on of the old car's strongest cards wasn't left untouched, various changes having been made to enhance smoothness and refinement. Not that there's any more power. It still punches out a mighty 264bhp from just 2.2 litres, making it easily the most highly tuned of this group at 120bhp per litre.

As for the NSX, it seems that Honda got it all right from the beginning. Not one change has been instigate since the car's debut in December 1990, although there are rumours that bigger wheels and tyres plus standard-fit power steering are on the way. If these are true, make sure you buy one now before the car is spoiled.

Now some race stuff. I've been to Le Mans seven times now, seven years on the trot. And I've loved it every year. There is, as they say, nothing like it. No other motor race has such atmosphere or is such a fantastic spectacle.

You can stand, or sit and eat at Les Hunaudiers restaurant, and watch the Group C space ships howl past at well over 200mph no more than 10 yards away on the Mulsanne straight. Then you can go to bed and get up to find they're still doing it, and will continue to do so for another six or seven hours. Blows me away every year.

But will it this year, I wonder, as we pay the toll on the outskirts of Le Mans and begin the slow bumble into town. The Peugeots will, I'm sure. And the Toyotas. But what about those GT cars the XJ220s, 911s, Venturis, Esprits and the sole 348. Are they going to turn me on when they're being lapped every three or four laps by the big boys? Somehow I just can't see it.

And so it is. The race begins at 4pm on the Saturday and all I'm interested in, along with most of the other 200,000 fans who turn up to watch, is six works cars, the ones that threaten to pop my kidneys every time they scream by, sucked into the track and cornering at surreal speeds compared with the GT cars, thanks to their ground effects.

Would it be any different, I muse as the leading Peugeot takes the flag nine laps in front of two other Peugeots at 4pm on Sunday, if the field was full of Bugattis, McLarens and F40s instead of endless 911s, three rather boring looking and sounding XJ220s and a smattering of no-hopers? In other words, the sort of field that we and the Automobile Club de L'Ouest really wanted to see make up the grid. Almost certainly, but we'll just have to wait until next year to find out.

One thing is clear, though. The GT class is not for the cars we brought with us. They, as we secretly suspected all along, should stick to being road cars. Fabulous road cars.

Which is the most fabulous? We were about to find out. First we took them to the circuit, on the Monday when most but not all of the teams had packed up and gone home. Although it wasn't what we'd intended, a day to ourselves on the closed sections of the world's greatest race track wasn't something we were going to let slip.

Immediately the NSX feels at home on a track. So does the Ferrari. The others, notably the Porsche, feel like road cars out of their natural environment. Not like a fish out of water but like a good amateur golfer on the tee at the British Open.

It's the Honda's body control and its meaty yet beautifully positive steering that allows it to feel so natural through the Esses of Le Mans; both seem peerless. Until you try the Ferrari. In the 348 you've got the same degree of body control, the same iron tautness through the corners, but the steering lighter than the Honda's but with much more feedback lifts it clear of even the mighty NSX at La Sarthe.

The Esprit, though slower than the Porsche, is next best. It understeers less than the 911 and has much less turbo lag. But ultimately its nose will run wide of any given apex sooner than either the Ferrari's or Honda's. And it rolls more.

Oddly, the Porsche didn't feel right at Le Mans at all. Its front wheels were the first to let go by a surprisingly wide margin, its body, despite rockhard springs, was allowed to roll more through the faster corners, and in extreme conditions its tail would wag wider and more quickly than any of the others, including the Ferrari, which, it seems, has been tamed.

Unusually, that privileged track session I had been aching to drive on it for years would turn out to be a vital insight to our conclusion, but we still had 500 miles of hard on-road driving to savour before coming to any final decision. The results, believe me, were fascinating.

Let's deal with the 911 first. Every time anyone emerged from this car, having driven it rapidly in convoy with the others, they were almost expressionless. Which is astonishing for an £80,499 sports car with 360bhp that will, as we discovered later at Millbrook, sprint to 60mph in 4.6secs, to 100mph in a Viper-munching 10.6secs, record an incredible 3.9secs, between 80-100mph in fourth gear and go on to a maximum of 174mph, the second highest speed we have ever recorded around the Millbrook bank.

The 911 Turbo's problem is that despite its gorgeously gruesome looks, its fantastic brakes and its shattering acceleration (it is easily the quickest of the four here), a cooking Carrera 2 costing £30,000 less is more fun. More 911.

Over the B-roads we took back to Calais, the Porsche was fast ver fast. But it was also hard work to steer accurately because of the constant kick-back through the wheel. And it simply wasn't as soul-stirring as the other three. For some reason it felt detached, almost arrogant.

The Lotus is the exact opposite. It always was a driver's car, the Esprit, but now that it has power steering the experience is that much more readily accessible. And no less potent. Although the bald performance figures we took later were fractionally down compared with the old SE, the S4 is still a very rapid car capable of hitting 60mph in 5.0secs flat and 100mph in 12.7secs and going to a maximum of 161mph. That makes it the second swiftest car here in terms of acceleration, if not top speed.

But the real reason we all preferred it to the Porsche on the final drive back, forgetting the fact that at £46,995 it cost £33,504 less to buy, is because it felt more of a sports car than the 911. From its steering right down to the exquisite feedback bursting out at you through its seat and chassis, the Lotus taught the Porsche lessons on supercar feel over every inch of those French B-roads. Which was both genuinely surprising but at the same time rather sad, from the point of view of a once hopeless 911 fan.

The only aspect that prevents it from going all the way is its quality. Although much improved, the Esprit struggles, in this company, to hide its roots. It doesn't feel cheap any more. But neither does it feel jet-set exclusive. The others do.

Especially the Ferrari. The 348 had already excelled itself on the circuit, but on the road it was better still. Too strong, even, for the NSX to contain.

The difference between these two cars is hard to quantify in tangible terms. Both are very similar performers (less accelerative than the Esprit and 911, although the Ferrari has a higher top speed than the Lotus at 163mph) and, up to a point, both behave similarly on the road. Initially only the 348's greater steering feel and harder ride sets them apart.

But the further we traveled and the hard we drove in France, the more special, the more unique the Ferrari felt. We argued long and hard over which of the two made the best noise under full throttle, although no one disputed the fact that the NSX was more refined overall and had vastly superior gearchange. But ultimately this is as much the Honda's problem as it is its strength. Because it is so well honed as an all-rounder, so easy to live with, it misses out on that last 10 per cent of pure, raw thoroughbred sports car appeal that makes the Ferrari such a deliciously rich experience.

Partly it is the steering; the NSX's is very good, the 348's exquisite. And partly it is the extra sharpness of the Ferrari's chassis, which is that crucial fraction more responsive to your inputs than not only the NSX but also any other supercar this side of £100,000 we can think of.

Also, when the day is through and you switch off, climb out and glance over your left shoulder on your way up to the front door, the Ferrari will stop you dead in your tracks and force you to stand and stare in awe of its almost sexual beauty. And it'll happen every time you park it. In the Honda you'll probably just smile, then put the key in the lock and close the door behind you. That's enough to justify the extra £17,000 on its own.

MAD828 · Mar 18, 2016

Thanks for posting, always loved the 348. How good does it look with the black skirting against the Rosso Corsa paint work.

bballto · Mar 18, 2016

"the Ferrari's painfully awkward first-to-second gearshift (the lever is stupidly reluctant to disengage one gear or enter the next)"

As a 1990 348 owner for the last year, I've always wondered about the first-to-second gearshift experience. Anyone else?

ernie · Mar 18, 2016

What a nice read. Thanks for sharing.

AceMaster · Mar 19, 2016

bballto said: ↑

"the Ferrari's painfully awkward first-to-second gearshift (the lever is stupidly reluctant to disengage one gear or enter the next)"

As a 1990 348 owner for the last year, I've always wondered about the first-to-second gearshift experience. Anyone else?
Click to expand...

Thats a common problem for some other models as well, not just the 348.

I switched to redline 75w90ns and found a significant improvement.

Chupacabra · Mar 19, 2016

AceMaster said: ↑

Thats a common problem for some other models as well, not just the 348.

I switched to redline 75w90ns and found a significant improvement.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I've found I have zero problems when the car is nice and warm, the revs are up, and I'm shifting swiftly. 348s like to be driven, not babied!

That's a great article, and one you never hear about. Detractors like to point to the ones that have the opposite outcome.

///Mike · Mar 19, 2016

Chupacabra said: ↑

That's a great article, and one you never hear about. Detractors like to point to the ones that have the opposite outcome.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth?! Someone recently posted a link to a Car & Driver opinion piece claiming that the 348 is scary nervous at its limits. Seems like the cars have been around long enough that such BS would have been debunked by now, but even owners are still perpetuating the myths.

4rePhill · Mar 19, 2016

That article was written by Steve Sutcliiffe for "Autocar & Motor" magazine from 14th July 1993 (I have that magazine from "back in the day").

For the 17th April 2002 edition of "Autocar" magazine (the same magazine - they simply dropped "& Motor" from the name), Steve Sutcliffe wrote the following article that came under a front page headline that read: We drive the 10 best Ferraris ever made - and drive the worst

The ten best cars at the time were (according to Autocar) :

1) F40
2)365 GTB/4 (Daytona)
3)F355
4) 246 GT Dino
5) 512 TR
6) 275 GTB/4
7) 250 GTO
8) 550 Maranello
9) 360 Modena
10) 288 GTO

After this came Sutcliffe's article:

"RATHER BE RED THAN DEAD"

Believe all the hype and you'll think that the 348 is as bad as a Ferrari can get. And that's why you can buy one now for BMW money. Interested? Then read on

Remember the Ferrari 348? So do I. Even in it's heyday it was never regarded by the so-called cognoscenti as a great Ferrari. In fact, believe much of what various motor noters had to say about it at the time and you could well get the impression it was something of a clunker by Maranello standards.

According to the experts the 348 wasn't all that quick, didn't look especially gorgeous, was an absolute pig to drive slowly owing to that dreadful gearbox with its awkward dog-leg shift pattern. And worst of all its handling, by all accounts, was about as approachable as a Palestinian suicide bomber. Most critics of the era, and we're talking 1992 here, reckoned it was at best a dog and at worst a liability in inexperienced hands.

Which is why, aged 24 and armed with a spanking new 348 for the weekend and heading in the direction of Le Mans, I was understandably wary the first time I drive one. I remember climbing into it outside Ferrari UK's HQ in Egham, so pent up with adrenalin-fuelled anxiety that I became convinced I was going to prang it within metres of the dealership.

And to begin with, true, it wasn't what you'd call an easy drive. The clutch was disturbingly heavy and the steering felt so slow witted at the first roundabout that I briefly entertained the idea of taking it straight back to Ferrari and leaving well alone. But as the first mile became the second I remember thinking the car had a kind of magic about it, a personality that I warmed to pretty much from the outset.

Despite being quite a physical thing to drive, I felt I knew this car. Knew it was going to need a fair bit of skill and a huge amount of respect if we were going to get on. Yet rather than bother me, it actually intrigued me on a level that I'd not experienced before, even in such luminaries as the Lotus Esprit, Honda NSX, and Porsche 911 Turbo, examples of which were also headed to Le Mans in convoy for a story we were doing on the 24 hour race that year.

On the way there we all got stuck on the Paris ring road, the wretched Périphérique, yet the 348 behaved immaculately while going nowhere for over two hours.I also maxed it out at one point on the autoroute and saw exactly the speed that Ferrari said it would do on the speedometer. And during the Le Mans race weekend proper it didn't matter where we went or what we did: there was only one car the crowds were interested in - and it wasn't British, German or Japanese.

In the end, and after 2000 miles of trying to be as scientific about it as possible, I fell for the 348 hook, line and sinker. It won our group test and from that day on I vowed to work out a way of owning one one someday.

Then a year later I drove one around Goodwood race circuit and everything changed. To be specific it changed within the course of one solitary corner, a bend called Fordwater which, even in very quick road cars, should be possible to take flat out.

It was only My second lap, the first having been an exploratory outing. Through the first corner, Magwick, the 348 felt just as I had remembered it: it turned in abruptly, I felt the weight transfer across the car to the loaded outside rear tyre, but from that point on it felt balanced and grippy, and there wasn't a sniff of understeer, exactly what I expected.

Then came Fordwater, a fast downhill kink to the right, approached at around 135mph in something as quick as the 348. The instant I turned the wheel I knew that all was not well because the nose somehow seemed to over-react to my input and turn towards the apex way too sharply, as if it had been led astray by some other awful influence, namely the rear suspension. I then committed the cardinal sin of backing off the throttle, but only because the way I saw it there was no other choice: had I kept my foot in I'm certain the car would have spun there and then.

What ensued must have looked comical from the outside as the 348 fishtailed at disgustingly high speed most of the way along the next straight, leaving a unique signature on the road in the form of two great curly black lines. Inside the car it was anything but hilarious: by the time I got back to the pits I felt sick, and very nearly was a few minutes later. To this day it remains the biggest accident I never had.

So why, almost a decade on, do I still have a soft spot for the 348? Whenever the subject arises in the Autocar office, I always end up defending the car,pointing out that despite its many foibles it is still a true 175mph Ferrari that turns heads and sounds fantastic.

Reason: because I think you either get Ferraris or you don't. Which could also read: you either like Ferraris or you don't. It's not a subject I can remain objective about, I'm afraid. Ferraris, even poor ones like the old 412 saloon, do something for me that Lamborghinis and Porsches do not.

But in the 348's case there's something more than just a badge: so long as you're prepared to put in the research and maybe frighten yourself a few times while doing so, this car offers hidden treasures. And I found them on that drive to Le Mans. Which is why I still wonder about owning one today.

In piercing rosso corsa red, of course, and maybe left hand drive to keep the asking price out of the stratosphere - a bit like the example you see here, yours for £35,000 in fact.

I wish I could sit here and tell you that I've taken the plunge, remortgaged the house, had a row with the missus and bought this car. Because I would truly love to own it. Even in 2002 it feels just as I remember: quick up to 4500rpm, blinding over the last 2000rpm, a little bit neurotic in its handling perhaps, but otherwise very much the real deal when it comes to noise, looks, feel and a sense of occasion. A true Ferrari in other words.

But at the moment I can't. The house is still safe, the wife and I are getting on just fine, and there's still an empty space on the driveway. One day I might, and one day there'll be trouble, no doubt. And I think partly that's why the Ferrari 348 appeals to me so much

Two photo statements read:

High revving V8 puts out 295bhp - and sounds better than it looks

and:

Get it right, and the 348 will reward you with all the speed, noise and sense of occasion you could wish for; get it wrong and you're in trouble

(And yes! - The front wheels are on the wrong side of the car!)
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

cf355 · Mar 19, 2016

cool nostalgia
Thanks for posting

CLIVE77 · Mar 19, 2016

Steve Sutcliffe is one of the UK's top motoring test drivers and editors.

Its good to hear that he still feels such affection for the 348 after so many years. I would mind betting he had the wrong tire pressures on the car he had a fright in at Goodwood - plenty of other 348's have shot through Fordwater flat out without mishap!!!

Thanks for sharing these articles - its so nice to see good press about 'our' car.

///Mike · Mar 19, 2016

Thanks for posting that, Phil. I had not seen that particular article before.

As I've said here before, setup is absolutely critical on these cars. Two of the most enjoyable cars I've driven on the track were a 348 Challenge car and an early TS that was set up by Challenge mechanics. Two of the least enjoyable cars I've driven on the track were an early TS and a Mondial T cab, both of which were clearly in need of suspension tuning. The Mondial T's back end tried to pass me every time I turned the wheel-- the 348's back end wanted to pass me even in a straight line. But when a 348 is set up perfectly it is magic. I suspect that owners of Challenge cars and/or track prepped 348s will attest to that.

fdekeu · Mar 20, 2016

///Mike said: ↑

Thanks for posting that, Phil. I had not seen that particular article before.
But when a 348 is set up perfectly it is magic. I suspect that owners of Challenge cars and/or track prepped 348s will attest to that.
Click to expand...

I have just driven my new 348TS (1991) on the track for the first time (Les Ecuyeres in France)
It behaves just as good as my 348GTB

Phil,
Thanks for posting

///Mike · Mar 20, 2016

fdekeu said: ↑

I have just driven my new 348TS (1991) on the track for the first time (Les Ecuyeres in France)
It behaves just as good as my 348GTB
Click to expand...

Awesome! Nice to have some other firsthand experiences to counter the unjust reputation the cars have picked up over the years. Our cars have better suspension and engine placement than the 911s of the era so there's absolutely no reason they can't handle better than the vaunted 911 *if* they are set up correctly. Sure, they can bite you if you're ham-handed, but that's because the limits are high and the handling is linear (there is no trickery in the suspension geometry like there is on the Elise and some Porsches, for example).

Been watching some of the Goodwood Members Meeting and heard a British Touring Car driver say that anyone could drive one of those at 7/10ths, but at the limit they were a real handful, yet if you weren't driving them to the point of them being difficult you weren't going fast enough. Not really any different than most other good race or track cars, but for some reason certain journalists prefer to bash the 348 for being a tricky road car instead of praising it for being a nicely appointed track car.

You have a TS AND a GTB? I'm jealous. The only thing better than one 348 is two 348s, especially when one of them is a GTB.

angelis · Mar 20, 2016

I bumped into Henry Catchpole recently, who wrote this article about the V8 series for Evo magazine and said again how much he liked the 348.

Ferrari 458 Italia meets 308, 348, F355, 360 and F430 | Evo

4rePhill · Mar 20, 2016

angelis said: ↑

I bumped into Henry Catchpole recently, who wrote this article about the V8 series for Evo magazine and said again how much he liked the 348.

Ferrari 458 Italia meets 308, 348, F355, 360 and F430 | Evo
Click to expand...

To be fair, in the article the only thing he state he likes about the 348 is the steering which he described thus:

"The 348, if Im honest, was probably the car I was least excited about driving, assuming it would just be a poorer, slower first stab at the 355. But now Im excited because its instantly obvious this car has some of the best steering, possibly the best, that I have ever sat behind."

However later on he goes on to say:

"The engine is powerful enough rather than memorable and again the brakes are surprisingly strong and full of feel, but its the corners Im starting to enjoy. The nose feels direct and eager to react, which is another surprise, so you get a lot of confidence guiding it through the shallow sweepers of the plain. By the time I reach a tighter series of S-bends Im feeling inclined to pitch it in, but thankfully Im a bit cautious the first time through. Turn in positively with that lovely steering and suddenly the engine behind you feels like its mounted very high up. The weight instantly wants to come round behind you and, unnervingly, it feels almost like the 348s picking up an inside real wheel. Dont, whatever you do, lift off now, you have to tell yourself. Metcalfe, who has a bit of a moment in the 348 later on, hits the nail on the head: Its like a mid-engined Peugeot 205 GTI; exciting when its going well but capable of delivering a heart-in-mouth moment should you dare hesitate when entering a corner a little too fast. I can certainly understand why road testers at the time were unnerved by it, particularly in the wet."

So he highlights the 348's go-cart like steering, but notes that it is a car that can bite you in the arse big time mid corner if you get it wrong!

In his summary he states:

There are similarities and differences from first to last but each has its own distinct personality and you could find multiple perfectly rational and perfectly irrational reasons for being excited by any one of them. For example, my highlight was probably the 348s steering, and thats not something Id expected at the beginning of the day. The point is that they all do justice to the small rectangular badge they share on their noses. And thats a huge relief to the small boy in me."

So his surprise highlight of the entire event was the 348's steering - That's not exactly a declaration of love for everything about the 348!

Here's an interview with Ferraris most experienced test driver, Dario Benuzzi, (From: The Horse Whisperer | Top Gear ) :

OK, what important cars did he do? They include the BB, 288 GTO, F40, F40 IMSA, F50, 550, Enzo, 333 SP, 599, 458, FXX and 599XX and FF. But, he quickly points out, not the 348. Ah yes, the modern Ferrari whose handling was most roundly criticised. The car Luca di Montezemolo always says was his personal wake-up call that all was not well at Ferrari. I was working on the F40 at the time, and then broke my hand so couldnt sign off the 348. I went straight on to the 355. Which, though evolved from the 348, was a sight better.

Reading that I get the impression that he wishes to instantly disown himself from the whole 348 project, as though he didn't think the car should have been signed off as being ready to deliver to the public with the chassis/suspension that it had.

You can rubbish all of the motor journalists on the planet if you want, but as far as I'm concerned, if Dario Benuzzi suggests a Ferrari is not as good as it should have been then I'm inclined to believe him - I dare anyone to claim Benuzzi doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Ferrari handling!

Added to that, let's not forget, Ferrari didn't change the rear suspension set-up on the 348 with the GTB/GTS just for the fun of it!

(I bet that's going to put Me back in the bad books of 348 owners on here! )

///Mike · Mar 20, 2016

4rePhill said: ↑

(I bet that's going to put Me back in the bad books of 348 owners on here! )
Click to expand...

What do you mean "back"? Why would you think that you were ever removed? I have no idea why you own a 348, instead of whatever perfect car you imagine to exist-- perhaps a Hillman Imp...

Wade · Mar 20, 2016

Nice article, thanks for posting.

As written about the first drive "I felt I knew this car."

My experience precisely.

I absolutely love my 348.

///Mike · Mar 20, 2016

Wade said: ↑

Nice article, thanks for posting.

As written about the first drive "I felt I knew this car."

My experience precisely.

I absolutely love my 348.
Click to expand...

Me too, Wade. I spend far less time adapting for my occasional drives in the 348 than I do re-adapting to whatever street car I'm driving at the time. After installing a 2" steering wheel spacer the 348 fits me perfectly (unless the top is stowed behind the seats ). Like you, I love the bloody thing.

angelis · Mar 21, 2016

4rePhill said: ↑

Here's an interview with Ferraris most experienced test driver, Dario Benuzzi, (From: The Horse Whisperer | Top Gear ) :

OK, what important cars did he do? They include the BB, 288 GTO, F40, F40 IMSA, F50, 550, Enzo, 333 SP, 599, 458, FXX and 599XX and FF. But, he quickly points out, not the 348. Ah yes, the modern Ferrari whose handling was most roundly criticised. The car Luca di Montezemolo always says was his personal wake-up call that all was not well at Ferrari. I was working on the F40 at the time, and then broke my hand so couldnt sign off the 348. I went straight on to the 355. Which, though evolved from the 348, was a sight better.

Reading that I get the impression that he wishes to instantly disown himself from the whole 348 project, as though he didn't think the car should have been signed off as being ready to deliver to the public with the chassis/suspension that it had.

You can rubbish all of the motor journalists on the planet if you want, but as far as I'm concerned, if Dario Benuzzi suggests a Ferrari is not as good as it should have been then I'm inclined to believe him - I dare anyone to claim Benuzzi doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Ferrari handling!

Added to that, let's not forget, Ferrari didn't change the rear suspension set-up on the 348 with the GTB/GTS just for the fun of it!

(I bet that's going to put Me back in the bad books of 348 owners on here! )
Click to expand...

And you believe anything that Ferrari personnel say in interviews??

lol

4rePhill · Mar 21, 2016

angelis said: ↑

And you believe anything that Ferrari personnel say in interviews??

lol
Click to expand...

I believe Dario benuzzi!

bballto · Mar 21, 2016

Another positive article: LA Times Newspaper

BEHIND THE WHEEL / FERRARI 348TS
July 20, 1990|PAUL DEAN, TIMES STAFF WRITER

Ferrari builds motor cars in much the same way Claude Monet painted landscapes--not to please the populace, but more to satisfy self, a technique and a coterie. Mellowed by mystique and myth, living very high off racing legends, its reputation secured by a product-appreciation rate indeed close to that of Impressionist art, Ferrari sees no need to advertise its cars. Nor does this Italian company have a public relations representative in the United States. The year 1990 is halfway into history. Yet Ferrari is just now getting around to introducing its 348 series sports car that actually was built last year but will still cost $103,400. Without a radio. Without a spare. All of which supports a sales-and-marketing rationale which seems to be this: Simply getting a Ferrari is the best deal a buyer can make.

Despite such indifference, Ferrari sells everything it makes and may very well have been back-ordered since 1949.

* A barely used Ferrari Testarossa currently costs $100,000 more than a new Testarossa. Because all new Testarossas have been sold out for the next few years.

* A really used Ferrari--a 250 GTO race car built in 1962--recently was bought by a Japanese collector for $14.6 million. GM should find such profit in selling 28-year-old cars.

* Now the 1989-cum-1990 Ferrari 348ts is dribbling into Southern California showrooms. If you want one from Hollywood Sport Cars, don't expect to be impressing tourists on Melrose any time soon. "We got a couple of (deliveries) for June, but we don't know about July yet, and August is a long way off," said general manager Cris Vandagriff. "We're sold out three years in advance."

Said a sales representative for Newport Imports of Newport Beach: Order your Ferrari 348 now. Pick it up some time after Memorial Day. That's Memorial Day 1996. An obvious question: Is there anything in this world worth a six-year wait? The definite answers: Mr. or Ms. Right. Blue-eyed twins. Peace in Northern Ireland. A quit-claim deed to Santa Barbara. Also a Ferrari 348ts.

And not because it is an outrageously expensive car, a known quickener of pulses and envy. Nor because Magnum PI made it a virility heightener. But simply because a Ferrari is the best at what it was designed to do. Forget cost and image. Consider only purpose, craftsmanship and inexorable evolution. By such measurement, the Rolls-Royce is the superlative of rich, regal transportation. At the other end of that scale, the humble, snuffling, pirouetting Hyster forklift becomes the ultimate example of vehicular utility.

Ferrari, like no other motor car, assumes its place among the pure by being constructed around the lusty essence of a thinly disguised sports-racing car. Or as Enzo Ferrariexplained before his death in 1988: " La Ferrari was born with racing and with racing it progressed and developed. Can the automobile deny its origins? I don't think so." And the urgent pedigree of the new 348--from the first ripping snort of its 290-horsepower engine to the initial tug of broad tires biting like pit bulls--remains an instantaneous suggestion to motor somewhere in a secure but horrendous hurry. Preferably beneath a helmet.

Ferrari's 348ts and 348tb (for transversale spyder , or targa, and transversale berlinetta , or coupe) replace the enormously successful 308/328 series. They were handsome, powerful, fast and desirable. Yet not an impossible act to follow. Ferrari simply has crafted a successor that is better looking, stronger, faster and thoroughly irresistible.

Styling, naturally, is by Pininfarina and sculptured heavily from aluminum and composites. It is a grand softening of the 308/328's swoopier lines and sharper edges, retaining enough of the old to satisfy those thinking of moving up, but adding touches of today for anyone intent on purchasing a milestone of the '90s. The Testarossa's air intakes that feed left- and right-side radiators have been transferred to the 348. But they are smaller, aren't so obtrusive and are much less suggestive of cheese graters. Like the ears and orthodontics of Britain's royal family, the sloped nose, chin dam and hunkered-down derivatives of all modern Ferraris are with the 348.

Yet there are distinctions. The 348 runs on 17-inch wheels (compared to 16-inchers on the 328) that fill the wells better than Schwarzenegger fills a work shirt. The car is taller, wider and with a longer wheelbase than the 328. Overhangs are shorter, which further increases that crouch with the whole appearing blunter, more purposeful.

Incredibly, amid all these aesthetics, there are uglies. The side air scoops are formed from composite panels screwed into the doors. The screw heads are Phillips, black, quite exposed and stick out like four zits on a bare shoulder. The grille is also a yawning illusion, a dummy. It catches nothing but bugs and slow sparrows because the car's radiators are in its flanks where they breathe through the door intakes. But that's the classical look. Tradition dies kicking and struggling. Until the world gives up starched underwear and buttonholes in lapels, Ferrari likely won't give up grilles that go nowhere.

Looks, however, are the least of the 348. Bore and stroke of Ferrari's 32-valve, V-8 engine have been increased with displacement improving from 3.1 to 3.4 liters. Changes in lubrication, electronic engine management and the design and layout of intakemanifolds combine to increase power from 260 horsepower to 290. The 348 remains a mid-engined car. But the engine is now set north to south and longitudinally, instead of east to west and transversely, and that allows more room for improved things. A new gearbox and transmission (actually a carry-over from a Ferrari Formula 1 racing car) is now mounted behind the engine instead of beneath it. So the entire power and timpani section has been lowered to reduce the car's center of gravity by about 2 inches. Ergo, flatter handling and better steering response.

Race cars do not come with cruise control, automatic transmission and power steering. These are conveniences for car travel shared with sightseeing and chatty relatives--but outright impediments to any bonding of man, machine, speed and road. So the 348's fixings and interior are quintessential Ferrari; unfrilled, all purpose, and with basic geometry everywhere. Hence, a plain, rectangular hood for instruments made stark by florescent orange numbers and needles on black dials. Also no radio. But the car is wired for one, should you ever prefer Ottmar Liebert's nouveau flamenco over the burbling snarl of Ferrari's four tailpipes. The gear lever is a tall, chromed stick with a bar billiards ball on top. It sprouts from a stainless steel gate that's a cattle guard masquerading as a shifting template. The horn. On a stalk? Hidden beneath a cornet symbol on the spokes? Nah. It's that old-fashioned button stuck right in the middle of a medieval Momo steering wheel.

Punch the brake and the accelerator is right there where it has been since the dawn of crash gear boxes--flush and only an inch to one side of the brake pedal. Perfect for rolling the foot and sweet heel-and-toe shifting for moments when the road is empty, the corner is a clean sweep and the ghost of driving legend Alberto Ascari whispers to some of us. A Ferrari makes demands. It can even be an intimidating drive. The brakes are firm and not for the feather footed or high of heel. Gears are given up smoothly only when the moment, the engine, the clutch and shift are in concert. But finding that moment, being the conductor of a coordinated downshift, earning some respect from a benchmark machine that rises above the best of our abilities . . . ah, there's the defiance but also the satisfaction of Ferrari.

So we took the 348ts to Angeles Crest where even doing things legally and easy in a standard sedan means a succession of body rolls and agonizing shrieks from tires trying to swallow their rims. The Ferrari found this mountain road its primer. Whatever the suggested speed at any corner, the 348 could triple it and remain flat. We crowded no vehicle to the crest. But they moved aside and waved us through anyway--full hand waves, we might add.

The 348's brakes do not snag fiercely, like anchors, and power doesn't kick in like an afterburner. So whenever misjudgment lightens one end or corner of the car, gentle brushing of brakes or throttle downloads the Ferrari until it squats deep on all fours. The car is loyal, predictable, balanced and an absolute rocket on Velcro. Yet it can also be driven slowly and daily. It will not lug at low speeds in high gear or chug in freeway crawls. And the suspension will jiggle no love handles.

Still, the 348 much prefers to play hard, to be wound up tight through the gears to where it sings alto and looks around for some Mercedes or 300ZX to entice. Or to slide alongside a young gentleman on a yellow-and-chrome Harley-Davidson who grins because he also knows the marrow of things mechanical.

But enough of such rhapsodizing. The Ferrari 348 has trunk space so minimal, so misshapen it can only be used fully by factory-supplied fitted luggage. Minor repair bills are usually four-figure affairs. Antilock brakes are standard but an air bag isn't even an option. The Ferrari's Roman nose is about 5 inches off the ground, so even gentle driveways create much grazing of the car's chin and greater gritting of the owner's teeth. It is expensive, impractical as a commuter car, arrogant down to its $1,300 gas-guzzler tax and most certainly is a 170-m.p.h. anachronism in a 65-m.p.h. society. So arrogant, in fact, the company is delivering new 348s with 1989 construction dates to avoid compliance with U.S. passive restraint requirements for 1990 models.

But Ferrari will make 4,000 cars this year and has presold each one. The 4,500 Ferraris that will be built next year already have customers. Vandagriff says even he really doesn't fully understand the addiction. But he has seen the worst of the lust at work. He remembers a Northern California customer, a woman, who in the '50s ordered a Ferrari 375 Mille Miglia. She wanted a scarlet Ferrari with cappuccino-tan interior and, obviously, left-hand drive. Enzo Ferrari--a born chauvinist who believed a woman's place was making pasta and driving Fiats but never a Ferrari--handled the order personally. He shipped the woman a right-hand-drive car. It was yellow with green seats and brown carpets. Remembers Vandagriff: "The car arrived, the woman took one look at it, said, 'Thank you very much,' and accepted it on the spot."

1989 FERRARI 348ts

COST:
- Base: $102,350
- As tested $103,400 (includes leather interior, automatic climate control, anti-lock brakes, electric windows, mirrors and door locks.)

ENGINE:
- V-8, 32 valves, 3.4 liters developing 290 horsepower.

TYPE:
- Two-seat, mid-engined, high-performance sports car with targa body.

PERFORMANCE:
- 0-60 (as tested) 5.5 seconds.
- Top speed (manufacturer's estimate) 171 m.p.h.
- Fuel economy, EPA city-highway, 13-19 m.p.g. ($1,300 gas guzzler tax applies.)

CURB WEIGHT:
- 3,240 pounds.

THE GOOD:
- Pure performance, benchmark handling, purposeful comfort.
- Long on performance design, short on convenience frills.
- Safer investment than an Orange County condo.
- Penultimate, classic sports car--with Ferrari Testarossa the classy ultimate.

THE BAD:
- A radio would be nice.
- Air bags would be better.

THE UGLY:
- Exposed screw heads on air intakes.

itsablurr · Mar 21, 2016

Phill, of course you're entitled to your own opinion, but in my estimation, not a particularly fair assessment of the content as-presented, and a bit wet-blanket to the thread. However, it seems that there is some history here within the group.

4rePhill said: ↑

To be fair, in the article the only thing he state he likes about the 348 is the steering which he described thus:

"The 348, if I’m honest, was probably the car I was least excited about driving, assuming it would just be a poorer, slower first stab at the 355. But now I’m excited because it’s instantly obvious this car has some of the best steering, possibly the best, that I have ever sat behind."

However later on he goes on to say:

"The engine is powerful enough rather than memorable and again the brakes are surprisingly strong and full of feel, but it’s the corners I’m starting to enjoy. The nose feels direct and eager to react, which is another surprise, so you get a lot of confidence guiding it through the shallow sweepers of the plain. By the time I reach a tighter series of S-bends I’m feeling inclined to pitch it in, but thankfully I’m a bit cautious the first time through. Turn in positively with that lovely steering and suddenly the engine behind you feels like it’s mounted very high up. The weight instantly wants to come round behind you and, unnervingly, it feels almost like the 348’s picking up an inside real wheel. ‘Don’t, whatever you do, lift off now,’ you have to tell yourself. Metcalfe, who has a bit of a ‘moment’ in the 348 later on, hits the nail on the head: ‘It’s like a mid-engined Peugeot 205 GTI; exciting when it’s going well but capable of delivering a heart-in-mouth moment should you dare hesitate when entering a corner a little too fast.’ I can certainly understand why road testers at the time were unnerved by it, particularly in the wet."

So he highlights the 348's go-cart like steering, but notes that it is a car that can bite you in the arse big time mid corner if you get it wrong!

In his summary he states:

There are similarities and differences from first to last but each has its own distinct personality and you could find multiple perfectly rational and perfectly irrational reasons for being excited by any one of them. For example, my highlight was probably the 348’s steering, and that’s not something I’d expected at the beginning of the day. The point is that they all do justice to the small rectangular badge they share on their noses. And that’s a huge relief to the small boy in me."

So his surprise highlight of the entire event was the 348's steering - That's not exactly a declaration of love for everything about the 348!
Click to expand...

I would argue that the only pseudo negative in the analysis that I see is that the car deserves some respect at the limit, which is typical of chassis that trace their DNA or inspiration closer to the configuration or dynamics of a competition chassis. It wouldn't be the first time that on the limit edginess has been spoken of with top of the food chain cars in sportscardom. The only neutral being that the F119 was just 'powerful enough' as-situated. We all know that is an area with lots of potential laying it wait to be untapped. A little polish, and 'powerful enough' (alternate interpretation: well balanced? the porridge is just-right? I suppose it depends upon your preferred bias) can easily become that 'memorable' or 'more than powerful enough' if that is your preference. Either way, as-is, it is adequate to grab by the scruff, wring out and have buckets of fun at sane speeds, and makes all of the right sounds.

As far as his closing goes, I see it as speaking very well for the car. It certainly is an endorsement to the character of the package, to overcome a preconception/dread set against the model, and end with a highlight over all of the others on that day. The 348, in his own concluding words, 'does justice to the name on the nose', and presents many 'rational and perfectly irrational reasons' to draw excitement for it. All sounds like a positive endorsement to me.

At any rate, not intending to discredit your opinion that you are entitled to, but simply showing an alternate interpretation of reading the same words. Certainly, not everyone needs to love the car. Different formulas and flavors resonate with different preferences.

4rePhill said: ↑

Here's an interview with Ferraris most experienced test driver, Dario Benuzzi, (From: The Horse Whisperer | Top Gear ) :

OK, what important cars did he do? They include the BB, 288 GTO, F40, F40 IMSA, F50, 550, Enzo, 333 SP, 599, 458, FXX and 599XX and FF. “But,” he quickly points out, “not the 348.” Ah yes, the modern Ferrari whose handling was most roundly criticised. The car Luca di Montezemolo always says was his personal wake-up call that all was not well at Ferrari. “I was working on the F40 at the time, and then broke my hand so couldn’t sign off the 348. I went straight on to the 355.” Which, though evolved from the 348, was a sight better.

Reading that I get the impression that he wishes to instantly disown himself from the whole 348 project, as though he didn't think the car should have been signed off as being ready to deliver to the public with the chassis/suspension that it had.

You can rubbish all of the motor journalists on the planet if you want, but as far as I'm concerned, if Dario Benuzzi suggests a Ferrari is not as good as it should have been then I'm inclined to believe him - I dare anyone to claim Benuzzi doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Ferrari handling!

Added to that, let's not forget, Ferrari didn't change the rear suspension set-up on the 348 with the GTB/GTS just for the fun of it!

(I bet that's going to put Me back in the bad books of 348 owners on here! )
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing anywhere in that interview that Benuzzi disparages the model or infers anything other than that he wasn't sitting in the seat at the final sign-off (to what of all events leading up to? were not the same skilled personnel on board?) due to uncontrollable circumstances. The interviewer, on the other hand... I would say that drawing the conclusion that Benuzzi wishes to disavow himself, as you say, is indeed reading into it, a bit too much. I certainly would not claim that Benuzzi does not know what he is talking about when it comes to the Ferrari special sauce, however a lack of comment simply cannot be misconstrued as disparagement. The damning statement or inference simply is not there to have.

dkny · Mar 22, 2016

Thanks for sharing. Having owned an NSX prior to my 348 I would totally agree with that article. NSX was a better car in civilized traffic, but open road, track and parked in the garage no comparison....

speedy_sam · Mar 22, 2016

My friend and I drove his 91 NSX and my 91 348 back to back several years back. The NSX had a phenomenal gearbox and light, friendly feel to it and was very comfortable to be in. The 348 had a better engine note, better steering feel. The NSX felt more modern but the 348 was more memorable.

EDVTEC · Mar 22, 2016

READ THIS!

https://drive-my.com/en/social/stream/item/5289.html

All together - #1990 #Honda-NSX against #Porsche-911-Carrera-2-964 and #Lotus-Esprit-SE-Turbo , #Ferrari 348tb . Honda’s first supercar versus Europe’s best. #Porsche-911-Carrera-2 #Porsche-911-Carrera #Porsche-911-964 #Porsche-964 #Ferrari-348tb #Lotus-Esprit-SE

If you can beat them, join them. Fresh from whipping Ferrari. #Porsche and #Lotus on the track - which the ad-men keep telling us is the 'ultimate' challenge - Honda now wants to join them on the road. And why not? Despite the magic names, engineering finesse, and all those years of tradition and hype, there is no sensible reason why Honda replete both with cash and talent - can't try to tackle the supercar sacred cows.

Much of testing done on Durham moors, where both #Ferrari and Lotus were hard work at speed.

It has gone about building a supercar in a different way from Ferrari or Porsche or Lotus, as you'd expect. You can bet that the new #Honda NSX. Honda's and Japan’s first supercar, cost many times more to develop than Ferrari's equally new 348. And you can bet it will earn its maker less money (if any at all), for profit is not the point of the NSX. It’s all about image; all about cashing in on the success of Honda’s formula one programme, and making the world view the Civics and Concertos and Accords in a new, more respectful light.

How can the Honda NSX be as profitable as a #Ferrari-348 , when it costs about £15,000 less to buy in Britain (£52,000 versus £67,499), and yet is built of more costly materials (an aluminium alloy monocoque and body, plus absolutely gorgeous forged alloy suspension components) and has more high-tech mechanicals?

The Ferrari and Honda are the new cars here, but who would dare dismiss the two old-timers? The #Porsche-911 may well be the oldest sports car in the world but, for most of its 26 years, it has been, in my view, the best. And jus; a year ago it received the most comprehensive revamp in its history. Many new body panels, a brand-new engine (but still a flat-six, still air-cooled), yet all the old-time charm. It’s still not bad value, either, at £45,821 (even if, as with all Porsches, it’s much cheaper in most other markets).

The #Lotus-Esprit made its debut back in 1976, was Improved by a turbo engine in 1981, and competed hard with the Ferraris and Porsches for a while. Then its act floundered in the mid to late '80s, shackled by insufficient development funds. But, just over a year ago, the financially revitalised company (bought by General Motors) announced the SE variant, the best Esprit of all. And one of the fastest supercars ever: offering Lamborghini Countach-busting performance, now for £44,900.

Deserted Durham Moorland Road, bright sunny day. Ferrari 348tb underneath you. What better, more invigorating way to travel? The quad-cam 3.4-iitre 32-valve V8 engine, good for 300bhp, and just a few inches behind you. serenades with its magic; the little yellow Prancing Horse shield on the steering wheel boss does a jig on the bumps and undulations, animate like the rest of the car; and all around you is the most gracefully simple cabin you'll ever sit in.

It is not like driving a normal car; that is the charm of a Ferrari. Always has been. There is a delicacy, an intimacy, about the car. You can feel the cogs mesh when you change gear. You can sense the pads biting the big discs when you push the middle pedal. The right pedal is even more responsive: a millimetre of throttle movement means a discernible difference in speed, a quantifiable change in that wonderful engine note, which always rides with you - always reminding you (even when you may want peace and quiet, such as on a long run) that you are driving something quite different from a Ford or a Vauxhall (or a Honda).

The keen throttle response is crucial to the car’s character. Apart from the 911, the Ferrari is the only car here that can really be steered on the throttle (aided by its short wheelbase, which helps a car's propensity to change direction quickly). Turn into a corner, using the steering, and the throttle control car, fine-tune the attitude of the car. If the nose is running a little wide (unlikely, for the Ferrari has the best turn-in of the group), you can adjust it by backing off. Want the nose to run a little wider? Simple, squeeze on more power, and observe the whole handling composure change. The throttle of a Ferrari does so much more than merely make it go fast.

And then when it s over, when you’ve driven the Ferrari hard and fast, when you have enjoyed a moment of driving pleasure rare in today's sanitised world, you can get out and just look at the car. It’s a piece of sculpture, a thing of beauty. Try as the others do, no-one can make a supercar as beautiful as the Italians. The 348 is one of the loveliest Ferraris.

After driving the Ferrari, you won't believe that anything could be better. No other car, surely, can give that close conjunction between driver and car; or the intimate relationship between the car and the road. None of the others is a Ferrari. Who else but the Italians could make so expressive a machine?

Well, none of the others can: let's make that clear right away. Which is not to say, they can't win this comparison: there is more to a supercar's repertoire than the richness of the driving experience, important though that is.

The Lotus is not tied down to the road as tightly, and its turbo four-cylinder engine - which actually produces more straight-line urge than any other car here - is smooth and refined. But it has no music, no magic, and th8 throttle response of a turbo car is never good.

Porsche’s 911 is the only German sports car on sale now with real spirit, real élan, partly because it's old, and was conceived before the Germans got carried away by science. But, characterful old car though it is, it doesn't serenade you with the same richness as the Ferrari.

What chance do the Japanese have of matching the vivacity of a Ferrari? They have certainly shown no signs of being able to breathe life into machinery before. Besides, how can Honda, maker of blue-rinse saloons, suddenly hope to produce a red-blooded sports car?

The Japanese can't pull their old trick - of measuring all the rivals, copying in some cases, refining in most of the others - this time. You can't measure a Ferrari's virtues, let alone copy them - any more than you can analyse Mozart's music or Shakespeare's plays and. thereby, hope to duplicate them. Some things cannot be measured: neither the Japanese nor the Germans have learnt this.

Okay, so the Honda isn't as much fun to drive as the Ferrari, cither. So be it. But when you put your brightest engineers onto a project (and there are no brighter bunch than Honda's), employ your finest workmen to build the car in a brand-new factory, and come straight out and say, hang the cost, we are going to build the best supercar in the world, and we don't give a monkey's whether it makes money for us or not because it's jolly good for our image, you've got to take them seriously. The NSX may not interact with you as richly as the Ferrari. But that doesn't mean it's not as good.

On that wonderful Durham road, drive the new Honda NSX. Power comes from a 3.0-litre, quad-cam 274bhp VS, enriched by variable valve timing and variable valve lift thus, on paper, offering terrific low-end tractability and lively big-rev performance - it's red-lined at 8000rpm.

Feels like a normal car at first. No intimidation. You don’t have to climb over a massively wide sill (which helps duct air to the mid-mounted twin water radiators of the 348) nor do you have to climb down into the seat, having vaulted a high sill, as you do in the claustrophobic cabin of the Esprit.

It just feels like a normal car. A CRX almost, except you're sitting lower, and the windscreen is deeper, and the tail higher. You don't have to steel yourself, prepare yourself, for a new and vastly different experience. You just get in (entry and exit is easy), sit straight-ahead (none of the askew nonsense that the other three demand, thanks to the absence of front wheel-arch intrusion), adjust the steering wheel to suit (it's the only one with reach and rake adjustment) and go.

And go fast! Faster, on any winding moorland road, than the other three. Easter to drive fast, what's more. The softer and more yielding nature of the suspension (double wishbones all round, although unlike the Ferrari's prosaic steel set-up. the Honda's are by elegantly forged aluminium alloy arms) means the car has nothing like the Ferrari's nervousness on sinuous British moors - about the only public roads where, in this country, cars like this can be pushed hard

Whereas the Ferrari feels fidgety, a little headstrong, the Honda just absorbs the bumps and crests and dips as it charges insouciantly on its way. Unless you take real risks, or unless you have the skill of a Senna, the Honda is the quicker A-to-B public road tool. And that surprised us all.

Yes, it floats a little more on the crests and, yes, its wheels don't enjoy quite the same close relationship with the tarmac that the Ferrari's huge and beautiful 17-inch alloys enjoy. And the steering - the least sharp of all these cars, and the one that weights up most at speed - doesn't chatter to you the whole time, talking to you, blabbering away.

Mind you, like most hyperactive things, the Ferrari's steering can get tiresome. On long trips you may curse the 348's wrist-jarring character, and the slight high-speed nervousness, preferring a quieter, gentler companion.

But it's fast, this Honda. Seriously fast. In real terms, quicker than the Ferrari, both on the public road and, as we discovered before venturing to Durham, quicker on the racing circuit as well. On the track, at Castle Combe, the NSX was the quickest of the bunch (best lap, 1 min 14.4, compared with 1min 15.3 for the 348). What's more, it was the easiest car to drive on the bumpy Wiltshire track. You could lap all day at the NSX's best time, no fuss, no worry, no danger of spinning off and bending expensive aluminium alloy bodywork on crude steel barriers.

Not so the Ferrari. It is much harder work, at the Combe, just as it is on a winding moorland road. It's firmer sprung, more of a racer, much more throttle-responsive, a car that wants to duck and weave. It has to be manhandled, quite physically, to make it go fast (heavy steering, heavy clutch, heavy slow-shifting gearchange, heavy brakes). It taxes and tests you. Drive the Ferrari fast-very fast - and you’ll sweat. The Honda is easy. Impressively, antiseptically easy.

The NSX will understeer at the limit, in a safe, controllable way that will frighten no buyer (whether they be serious racers, or poseurs who want nothing other than a pretty set of wheels). Stray near to the 348’s (very high) limits and you can just start to feel the rear - so well anchored down at medium-high speeds – getting pendulous. Push a little harder and you'll be doing a blood-curdling, no-holds- barred, oversteer slice which will look wonderful (if you don’t lose control) and feel wonderful (if you don't lose control). And while all this excitement is going on, the Honda will be going just as fast, in its unexciting understeering way.

On a less bumpy circuit than Castle Combe, the Ferrari would almost certainly have matched the Honda’s lap time. The asperity of the Castle Combe surface upset the nervous disposition of the Italian car: its steering kicked our wrists, and it seemed to be darting around, nervously and uncomfortably, even on straights. Its very firm suspension - the Ferrari has noticeably less body roll than its rivals, and the biggest tyres - does it no favours at a circuit like the Combe. You can tell the car has been set up for Ferrari's glass-smooth test circuit.

The Porsche got nearest to matching the Honda's lap time at the Combe (best lap. 1min 14.9), and got nearest to matching the Ferrari's entertainment value on the Durham moors. What an extraordinary sports car the 911 is! Despite its age, and its unprepossessing mechanical layout (it is the only car of the group without a mid-mounted engine; instead its motor sits out the back, out there in no man's land, where no self-respecting modern engineer would ever consider siting the engine of a modern car), the 911 competes hard and fast against a brand-new Ferrari, and the mightiest effort yet from Japan’s boldest car maker.

Its great virtue soon becomes apparent, when you take up station behind the wheel. It's small. How refreshing to find a supercar maker that realises you can have speed and presence without length and girth. But how depressing that Porsche knew this 30 years ago, but seems to have forgotten it now (judging by the Sumo-sized girth of its more recent offerings, such as the ungainly 928).

The 911 is actually slightly longer than the 348 (the shortest but yet widest car here), but almost 10 inches narrower. It is six inches narrower than the NSX. Less body width means you've got more road space to play with; it’s a big difference. On a narrow B road, this Porsche has no peer. Even on the wider Durham moorland roads, its manoeuvrability, its lissomness, is entertainingly impressive.

As with both the 348 and the NSX, the 911 has a pearl of an engine. Capable of pulling from about 800rpm in fifth gear (the Honda can dig even deeper into its rev range), and yet perfectly composed when the rev limiter silences it just before 7000rpm (it feels as though it could rev much, much higher, were it allowed), the 3.6-litre flat six is the feeblest engine in the comparison (250bhp), but doesn’t feel it.

The 911 964 is marginally Quicker than the 348, in the standing start figures (0 60mph in 5.3sec, Ferrari 5.6; 0-100mph in 12.8sec, Ferrari 13.0). It’s faster than the Honda, too which, despite its speed on the track and on the road, is the tardiest off the mark (0-60 in 5.7sec, and 0-100 in 13.1). Next to the 348, the 911's engine feels the most throttle-responsive. There is absolutely no slack m that throttle pedal and. when you're tanking on, the car's cornering attitude can be beautifully manipulated by the accelerator pedal.

Next to the Ferrari’s, the Porsche’s steering is the most communicative, the one that delivers the richest messages to the driver. What's more, it's better damped than the 348's, doing without the kickback and frenzy. With just over two turns lock to lock, it’s the highest-geared set-up too. Don’t let the power assistance, standards ware on the Carrera 2, put you off: although a useful adjunct at parking speeds, it deadens none of the high-speed sensations.

No car is better made, either, although the Ferrari - beautifully solid and superbly finished - comes closest. The Honda is not Quite as good, and, during our week-long test, was the only car to give trouble: it ran on five cylinders for a bit, and its traction-control system (one of the many technical novelties of this most technically intriguing car) started to misbehave, before correcting itself.

The 911 has the best brakes. Apart from the Ferrari, they have the most feel, and they stood up to fast laps of Castle Combe with greater decorum than any rival (the Honda's are closest for fade-free behaviour).

Next to the NSX, the 911 was also the easiest car to punt on the racing track, and on those sinuous Durham moors. It is a forgiving car, unless conditions are damp (when all that weight over the tail can betray it). It has the best ride quality, marginally edging out the Honda (the Ferrari is easily the firmest; the Lotus is supple yet noisy when wheelsdrop in and out of holes). The steering; the throttle response: the excellent grip; the terrific visibility (top marks hero, although the NSX and the 348 are not far behind): the wieldiness. They all add up to make the Porsche a fast and easy high-speed drive, as well as an exhilarating one.

But the Porsche has one serious shortcoming, compared with the Ferrari and Honda. Pressing on, it feels less stable. It rolls more, it (eels more on tippy toe. its front wheels have less of a grip on the road. And, at very high speed, the Porsche gets light at the nose. It gave one of our testers a helluva scare on the high-speed bowl at Millbrook, where we did the performance testing. It's a corollary of that rear engine, of course.

The Lotus has its engine in the right place, but it doesn't have the right engine. A good turbo (and by turbo standards, it is geed) just cannot hack it with three of the best normally aspirated engines ever made. True, it revs briskly and smoothly to 7300rpm red-line. And it packs a mighty wallop - all from 2.2 litres and only four cylinders (it's good for 264bhp). But it matters little whence it came; what matters is how it gees.

Drive hard on a public road, and the engine drifts on and off boost, denying you the Instant acceleration always available in the other three. There is far less engine braking, too, another corollary of turbo engines - and that means you cannot delicately balance the car's handling by using the accelerator pedal. To boot, the gearchange is easily the worst of the four (our test car. not the finest Esprit SE we have tested, had a really vague shift) and the engine got boo my on the motorway.

More surprising is how far behind the others is the Esprit's chassis. On Castle Combe, the car understeered badly when pressing on: the main reason its lap time was the worst (best: 1min 15.6sec). On the Durham moors, the front end never felt securely tied down, the steering feeling peculiarly lifeless. The brakes felt dead, although they worked well enough. It just didn't compete, this Lotus, in any area other than straight-line urge (0-60mph in 4.7 sec, 0-100mph in 11.9 - the best of the bunch). Given all the nice things we’ve said about the SE, this car was a major disappointment. It finishes a poor fourth in this comparison.

Less disappointing was the Esprit’s interior, if only because we already knew this was pretty awful. The Lotus gets plenty of leather - although it's not of the same quality as the Ferrari's Connolly hides - and seats which look inviting, once you can get into them (access is horribly limited, owing to the insufficient sweep of the door, and to the high sills you have to hurdle). But what really spoils the show is the appalling quality switchgear, no better than you'd get on an average kit car.

The door handles come from an Austin 1800, the column stalks have a second-rate feel and action, and the VDO instruments are too small, and badly sited. The walnut facia also looks rather tacked on: token arborealism, a crude attempt to give the cabin more class. Inside, the Esprit shows its age.

So does the Porsche. The 911’s cabin is easily its weakest suit - an important consideration, after all that's where you'll be spending most of your time in this car's company. The seats look cheap and lack both lateral and thigh support, the dashboard is a mess (you have to grope for some of the fiddly switches, scattered willy-nilly all over the cabin), the steering wheel doesn't look anything special (although it feels nice enough, and is well sized), there is no left foot rest (a major omission on a performance car), and some of the trim standard is dire (most prominently that awful Elastoplast that is the roof lining). Given so much of this car was changed during its metamorphosis into a Carrera 2 last year, why did not the Stuttgart engineers do anything about the car’s most glaring weakness? At least the switches and the whole cabin have a chunkiness and a solidity rare today.

The Honda also has a disappointing cabin. It’s dashboard has a nice sculpture, and the seats are easily the most comfortable and supportive of this group. The cockpit is roomier than the Ferrari's (although it lacks the 343's rear parcel shelf) and the Lotus’s. And the pedals are perfectly placed, good for heel ’n’ toeing, well spaced, and supplemented by a wide left foot brace.

But the whole thing just looks so ordinary. You don’t get those lovely hides of the Ferrari, which feel and smell so good. The leather you do get is the second-rate stuff, which may as well be top-quality vinyl. The dash is swathed in cheap-feeling plastic (don’t be fooled by the genuine stitching), and the carpets are nothing special. The roof lining is cheap plastic, so disappointing on a car of this worth.

There’s nothing wrong with the big, boldly displayed instruments - never mind that they look as though they're from lesser Hondas: many Ferrari switches are from Fiats - but there's plenty wrong with the satellite control pods, either side of the wheel. It's a variation on the Citroen CX theme and, like any copy of a wonderful original, is nowhere near as good. The arrangement looks messy, and is not easy to use. The hard plastic switches have a poor tactility, as well. You just don’t feel as though you're somewhere special, when you’re ensconced in the NSX. It’s a shame, because you are: this Honda is a wonderful car.

If I've sounded less than effusive about it so far, that is entirely intentional. It is not an effusive sort of car: instead, it s a massively competent one, a car whose strengths can be rationally explained. They are many.

On most public roads, and on the race track, it is the quickest. It is the most comfortable car all round (best seats, and a surprisingly supple ride). It is the most restful on a motorway. It is the easiest and least demanding to drive fast, an utterly unintimidating mid-engined supercar that really could be used for shopping at Sainsbury's, were its boot bigger. It has the most benign high-speed handling, and is almost impossible to unsettle in sharp lift-off manoeuvres performed mid-corner. It is the most technically intriguing, and has the juiciest mechanical detailing. Those forged aluminium alloy wishbones are mechanical artistry. And it proved the most economical on test (23.0 mpg; Porsche 21.6; Ferrari 20.2; Lotus 19.7).

There is no avoiding it: the #NSX is a breakthrough, a supercar that furrows new ground. How can a car with so many compelling virtues be anything other than the best? It can't be. And it is. It’s better than the Ferrari, and by some margin.

And better than the 911, by an even bigger one. Honda has done a formula one, in the supercar field.

Yet, I just don’t want one; it's not special enough. It doesn't look that good, to my eye: rather like a poor pastiche of a Ferrari. Honda's boldness seemed to have run out, when it came to the styling. But, much more important driving the NSX just isn't enough of an event. By exorcising that lovely sensitivity and nervousness endemic in a mid-engined car. Honda has partly negated the point of buying a mid-engined car. It just doesn't interact with you richly enough; it doesn't bewitch you, intoxicate you, win you over, warts and all.

The 348 and the 911 do. They are special cars, and driving them is a special experience. You will savour every occasion you punt these cars hard on a deserted road, even if you may not be going as fast as the NSX driver. You may have to exert more effort, but so what? That’s what sporting cars are supposed to be about. You have to drive the 348 and the Porsche 911 964, instead merely of letting a wonderful car do the work for you.

Of the pair, the Ferrari wins - if you can afford the extra 20-odd thousand pounds, and can wait five years to take delivery. There is nothing like it. It communicates so richly, involves you so completely. And. when you have finished driving it - cocooned in that exquisite cockpit - you can get out and feast your eyes on one of the loveliest cars ever designed.

Honda and Porsche (left) easiest cars to drive quickly on moor roads. They're most supple.

Porsche more on tippy-toe at speed than rivals, but is still prodigiously fast on winding road. Lotus understeers doggedly, steering mushy at speed.

Lotus gels masses of leather in cabin, but controls look cheap, and visibility is bad. Flat front screen gets bad dash reflections.

Nice steering wheel (although It's non-adjustable), but instruments too small, scattered about facia almost at random. But car feels special.

Ventilation controls are typical of poor quality switchgear.

Poor fit of sunroof. Esprits now better built, but not as good as rivals.

Ferrari is flattest handling, fools most like racer, but gets nervous at the limit. Honda is inveterate understeerer, lacks throttle sensitivity of 348.

Steering wheel looks nothing special but it fools good, and the steering itself is sharp and communicative. Crummy switchgear.

Porsche cabin is unsatisfactory. Seals look cheap, and arc uncomfortable on long runs. Only car in group with roar chairs.

Radio has removable front which deactivates unit. Very easy to carry.

Rear chairs have fold-forward squabs, to increase carrying versatility.

Porsche rolls more than rivals, understeers most of time, except when it’s wet. Lotus feels good at medium-high speed, less so when going hard.

Porsche's engine biggest (3.6 litres) but least powerful (250bhp).

Lotus has only 2.2-litres, yet delivers 264bhp, thanks to intercooled turbo.

PERFORMANCE ACCELERATION (sec)
0-30 0-40 0-50 0-60 0-70 0-80 0-90 0-100 30-80
Ferrari 2.1 3.0 4.3 5.6 6.9 9.0 10.9 13.0 6.9
Honda 2.1 3.0 4.3 5.7 7.1 8.5 10.9 13.1 6.1
Lotus 1.8 2.5 3.6 4.7 6.3 8.0 9.8 11.9 6.2
Porsche 2.0 3.1 4.1 5.3 6.9 8.6 10.5 12.8 6.0

IN FOURTH GEAR (sec)
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90 80-100
Ferrari 5.8 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.7
Honda 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.6 6.0
Lotus 8.8 5.9 4.3 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.4
Porsche 5.7 53 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.5

TOP SPEED (mph)
Ferrari 169
Honda 164
Lotus 159
Porsche 161

CASTLE COMBE LAP TIMES (min)
Ferrari 1:15.3
Honda 1:14 4
Lotus 1:15.6
Porsche 1:14.9

Conversations

Alerts

Lord Of The Fliers- 348 vs NSX vs 964 Turbo vs Esprit to LeMans, Autocar & Motor 1993

itsablurr Formula 3
Silver Subscribed

Attached Files:

20160315_194222.jpg

20160315_194240.jpg

20160315_194250.jpg

20160315_194327.jpg

20160315_194341.jpg

20160315_194358.jpg

20160315_194411.jpg

20160315_194439.jpg

20160315_194503.jpg

MAD828 F1 Rookie
Silver Subscribed

bballto Karting

ernie Two Time F1 World Champ
Lifetime Rossa Owner

AceMaster Three Time F1 World Champ

Chupacabra F1 Rookie
Owner Rossa Subscribed

///Mike F1 Veteran

4rePhill F1 Veteran

cf355 F1 Rookie

CLIVE77 Karting

///Mike F1 Veteran

fdekeu Formula Junior
Silver Subscribed

///Mike F1 Veteran

angelis F1 Veteran
Owner

4rePhill F1 Veteran

///Mike F1 Veteran

Wade Three Time F1 World Champ
Owner

///Mike F1 Veteran

angelis F1 Veteran
Owner

4rePhill F1 Veteran

bballto Karting

itsablurr Formula 3
Silver Subscribed

dkny Formula Junior

speedy_sam F1 Veteran

EDVTEC Karting

Share This Page

Lord Of The Fliers- 348 vs NSX vs 964 Turbo vs Esprit to LeMans, Autocar & Motor 1993

itsablurr Formula 3 Silver Subscribed

Attached Files:

MAD828 F1 Rookie Silver Subscribed

bballto Karting

ernie Two Time F1 World Champ Lifetime Rossa Owner

AceMaster Three Time F1 World Champ

Chupacabra F1 Rookie Owner Rossa Subscribed

///Mike F1 Veteran

4rePhill F1 Veteran

cf355 F1 Rookie

CLIVE77 Karting

///Mike F1 Veteran

fdekeu Formula Junior Silver Subscribed

///Mike F1 Veteran

angelis F1 Veteran Owner

4rePhill F1 Veteran

///Mike F1 Veteran

Wade Three Time F1 World Champ Owner

///Mike F1 Veteran

angelis F1 Veteran Owner

4rePhill F1 Veteran

bballto Karting

itsablurr Formula 3 Silver Subscribed

dkny Formula Junior

speedy_sam F1 Veteran

EDVTEC Karting

Share This Page

itsablurr Formula 3
Silver Subscribed

MAD828 F1 Rookie
Silver Subscribed

ernie Two Time F1 World Champ
Lifetime Rossa Owner

Chupacabra F1 Rookie
Owner Rossa Subscribed

fdekeu Formula Junior
Silver Subscribed

angelis F1 Veteran
Owner

Wade Three Time F1 World Champ
Owner

angelis F1 Veteran
Owner

itsablurr Formula 3
Silver Subscribed