Comments on: Ferrari’s next supercar to use smaller engine, new 2+2 car coming soon

By: doublearon21

doublearon21 — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:35:10 +0000

Directly from Ferrari’s website, dry weight of the 355 listed at 2976, no curb weight listed. The 360 dry weight 2844 with curb weight at 3064. So it isn’t 200 lbs, but it is in fact lighter.

By: doublearon21

doublearon21 — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:29:46 +0000

angelo-lowering the displacement will not increase torque, it will lower it, where would you come up with that notion. If they lower displacement they need to increase revs to get back the torque

By: Got Handling?

Got Handling? — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:53:52 +0000

Ouch, D hat firmly installed – and I would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for those pesky dry and curb weights

By: Italiafan

Italiafan — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:31:32 +0000

Hey Got Handling….here’s one answer to you quiz…the 360 is 200lbs lighter than the 355.
Gong…..
you failed, nice try, to the back of the class with you…..

By: 67_L-88

67_L-88 — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:04:23 +0000

I agree sik59rt, a vette isn’t in the same class as the ferrari, im just sick of people always comparing to cars that are obivously out of it’s league, and saying it isn’t as hi-tech, or as refined. y should the LS7 even be brought into this discussion, but people do it time and time again, what, does it make them some how feel big and tough to pick on it?

By: Got Handling?

Got Handling? — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:04:55 +0000

Keep pondering it Signor Abihganulah, I’m sure you’ll work it out.
.
In the meantime, since you “must know a little more about Ferraris than [I] do” riddle me this; if Ferrari has already started their trend of lighter smaller cars with smaller engines with the 360, why was the 360 larger and heavier than the 355 with a larger motor? Why is the 430 larger in every respect than the 360?
.
p.s. I’m ready for a quiz on Maranello any time you want, lets start with this one: what is so unique about Enzo Ferrari’s Fiorano cottage?

By: sik59rt

sik59rt — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:17:44 +0000

67-L88…..a Vette is nice, but nothing comes close to the class of a Ferrari..plus if you need to take a second mortgage to buy a Ferrari, then you probaly shouldnt be owning one

By: sik59rt

sik59rt — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:36:47 +0000

Motor Trend had a interview with the Ferrari CEO and he flat out said there will be NO Dino

By: 67_L-88

67_L-88 — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:46:36 +0000

dutch tourer if the LS7 isn`t an high tech engine, then how come no other 500 hp v-8 returns near the gas milieage? and though it displaces 7 litres, it weighs less then the 4.6 found the mustang g.t. and it also doesn’t require an second mortage to own. sure ferrari’s are nice, but i think its more impressive to make a car for a less then a third of the price, but still be competive with the big guys

By: BLISS

BLISS — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:18:12 +0000

SUPER CAR IN THE MAKING.

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:17:55 +0000

V-series: that’s totally inaccurate, but I can see you hate Audi.

Got Handling?: truth hurts, doesn’t it?

By: josh

josh — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:49:03 +0000

are any of you remembering the F40. 3L V8 twin turbo!!! lots of tourqu and ****loads of power. couple that to a light weight and techniquely advanced chassis and i think you would have a quick little bugger!!!

By: Got Handling?

Got Handling? — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:07:40 +0000

Ferrari detailed this approach when they launched the 599. In future they will be focusing on lighter, smaller cars with more efficient power solutions. Its welcome news, coming after the oversized 612 suggested that Ferrari might be losing their focus and will lead to more exciting and usable cars in the future.
.
Commodore I doubt very much that it will be more affordable, to make a car smaller, lighter and faster will require more development, not less.
.
Icedog you really are a complete throbber.

By: V-series

V-series — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:59:26 +0000

1c3d0g, Lamborghini will never even be half of what Ferrari is, especially now that Audi has taken away their soul.

By: Hugh Jass

Hugh Jass — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:09:32 +0000

Turbos are the modern way of increasing displacement.

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:26:22 +0000

Yawn. They’ll never even be half of what Lamborghini is.

By: Commodore

Commodore — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:22:40 +0000

And it will be more affortable I’m guessing?

By: Tim_s

Tim_s — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:45:34 +0000

Don’t forget Ferrari makes a 2.4L V8 for their F1 cars. These are NA and have aprox. 650-700hp, if not more. F1 teams aren’t big on releasing those numbers. Of course they rev to 19k rpm. Don’t expect that in a road car!

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:28:46 +0000

I’ll take a Scuderia.

By: deutschetouring1337

deutschetouring1337 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:54:37 +0000

The mentioned engines above are both naturally aspirated.

By: deutschetouring1337

deutschetouring1337 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:52:41 +0000

Man you guys are way behind V8 development. There is a 2.6 litre 360bhp/215ft-ilbs and 2.8 litre V8 430bhp/250 ft-ilbs that revs to 10,300k. I don’t count the LS7 as advanced because the OHV design has been around for almost 60yrs and any goofball can an increase displacement and get more HP/Torque, but it takes alot of development to get2-4 litre engines to produce as much as a larger displacement equivalent.

By: Jaguar XJ-S

Jaguar XJ-S — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:06:15 +0000

Good call Scarface03. The F40 was stupid fast with that 2.936L V-8. It did have bad turbo lag but a good driver can make up for that. I doubt Ferrari will have any trouble making yet another very impressive, if not legendary car with 3.0 Litres and a couple turbochargers.

Angelo… how would a 3.0 Litre V-8 make a whole car vibrate? Just curious.

By: Scarface03

Scarface03 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:05:37 +0000

Around the time of the F40 and 959, F1 engines were turbocharged and displaced less than 3.0L. I’m sure Ferrari can work magic with 3.0L and a turbo, but I prefer naturally aspirated engines.

By: TOZO

TOZO — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:50:06 +0000

Back down to 308 just like that? Interesting…. The polar bears will be happy about this one.

By: angelo

angelo — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:25:17 +0000

R1GHT30U5, shouldn’t lower displacement V-8 provide MORE torque? I just wonder if it’ll rumble like crazy and make the whole vehicle vibrate.

By: AutoForums.com

AutoForums.com — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:18:57 +0000

Turbos and lighter weight is always good

http://www.Ferrari-Talk.com

By: RicardoHead

RicardoHead — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:46:48 +0000

What cracks me up is that the LLN writer felt it necessary to point out that the cardboard showcar never actually had a 3.0 liter 550hp V8 engine in it.

By: maximus

maximus — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:54:22 +0000

cardboard!

By: R1GHT30U5

R1GHT30U5 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:50:00 +0000

A 3.0L V8? Thats pretty small for a V8. 550hp is no joke but what are the torque numbers going to look like?

By: RicardoHead

RicardoHead — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:12 +0000

The show car was made of cardboard??? That is fekkin hilarious!

By: jamaicandude

jamaicandude — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:36:31 +0000

Sounds good. Bring it on.