- 7,620
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Enzo successor spotted
- Thread starter McLaren
- 675 comments
- 66,357 views
- 759
- Alabama
- Horobi-Scorpion
Actually, you missed the point I made entirely.
People are up in arms about the name, and went on to say how stupid it was to say "Ferrari LaFerrari"...
I went on to say no one [Ferrari] is calling it that (thus avoiding the horrendous "...I'm saying Ferrari twice, name sucks!") thing everyone is having an aneurysm about.
I also stated how it is the same as the Enzo [Ferrari], because no one called it the "Ferrari Enzo Ferrari".
Are we on the same page, now?
Huh? I'm getting the feeling you just want to be argumentative, just to be argumentative, as what you are saying in response to me isn't even aligned with what I was stating.
The 288 GTO was exactly what the "GTO" nomenclature was used for; a racing variation of an already existing car, made to meet regulations/rules to rally race. Whether it actually raced or not is absolutely meaningless. The car's purpose and production was based purely on the notion that "...this thing is going to race".
This car is built from the ground up, without any previous platform, not sharing any previous designs with an already existing car, to be on the road. Period.
And just because it wasn't marketed as being related, anyone with a working optic could see that it was a muscled up 308. Ray Charles could see that.
- 11,884
- Marin County
- 7,620
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Not proven, and doesn't matter.
- 40,850
Which doesn't change the fact that the car still is the Ferrari LaFerrari. Ferarri didn't establish a new brand to sell this like they did with the Dino, and people are responding to that as a result. And using the Enzo for why they shouldn't isn't a particularly good example, since:
People thought the Enzo's official name was pretty silly when it came out too. Hence why it is usually just called the Enzo now.
You mean like the 599 GTO was?
The history of the GTO name:
Ferrari 250 GTO, which was an unofficial name of the modified 250 GT SWB internally called the 250 Comp GT/62 that Ferrari later made official because that's what the press called it when they saw it.
Ferrari GTO, which was the official name of the almost entirely bespoke recreation of the 308 that Ferrari went out of their way to distance from the 308 and position as a halo car above the Testarossa instead after they decided not to race it despite it being for the same ruleset as all of the other not-remotely-related Group B cars that didn't have different names.
Ferrari 599 GTO, which was the official name of a road version of a track version of the Ferrari 599 not intended to do much of anything but be faster than the regular 599.
You're saying they couldn't call it a GTO it "has a meaning that doesn't work with this car," and I'd just like to know what that meaning is since Ferrari play fast and loose with it themselves.
So, wait. Does Ferrari marketing matter or does it not? If it doesn't count that Ferrari went out of their way to distance the 80's 288 GTO from the 308 to the extent that even the "288" part is an unofficial moniker made up to tie it to the 308 naming scheme, how does it count that Ferrari won't refer to the car as Ferrari LaFerrari when that is still what it is?
Last edited:
- 11,884
- Marin County
edit: this was for Exorcet's post.
It won't be legal nor suited for sanctioned competition. Unless you mean track days.
It won't be legal nor suited for sanctioned competition. Unless you mean track days.
- 759
- Alabama
- Horobi-Scorpion
- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
Debatable... the 599GTO is far closer to the 599 road car than the 599FXX, however Ferrari try to market it.
Ferrari could have called the F170 'GTO', and they might have got away with it even without a morotsports link... if the 599GTO hadn't completely destroyed all the integrity GTO had before the 599GTO.
- 40,850
Not entirely sure what I'm going to call it from now on, actually. I think LaFerrari is a stupid name regardless of the redundancies. I'll probably just call it the F70. You also confuse "your argument is shaky" with "your argument is shaky and it personally impacts me because that's what I was going to do."
Some variety of numbers appended to GTO would have been a better name, but it would get confusing for me to do so with no one else calling it that. I certainly don't call the Enzo the "Enzo Ferrari" in any case, just like I still call the DTS "DeVille" even though GM stopped doing that in 2005.
- 759
- Alabama
- Horobi-Scorpion
So for sure, you won't be calling it the Ferrari LaFerrari. That's the only thing I needed to see you say.
And this isn't personal. We are on a message board, in a thread talking about the LaFerrari. This is the talking portion. We just seem to have direly different views on what we are discussing.
And that is where I just disagree with ya. I don't feel the GTO makes sense. It didn't make much on the 599 GTO, and it makes even less here.
And the Caddy correlation isn't really accurate, since as far as I am ware, the D is DTS actually means DeVille.
Last edited:
- 10,837
- Belgium
- bramturismo
"So which Ferrari are you driving?"
"TheFerrari"
"So you don't even know what the hell you spent your money on?!"
I'll probably call it the F70 as Toronado pointed out. LaFerrari just sounds silly for a supercar. I can live with Huayra, but I'm not having any of this LaFerrari name. I've always thought the Enzo was indeed the F60, being the successor to the F50. Seems I was wrong.
"TheFerrari"
"So you don't even know what the hell you spent your money on?!"
I'll probably call it the F70 as Toronado pointed out. LaFerrari just sounds silly for a supercar. I can live with Huayra, but I'm not having any of this LaFerrari name. I've always thought the Enzo was indeed the F60, being the successor to the F50. Seems I was wrong.
- 7,620
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Yes I know, most road cars aren't
Exactly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdByQ9gvzN8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Cjad7DHxo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFd7uoS2DZE
- 12,899
- Cambridge
- Moglet85
- Moglet
I think the front end looks great, but the back end is ruined by that rear....leg thing...being cut in half by the damn number plate recess. Come on guys, you know it has to have license plates so why not just design that bit of the car around that? I'm sure the Ferrari designers could have come up with an aerodynamically efficient solution.
- 11,884
- Marin County
So you think occasional track days are worth making a car less suited for the road and more suited, in fact approaching 'only-suited,' for the track?
I mean, I'm sure the F70 (I refuse to call it's real name anymore) will be decent on the road, but I think it's more at home on the track.
The Mclaren F1, in comparison, wasn't very good on a race track. It was suspension was too soft, but that made it excellent on the road. I'm not sure where/when this model for a supercar was so violently deviated from (probably coincided with 'F1 style' gearboxes), but I wish it hadn't been.
What's the point of being faster than the next guy if you have to wait for a point-by anyways?
- 7,620
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
I wouldn't say that any of these cars are anywhere near being track only.
There is no point in being faster than the next guy if you're not racing. It's about being as fast as you want to be. Typically higher forces and such will lead to more feeling of excitement.
Is it worth it to give up streetability for performance? I say certainly. In a car like this I wouldn't want much more streetability than I need to get it to/from the track. The whole point of owning it would be going fast, and not doing that on the road. For most people though, it's about being able to go crazy on a track while also being able to use the cars to go for cruise on Friday night.
- 759
- Alabama
- Horobi-Scorpion
The smooth, sleek roof is one of its best features. Chopping that off doesn't do a thing, for me.
- 1,399
- Jakarta
This was the first picture of the car that I saw:
To be honest, I wasn't sure if I actually enjoyed its looks at first sight. With that angle, it seemed a bit oddly proportioned, and there was a feeling of disconnection after one-third of the whole car's length from the front. Yes, the lines do flow continuously, but they seemed like a tad incoherent. Unlike with the case of the McLaren P1, the first look I had on LaFerrari wasn't quickly followed by an instantaneous acceptance from my mind.
Putting sole judgment on looks aside, I could say that I was happy with what they have achieved with this car on its more technical side.
Also, to me, the car looked better after viewing it from other angles, and I'm completely fine with the car's rear side. No conflicting thoughts when I got to that bit, it was a quick approval from me on the inside. As time passed...well, perhaps many are tired of hearing something like this already, but yes, the looks started to grow on me.
I think the front is the major area of where the feeling of dislike arose from. In some views, there was just something ungainly about how overly pointy the nose's edge is, in combination with the sinuous, willowy bits between and surrounding the headlights. The more lights reflected on the bodywork, the more they become prominent. They don't blend particularly so well. Not "hideous" though. I'd say the face is like that of some depiction of a mythological evil horse. Enthralling to look sometimes, but rather unpleasant when you really pore over it.
Indeed, I understand that it's certainly difficult to combine the typical top-of-the-line supercar/hypercar shape or proportion, (yes, I'm bad at describing, I know this sounds utterly vague, but just think of a number of range-topping models from the early 90s until now, such as the Jaguar XJ220, Ferrari F50, Saleen S7, etc., and visualize in your mind seeing the sizes of those cars from a rather long distance from either the top or the side, maybe you'll get the idea) with stylistic subtleties that were hoped to be more evocative or characterful than ever, in coordination with producing efficient and functional aerodynamic properties. The exterior styling of LaFerrari's predecessor, the Enzo, certainly looked tremendous, but in a not so emotive way (to me, at least). Ferrari definitely wanted this new one to evoke more powerful drama at first sight, and perhaps, to some of us, the result was not so superb.
Of all the angles that could show the car's exterior in almost its entirety but without the rear side, I found the following to be the most spectacular:
Now that's just terrific, I thought. Ignore its surroundings and give it a look in its entirety (don't pore over the front too much though). That just looks like one mighty, fire-breathing dragon.
Anyway, I'll conclude that I'm satisfied enough with the reveal. Looking forward to future reviews on how it drives.
To be honest, I wasn't sure if I actually enjoyed its looks at first sight. With that angle, it seemed a bit oddly proportioned, and there was a feeling of disconnection after one-third of the whole car's length from the front. Yes, the lines do flow continuously, but they seemed like a tad incoherent. Unlike with the case of the McLaren P1, the first look I had on LaFerrari wasn't quickly followed by an instantaneous acceptance from my mind.
Putting sole judgment on looks aside, I could say that I was happy with what they have achieved with this car on its more technical side.
Also, to me, the car looked better after viewing it from other angles, and I'm completely fine with the car's rear side. No conflicting thoughts when I got to that bit, it was a quick approval from me on the inside. As time passed...well, perhaps many are tired of hearing something like this already, but yes, the looks started to grow on me.
I think the front is the major area of where the feeling of dislike arose from. In some views, there was just something ungainly about how overly pointy the nose's edge is, in combination with the sinuous, willowy bits between and surrounding the headlights. The more lights reflected on the bodywork, the more they become prominent. They don't blend particularly so well. Not "hideous" though. I'd say the face is like that of some depiction of a mythological evil horse. Enthralling to look sometimes, but rather unpleasant when you really pore over it.
Indeed, I understand that it's certainly difficult to combine the typical top-of-the-line supercar/hypercar shape or proportion, (yes, I'm bad at describing, I know this sounds utterly vague, but just think of a number of range-topping models from the early 90s until now, such as the Jaguar XJ220, Ferrari F50, Saleen S7, etc., and visualize in your mind seeing the sizes of those cars from a rather long distance from either the top or the side, maybe you'll get the idea) with stylistic subtleties that were hoped to be more evocative or characterful than ever, in coordination with producing efficient and functional aerodynamic properties. The exterior styling of LaFerrari's predecessor, the Enzo, certainly looked tremendous, but in a not so emotive way (to me, at least). Ferrari definitely wanted this new one to evoke more powerful drama at first sight, and perhaps, to some of us, the result was not so superb.
Of all the angles that could show the car's exterior in almost its entirety but without the rear side, I found the following to be the most spectacular:
Now that's just terrific, I thought. Ignore its surroundings and give it a look in its entirety (don't pore over the front too much though). That just looks like one mighty, fire-breathing dragon.
Anyway, I'll conclude that I'm satisfied enough with the reveal. Looking forward to future reviews on how it drives.
