Ferrari breaking back into rally?

Ferrari is coming out with a new car called the FF. It is a 2+2 hatchback that more then a few Ferrari purists cant stand the sight of. ON the options list for the car is a co-drivers display, witch really got be thinking that they wanted someone to use the car as a tarmac rally car.

At the cars unveiling Ferrari showed this video





Now i am pretty positive someone needs to run it in a rally. Rally Tennessee anyone???

Specs:

660 Hp
0-100kph 3.7
Front and Rear auto Lift options (option)
Hele system option(option)
53% rear 47% front wieght dist.
Passenger side Display for co-pilot (option)
Brake Pads are a carbon composite material. using 3rd generation ccm brakes
electroconductive fluid in stability management system.
The Front wheels run directly off of the crankshaft via a component that I am pretty sure is just a box of pixie dust and magic fairies...(this thing is pretty cool)


Front wheels never get more than 30% of the power
4wd system deactivates at 125mph and/or 5-6-7th gear
no option for entry and go (otherwise known as keyless start)

In Race mode the car is full RWD all the time. You can switch between awd and 2wd in the touch of a button

6.2L V12...might be tough to find a class for it.

Quote
fliz
6.2L V12...might be tough to find a class for it.

uh, like, haterz gionna hate.

Quote
fliz
6.2L V12...might be tough to find a class for it.

If Subaru could buy a rule change to allow 2.7L turbo engines in Open class, surely Ferrari could afford an extra liter or two of displacement as well.

Dave

I thought the turbo multipliers had it set at 3L from way back?

Quote
fliz
I thought the turbo multipliers had it set at 3L from way back?

long time ago it was 1.4 multiplier so a 2,0 motor would be "2,5 to 3,0l" motor class, which of course meant youse gotta weigh whatever the fawk it was.
Lancia and Peugeot were around 1725cc or so so's deys wuz 2,0 to 2,5 motor capacity and hence could weigh a good chunk less that say Audi---who de-bored and de-stroked the 2226cc ---which woulda made them corrected 3116cc down to whatever so they squeaked in just under a corrected 3,0l.

So they could be bigger but weight is an obsession around works cars and as we all know, we can make cars accelerate even when they're heavy, put it hain't fun slowing them down or turning them.


By the way, didya know the fantastic Lancia S2 and Pug 205 were little bitty 1725cc??? (ish--cant remember exactly, been too long)

It was beeeg news back then when Ford brought in their RS200 at 1998cc because of the weight penalty they'd have vs the Pug and Lancia.
It eventaully dawned on Ford, too so they went and fingered "in for a penny, in for a pound" and they homologated a stroked crank which brought cc to 2082 or 2083cc---a smidge under a corrected 3,0.

I built a Cosworth BDG which turned out to have one of those stroker cranks---can you imagine a BRAND NEW $5300+ airfrieght alloy block and I had to sit down and decide how much to GRIND OUT for rod clearance.

Thems wuz some expensive chips on the floor!

what an ugly car!

Quote
Mark
what an ugly car!

But, but, but..that very design worked so well for Jensen in the 70's. They must have sold several back then.

I dunno. I think the Ferrari hatchback would go nicely with the Porsche SUV in the driveway. Just need the Aston-Martin minivan for the weekends.

Quote
fliz
I thought the turbo multipliers had it set at 3L from way back?

Totally possible I got it wrong. I thought I heard someone tell me ~10 years ago when I was just beginning to learn about rally that 2.3L was the max displacement allowed if you were running DOHC and a turbo/supercharger. That allowed for the Audi 5cyl to race, and if you had a subie or mitsu a stroker kit would still get you in under the limit. Can't say I remember seeing the SOHC/DOHC multiplier in a rule book for some time now...maybe that was something that got dropped when SCCA got out?

I will admit when looking at engine choices for my 2wd car, 3.0L seemed to be the sweet spot. Small enough N/A that you can still run Group2 but large enough to make meaningful torque without a turbo. On the other end for non-traction limited events, the motor is still small enough you could add forced induction and still fit in Group5. Options are good.

Dave

Quote
DaveK

Quote
fliz
I thought the turbo multipliers had it set at 3L from way back?

Totally possible I got it wrong. I thought I heard someone tell me ~10 years ago when I was just beginning to learn about rally that 2.3L was the max displacement allowed if you were running DOHC a

I will admit when looking at engine choices for my 2wd car, 3.0L seemed to be the sweet spot. Small enough N/A that you can still run Group2 but large enough to make meaningful torque without a turbo. On the other end for non-traction limited events, the motor is still small enough you could add forced induction and still fit in Group5. Options are good.

Dave

What the motor doesn't make for torques, the final drive does.
A shorter final drive than the 4.56 you're getting was maybe $10 more.
They make 4.88 and 5.1 for a reason..

The reason is YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Honestly I love this. Just need my company to take off like it is starting too and this will be in the driveway

---

-Jason

Quote
DaveK

Quote
fliz
I thought the turbo multipliers had it set at 3L from way back?

Totally possible I got it wrong. I thought I heard someone tell me ~10 years ago when I was just beginning to learn about rally that 2.3L was the max displacement allowed if you were running DOHC and a turbo/supercharger. That allowed for the Audi 5cyl to race, and if you had a subie or mitsu a stroker kit would still get you in under the limit. Can't say I remember seeing the SOHC/DOHC multiplier in a rule book for some time now...maybe that was something that got dropped when SCCA got out?

You piqued my curiosity, so I took a look at the 2005 rulebook pdf I have.

Looks like they had two restrictor sizes. up to 4L adjusted (2.3L turbo) was 34mm, over that was 30.7mm. I'm not sure when it went away...but I'd bet you're right that it was to allow Subaru 2.5L turbos to run with a 34mm restrictor.

Quote
john vanlandingham
What the motor doesn't make for torques, the final drive does.
A shorter final drive than the 4.56 you're getting was maybe $10 more.
They make 4.88 and 5.1 for a reason..

Don't think its all that likely I'll try fitting a 4.88 or 5.1 on this motor. As it sits now my top speed will be just 119. If I ever decide to go for crazy lightweight and go back to a 4-cyl, I could certainly see trying out one of the higher ratios diffs. 3.0 has torque like a table, but if that's not enough, I know another way to make the torques....cram more air into the damn thing!

Quote
fliz
You piqued my curiosity, so I took a look at the 2005 rulebook pdf I have.

Looks like they had two restrictor sizes. up to 4L adjusted (2.3L turbo) was 34mm, over that was 30.7mm. I'm not sure when it went away...but I'd bet you're right that it was to allow Subaru 2.5L turbos to run with a 34mm restrictor.

Sweet, I'm not going senile, so old age has not set in quite yet.

Dave

I noticed if you look closely at the part of the video where its driving in the dunes, there are no tire tracks.
Then they go and say its fictional at the end. Why not do it for real are they afraid of getting the car stuck in the sand?