Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ferrari 458 Spider
Dieselstation Car Forums > Parking Lot > The Car Garage
moe
Didn't know they were going to do a Spider this time around. I really thought that's why they built the California, so people that wanted a convertible could get one of those, and leave the 458 for the hardcore. Either way, it looks badass.





clarkma5
I see a 458 parked in front of the exotic car dealership next to my work every once in awhile (seen them in white, yellow, red, and silver now) and I'm still gonna say I think it's an ugly car.

I kinda like the Spider more in some ways, but I think the engine cover doesn't look very good at all. On one hand it reminds me of an F50, which is a cool nod to their past, but on the other hand I never really cared for the F50 that much...
shandyman5
This may be the first convertible ever that I like better than the coupe.
skr
QUOTE(shandyman5 @ Sep 4 2011, 07:42 AM) *
This may be the first convertible ever that I like better than the coupe.


+1
Bjorn


I don't think it looks better than the coupe, but it does look better than most coupe to cabrio conversions. The rear decklid too fussy though.

The action is beautiful.
Razor
How does it not bother any of you that it's a hardtop?
shandyman5
^ I fail to see what is wrong with a hard-top convertible?
Bjorn
Most hardtop convertables are shit, sacrificing style, weight and trunk space for an awkward PoS roof (Lexus IS cabrio, Infiniti G37 cabrio, etc.). If given the choice I would take a fabric roof 9 times out of 10. A notable exception is the Miata RC, which is a hardtop and manages to only be a few KG heavier than the softtop.



QUOTE(Razor @ Sep 4 2011, 11:38 AM) *
How does it not bother any of you that it's a hardtop?

My policy is that If it doesn't fuck over weight, styling or trunk space a folding hardtop better. I think the 458 Spider qualifies.
Ephdethulias
Am I the only one who liked the engine cover? I think it's brilliant.
moe
QUOTE(Bjorn @ Sep 5 2011, 03:23 AM) *
Most hardtop convertables are shit, sacrificing style, weight and trunk space for an awkward PoS roof (Lexus IS cabrio, Infiniti G37 cabrio, etc.). If given the choice I would take a fabric roof 9 times out of 10. A notable exception is the Miata RC, which is a hardtop and manages to only be a few KG heavier than the softtop.

My policy is that If it doesn't fuck over weight, styling or trunk space a folding hardtop better. I think the 458 Spider qualifies.


I believe the MX-5's roof ads about 25kg. The only reason Mazda even kept the soft-top alive was because they couldn't fit a rollcage under the hardtop. Lightweight folding hardtop, keeping a soft top alive for a roll-cage? Someone has their priorities straight.
Bjorn
I heard that the 25 kg was offset by weight-savings in other parts of the car, but I could be wrong.

And I agree completely, Mazda knows what it's doing these days . . . and seem to have known what they were doing for the past 30 years.
skr
It's one of those things where the car is so brilliant that I don't care that it's a convertible hardtop and that it weighs more. I'm pretty sure Ferrari engineered this version to be close to its regular hardtop version, as they did with the F430 and F430 Spider. A second or two lost on the track is not a deal breaker for me.

QUOTE
Most hardtop convertables are shit, sacrificing style, weight and trunk space for an awkward PoS roof (Lexus IS cabrio, Infiniti G37 cabrio, etc.).


Yes, I completely agree, and 9 times out of 10, I'll actually choose the hardtop version(non convertible) over a convertible in general. But this is the first time a car like this has won my heart, even as a hardtop convertible. To me, the style has improved, and this car has no trunk space to sacrifice necessarily. The weight thing is questionable, but unless it adds an extra half a ton, I think it's negligible.
OHirtenfelder
^ Agreed.

Everyone likes to point and say...oh, but the convertible adds weight and it's slower...bla bla bla. I understand that the dynamics of the car change (a little), and I've driven enough convertibles to know for a fact that scuttle shake is real and it does suck, but I can almost promise you guys that if anyone but a proper racing driver were to drive a Porsche 911 Turbo Coupe on a track and then the soft top, that we would not see an actual difference in lap times. The few milliseconds (or maybe even seconds, oh no...) that are lost(around a track) due to the extra weight make no perceptible fucking difference at all.
And some will say"But the convertible loses .2 of a second in its 0-100 time". Who gives a shit. Firstly, none of us would even feel the difference between a 3.8 and a 4.0 0-100 time, and secondly that difference would be lost or gained due to other factors anyway (clutch slip, late start, early start, road conditions, whatever).
As for boot space...fine, that's an issue of practicality.

So if it's the styling someone doesnt like about a convertible, fine, I'll buy that, but this bullshit of it's slower and less thrilling...fuck off, that what all the journos write so thats what everyone likes to preach afterwards.

Rant Done. Thanks.
moe
QUOTE(Bjorn @ Sep 5 2011, 04:24 PM) *
And I agree completely, Mazda knows what it's doing these days . . . and seem to have known what they were doing for the past 30 years.


^ Not really. Remember when they tried to go head-to-head with Toyota and Nissan? It nearly destroyed the company, and produced a lot of bland/generic models. There was also the ill-fated program where they tried to create several sub-brands out of Mazda (budget brand, luxury brand). Not sure they know what they're doing now either. Where are the clean diesels, where are the hybrids? The 6 got too big in the US, the 3 & global 6 have been largely left behind by newer competition (despite the 3 having been recently updated), and the new 5 has been called a step backwards by all the reviews I've read (not to mention it's pretty fugly). Even the MX-5 has faced criticism, saying it isn't as fun as it used to be. The RX8 is now dead, with rumors rampant that rotary development has been killed. The only thing Mazda's really doing right currently is their SUV line-up and the 2. Mazda could use a lot of help right now, because as it stand they've been left behind.
shandyman5
QUOTE(Ephdethulias @ Sep 5 2011, 04:11 AM) *
Am I the only one who liked the engine cover? I think it's brilliant.


Agreed, I think it looks really good as well.

QUOTE(skr @ Sep 5 2011, 10:27 AM) *
It's one of those things where the car is so brilliant that I don't care that it's a convertible hardtop and that it weighs more. I'm pretty sure Ferrari engineered this version to be close to its regular hardtop version, as they did with the F430 and F430 Spider. A second or two lost on the track is not a deal breaker for me.



Yes, I completely agree, and 9 times out of 10, I'll actually choose the hardtop version(non convertible) over a convertible in general. But this is the first time a car like this has won my heart, even as a hardtop convertible. To me, the style has improved, and this car has no trunk space to sacrifice necessarily. The weight thing is questionable, but unless it adds an extra half a ton, I think it's negligible.


Agreed, this is one of the very few cars where I may consider taking the spyder over the coupe. This thing looks really good.

QUOTE(OHirtenfelder @ Sep 6 2011, 02:37 AM) *
^ Agreed.

Everyone likes to point and say...oh, but the convertible adds weight and it's slower...bla bla bla. I understand that the dynamics of the car change (a little), and I've driven enough convertibles to know for a fact that scuttle shake is real and it does suck, but I can almost promise you guys that if anyone but a proper racing driver were to drive a Porsche 911 Turbo Coupe on a track and then the soft top, that we would not see an actual difference in lap times. The few milliseconds (or maybe even seconds, oh no...) that are lost(around a track) due to the extra weight make no perceptible fucking difference at all.
And some will say"But the convertible loses .2 of a second in its 0-100 time". Who gives a shit. Firstly, none of us would even feel the difference between a 3.8 and a 4.0 0-100 time, and secondly that difference would be lost or gained due to other factors anyway (clutch slip, late start, early start, road conditions, whatever).
As for boot space...fine, that's an issue of practicality.

So if it's the styling someone doesnt like about a convertible, fine, I'll buy that, but this bullshit of it's slower and less thrilling...fuck off, that what all the journos write so thats what everyone likes to preach afterwards.

Rant Done. Thanks.


Responding to your rant, some cars are actually rather horrendous in 'vert form compared to their coupe or sedan version. Unfortunately for your rant, you picked one of the few cars that is perfect in either coupe or 'vert form, and that is the 911. If you had said say a Camaro or MB the difference is quite apparant and at the cost of having a soft top you get a flappy and soft ride. That trade off isn't worth it for me.

QUOTE(moe @ Sep 6 2011, 04:53 AM) *
^ Not really. Remember when they tried to go head-to-head with Toyota and Nissan? It nearly destroyed the company, and produced a lot of bland/generic models. There was also the ill-fated program where they tried to create several sub-brands out of Mazda (budget brand, luxury brand). Not sure they know what they're doing now either. Where are the clean diesels, where are the hybrids? The 6 got too big in the US, the 3 & global 6 have been largely left behind by newer competition (despite the 3 having been recently updated), and the new 5 has been called a step backwards by all the reviews I've read (not to mention it's pretty fugly). Even the MX-5 has faced criticism, saying it isn't as fun as it used to be. The RX8 is now dead, with rumors rampant that rotary development has been killed. The only thing Mazda's really doing right currently is their SUV line-up and the 2. Mazda could use a lot of help right now, because as it stand they've been left behind.


Moe, you're right on track. Mazda's styling direction is horrible and I do believe this isn't helping sales. When a current gen. Mazda 3/6 is next to a last gen. Mazda 3/6, I can't help but notice how much better looking the last gen's are compared to the current ones. The new styling is horrible.

Another thing killing them is their lack of MS products. Where is the MS Mx-5, MS6, MS3 Sedan.... They haven't done anything worth while and are aiming their site for Toyota. thumbs_down.gif Producing bland, lifeless, cars with some edgy (horrible) styling doesn't get you anywhere.

Thank God the Rx-8 is dead... see ya.

I do like the current Mx-5 (prefer the pre-facelift version) so I can't criticize it that much.
OHirtenfelder
QUOTE
Responding to your rant, some cars are actually rather horrendous in 'vert form compared to their coupe or sedan version. Unfortunately for your rant, you picked one of the few cars that is perfect in either coupe or 'vert form, and that is the 911. If you had said say a Camaro or MB the difference is quite apparant and at the cost of having a soft top you get a flappy and soft ride. That trade off isn't worth it for me.


This is exactly what I'm saying though. The difference really isn't that big. Of course there are certain cars that are really terrible as convertibles, but for the most part, the average joe would not be able to tell the 'dynamic difference' between the two. I'm not talking Chrysler Sebrings and PT Cruisers here. I'm talking about performance models e.g. M3, RS4, F430, etc. These manufacturers put so much time and money into designing these cars, that they work just fine for a 'normal' person.

People generally just tend to jump on that 'I hate 'verts' bandwagon, because that's what they 'should' do. Most people that slate convertibles (the ones of a high calibre,e.g. above listed cars) havent even driven them. They just hate convertibles because they arent 'pure' or some dumb shit.
shandyman5
QUOTE(OHirtenfelder @ Sep 7 2011, 10:39 AM) *
This is exactly what I'm saying though. The difference really isn't that big. Of course there are certain cars that are really terrible as convertibles, but for the most part, the average joe would not be able to tell the 'dynamic difference' between the two. I'm not talking Chrysler Sebrings and PT Cruisers here. I'm talking about performance models e.g. M3, RS4, F430, etc. These manufacturers put so much time and money into designing these cars, that they work just fine for a 'normal' person.

People generally just tend to jump on that 'I hate 'verts' bandwagon, because that's what they 'should' do. Most people that slate convertibles (the ones of a high calibre,e.g. above listed cars) havent even driven them. They just hate convertibles because they arent 'pure' or some dumb shit.


Your very right in the sense that the M3, F430, etc. are just as good as a convertible as they are a coupe. Those cars are unique, but as you said your not talking about "normal convertibles" so that does make your point a little more focused and not so generic. While I have driven numerous convertibles, and do find th eones you stated above to be damn good in either coupe or 'vert form like you said there are some out there that are atrocious. Also, for what it is worth, I prefer coupes for no other reason than that I like the looks better.... Few have much to do about the driving for me more of it is the styling.
Anks
This is cool car. It's red color giving extensive hot look to it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.