Ferrari 458 Italia 2009-2015

[Ferrer]

I don't think beauty standards have changed over the years, or at least they haven't changed to a very big extend. If they had we wouldn't find old good looking, and we still do. The two big differences these days is that efficiency and safety concerns have been introduced, and those are what have dictated the change of shape in cars. You've got to compy with safety regulations and can't get around them if you want to sell cars and aerodynamics help with performance and fuel consumption, the latter being very relevant nowadays.

However this doesn't meant the era of good looking cars has irremediably come to end. As we've already mentioned there are examples of very good looking contemporary cars, which while might not be as efficient and performing as their computer-desgined counterparts the still copmply with all the regulations in place today. There's the aforementioned 8C, but also cars like the Mercedes-Benz CLS, the Aston Martin DB9 or the Citroën C6 fit in this category. And if they can do it there's no possible reason why anyone else can't do it as well.

In a way I think that it's easier to accept a Japanese or German car being efficient in the first place, probably because they were always meant to be this way. The Nissan GT-R is a classic case in point, it's not particularly beautiful and everything is designed to be as performing as possible, but then again it's a computer on wheels so that's fine. Italian cars are so much different. Yes, the mechanical bits are still meant to be performing but style has always been sinonimous with Italy. An ugly Italian car is a bit like an unreliable Japanese car, it just doesn't make any sense. That's probably because Italy as a nation, and the latins in general, are a passionate country that take life to be enjoyed as much as possible and this shows in everything they do, amongst which are cars.

Is that selfish? Well I don't think so. Different types of cars have different purposes and everyone must choose his or her car according to their own needs. And if they can have a completely impractical two seater sportscar because they have no kids or can afford to have another car then so be it. Choice is always welcomed. In the same vein we could be aeguing if art is selfish since it has no purpose other than itself. So it's useless. Or is it? Because making life brighter and more interesting and being able to notice and enjoy all the different possibilities life offers is quite a use, I'd say. Without variety, art and all those things that seem a bit trivial, irrelevant and useless life would be poorer. And then, if life is poor, what's the point of life at all?

[LeonOfTheDead]

I suppose you noticed that the cars you mentioned as good looking (no doubts on that) aren't from the same category as the 458? Not saying you're comparing oranges to apples, but that in this segment, none has the same good looking style as grand tourer, for instance. I actually think the best looking cars are generally grand tourers.
So I wouldn't be so worried about the very look of this car from a general point of view.
I for one like the Dino GT4, which is generally regarded among the worst looking Ferraris ever, or even the 308s.
On the other hand, it wouldn't take much to see as their bigger sisters from the same period were always better looking.
I don't think I would pick one of the 8 cylinders cars from Maranello over their contemporary V12 sisters (since when such a scheme took place that is).

I was referring to selfish as not useful for the purpose of the car. Even if all the 8C needed to be was to be good looking, it's body isn't all that functional, and so it was even more in the past. You could have afforded to have whatever body you wanted, it was just a matter to wrap the mechanics the best looking way possible.
We both agree that now it isn't so anymore, yet I insist that it isn't beauty who changed over the years, cars did, so I can't say a 250 GT Lusso is as good looking as, don't know, even a CLS. I like them both, but they are too different to be judged the same way.
What I mean is that the idea of car itself evolved so much over the decades that really trying to compare them over too large period is pointless, especially over the aesthetic point of view.


I also fixed the poor spelling of the previous post, have a look at it.

[Ferrer]

Even comparing cars from the same segment, I'd say the Lamborghini Gallardo, for instance, has a better looking and more cohesive styling than the Ferrari. Ironically, altough not entirely unexpected since they are owned by ze germans, the Lamobrgihini looks a lot more restrained than the 458 Italia, where usually Lamborghini always was the more exhuberant manufacturer of the two, especially with the mid engined supercars and sportscars.

The Lamborghini represents the old traditional way, in which the mechanical bits and the body and interior were designed by two separed departments and by different people. As such there's a brilliant chasis and a big engine that revs to a million but the engineers stop there. In the Ferrari, on the other hand, it looks as though the engineers were in charge of the mechanicals and the styling. And then all starts to go a bit wrong, because as I said you expect a Japanese car to be technological or a German car to be effcient, but you expect an Italian car to excite your sense and awake your primitive instincts.

It's as if though, Ferrari were trying to be German and Japanese at the same time with the 458 Italia. Which is why, after all the 612 is my current favourite Ferrari. Yes it's not as efficient, or as modern, or as fast as the newer Ferraris, wheter V12 or V8, but it represents the old way. The Scaglietti has big powerful engine and well honed chasis, but the body and interior were designed rather than engineered. And while it may be worse, in my opinion that's what makes it far better than the others.

[Kitdy]

Ferrer don't be silly.

The 612 is ugly.

[Ferrer]

Ferrer don't be silly.

The 612 is ugly.

I agree. But it is the old way. Which is why I've had to have a Ferrari it's the one I'd choose.

[Kitdy]

I agree. But it is the old way. Which is why I've had to have a Ferrari it's the one I'd choose.

But you just had a discussion about why you wanted cars to be better looking!

That being said, regarding Ferrari's current crop visually... Well, I think they are all pretty poor.

Buy a Gallardo then, they are pretty as hell.

[Ferrer]

But you just had a discussion about why you wanted cars to be better looking!

That being said, regarding Ferrari's current crop visually... Well, I think they are all pretty poor.

Buy a Gallardo then, they are pretty as hell.

Yup, but I guess it was double edged sword, I want better looking and less computers. And I guess that in Ferrari's line up the one that gets closer to that is the 612 Scaglietti.

But in fact, I wouldn't have a 612 at all.

[Kitdy]

Yup, but I guess it was double edged sword, I want better looking and less computers. And I guess that in Ferrari's line up the one that gets closer to that is the 612 Scaglietti.

But in fact, I wouldn't have a 612 at all.

GranTurismo?

DB9?

[Ferrer]

GranTurismo?

DB9?

The one that can have three pedals.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I think the 612 is good looking, albeit aging quickly.
I also think the Gallardo has the style of a paper sheet, and the LP is just a bit more aggressive, but till pretty blank.

Not saying the 458 is awesome, even if it's growing on me and even if this is something pretty obvious with this sort of cars.

[cmcpokey]

lamborghini is a one trick pony. they have the styling evolution of the 911. the gallardo and murcie are just smoothed out coutaches. and the 8C is just a TZ2. so they are more anachronisms than paramounts of design. ferrari, in every evolution of the dino aims to move the game along. they keep some traits of the line (round tail lights, high up side vents) but seeks to progress the design language for the times. the 308 loks very 80s, the 355 looks very 90s. the 458 looks very modern today, but in 10 years will look possibly common place. whereas the other mentioned italian marques have chosen to design themselves into a hole, ferrari has tried to keep itself relevant in modern design.

[NSXType-R]

lamborghini is a one trick pony. they have the styling evolution of the 911. the gallardo and murcie are just smoothed out coutaches. and the 8C is just a TZ2. so they are more anachronisms than paramounts of design. ferrari, in every evolution of the dino aims to move the game along. they keep some traits of the line (round tail lights, high up side vents) but seeks to progress the design language for the times. the 308 loks very 80s, the 355 looks very 90s. the 458 looks very modern today, but in 10 years will look possibly common place. whereas the other mentioned italian marques have chosen to design themselves into a hole, ferrari has tried to keep itself relevant in modern design.

Sorta jumping in here without reading the thread, but I'd rather have a car that's pleasant to look at for a long time than have a car look dated within 4-7 years. The 458 to me doesn't look all that great and it'll look old to me. But the 911 and the Lamborghinis will look good to me for a long time from now.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I don't live in the past, or maybe yes, but what I definitely live in is an Alfa Romeo 8C. If that thing of beauty can exist there's no excuse for ugly Ferraris, because of the regulations or safety requirements or anything really.

The problem with this car is that it was designed by a computer. And computers shouldn't be designing italian cars, because they simply can't understand them. An italian car should be designed by people, because only people can understand what makes an italian car special.

In a way though, this is pure modern Ferrari. It puts performance above everything else. All the details cars are designed, or rather dare I say engineered to be efficient in their purpose, being reducing drag, creating donwforce or both or whatever they are meant to do.

I personally prefer the olden days, or a Maserati. In those what you do is have all the right ingredients. You had a capable chasis and massively powerful engine. And those where in charge of propelling a beautiful body crafted at the various Carrozzerias to insane speeds. Now it's almost as if it's the other way roung.

So yes the present is more efficient and better, but the past was definitely more beautiful.

The car you put up against the Modern Ferrari is something that was conciously designed as a retro showpiece....

I'm sorry, I understand your point that the classical beauty traits haven't changed that much over the years, and indeed what is considered beautiful 20 years ago generally still is beautiful, but the thing about the Italians is that they should never hark back to the past because their best work is always on the zeitgeist.

Those cars you mention as beautiful back in the day were shocking pieces of modern rolling sculpture at their inception, causing consternation and general furrowed brows. With the benefit of hindsight, they're gorgeous, but more for what they represent than the actual car themselves.

The specific case against CAD (computer aided design) is that it lacks soul, lacks that human touch, Something I think this car has in spades. It's positively rippling with organic, fluid and sharp angular stylings that create a very complex shape that just works.

In my opinion design has become needlessly complicated over the last few years and with two very distinct trains of thought (uber retro or uber modern) it's plain to see that to get it right is serious business. The 458 seamlessly blends years of Ferrari innovation history with a modern outlook, and I cannot find fault with that.

Beauty is, in terms of modernity, complex.

[Revo]

The specific case against CAD (computer aided design) is that it lacks soul, lacks that human touch.

IMO this can't be a valid argument, because computers are nothing but tools. Like a wrench or hammer, they aren't useful by themselves.

Quite simply, it is not possible to computerize human imagination and creativity.

Thus, Ferrer, you should blame those useless modern designers instead of CAD.

[Ferrer]

Thus, Ferrer, you should blame those useless modern designers instead of CAD.

That's not the problem. I'd say the problem is engineers taking over designers. Efficiency over elegance.

I don't think either that anyone should stay in the past. There are contemporary cars that look modern and are beautiful. It's not like modernity and beauty are mutually exclusive. The Alfa Romeo 159 is a clear example.

The problem for me, and that has been the point I was trying to make, is that today everything has to be perfect, performing, efficient. Green concerns as well as safety regulations have taken the centrestage and seem to be here to stay. As a result every new car has to be more of everything compared to last generation. We need more performance, less emissions, less fuel consumption and nowadays everything seems to be engineered towards those goals and there seems to be no room for anything else.

For me those conditionants have gone too far in some cases. Of course, more performance with a lower fuel consumption is always welcomed, but not at the expense of enjoyment. And like performance and handling, style is also part of the enjoyment for me. This can clearly be seen comparing the Mercedes-Benz E-Class against the Mercedes-Benz CLS. The E maybe more efficient cutting through the air, but the CLS is much more elegant and beautiful. I know which one I'd have.

Of course to the general public all of this is meaningless (or maybe not since the CLS seems to sell well) as the car with the biggest numbers wins. But we are car enthusiasts. We should be the ones who are able to see past the cold numbers, which tell you almost nothing, and see cars for what they are and what they make you feel.