Ferrari is working with Bosch to develop direct injection for the 2009 F430. Bosch is the supplier for Audi’s direct injection parts, the system Ferrari is benchmarking.
Reduced CO2 emissions and increased performance are the goals for this new injection technology and it’s unlikely anyone will complain about either result. The first application of the system will be on the 2009 F430’s 4.3-liter V8. The engine block is unchanged, but everything bolted to the block, including cylinder heads, manifolds, and the fuel rail, will be completely different.
(Click through to learn more about Ferrari’s direct injection plans.)
+ Autocar: Ferrari special: new engine revelation
Roberto Fedeli, Ferrari GT Technical Director, told Autocar that this system will be as vital to new models as the switch from carburetors to fuel injection was, “It will be like the steps throughout our history. Electronic injectors replaced carburetors and this will replace what we’ve had.”
Direct injection increases power about 10 percent and reduces emissions by about 40 percent. This will help Ferrari get closer to the European Union’s goal of 130 grams per kilometer by 2012. Don’t be mistaken, Ferrari isn’t promising to meet that fleet average, but it could drop from today’s 400 grams per kilometer to a more reasonable 250 grams per kilometer through technological improvements.
Sweet!!! The Solstice GXP/Sky Redline also use the Bosch DI. There’s another benefit to DI and that’s vastly improved gas mileage. I get 28 mpg on my mostly freeway commute (some stop and go) and I’m not driving like a grandma either. On longer freeway runs I get 30 mpg easily (at 80-85 mph).
Yeah… This is fantastic! Excellent news.
Swell. But if I could afford a Ferrari, the last thing I’d be concerned about is its gas mileage and how much smog I’m creating on those few summer days it gets driven or raced.
If I could afford a Ferrari, the last thing I might be concerned with in California might be gas mileage, but I would definately be concerned about smog. If it doesn’t pass smog, it can’t be licensed for the street. Of course if I could afford a Ferrari, I could also afford a trailer and tow vehicle; but using a Ferrari for the track only would seem a waste of good winding roads!
If you could afford a Ferrari, you could afford to have a third party install proper smog equipment.
In practice, so few Ferraris actually see the track anyway that emissions compliance *is* probably crucial to most owners, but I doubt seriously that Ferrari would ever produce a car that can’t be legally sold and operated in the state of California. I suspect it’s one of their largest markets, in the same way that (I believe) more Boxsters are sold in the LA-basin, to include Orange County, than are sold in Germany.
I think you are right Christopher. I know that I regularly see Ferraris on the freeways around here, and late model Porsches of any type are common place.
Smog equipment is engineered into all new cars not just devices that are added on. The requirements are so stiff now that a car that is not engineered for emissions requirements probably cannot be certified with any sort of aftermarket modification. In addition any aftermarket smog equipment would have to get a C.A.R.B.E.O. # which would probably nearly double the price of a Ferrari.
There is already six-month waiting list and $50,000 premium on the damn things, anyway.
Ferrari doesn’t give a damn about decreasing the emission of its car. they only want to get more hp’s from that engine.
They do care about decreasing emissions as Euro regs are calling for a drastic decrease, as the article mentions. As the world gradually starts appreciating green alternatives, it also looks good to changing perceptions and makes them look good. Sure dinosaurs don’t care, but there are some people that do, even some that would like to be able to justify that Ferrari purchase to their conscience or wife.
I’m surprised some Luddite isn’t decrying this and calling for a return to carbs and twin distributors and the ’simple’ wonders of frequently tuning them.
No Luddites here. 
And I agree with your reasoning, Dante. The fact is that Ferrari doesn’t *have* to care about environmental issues. But they do have to *comply* with the Euro regulations, and if they can score PR points for it, who cares what the engineers and marketers or anyone else actually thinks about those requirements?
My complaint about Ferrari is that (IMO, and I admit that I’ve got a different take on these things) the best _drivers_ Ferrari was the old Dino, and since then, the company has produced sexy GT cars in supercar clothing. Every Ferrari I’ve driven (which is most of the modern ones, save the Enzo), including the Challenge Stradale versions of the 360 have had great engines but haven’t been all that much fun on the track.
Great motors, but the balance is way too biased toward preventing the rear end from losing grip, the tires they come with can’t take the heat, the stock brakes overheat too easily, and the cars weigh too much. They’re beautiful, sure, but they aren’t nearly as much fun as cars costing half (even a third) as much when driven hard.
I’m not knocking the company — Ferrari knows its market better than anyone — but rather suggesting that the cars are being built for the purpose (hard driving) for which they are ostensibly being built.
Sorry, that last paragraph doesn’t make sense. What I’d meant to say was:
The cars are NOT being built for the purpose (hard driving) for which they were ostensibly designed.
Christopher:
I disagree about the Dino. The 246 GT was more about good layout (engine placement) and looks than anything else. I find the car to be fickle and underpowered. It is, without a doubt, beautiful. Seeing as it wrapped up in 1974, I would consider it the last of the classic Ferraris. But I must say that is doesn’t drive as well as its looks would make you believe.
I disagree about weight. The F430 doesn’t have a mid-mounted 6 cyl. engine, nor does it have the liberty of operating without computers and safety equipment. The F430 is far more powerful, yet weighs less than a Carrera. The F40 was a computer-free supercar, and one held high above the F50 and Enzo in driving pleasure. The Lancia Stratos used the Dino six, and did what the Baby Ferrari didn’t: achieve world-class victories and build a name completely on rep over marque.
I must confess, however, after reading a letter in Sports Car International, I have questions about weight. A reader corrected the SCI staff on its listing of the Gallardo Superleggera’s weight. He revealed Lamborghini had distorted the weight listing, and the staff backed him up. (It was over “dry weight.”)
I’ll back off on my claim about the Dino — in truth, I’ve never driven one on the track, and that, for me, is the only place I’ll drive a car hard. So, I can’t claim to know the car — and, from the sound of it, you know the entire series better than I do, Ducati Minor. But I can tell you that I’ve yet to drive a Ferrari on the track that I loved enough to conclude, “THIS, is it.” And that does include the Challenge versions of the F360.
While it’s true that the F430 weighs less than a Carerra, I’d also argue that all of the modern Porsches are over-weight. Once you’ve spent time behind the wheel of a car weighing 2500lbs. — better yet, 1950lbs (my Lotus) or, even better yet, an open-wheeled racecar weighing 1300lbs. wet — they ALL feel fat.
And therein lies the problem: few manufacturers find it profitable to make a purpose-built car, so they try (in their own ways) to build cars with a reasonably broad appeal. That makes economic sense, but it does mean that even companies like Ferrari make compromises that don’t appeal to me. And, again, I have to admit, I’m NOT their target market.
But my bigger point was really to turn this into a debate about the merits of Ferraris — frankly, Ferrari makes the right car for its market (else, the cars wouldn’t sell at such lofty prices) — as much as to argue that to honestly evaluate what Ferrari does (or doesn’t do) as a company has to be done in the context of who those buyers are. And I will stand behind the argument that, with a few exceptions, Ferrari owners aren’t guys who drive their cars very hard. They may, however, care a bit about the “optics” of emissions. On that point, I really don’t know.
In any event, I’ve appreciated the quality of discussion on this board — and have several times noted with appreciation your comments, DM.
I agree 100% about weight - cars today are too fat. I’ve driven powerful modern cars that bore me, while I’ve really enjoyed driving weak older economy cars weighing little over 2000 lbs. There’s a driving purity that comes with a lack of weight that can’t be compensated for by overengineering. Ferrari’s less guilty than most of the creeping weight and I like the direction they’re pointing to with the Mille Chili concept. Personally, I feel the company is in serious danger of overexposing themselves with their non-automotive branding, but that has nothing to do with this article.
I came off the wrong way about the car. I find the Dino to be the most romantic of all Ferraris. But I am a realist, and will always acknowledge the faults on something I like. The Dino is a terribly misunderstood car. I blame that on the breed of collectors who desire name over substance. (I read in Hemmings of the sale of a GTS for almost $200K and it made my blood boil.) The Dino is a special car that belongs in a very small niche. It isn’t terribly fast or very graceful to drive at speed. It is, however, the only vintage Ferrari I am actually familiar with in some way, so I can’t compare it to Ferrari’s V-12 GTs. I’d have a hard time comparing it to a 911S–a car I have a lot of trouble handling.
I remember chuckling at an article (not long ago) in the pages of Forza. A couple who owned an F355 and (I think) a Testarossa spoke about their Dino 246 GT. They were proud of it, but admitted they didn’t drive it much because it was “difficult.” The Dino is a true enthusiast’s car; it saddens that so many of these gems are in the hands of people who don’t understand it.
I appreciate the good words, Christopher–but my assessment on the F40 and the Ferrari supercars is based on reader info and personal talk than from personal experience. I have only seen the supercars–never been inside one. But auto aficionados have held such reverence for the F40. I would not rank it in my top ten wish list, but I could never deny its place in the pantheon of great automobiles.
It’s funny you mentioned a Lotus–I would love to get inside one. I lived near Lotus of America’s small HQ in Northeast Georgia. I don’t know the corporate affiliation or current status (this was before the Lotus sales boom), and was eager for the Elise to come Stateside. There was actually a time when I considered buying a used 1970s Europa, but accepted that it was out of my ability. I have been noticing a magenta Exige on the I-5 south here in Southern Orange County. Whoever is the driver, he’s having a ton of fun.
[…] We already told you about Ferrari’s plans to use direct injection, but we didn’t realize the first application would be appearing at the 2008 North American International Auto Show. […]
[…] The idea of a “green” supercar may sound absurd, but even Ferrari’s concerned about reducing emissions these days. Monaco’s annual celebration of supercars is highlighting exotics that offer some kind of alternative fuel, but they aren’t turning away any V-12 gas guzzlers either. […]
Diesel with Attitude: The Audi A3 TDI Clubsport Quattro
Report: Volkswagen Working on Driverless Self-Parking System for Production
More Spied Images of New Camaro Interior
Early Scoop on Volkswagen Tiguan's U.S. Launch, Diesel Delayed? Not Coming? 
Report: Mercedes-Benz to Leverage Aluminum for Next E-class
Send to a friend
HTML Formatting Tips
- To make something bold: <strong>Text to bold</strong>
- To make something italic: <em>Text to italicize</em>
- To make a hyperlink: <a href="URL">Text to link</a>
- To quote something previously said, you can use <blockquote>text</blockquote>
Markdown Formatting Tips (advanced)This site also allows use of Markdown formatting in the comment section. This accomplishes the same formatting as HTML but is typically easy to use.
my code* Second item
• Second item
1. Second item
2. Second item
<email@add.com>