The Ferrari Daytona SP3 Is a $2.5 Million Dream Supercar 

Exactly my thoughts

What is the purpose of removing them?

@@stevenwilliams1805 they’re not removable. The covers slide up when the headlights come on. Kind of a modern and aerodynamic reinterpretation of pop up headlights.

I was right about to comment that, crazy that he forgot to mention the headlight covers

To anyone who hasn't seen it, you can see the difference when the car is off vs at 22:50 when the small cover is retracted

It certainly is drop-dead gorgeous, but --- as with other genuine supercars --- it serves as just another reminder of why it is actually _much_ harder to design a good modern market-competitive family car than it is to design supercars. How's that? Such family cars, being mass-produced and in a very competitive market, must be designed to specific price-points and _yet_ deliver everything that consumers (by and large) fully expect, e.g., good interior volume; convenient storage space; good mileage; latest safety and entertainment features; reasonably good handling; reliability; and visual appeal. In comparison, supercar designers are effectively given free rein to design their "dream" cars and pretty much regardless of any price-point that would limit the realization of their collective imaginations or staunch the use of expensive specialized high-end tech _or_ the makers' need to present a necessarily _exclusive_ product desirable enough for the Driver (no one else... just the Driver) to spend millions on. The result? Here's an example: The difficulty of even _entering_ the SP3; want to own a car with an out-of-this-world exterior? Then basic entrance (and forget about being able to easily exit in a bad enough crash) must fall by the wayside. (In more than one way, you pay for the look of the car.) Is it possible to design a supercar that also happens to do everything that a supercar does? Yes! But I doubt it would look anything like a "supercar". The closest thing to a supercar (performance) and yet being _amenable_ to introduction of the conveniences and expectations of a "typical" family car would be the Group B rally cars of the 1980s; boxy, much more utilitarian than sexy in appearance, but incredibly sturdy and fast, fast, fast.

nigah what is that nazi ass pfp?

the car looks like it was designed by an amateur. looks very unrefined, very unlike Ferrari.

@@jamesgarner2103 agreed

​@@hlcepedaProducing cars at scale is definitely way way harder than building supercars

Yes !! This !!

Totally agree!!

Some back road in Pennsylvania I doubt a tripod is getting stolen quickly but in Cali that shit would be gone faster than this cars 0-60

The dash and touch screens on the wheel look like a pain.

Agreed

Where? I didn't see any cutout lines for the socket?

​@@readmyusernamecauseitssoreallylook at the car in the beginning and when he shows the headlights, then you'll see the "pop downs"

it's an eyelid panel that retracts on each side. Real pop up style have been banished by new safety regulations for a while now. This is about as close as you can get to one nowaday...lol..

Ya I'm kinda mad actually those are one of the best features!

that's what I also thought, because that is really unusual :)

Sorry to correct you as it first appeared on a British car in 1964 the Marcos 1800 GT made by Marcos Engineering Which was a sports car with a plywood chassis with fixed seats as part of the chassis and moveable seats and steering. It was produced until 1971.

I agree, it's my personal favorite in the modern day but the 288 GTO is still my favorite design

I don't really like the SP3, however, the 288 GTO Evoluzione is a beautiful car@@wingnutmcspazatron3957

I couldn't agree more. The entire interior of that car misses the mark for being the last NA v12.

your tactile feedback is the vroom haha

I get what you're saying, but also if a button (or lack of one) to an NA V12 beast is a buzzkill for you, I have bad news...

And to think, regular manufacturers are moving to touchscreens to reduce cost, and only TELL us it's super-advanced bling-bling technology. If the million-dollar supercars have the same touchscreen garbage as everything else, what's the excuse?

And the drives modes are a switch. Odd choice to make the engine start a capacitive button.

THAT'S the shape that instantly came to mind! I was trying to think why the side profile looked so familiar, and that was it.

So cyberpunk!

I think everyone is getting that vibe only because of the back end, which is my least favorite part lol. Still think it's a great looking car.

The rear end was probably influenced by 250 P5 Pininfarina. Very distinct, but a bit of an acquired taste. :)

Another superb rif off car from the ultimate rip off merchants lol

Kinda agreed about the gauges vs screens thing. Even in the case of the economical, city cars etc I too think that the screens are overdone, yet poorly utilized. AR glasses/visors will eventually step in to fix it all of course (the jet pilot-esque approach), but until then it'll remain lame I guess.

Agreed -- I have to wonder how long those screens and touchy-parts will last. In 50 years will this car be completely unusable because those bits have all failed and cannot be replaced at any price? Heck -- will they even last 10 years?! You see these cars that *should* be classics in 20, 30, 40, 50 years, yet you wonder if these modern parts will hold up over time like the mechanical parts did from the '60s, '70s, '80s, etc.

Is Doug saying Supercar when he means Hypercar?

A factor that often gets ignored is that touch controls are less safe on the road. With a regular old school tactile button I can operate most things in a vehicle I am familiar with just by feel, without even looking. I can find the relevant control in the crowd and never take my eyes off the road. With touch screen controls you don't have that. You must look at the touch sensitive surface to make sure you're hitting the right spot, you can't keep your fingertips on the surface in advance if you know you're not gonna need to press your control until a few seconds later, and if you're hovering in front of the screen without looking then you're likely to drift off the particular control you need. So you absolutely MUST take your eyes off the road whenever you need to do pretty much anything at all. That's a horrible trade-off just for a "fancy futuristic feel" and a few pennies saved in manufacture (touch panels are cheaper than buttons and switches when all's factored in, and maintenance on a touch panel is as simple as just swapping the whole unit out).

@@PikkaBird I agree. I can't wait until the AR-assisted infotainment systems become a thing for the cars too so the in-vehicle controls have no other excuses left but to be made as *tactile buttons, switches & dials* only (and in small, concise numbers per focus area).

I was so confused when he said 2.2 million is supercar money territory lol

He’s very loose on terms, I hate when he calls a liftback design (Audi S7) a “hatchback”

A hypercar needs to do at least 250mph in my book

It makes me wonder what he would call cars like the F8 Tributo? Sports cars? If so, that seems like a bit of an undersell for a $400k car

@@claimtofailso the holy trinity are super cars to you?

Looks like a hotwheel

I gotta disagree with you, it looks like some random video game developer looked at a laferrari, then the car from cyberpunk and crammed them together

I'm not crazy about it, but I do love the retro-futurism trend. The Hyundai N-Vision 74 is the best looking example right now imo

i like it but i want to rip them wing mirrors off and put some Pagani Huayra mirrors on.

@@2m7b5 i agree. its really nice and prob breathtaking irl, but if it would be more boxy id dig it. anyways thats just my opinion m an

I think the rear would look cooler if they kept the strakes to a single panel instead of moving onto the side too

Idk about the back end still looks a bit weird with stacked line also front end looks like ant head imo. Still a very good looking car

@@mahmudfadhiil1135I think it’ll grow on a lot of people like the F50. It’s a beautiful car to me, it just feels a tiny bit over styled but I think that’s only because I’m struggling to concisely analyse all the angles and body panels because it’s such an insane design. After a couple more years I’m sure it’ll look slightly less alien!

​@@mahmudfadhiil1135imagine if Ferrari Daytona SP3 and Testarossa go head to head.

​@@ballsdeep6912DAYTONA SP3 reportedly gonna have $1M price tag.

came here to the comments to make sure I didnt just miss it in the video. The quirk master missed this cars biggest quirk!

Kind of reminds me of a HotWheels

Making the front end/headlights look sleepy and sexy is a different take than the common aggressive snarl of most manufactures these days.

It looks bonkers

Sorry, I totally disagree. I think this car is a hideous, over-designed mess. Like what a talented child would design. Not my cup of tea at all!

@@malcolmjcullen some finally has some common sense

The hourglass shape and bubble cockpit look incredible - the rear end made of 90% vent, not so much

Same

​@@ale_s45While this Ferrari Datona SP3 isn't by all means a mass-proficed sipercar I still think this is a dandy of a sipercar.

same

@@carxdesigns8563 You know You did it when you're driving a rare car.

why do all the comments sound the same on every video?

The rear is not inspired by the testarossa. That’s why.

​@@santiagobronchalestaboada3279it is 95% testarosa from the back

No one asked.

​@@StoneTheCr0wno one needs to ask. That's why it's called the comments section

@@StoneTheCr0w This is the internet. Not a classroom.

@@AP-op4rc Didn't ask.

@@StoneTheCr0w I’m devastated.

Ferrari SP3 Daytona reportedly has 750bhp.

@@purwantiallan5089 that's what u got for a 2,2million dollars? Crazy.

Considering Doug's unusual height, that wouldn't be ideal.

@@user-qz8cz9lu2n Most hypercars and supercars are pretty much straight up scams built for dumb rich people that are not well-versed in car culture and automotive. In fact, most rich people toys are scams. This planet has a big problem with a lack of price gouging and regulation, along with not taxing billionaires. This world is sick.

@@user-qz8cz9lu2n I mean, look at it man.. What else out there comes close? It aint just about power.

I didn't expect you to comment here Mr. Lee! You've an immaculate taste for cars! KDWYD

Honestly thought this was Mr. Lee's car!

Red, yellow, or blue?

I too raised an eyebrow at that. I mean, it's the Doug score so who am I to comment but he did mention the design wasn't universally loved. I would think it'd drop a point for Styling. 🤷‍♀

The design is not quite refined IMO

He's too busy now I guess...

@@peterd8107 Agreed! Especially mirrors...

all theese supercars are made for midgets😢

I saw three of them in person, trust me when It was launched and saw It on Instagram I liked It but yeah It didn't attract me much, but when I've seen It in person (One Red, one light Blue and One green) I fell in love with It.

@@midway3998 how the hell did you manage to see 3 in person? Where do you live bro? Lucky you

This is the ugliest Ferrari ever created.

was going to say his enthusiasm and excitement was over the top and isnt watchable. To FAKE.

@@PNWHerb Agreed. For Europeans (yeah come here Americans 😅) this is unbearable, it’s almost RU-vid for kids haha

Yes, it's a mash-up of 330 P4 and 250 P5 Berlinetta Speciale inspiration.

You can add that info and we all read here, no need for disappointment

Same idk how people see this as an ugly design

The 1967 330 P4 truly is right up at the top of the list.

I noticed that too - a rather odd juxtaposition of an astronomically expensive item in what appears to be a not so great part of town.

You don't know California

I’d be worried you’d get carjacked 😮

💯💯

He didn't mention the 9600rpm redline too! When this car debuted it was the most powerful and highest revving N/A V12 in existence!

He does that on purpose so ignorant people like you would comment about it. More comments = better for Doug. Are you new to this channel or completely new to the concept of making money on youtube?

His reaction to the location of the engine's inlets (on top surface of thick doors and far forward of the engine) also indicates a miss by Doug: That exact same configuration was used on Ferrari's 1971-73 312PB. Its doors also flipped forward, revealing the air tunnels that were integral with the doors. I'm surprised he missed (or doesn't know) that bit of very relevant history.

Agree. Amazing work too.

I'll bet it has 'Zipponi S.p.A.' on the bottom. 😅

The SUV has a V12 and so will the 812 replacement

To each his/her own. I find the car ugly.

@@jefft1161 same. It's hideous.

Ehh, I think the McLaren's look better.

@@jefft1161 its super cool but its kinda ugly

You know, the front is nice. But the rear of the car, just absolute train wreck of a design. Hideous.

It’s definitely one of the most beautiful cars ever built. I wouldn’t say it’s the most beautiful but it’s definitely one of them! Absolutely breathtaking

Reading the comments i feel like i am in an episode of the twilight zone. This car is the ugliest ferrari has ever made. Its a warthog on wheels a frankensteinian amalgamation of cool concepts that might work on their own but when you try to force it into a single object you get this thing..

The Ferrari Daytona SP3 for me accelerated even faster than Nimrod C2/P2 LeMans Race Car.

i'd take the laferrari over the sp3, any second of the year tho (not a reply)

Who cares about buying or owning it. If you can drive it once via a rich friend or some type of business that all you need. You would just be wasting money by simply owning that car

💯💯

Not really true. The 80's F1 cars were more powerful. The 1986 Ferrari F1 car made 850 HP in race trim, and about 1250 HP in qualifying trim. The more you know...

Check out the p80/c, a new (somewhat conceptual) one-off ferrari racecar that their entire new line is based off of, including the SP3. It got a lot of praise at FOS and ferrari day. Pretty sure that's the reason for the redesign for all the new ferraris.

This car is more Ford than Ferrari.

@@citoante hardly anything in common with a Ford, and OTOH it draws from historic design details even though it’s not a pinin farina design. Anyone familiar with Ferrari’s design history will never mistake this car for a Ford.

@@timomomomo969 either way, its ugly. You might be technically right, but does that excuse this car? From which ever side you look at it there is something irritating on it. You know how movies are bad lately- this car is like a these new bad movies. Shit scripts, shit effects, shit actors. Yet they cost 300 millions to make. This car is a sort of parody of a Ferrari.

💯💯