www.tweaktown.com
Back in my Ferrari days (in the 80's-90's) I noticed the same thing on pretty much all of their models back then. My best friend had a Testarossa and even it was the same, with a HUGE engine. And the frames looked like a high school shop project gone wrong. Extremely crude design with sloppy welds and crappy fittings. It was very disappointing to see that after spending so much for the cars. They didn't go to a modern unibody design until much later on (the 360 I believe?).
The legend is that the Ferrari road cars existed to fund the race cars. Assuming that was true, I could see them putting money into the stuff customers would see, touch and interact with. With much less focus on the rest of the car.
When the cars were new they did look good for the most part. Not only in terms of the general styling but also general quality...or at least as far as a passing glance would notice. However things quickly changed with use/time; the interiors were subject to falling apart, electrical issues arose, mechanical issues were common and frequent, materials and finishes overall did not wear well, etc. In other words they were expensive Fiats.
The original engine was a 3.0L V8 with 2 valves per cylinder; US versions had 202hp. The 4 valve version got 240hp; not bad for an emissions legal car in the early 1980s. That was good for a 6.1 second 0-60 time; today a Chevy Bolt does it in 6.5 seconds on low rolling resistance tires.Aesthetically, the original Ferrari motor (V6?) may have been more appealing, however I think they were very much underpowered, then there is the cost of any major overhaul - probably much higher than the K-swap for lower power gains, never mind the antiquated EMS. I'm just not a purist, so I personally could care less when it comes to drivetrain originality
