Ferrari 296 GTB (F171) - Hybrid V6

TonyJZX

(Banned)
3,945
Australia
Australia

yeah this is a thing

I think Microsoft still handle the licensing for this but Tim's money is pretty sweet.
 

TonyJZX

(Banned)
3,945
Australia
Australia
This is a thing I never thought would happen, and yet here we are :odd: What the hell?
To be fair to them, Mercedes did this ages ago:


Not sure what the venn diagram of Nintendo and Mercedes mini suv owners is.

I can fully understand say Toyota releasing new models in GT Sport but Gran Turismo may not have the mass appeal of FOrtnite and Mario Kart.
 
306
United Kingdom
Coventry, UK
Justuxable
Justuxable
To be fair to them, Mercedes did this ages ago:


Not sure what the venn diagram of Nintendo and Mercedes mini suv owners is.

I can fully understand say Toyota releasing new models in GT Sport but Gran Turismo may not have the mass appeal of FOrtnite and Mario Kart.
It’s just weird cause Ferrari has always been so strict with their license and how their cars appear in games, so to see them in fortnite is a very weird, but a sort of welcoming thing.

Maybe they’re getting more lenient and relaxed with their licensing, which would be a nice change and might allow more customisation on their cars in NFS and Forza and such.
 

McLaren

Premium
41,789
United States
Texas
Could be a long-term result of Ferrari going public back in 2015. I read over the last few years from many in that community, that much of Ferrari's decision making has changed due so, and we're seeing the company make moves the old-timers don't think "fit" Ferrari.
 
Last edited:

Keef

Premium
22,610
United States
Dayton, OH
GTP_KeefRacer
GTP Keef
Could be a long-term result of Ferrari going public back in 2015. I read over the last few years from many in that community, that much of Ferrari's decision making has changed due so, and we're seeing the company make moves the old-timers don't think "fit" Ferrari.
They have to make money somehow. Let's face it, Ferraris of yore were exclusive but not particularly good lol. And their obsession with racing is not cheap.
 
Last edited:
8,942
United States
Marin County
They have to make money somehow. Let's face it, Ferraris of yore were exclusive but not particularly good lol. And their obsession with racing is not cheap.

Ferrari made plenty of good cars prior to 2015, and I'm pretty sure they were making decent money too. What's changed post-IPO is the need for them to demonstrate growth. It's not enough to make money for themselves, now they have to make money for all their shareholders. The Ferrari SUV was a predictable result of this, but I think we're just getting started. There's probably going to be huge merch pushes (which this seems to be), more models in more segments at lower and lower price points, further homogeneity and platform sharing, and of course more spec-sheet moreness. The problem with basing your business model on growth is that you never reach the end, and the methods needed to maintain continued growth gut the soul of the company further and further.

If I were to guess, I don't think many enthusiasts will like where Ferrari ends up in 15-20 years. I think a good foil for Ferrari is Pagani. Pagani seems to be a perfectly viable, sustainable company. They are never going to generate enormous revenue...but who says they need to? They have 55 employees to keep on the books and overhead. Without shareholders demanding increased annual deliveries, Pagani can exist on it's own terms. Horacio seems totally satisfied with 1 model per decade, and Pagani has become the most exclusive name in town.

Enzo in his prime would have never gone for an IPO, I'd bet. For me, personally, the prancing horse isn't nearly as evocative as it used to be and I subconsciously (like Lamborghini) sort their cars into the hierarchy of "cool" and "post-cool".
 
Last edited:

Keef

Premium
22,610
United States
Dayton, OH
GTP_KeefRacer
GTP Keef
prior to 2015
I was referring to time periods relevant to the "old timers" that Mclaren was referring to. I don't think Ferrari was all that financially stable until the mid-2000s after the 360 basically saved the company and that time period is definitely after anything that "old timers" reminisce over. Before the 360 era, Ferrari did what Ferrari wanted and besides F1 it wasn't particularly good at any of it. Ferrari sold cars on "passion" back then and passion is not very reliable. The cost of Ferrari profitability since the 2000s is that the cars are actually good but the passion if virtually gone. I think the 360 era was definitely the transition from "older timer" Ferrari to actually good/reliable/financially stable Ferrari. Oddly enough the 360 is probably genuinely the best car Ferrari has ever produced.
 
Last edited:
8,942
United States
Marin County
I was referring to time periods relevant to the "old timers" that Mclaren was referring to. I don't think Ferrari was all that financially stable until the mid-2000s after the 360 basically saved the company and that time period is definitely after anything that "old timers" reminisce over. Before the 360 era, Ferrari did what Ferrari wanted and besides F1 it wasn't particularly good at any of it. Ferrari sold cars on "passion" back then and passion is not very reliable. The cost of Ferrari profitability since the 2000s is that the cars are actually good but the passion if virtually gone. I think the 360 era was definitely the transition from "older timer" Ferrari to actually good/reliable/financially stable Ferrari. Oddly enough the 360 is probably genuinely the best car Ferrari has ever produced.
I don't disagree with what you are saying here really. I was responding to your original post where you implied that Ferrari IPO'd to effectively stay in business - I don't think that's true at all. I think they were easily capable of "making money" without going public. Ferrari has the most valuable brand name in the business...as long as people have money (and want to show it) their company is viable. In my opinion, they IPO'd to make Piero Ferrari a billionaire, plain in simple. It's a cash out that will make a few people ludicrously wealthy by diluting the brand. It's the kind of thing I would typically expect you to rage against. :lol:

So now Piero can do the whole paper billionaire thing - you know, borrow money against his paper wealth to buy whatever he wants, and report no actual income - no income tax. Then just borrow more to service the debt! If you're a billionaire, they'll let you do it. But hey, that Ferrari SUV...is a thing.
 
Last edited:

Keef

Premium
22,610
United States
Dayton, OH
GTP_KeefRacer
GTP Keef
It's a cash out that will make a few people ludicrously wealthy by diluting the brand. It's the kind of thing I would typically expect you to rage against. :lol:
I mean, it makes Ferrari's management look bad for selling out and it also makes Ferrari's customers look bad for buying expensive Camrys. This satisfies me greatly. Nothing grabs my attention less than a red rocket sitting in traffic with the top down on a humid summer day.
 

TonyJZX

(Banned)
3,945
Australia
Australia
Let's not kid ourselves. They are trying and succeeding in embedding themselves in the next gen.

I used to work in schools and kids have heard of Ferrari and they look at them as the ultimate. So implanting into Fortnite is a good move probably on the decision of Microsoft on behalf of Ferrari.

These are $300,000 in the US? People who can afford them dont care what the peasants think. They made it. Whatever "IT" is.

This car? Again I'm not a super huge fan of even twin turbo 4.0 v8s like everyone is doing, muchless so of turbo V6s.

I'm not super taken up by the looks. Both this and the McLaren looks like GTA 5 cars.

Its a last hurrah until 2030 when things come to a crashing halt.