To Ferrari Enthusiasts

[McLaren]

The F50 is a nice car. I'm starting to like the F430 now.

Err, the Ferrari dealer isn't exactly going to say "yes, they're unreliable" is he? I don't think they are anyway.

Plus, Ferraris are great cars. One of the reasons people hate them so much is because Michael Schumacher drives them in F1. A bit of a lame reason really.

Just ignore Yoda's stupidity.

He came out, after all, and spoke the truth about having no brains.

 

[McLaren]

How's this: I paid $70,000 for my 2004 Mercedes CLK55 and recently bought a $12,000 Kleemann supercharger for it. With that $82,000 I can outrun - by no small margin - the vast majority of Ferraris, 360 included. I have a longer warranty, I get better fuel economy, I have more standard stuff (including a navigation system and a sunroof, which isn't even available on the 360) and optional stuff was cheaper. My car will depreciate less, and I have a larger dealer network which means that when stuff breaks, I can get it fixed at more places. Speaking of stuff breaking, I've owned the car for 19 months and nothing's broken yet - I've had not one unscheduled trip to a dealer. Find me a 360 owner who can say that after 30,000 miles.

I have no idea why anyone would waste their money spending more than double what I paid when you have so many good choices for less. Think about it.

The Image.

Honestly, if you pull up next to a Ferrari with your Mercedes, who do you think the people on the street will stare at? The 360 Modena.

To most of the owners, its just about the image and the "Look how much I can spend" routine.
Sadly, many Ferraris go this road and are hardly pushed.

 

[1X83Z]

Fine - I consider people who pay $80k (on TOP of $80k) for image total losers, not to mention complete idiots and, more than anything, posers. They can have fun with their prancing horse, and I'll know I got the better car.

Image. What a load of ****.

 

[CKG22]

Uh oh. Doug's a hata.
=)

 

[daggoth]

How's this: I paid $70,000 for my 2004 Mercedes CLK55 and recently bought a $12,000 Kleemann supercharger for it. With that $82,000 I can outrun - by no small margin - the vast majority of Ferraris, 360 included. I have a longer warranty, I get better fuel economy, I have more standard stuff (including a navigation system and a sunroof, which isn't even available on the 360) and optional stuff was cheaper. My car will depreciate less, and I have a larger dealer network which means that when stuff breaks, I can get it fixed at more places. Speaking of stuff breaking, I've owned the car for 19 months and nothing's broken yet - I've had not one unscheduled trip to a dealer. Find me a 360 owner who can say that after 30,000 miles.

I have no idea why anyone would waste their money spending more than double what I paid when you have so many good choices for less. Think about it.

Because cars are more than just numbers, figures, logic and praticality. It's also about passion and good vibes and on that, Ferrari is the biggest player!

By that logic no one would buy an Alfa-Romeo! They're not that performant, they breakdown constantly, way overpriced, the Diesel ones are just horrid, expensive to service too... but, they're really really good looking and fun to drive!

I'm sure that most of the Ferrari owners just pose on their cars (Once! That was how many times I've seen a Ferrari getting thrashed on the public road) and I DO think they are overpriced. But for a real petrol head, It just doesn't get any better!

Your Mercedes might be faster on a straight line, but probably slower on a track.

And my favorite Ferrari is the Testarossa

 

[den brakke]

250 GT SWB anyone?

http://www.ketchamimports.com/images/SWB_3401_InteriorFront_2.jpg

http://www.ketchamimports.com/images/SWB_3401_FrontRight_2.jpg

 

[1X83Z]

I'm sure that most of the Ferrari owners just pose on their cars (Once! That was how many times I've seen a Ferrari getting thrashed on the public road) and I DO think they are overpriced. But for a real petrol head, It just doesn't get any better!

People paying extra for a name are losers. My opinion, but I think it's a valid one. "Passion" and "image" aren't reasons to fork over $200,000 when you could do better for $80k.

Your Mercedes might be faster on a straight line, but probably slower on a track.

A 360 may be slightly faster on a track, but not $100k faster, and certainly nowhere near $100k better.

 

[E55Power]

How about this. I take our Maserati Gransport ('05) with a $2k Eurotek ECU over a 360.
It's:
Faster
Cheaper
Still Italian
Backseats
Rarer
Less Played out
Faster around a track, too.
Easier to service
Easier to maintain
All this for $109,000 VS. $159,000+ (Aaand, our GS was LOADED)

It still feels like a Ferrari though. It's quick, and nimble.

 

[Emohawk]

A 360 may be slightly faster on a track, but not $100k faster, and certainly nowhere near $100k better.

It's an exponential scale you damn dirty populist!

 

[1X83Z]

So me asking how the C-GT is $360k better would be wrong, too?

Less Played out

Are you nuts? If I see another Maserati I'm going to throw up all over myself and everyone else. Nothing is more played than the Maserati Coupe/Spyder bunch (including the Gransport, since I can barely tell the difference) except possibly the Bentley Continental GT, which is now selling at the rate of 20 million cars a second.

 

[E55Power]

Ummm... They made 166 Gransports. And about 20,000 360's.
Every rapper and his dog has a 360.
Masers are more subtle, and less in-your-face.

 

[1X83Z]

Wow - they only made a limited number of a certain trim level. It still looks exactly like the same stupid Maseratis I see every day of every week. Sorry - I totally hate them. I love seeing 360s, but when I see the Maserati, I'm reminded of how soft they are. Plus, the base ones are like $90k. Big deal.

 

[TheCracker]

People paying extra for a name are losers. My opinion, but I think it's a valid one. "Passion" and "image" aren't reasons to fork over $200,000 when you could do better for $80k.

A 360 may be slightly faster on a track, but not $100k faster, and certainly nowhere near $100k better.

People don't just buy Ferraris because of the image, i grant you a lot do, but a lot buy them for the heritage and sporting credentials. Ferrari don't design and build their cars to a budget, not to the extent that other manufacturers do. Ferraris aren't about value for money, nor are they about extensive dealer networks or an extra years warranty. They're cars bought with the heart not the head.

Ferrari makes the Enzo...

...Mercedes makes the A-class


For Ferrari fans: I was at Silverstone this weekend, Ferrari owners club had a display there. There were around 30 cars there 360's, 355's, Dinos, Testaossas, 575's etc, at the head of the display was a 430 spider, F40, F50 & Enzo - all very nice indeed. But there was one Ferrari there that was worth 2-3 times more than the rest of them put together - any guesses?

 

[GilesGuthrie]

But there was one Ferrari there that was worth 2-3 times more than the rest of them put together - any guesses?

Working under the possibly faulty assumption that you're not cheating and citing a race car... To my knowledge, the most expensive Ferrari is the 250LM.

 

[Dave A]

The 330 TRI/LM is THE most expensive Ferrari in the world I think, and didn't cheat if he meant the 330, he said Ferrari, not Ferrari road car.

 

[1X83Z]

They're cars bought with the heart not the head.

It's a stupid reason to buy a car. We've heard all of the following reasons: passion, image, heritage, sporting credentials. It's a shame: these are performance cars and yet no one has said performance. Perhaps it's because everyone realizes you can surpass Ferrari performance for a small fraction of its price.

What have we learned?

a) Ferraris are a waste of money
b) M5Power rules

 

[Dave A]

It's image mainly, you can tune a Supra to kill a 360, but at the end of the day, the guy twith the Ferrari will ALWAYS look cooler.

 

[1X83Z]

You're talking to somebody who would rather have a Volvo 850 Turbo than a second-generation MR2 Turbo.

 

[E55Power]

I totally hate them. I love seeing 360s, but when I see the Maserati, I'm reminded of how soft they are. Plus, the base ones are like $90k. Big deal.

Well, factually speaking, you must be the only person ever to have a situation like this. Factually speaking, about five times as many 360's were built as Maserati Coupes, Spyders, And Gransports combined.
ALSO - The Gransport is considered officially to be a different car than the Coupe, rather than just another trim model (The coupe's trime levels are GT, and CambioCorsa, the 6-Speed Manual, and the 6-Speed Sequential, respectively)

I don't know about everyone else, but when I see a 360, it doesn't make me look twice. They've gotten to become way too common. On my street of about 20 houses, alone, there are 3 360's. 2 Modenas, and a Spider. They get real old, real fast.
When I see a Maserati, I think of a few things, none of which being a 360-wannabe.
1) Man, I'd so much rather have that than a CL500/XKR/CLK55
2) Oh cool, A Maser
3) Nice choice, Mr. Maser, not picking such a flashy car like a Ferrari
4) Damn, that V8 sounds Great!
5) The E55 annihilates the M5 any day of the week.

Doug, if performance for price is such a big deal for you, why didn't you get a $47,100 E46 M3, instead of a $79,000 CLK55.
The M3 is:
- Half the Price
- Faster
- Better looking (IMO)
- Just as luxurious
- Probably more reliable


Also, taking a 850 Turbo over a MR2 Turbo (which, by the way, you don't need to write "second-generation", since the 2nd generation MR2 was the only one to carry a Turbo --- 1st gen used an optional supercharger, and the 3rd gen was only available with one [underpowered] normally aspirated engine) when price doesn't matter is simply moronic.
The Toyota is:
1) Better looking
2) Faster
3) More Reliable
4) More tuning potential
5) Better looking
6) Mid-engined
7) Better looking
8) Rear-Wheel Drive
9) Better looking
10) Eaiser to Service (and cheaper)

Wow, the 850 Turbo is one ugly car. The only thing it's got on the Toyota is room. Which, for alot of people, when unnecessary, is a bad thing -- Why drive a Suburban when you only need two seats?

Alot of people bought Ferraris to be different. They don't want to see seven soccor moms driving the same car as them in the school-pickup line. They don't want their car to be mistaken for the $29,000 C230 Kompresser.
Also, quite simply, Ferraris are beautiful cars when compared to a boring, dime-a-dozen benz.

Albeit, many people buy a Ferrari for it's name. But if you don't think that happens with Benz, you are Sadly mistaken. I'd go so far as to say, a higher percentage of Benz's are bought for the name than that of Ferraris. Nothing says "I've made it" like a 3-pointed start on the front of the hood.

Hell, I'm a damn good car spotter, if I may say so myself, and other than the badges (Which are only on the rear, not on the fender like the CL, S, and SL 55,600, and 65 models), and the front bumper, the $80,000 CLK55 is IDENTICAL to a $40,000 CLK320. (Hell, it doesn't even have the quod exhaust tips!)
I'm sorry, but for me, atleast, if I'm driving an $80,000 Benz, I want it to look like $80,000, not like $35,000. But hey, I'm Crazy!

 

[ExigeEvan]

Also, taking a 850 Turbo over a MR2 Turbo (which, by the way, you don't need to write "second-generation", since the 2nd generation MR2 was the only one to carry a Turbo --- 1st gen used an optional supercharger, and the 3rd gen was only available with one [underpowered] normally aspirated engine) when price doesn't matter is simply moronic.
The Toyota is:
1) Better looking
2) Faster
3) More Reliable
4) More tuning potential
5) Better looking
6) Mid-engined
7) Better looking
8) Rear-Wheel Drive
9) Better looking
10) Eaiser to Service (and cheaper)

Wow, the 850 Turbo is one ugly car. The only thing it's got on the Toyota is room. Which, for alot of people, when unnecessary, is a bad thing -- Why drive a Suburban when you only need two seats?

But the Volvo is
1) more practical
2) Safer
3) Ultimate sleeper.
4) And I think servicing is questionable. I don't think volvos are that hard or expensive to service.

 

[E55Power]

Also does anyone know how frequently a 360 and a 430 should be serviced and what are the servicing costs (I live in London). Also how reliabile are they? Any problems?

We had three '99 6-Speed F355 Berlinettas. The first one (red) we got new, it was kept for about 10,000 miles, and had very few problems, other than small things, such as the door alignment, and shifter being mis-aligned. The next one, (yellow), had zero problems for our 1,000 miles of ownership. Not one thing went wrong. The last one, (black), we kept for 24,000 miles, and ran great. It had some of the same alignment issues as the red one, wouldn't start one day (ignition problem), and backfired. All issues were out of pocket, ofcourse, the backfiring problem was the most expensive. I don't remember the exact costs, but, none were too outrageous. The car, however, was coming up on it's MAJOR service, including the belt replacement, and complete check out, when it was sold. I believe that service is in the upper four-figures.

 

[E55Power]

But the Volvo is
1) more practical
2) Safer
3) Ultimate sleeper.
4) And I think servicing is questionable. I don't think volvos are that hard or expensive to service.

More practical? In the sense that it was unreliable, yes! In the sense that it had lots of (for most people, un-needed) space, yes!
Safe? Can't argue that
Sleeper? Indeed. Especially considering an MR2 is borderline mistakeable for a Ferrari (which is a damn good thing, if you ask me)
Servicing? It is, WITHOUT QUESTION, cheaper to service any toyota than it is to service a Volvo. Also, in my town, Austin, TX, there are 5-6 Toyota dealerships withing about 50 miles. Theres one Volvo dealer. I'd say that's easier!

 

[1X83Z]

Well, factually speaking, you must be the only person ever to have a situation like this. Factually speaking, about five times as many 360's were built as Maserati Coupes, Spyders, And Gransports combined.

Prove it.

Doug, if performance for price is such a big deal for you, why didn't you get a $47,100 E46 M3, instead of a $79,000 CLK55.
The M3 is:
- Half the Price
- Faster
- Better looking (IMO)
- Just as luxurious
- Probably more reliable

We've discussed this before. I already owned an E46 M3. They're completely average and they're not luxurious at all compared to my car, plus they're nowhere near as quick (and they're not faster either - WTF? You're acting like Driftster). An M3 does 0-60 in 5.4; a CLK in 4.8. That's a huge difference - an M3 can't even outrun an STi. So why didn't I get one of those?

Also, taking a 850 Turbo over a MR2 Turbo (which, by the way, you don't need to write "second-generation", since the 2nd generation MR2 was the only one to carry a Turbo --- 1st gen used an optional supercharger, and the 3rd gen was only available with one [underpowered] normally aspirated engine)

What the hell? I'm the one who taught you the first-gen model had an optional supercharger. This is weird...

when price doesn't matter is simply moronic.
The Toyota is:
1) Better looking

Who gives a **** about looks? Seriously. I am SO ****ING TIRED of people buying cars based on looks. Jesus christ. Women.

2) Faster

Who cares about top speed? Seriously. I am SO ****ING TIRED of people even considering top speed in ANY sort of decision.

3) More Reliable

Prove it.

4) More tuning potential

Yep - and I don't tune. Hence me saying I would choose an 850.

5) Better looking
6) Mid-engined
7) Better looking
8) Rear-Wheel Drive
9) Better looking
10) Eaiser to Service (and cheaper)

Not one of these is a reason, and the last one is an outright fallacy.

Wow, the 850 Turbo is one ugly car. The only thing it's got on the Toyota is room. Which, for alot of people, when unnecessary, is a bad thing -- Why drive a Suburban when you only need two seats?

Room, acceleration, standard features, reliability, insurance rates, cost. You know - the categories that actually matter.

Alot of people bought Ferraris to be different. They don't want to see seven soccor moms driving the same car as them in the school-pickup line. They don't want their car to be mistaken for the $29,000 C230 Kompresser.
Also, quite simply, Ferraris are beautiful cars when compared to a boring, dime-a-dozen benz.

This is the kind of crap you get with Ferrari owners. I bought my car because it was a GREAT buy. Ferrari owners buy their cars so they won't fit in and so people will stare at them. It's nearly comical the reasons everyone here has given for purchasing Ferraris. Not one person has come up with a logical one, even a SEMI-LOGICAL one despite the fact that FIVE people have tried. I'm literally laughing at those of you trying to justify the idiotic purchase that is a Ferrari.

Hell, I'm a damn good car spotter, if I may say so myself, and other than the badges (Which are only on the rear, not on the fender like the CL, S, and SL 55,600, and 65 models), and the front bumper, the $80,000 CLK55 is IDENTICAL to a $40,000 CLK320. (Hell, it doesn't even have the quod exhaust tips!)
I'm sorry, but for me, atleast, if I'm driving an $80,000 Benz, I want it to look like $80,000, not like $35,000. But hey, I'm Crazy!

And that's why you're status-conscious, whereas I'd rather get the performance than show people my car is fast. I don't need a self-esteem boost everytime I look at my car - I know it's fast, and I don't care if anyone else does, since I know cars better than nearly anyone else. People who need Ferraris to show people their car is special are total assholes.

 

[Grand Prix]

Most Ferrari owners probably only buy them for the image, but I'm sure a few still buy them for their engine sound, performance, and heritage. IMO nothing is better than a V12 Ferrari. Remember folks, Enzo Ferrari didn't race to sell cars, he sold cars so he could race. Enzo Ferrari hated people who bought his cars for a status symbol instead of performance. Sadly, Enzo no longer has a direct influence on the company to reinforce this philosophy, but most of his passion is still there. Ferrari V12s still sound awesome. It will be a dark day when Enzo's successors dump the V12s in favor of cheaper engine layouts.

 

[TheCracker]

Working under the possibly faulty assumption that you're not cheating and citing a race car... To my knowledge, the most expensive Ferrari is the 250LM.

I believe they only ever made one road legal 250LM - built for the Shah of Iran - the rest were strictly race cars. The Ferrari I was refering to was a 250 GTO, built to race but all used on the road to this day. Worth upwards of £5million.

This is the kind of crap you get with Ferrari owners. I bought my car because it was a GREAT buy. Ferrari owners buy their cars so they won't fit in and so people will stare at them. It's nearly comical the reasons everyone here has given for purchasing Ferraris. Not one person has come up with a logical one, even a SEMI-LOGICAL one despite the fact that FIVE people have tried. I'm literally laughing at those of you trying to justify the idiotic purchase that is a Ferrari.

A Ferrari is never a logical purchase, there are faster, better equiped, better made, better handling, better looking, more exclusive, more practical & less expensive cars around. But still Ferrari sell more and more cars every year. Why? - because people dream of owning them, they are an aspirational buy, people want a bit of that Maranello magic. Like i stated before, many people buy them for the wrong reason, as status symbols or **** extensions. But for every one person who buys them for this reason there are two, me included, who would be happy to own one even if nobody else knew that they had one and nobody ever saw them driving it.

Theres no logical reason to buy a M-Powered BMW or AMG tuned Merc - again there are quicker, cheaper, better looking etc, etc cars out there but people still do

 

[daggoth]

We had three '99 6-Speed F355 Berlinettas. The first one (red) we got new, it was kept for about 10,000 miles, and had very few problems, other than small things, such as the door alignment, and shifter being mis-aligned. The next one, (yellow), had zero problems for our 1,000 miles of ownership. Not one thing went wrong. The last one, (black), we kept for 24,000 miles, and ran great. It had some of the same alignment issues as the red one, wouldn't start one day (ignition problem), and backfired. All issues were out of pocket, ofcourse, the backfiring problem was the most expensive. I don't remember the exact costs, but, none were too outrageous. The car, however, was coming up on it's MAJOR service, including the belt replacement, and complete check out, when it was sold. I believe that service is in the upper four-figures.

GOD, Major headaches those cars it seems... I'd still have one if I had the money 👍

 

[daggoth]

TheCracker:

You and I think the same, but you put it in much better words than I do 👍

 

[sn00pie]

Ferrari up-keep is horrible, here is something everyone who is considering to purchase a Ferrari should read.

 

[Woolie Wool]

People don't just buy Ferraris because of the image, i grant you a lot do, but a lot buy them for the heritage and sporting credentials. Ferrari don't design and build their cars to a budget, not to the extent that other manufacturers do. Ferraris aren't about value for money, nor are they about extensive dealer networks or an extra years warranty. They're cars bought with the heart not the head.

Ferrari makes the Enzo...

...Mercedes makes the A-class


For Ferrari fans: I was at Silverstone this weekend, Ferrari owners club had a display there. There were around 30 cars there 360's, 355's, Dinos, Testaossas, 575's etc, at the head of the display was a 430 spider, F40, F50 & Enzo - all very nice indeed. But there was one Ferrari there that was worth 2-3 times more than the rest of them put together - any guesses?

A Daytona Spider, 250GTO, or 250LM.

 

[Woolie Wool]

Room, acceleration, standard features, reliability, insurance rates, cost. You know - the categories that actually matter.

An MR2 Turbo will easily blow away any Volvo 850 from a stoplight, probably has more amenities, and is definitely more reliable, being a Toyota instead of a Swedish junk pile. It's not that expensive, although the insurance probably is, since it's a mid-engined sports car that looks like a Ferrari.

This is the kind of crap you get with Ferrari owners. I bought my car because it was a GREAT buy. Ferrari owners buy their cars so they won't fit in and so people will stare at them. It's nearly comical the reasons everyone here has given for purchasing Ferraris. Not one person has come up with a logical one, even a SEMI-LOGICAL one despite the fact that FIVE people have tried. I'm literally laughing at those of you trying to justify the idiotic purchase that is a Ferrari.

There is nothing logical about a $200,000 car without seat heaters or a navigation system. That's not the point of a Ferrari. The point is to drive it and revel in the experience. I've heard that once you drive one, no other car will ever suffice again.