Karl, I agree wrt Ferrari. A big yawn these days, as they do seem more fashion oriented than anything.
 
However, your statement , "(I don't need my cars to do zero-to-60 in less than 3 seconds, and I'm honestly worried about those that do)", is intriquing. Why is that a concern?
  
Isn't the whole point of being an auto enthusasist wrapped up in how fast he/she and the vehicle can transverse a given distance?
Could it be a case of diminishing returns?
Or simply because some events happen so fast we can't preceive them properly (our nervous system's roughly 250 mph max)?

Could you include some pics of the modern line-up of Ferrari, so we can look at them while reading your complaints against them?
 
I'm also curious, do you feel that Porsche devauled itself by making the Boxster?

"Please, someone, tell me I'm off base here and convince me Ferraris are as cool as they've ever been".
 
Wish I could.......but (sadly) I can't, you raise alot of interesting points, most of which I agree with.
 
The 250 GTO is still my favorite Ferrari - a timeless and beautiful car. You are right, the newer ones don't evoke the same response. I do feel like there's is still a level of mystique intact with me though - Ferrari's are still cool (maybe just less so).
 
I have contemplated for a while now starting a high quality diecast collection. The 250 GTO is one of, if not the first, cars that comes to mind to start the collection (along with the GT40). These are cars of iconic level status......I don't know of a recent Ferrari that falls into, or will fall into this category in the future.
 
An interesting post.....and, I think your Automotive Enthusiast card can stay in your wallet.

New Ferraris don't really appeal to me either but it may be me that's changed the most.
 
The Ferraris (and Lambos, Jags, muscle cars...) I remember as a kid have a magical rose colour aura around them like so many things I saw growing up. Their magic is as much me remembering my youth as it is the car itself.
 
Or at least that's my thoughts on the matter. :)

I don't know, they still do it for me. I think that the late 90's were the pinnacle of design. The 612 and 599 do look better in person than in photos. But still, any Ferrari is still something special to me. Porsche's are a common sight, Lambos are cool but not as luxurious (that's not their reputation, anyway - at any rate, they're awesome in a more angular and exotic way, whereas Ferrari's are sexy). I know there are equally fast and luxurious Mercedes and BMW's around, maybe they're even better and more reliable. But again, that badge is too commonly seen. Rappers and athletes have ruined Bentley's image for me. In my mind, Ferrari is still at the top for performance and luxury and uniqueness. Even if the numbers show they are less "exclusive", they are still a rare enough sight to excite me. I guess maybe Aston Martin would be near that same level, but they had some pretty rough years. Ferrari has always been strong.
 
In the interest of full disclosure, I have to reveal my personal bias. I had pajamas with a glow-in-the-dark Testarrosa when I was little, so I guess Ferrari will always have that special place in my heart.
 
I don't care if they cost too much to maintain. Until I'm so rich that it doesn't matter, I'd be perfectly happy with a Corvette over anything else under $200K.

"I'm also curious, do you feel that Porsche devauled itself by making the Boxster?"
 
No, that was accomplished with Cayenne, and I think will be further devalued by the Panamera. But, I have to say Porsches never interested me. At all.
 
I believe firstwagon is on to something. Ferraris are/were dream cars of youth.

Hightower - you mentioned something that I was just thinking.....I think Aston Martin and Bentley have more "wow" factor than Ferrari with me these days. Aston Martin (especially old and most recent ones) are my personal favorite and despite the popularity you mentioned with Bentleys, they are still knockouts in my book.
 
*******
 
I'm also curious, do you feel that Porsche devauled itself by making the Boxster?"
 No, that was accomplished with Cayenne, and I think will be further devalued by the Panamera.
 
+1 Norm

But, how good is Ferrari's competition? Aston Martins have the looks, but to me they are too "Touring" and not enough "Grand". Lamborghini, with the first Gallardo, almost became no more than big Audi TTs. Bentley has pretty much been ruined. Last time I heard, Spyker's driving dynamics are still nowhere near competitive. Moslers are too uncompromised. Koenigseggs are too expensive to be considered in this discussion. Wait for the next Esprit maybe?
 
But, why do you have to buy new?
 
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1987-Lamborghini-Countach-Pearl-White-Brand-New_W0QQitemZ220209848863QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item220209848863

Karl, Ferrari is like a Rolex or Omega of the cars. We all love Ferraris in some ways or other. Yes, they are expensive to work on them but is the image of the sport car. You go any part of the world and they know what is a Ferrari or Porsche and they identify it with luxury sport car. How many of us had a poster of a Ferrari in our bedroom when we were growing up or saw one. Now, I don't care too much even if I can afford them. Same example, who wears a golden Rolex or Omega everyday? A Seiko or Citizen will be fine with me.

Excellent post!
 
I have always wondered why I liked the Porsche's better than the Ferrari's and you have given me all the answers.
 
Both are icons but in different leagues. One I can afford in this lifetime, the other I cannot. One I can live with (in terms of practicality) and other I cannot. I guess Porsche's blend into my lifestyle and Ferrari's don't.
 
Design elements are in the eyes of the beholder. To each his own.
 
0-60 in 4 seconds is good enough for me. It would be nice to have a 3 second car but the drawbacks outweigh the pros easily.
 
Most importantly, that car should be on the road more and less in my garage and almost never in my mechanic's shop. In my opinion my car represents me and I don't sit at home idle or go visit the doctor every other day.

I was driving from San Diego to Palm Springs last friday evening, following a yellow '93 348 along the 79 from Temecula to Beamont and I was reminded why I like Ferraris, the sound of that thing was awesome....made me turn my stereo down!

The main problem for me with the Styling is that it seems like they're going for the "Shock and Awe" factor with their new designs. Except, Lamborghini has been there, done that, got the T-Shirt back in the Seventies. Maybe it's because the same basic shape has been around for so long, but to me Lamborghini's just look so much better, like all the outlandish styling elements somehow look more cohesive and, well, pretty. I hate the way the Countach looks, the Diablo's a little better, and I just plain Like the Murcielago and the Gallardo.
  
The other "Styling" problem is where you see Ferraris. It's okay for Aston Martins, Lamborghini's, etc. to only be seen cruising around town, going down the strip, and otherwise being used as style pieces because they aren't really known as much for their racing heritage. Somehow, in my mind, they get a pass. Ferrari, on the other hand, is all about the brand, the mystique, the Racing. Just knowing that there are Ferrari's that never even see a race track makes me cringe. Wholely Unrealistic? Of Course. But that's the way I feel about it. Oh, and the only 2 Ferrari's that I've ever really liked were the 355 Spyder and the 550 (and of course 575) Marenello coupe. The older ones don't do anything for me because they're well ahead of my time (I'm only 20), and as has already been discussed, the new ones pretty much suck.
  
And +1 Tiruvan, except I Know why I like Porsches so much more than Ferraris. My best friends dad has Always had a 911 (well, except for 1 912E), and he used to take us for rides all the time. They were the first cars I ever got taken "fast" in. And the first car I learned how to drive a manual on was one of his 911's (talk about nerve wracking!). 2 Black Boxsters are the only Convertibles I've ever been in with the top down (rode in a 1st gen, drove a 2nd gen), and I wholeheartedly agree that they're pretty much the only dedicated sports car that makes any sense to have as an only car. You can even get AWD and be set for the winter! (well, if it doesn't snow more that 2'' at a time...)
  
And I just have to say, I'm not sure why everyone's hating on Bentley's so much. They finally make a truely World-Class car and now everyone's against them? Who gives a flip that maybe 100 Rappers have one all glitter-painted and chromed-out? 5,000 Uptown rich folks drive them too. But I'm guessing ya'll probably hate Escalades for the same reason.

Ferrari still has the certain something for me, but I also believe that the same "something" can be had for a lot less money. Porsche's may be a common sight in automotively-jaded SoCal, but in PA they are still fairly exclusive. I think in the real world, a car like a Carrera 2S would also deliver about 95% of the driving enjoyment of an F430. Now obviously that would be a different story on a track, but I can tell you that if I spent two hundred grand on a new Ferrari, I wouldn't be tracking it.
 
I have to admit that I wasn't around during era of the 250 GTO, but I do remember not being incredibly impressed with the F40 when it came out. The door-stop styling and go-kart interior never really did it for me. The new F430, however: tasty.

Growing up I always wanted a 308. A friend of mine in college had one at home and we drove it during the holidays. Great car. But like Karl already pointed out, he told me of the stories of repair bills and tune ups that would cost thousands of dollars every year. The mechanic would tell him that the cars were "designed" to leak oil. Further, we had to let the car warm up for almost 20 min before even trying to run around town. After the romance of the prancing horse wore off, I was not only disappointed, I was disillusioned with the concept of a car without modern refinement and lack luster expectations.
 
However, I still LOVED the look of the 355. But absent a lottery ticket and alot of patience, I'll stick with more obtainable fun.

Does Ferrari have a parent company? Every day it gets harder for a small company like Ferrari to compete with the resources that large automakers have at their disposal. Volkswagen looses money on every Bugatti they sell. It’s all about the media buzz that the Bugatti generates for the parent company.

I think the reason Ferrari is less appealing today is not from a lack of progress within the company, but the excessive progress from without. A Ferrari really stood out from everything else until the '90s. Then, all of the sudden, you have affordable sports cars that can compete with Ferrari. Even the mass market makers could build a Ferrari-killer (a term created in the '90s).
 
A good example is in this video of an S2K (albeit modded) racing a pair of Stradales:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSkv6WRgKIo
 
People see that and think, "Wow! That's way more impressive!" I think it's a case of everyone being surprised by the strength of David and getting used to the sheer size of Goliath.
 
I think brands like Maserati, Koenigsegg, Spyker, TVR, and the like are the new Ferrari. Exclusivity is something Ferrari has left behind.
 
As far as Porsche is concerned (discussed above), I worry about them, too. It seems they've sold out for major profits. I think vehicles like the Boxster and Cayenne have tarnished the company's mystique. And I disagree about the Panamera. I think the Panamera will be far more of a Porsche than the Cayenne could ever be.
 
EDIT: Allow me to explain my inclusion of the Boxster. Yes, it is a very good car. I still wouldn't hold it to the level of the Cayman or the 911s, but it has aged well. That being said, when it was initially released, the Boxster definately lacked that Porsche vibe. The lack of power and the so-so dynamics of the car just didn't feel right. // Also, I never said anything about the Cayman. The Cayman is an extremely well engineered vehicle and could certainly supercede the 911.

I don't think the Boxster is such a blemish for Porsche......the 914 (and perhaps 944) did more to damage the image, and the company and it's products are still around and highly regarded.

While I agree that Porsche has no business building SUV's, I don't think that the Boxster has done damage to the auto maker's image. Porsche has always had an "everyman's" car. The 912 was a budget 911, and Porsche also had the 914 924, and 944. The Boxster and Cayman are genuinely good cars in their own right, and I even think the Boxster is the only good convertible Porsche on the market. What other options are there? The Carrera GT was insanely expensive and isn't even built anymore, and the 911 Cabriolet will never be as good to drive as its hardtop sister. Solution: get a Boxster and ignore everyone who tells you that it's not a proper Porsche.

I think the Boxster may have saved Porsche. Porsche was built on premium (but not exotic) sports cars. The 911 was pushing into the exotic range in price and performance and thus was being precieved as more of a toy as opposed to a real car.
 
The Boxster however, gives upper middle class folks a real car they can aim for. Dream cars are nice but real cars are what keeps a company in business.... and the Boxster is a real car and a real Porsche.... unlike a certain VW SUV they also sell .

I'm glad Porsche was brought up, as they make a good contrast to Ferrari.
 
When I drive a Porsche I'm always amazed at how "real" they feel. By that I mean they have very high performance capabilities, but they don't feel like big toys. The idea of driving one daily not only seems possible but logical, while sticking one in the garage and only driving it on special occasions seems like a complete waste of a fully-functional car.
 
Ferraris DON'T feel like this. When I drive one they feel very passionate and emotional and "speical" (though not as special as they used to feel, and certainly not as attractive as they used to be). But regardless of how "speical" they seem, they never seem like real cars. I feel like the car is saying, "Well, yeah...you COULD drive me everyday, but I wouldn't recommend it..." And our experiences (and costs) with the long-term 308, along with several other Ferrari ownership stories I've heard, confirm that my impression is correct.
 
Okay, so Ferraris are for "occasions" and Porsches are for real life. Fine. Except this limited functionality of Ferraris further elevates the need to maintain both their exclusivity and desirable design. If those elements slide, PLUS you can't really use them as real cars, well, that starts to make their costs (purchase and ownership) seem pretty silly.
 
With Porsche, even if you think the Boxster, Cayman or Cayenne were "sell outs" to the brand's core mission of creating only high-performance models (I don't, BTW) you can still chalk the brand up as being REAL! So sell out or not, when you buy a Porsche you get a real car. That nets major points with me. Throw in their costs versus a Ferrari, and now it's game over in terms of which brand retains some interest with me.

Well I agree because I have lately been favoring Lamborghinis over Ferraris. They are just simply more impressive

So a Porsche is the trophy wife and Ferrari is the ultra-high maintenance mistress.
 
Karl, you implied that Ferraris (like the 250) were some of your childhood dream cars; what were your others? Mine were the Ford GT40 Mk IV, AMC AMX, and later the Porsche 928 - another car that most self annointed Porsch-o-philes decried as not a real Porsche! or It cheapens the brand! What idiotic nonsense. The Cayenne saved Porsche. If you don't like it then don't buy one: But if like 911s and Caymans then you really had ought to respect it for allowing the continued existence of Porsche itself.

Karl, I agree both on Ferrari and Porsche. It's been years since a Ferrari looked 'right' to me, regardless of its amazing performance potential. And I have no understanding of the comments regarding the Boxster/Cayman. They may be the best Porsches made, considering cost, and give up nothing in driving experience. Has their lower cost allowed purchases by folks who don't drive them or appreciate them as they 'should', in the minds of the Porsche faithful? Sure, but that's got nothing to do with their excellence as true sports cars.

My dream cars as a kid were mostly American muscle cars, with a sprinkling of European exotics thrown in. This is a good blog topic that I will use -- maybe for tomorrow.
 
Thanks!

Karl,
 
I would be interested in your take on Mercedes-Benz, a brand that many argue has eroded core values, such as exclusivity and reliability, that were established over the better part of a century....?

"So a Porsche is the trophy wife and Ferrari is the ultra-high maintenance mistress." LOL!
 
I didn't understand why some said/say the 928 didn't make the cut either.......I too am a fan, especially the 928 S4.

Spitzer would like a Ferrari.

LOL !!!!

All my favorite Ferraris are from the mid-60s, especially the 365 California right up to the Spyder 365 GTS/4 Daytona. Ferraris have since evolved into engineering marvels as they should but they just ain't sexy anymore. Maybe it's that Enzo isn't around anymore, Ferrari is owned by Fiat and you don't really imagine italian cars as the equivalent of Gina Lollobrigida or Sofia Loren in sheetmetal. I agree with the prior post on the Gallardo, it's my favorite current italian design, maybe because it reminds me of the Lamborgini Miura/Espada era. Actually, I do like the Porsche Cayman quite a bit, looks much better in real life than in pictures. As to affordability, Ferraris were always way more expensive to maintain than any other marque by a very large factor. I worked at the Ferrari dealership in Miami in the early 70s and still remember the moans from even the very affluent when they got their service invoices!

BTW, just read that Bentley sold over 10,000 in 2007. So Ferrari is still exclusive enough by that standard. Anyway, rarity in and of itself does not equal "exclusivity". There are lots of mediocre brands that sell very few vehicles. How many Isuzu's were sold the last year before they abandoned the US? Or have they left yet? Hell, I don't even know. Anyway, I'm not concerned about Ferrari's exlcusivity.

"How many Isuzu's were sold the last year before they abandoned the US?"
 
Usuz abandoned the US years ago. Rebadging a few GM products did not fool the Isuzu fans so we went elsewhere.

Interesting post. I own a Ferrari 328, and had a Porsche 911 (993) before it. To be fair, I bought the 328 car for shows (Ferrari club stuff) and nice weather weekend drives. I have a daily driver for airport parking, grocery getting, Home Depot runs, etc. The Ferrari is certainly more of a fantasy thing than a car.
 
In terms of cost, I don't know that you could ever justify a Ferrari on any rational grounds. You either just want that flat-plane crank engine wailing behind your head, or you don't. And you either feel a rush of excitement running your hand over all those curves, or it's not that big a deal. I'm not Warren Buffett wealth, but I don't live paycheck to paycheck. Every 3-5 years, the Ferrari requires a $4000 service on the 328. I suppose I could complain about it, but in fact I usually use that service interval to upgrade and refurbish other components of the car and spend a bit more because of it. If it leaks oil, my mechanic fixes that. The 328, for me, is an ongoing thing -- 10 years from now, either I or another enthusiast will own it. In 10 years, my Audi may be in some scrapyard or shady used car lot -- not my problem; it's a disposable appliance.
 
Anytime someone asks me why I splash out the maintenance money, I explain that no one (even Ferrari) really makes cars like this anymore -- largely hand built, computer-free, with a proper driver's cockpit and a mechanical-feeling gearchange that makes the Audi DSG (which I have as well) sterile in comparison.
 
Again, all of this either means something to you, or it doesn't. And I hate to say it, because it just comes out sounding snobbish, but if the maintenance costs on a Ferrari seem exorbitant then you probably shouldn't buy one. It's like property tax on a $2M home -- yes, it's really expensive, but given the stratosphere you're in at that point you've signed on to cover that tax cost. Back to cars: An acquaintance here in San Diego has his 275 GTB engine rebuilt on occasion, because he drives his car a lot. You could buy a condo for what he spends on this car. Is it worth it? To Malcolm, it is, and he has the money. I'm not in his league, but I needed a $15K rebuild on my 328 engine then it would happen, and it would be done right. I could sell the 328 and buy a Porsche 997 any day of the week, but -- it's a different animal.
 
I agree with Editor Karl's assessment of the newest Ferraris. The 599 is a dull design, and moreover it's so tech-laden that driving it well is seems kind of nerdy. I've parked my 328 next an F430 a couple of times, and the newer car is very bulky in comparison, and not as tight and elegant. I'm hopeful Pininfarina will drop the 360/430 look and get back to something more svelte. I also think Ferrari has been revving up production overmuch, starting with the 360 (16,000 cars). We used to think the Dino 246 (3,000 cars), 308 (12,000 cars) and 328 (7,000) and Testarossa (7,000 also) were common. Guess not...
 
Regarding availability: There's still a 2-year wait list for a factory-new F430 or 599. You could argue that Ferrari has been underproducing for a while, given expanding demand in China. I admit there's something cool about a 2-year wait list, but all the scalping that takes place is hard to defend ($500K for a 599?!)
 
Having owned both Porsche and Ferrari, I can say that Porsche owners who think they have great cars are probably right. But, Porsche owners who think they're getting the thrills of an exotic car really don't understand and probably have never owned a Ferrari.
 
Selling my 911 was a business transaction. If I ever sell the 328, it will be like putting a kid up for adoption, and I'll almost certainly replace it with another Ferrari.

Great post billymay. Thanks for the authoritative insight.
 
Everything you say makes sense to me. You have to value the Ferrari experience, and be willing to pay for it, to have any hope of enjoying the car. But the cars are more "passionate" than Porsches, or just about any other brand.
 
If I had the money I'd pick up an F40 and just deal with the ownership/maintenance costs. The new models have almost no appeal to me (though the F430 is an undeniably superb driver).

One of my wifes patients who is actually a brain surgeon here in Lexington Ky, has a F40, a 360 Challenge Stradale, Carrera GT and the Porsche Cayenne Turbo. He told me his former vehicles were a 1999 Zanardi NSX (sold for the 360 Stradale) and a 996 911 Turbo which had a $45K Ruf upgrade package installed (sold for the Carrera GT).
 
I actually got to ride in the Stradale as I was at her office when he came in for a cleaning last summer. I was like a little kid jumping up and down, my wife was clearly embarrased.
 
Ive never been so moved by a car in my life. The beautiful soundtrack that 3.6 DOHC flat crank V8 made and the fact that it revved so effortlessly was simply amazing! The vibrations, the suspension damping, everything .....just felt like the car was alive or an extention of myself. I do give Ferrari MAJOR credit as after that experience I think the price is worth it.
 
Yes, there are cars today than can equal or better the performance of a Ferrari but not one of those cars can give you that raw feeling tha t just gets under your skin. The Z06 is a perfectly capable car but its numb by comparison. Cant comment on a Ford GT as I havent driven one. The GT-R while offering incredible performance looks like it would seem artificial with all those computers telling this wheel to do that and this whatever to do this. The GT3 is the only car that I can think of off the bat that gave me a similar feeling but not as nearly as intense. On that note I clearly have major respect for past and present Ferrari vehicles.