The End of Ferrari as we Know It?

Spot on.

 

Not "100% authentic Ferrari"? He's worried about parts sharing? Has he ever really =looked= at the parts-bin nature of the mid 80s machines?

I think the styling sucks. I think the hardtop convertible is a requirement. I think anyone one complains about a loss of exclusivity hasn't been paying attention for the last decade.

 

Time will tell, but I suspect there were critics of the otto cars in the 80's as they entered mass production. I think the market will dictate how well the car is received. AT LEAST there's a commitment to keep the SUVs and sedans off the roster. IMHO

 

I think the California will do nothing but damage the marque. The car was designed out of pure greed. End of story.

There is? I wouldn't be surprised if Ferrari hinted at an SUV or saloon in the near future, considering Lambo just released that 4 door family car

Anyways, I'm just going to pretend that the California isn't there and that Ferrari only has the three established models with a limited run supercar every 7-8 years.

 

Baloney.

Other things that "experts" claimed was the end of Ferrari as we know it--

Fiat's involvment
The Dino 308gt
Fuel injection
Power tops
Air conditioning
Power windows
The F-1 transmission
The Daytona
The 400 sedan
The Mondial
The 348
The Testarossa
Enzo's passing

The day Ferrari stops designing and building their own race and road cars, that's the day you can make this claim in my book. I don't see that day happening anytime soon.

 

+1

 

+1 (I particularly remember that being said when the Dino was introduced.)

 

Heck, they said more or less the same thing when the 250PF Coupe was introduced.

 

yeah but keep in mind none of those cars were fugly like the California!

 

+ 1

 

The article is rife with pseudo-intellectualism, melodrama and blatant fallacy.

 

Have you looked at the pre 3.2 Mondial ? With those black bumpers they put the F in Fugly

 

I think the earliest (and now rarest) Ferraris were an amalgam of parts and pieces that came from a wide variety of manufacturers with emphasis on FIAT and Alfa Romeo parts, so the idea that the new California is not a "pure" Ferrari puts it in some rather elevated company.
I personally think that the California is more Maserati than anything else based on its underpinnings that were originally slated to be the replacements for the Maserati coupe and convertible but a Ferrari will never be without soul. The fact that it rolled out of the same factory as all the Ferraris before it guarantees it has soul - that and the little horsey on its tail

 

I'm more concerned about how big the company has become and what that entails. Granted that it needs to be if it is to exsist..

However, there is a big argument that the California and it's emphasis on conquest sales is no doubt a move away from the values of the marque.

If today they are making a car to attract women to the Marque for example. what is to say that in a few years time when they need to fill a new market niche they wont make an SUV?

They may not be able to grow the brand elsewhere and a making themselves vulnerable to the vagaries of the market and fashion, whereas the used to set the fashion in a way.

Focus groups and clinics will erode the values of the marque which is more than just exhaust noise and acceleration and F1 gimmicks.

There are plenty of other ways they could have grown the company and a Dino sub brand was the obvious choice.

Look at where Mercedes are today compared to fifteen years ago.

IMHO A class and below should have been Smart or whatever and the large cars only given MB status.

Just a waste of goodwill that has taken 100 years to establish.

 

Sure, but the last Beautiful car they made was probably the 288 GTO. since then the cars are just increasingly aggressive rather than the achingly beautiful products of the 50's, 60's and early 70's.

They really need to make beautiful cars once more.

 

Several good points made - in terms of "turning points' for Ferrari including the dino, mondial, death of enzo etc etc. However, I do think that Ferrari is getting closer to the line of profits vs. exclusivity/quality/history of the marque.

Production numbers are increasing with every new model. While the "little 308/328" series took off (thanks magnum - whether we all like to admit it or not) it did solidify "Ferrari" financially. More cars are being made - more profits - more money for racing - more recognition - more models/clothes/stickers/pens etc etc - more money and thus more recognition.

WHERE IS THE LINE to greed? Realistically, we probably will not know the effect of the California for several more years.

Michael Brown

 

Good stuff.

I say let them sell it. That way they have more money to put into the cars we all really love.

People may never get excited over a mass produced California, but you can bet your bones the hype over the next supercar will be just as big as the last. That won't ever change.

 

You would be suprised how many Fiat parts are on a 360.

 

The ONLY thing that bothers me about the california is that it is the first fcar with cup holders

 

Mr. De Lorenzo has a great deal of knowledge about the car business and I read his columns quite regularly.

IMO though, beside "hyperbole" in the dictionary, I think there should be a picture of Peter.

So many of his columns have a completely over-the-top "the sky is falling" tone (no matter what the topic may be) that it gets tiring after a while.

 

They said the same when switching from 12's to 8's. That said, Cupholders could be the beginning of a slippery slope which dilutes the brand towards that of lower prestige manufacturers.

 

^^^ that's damn funny

 

you think this is fugly?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

+1

612 Scaglietti have side blinkers from Fiat Seicento
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/2650/seca.jpg

greetings