Would Ferrari make better supercars today if it had been sold to Ford?

My uneducated opinion is that it would have taken Ferrari downmarket and created a more mass produced car.

Just my .02




PDG

 

No.

I happen to like Ford but they would have wrecked the company.

 

Probably not. They'd be calling their new F1 car an F150 or some such nonsense.

 

What's your reasons to even consider Ferrari would be in a better position if they had been owned by Ford?
The European Car Company's that Ford has got there hands on over the years have become shadows of there former self's.

 

No.

 

My guess is they would have jettisoned Ferrari just like they did Aston Martin and Jaguar and Land Rover and Volvo. Ferrari would probably be owned by VW now....

 

Their track-record certainly would be negative.

So far, they may have saved some companies from going under, but Ferrari isn't strapped for cash.
What they are good at is economising; shared platforms and mechanical components. Personally, I don't want a Ferrari on a Lincoln platform, with a Detroit-derived V-8.

They probably saved Jaguar from going under, but the brand itself has lost its' glory and exclusivity, and quite frankly, its' class.

Aston Martin makes more cars than ever before, and is successful in that respect, but they are certainly far away from the elusive manufacturer of hand-built cars they once were.

I think they did a good job with Land Rover. They know about trucks.

Problem is, that under Ford autonomy has no place, which waters the philosophy behind a brand down, the character gets lost.

That's not to say that the current board at Ferrari is doing such a splendid job at building cars according to the spirit of Ferrari; they are no longer dictating the market, rather following it, with products that are suited to satisfy their largest markets. That, together with all the merchandising, makes for healthy balance-sheets, but doesn't do much for anything else that used to be associated with Ferrari.

 

How so?

I worked for Land Rover and Jaguar for several years during the time Ford owned both. Ford brought Jaguar into the modern world and substantially updated it's product line during the time they owned them, however the heads at Jaguar would not let Ford evolve the brand image and it became stale in the mid 2000's thats why Ford unloaded them and had to throw lucrative Land Rover in to sweeten the deal for Tata. Land Rover on the other hand had been owned by BMW for several years and had so many reliability problems because of sub-par BMW components that it was dieing fast. Ford came in and injected LR with a lot of reliable modern technology especially the AJ series modular V8 which was head and shoulders better than both the Buick and BMW motors they had been using in the line up, 2003+ LR's are substantially reliable as far as drive train is concerned thanks to Ford.

Volvo was also another brand that benifited thanks to Ford. Volvo had become a mix of GM and old Volvo parts which was starting to get substantial reliability issues (GM transmissions dieing constantly), Ford completely turned Volvo around again the last several years of models have been very good.

 

No way.....FIAT and Ferrari have something called "Italian Passion".

Building a car isn't just about nuts and bolts, it takes a little bit more to create a Ferrari.

 

A smaller Ferrari based on the Taurus, the old one! ie jaguar. Didn't they have one based on the ford contour as well? I'd say at the time Ford sold Jaguar they were a complete joke in my mind and I'd never own one. However the new owners are putting out some beautiful cars.

Who thought the designer of the Taurus would be a good designer for Jaguar, talk about an identity killer.

The Ford era Jaguars are relatively cheap. Cross breeding, cost cutting. We'd have mustangs with "Ferrari" technology in them. Talk about watering down, or destroying a brand. If ford could afford or had interest in super cars they never would have had the gt40 be a one hit wonder, they did what they wanted, beat Enzo, then walked away. There isn't enough interest within Ford to make proper super cars over any period of time. They are a seller of transportation pods.

Your question was a joke right? I don't see anything appreciably wrong with what Ferrari is doing.

 

Probably not, Ferrari would have lost it's Italian identity....

 

Ford saved the Brands, but eliminated their souls. So I would say Ferrari would probably be even more of a cash cow, but would not be as exclusive or as desirable had Ford succeded in taking over from Enzo.

I would say if Jim Glickenhaus decided to take them over today, that Ferrari would be in great hands and turn out with the soul even stronger to go with the strong financials.

 

No - agree what others have posted.

 

No, and I'll tell you why. Anyone who remembers what Ford was like in the 70's with the Pinto and the Mustang 2 can hardly imagine what they would have done with this brand then.

If you want to see how truly to destroy a brand with US short term marketing and thinking (I.E Label slapping), look at the Chrysler Maserati fiasco.

People like Italian cars for their Italian-ese. I think Audi's intervention and parts swapping is hurting Lambo in the long run for the same reason. It's lost it's purity.

 

You're joking, right?!

 

Ford makes good prototypes that they can't replicate in production.

 

+1

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RNbbDRdvBw&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
F150 tops 458 in the street.

 

In my experience GM has always had one of the strongest transmissions.

Some people I know that own volvos under the Ford umbrella, while they love their cars, they're always in the shop. One of which sold her car.

 

They were certainly good enough for Ferrari to choose them in the 400/412 automatics...

 

Under Ford USA ownership Ferrari would have benefited from the superior roadcars and race wins Ford USA has produced since the 60s... Ford is synonymous with world class race competence and staggering road cars right?

(and puleaze don't spout off about the Cobras or Ford GTs which clearly, history shows, were flashes in a very big pan, or only examples of what they could buy when they put their money to it.)

 

Ford wanted Ferrari to win Le Mans. When they couldnt buy Ferrari, they built their own car to win Le Mans. After they were done, so were the Ford GT cars. So my guess is that Ferrari would have slowly died.

 

In my opinion, there never was any real chance of Ford buying Ferrari.

By the mid-'60s, Ferrari represented Italy more than itself and Italians had "laid claim" to Ferrari as a cultural symbol of success, one they desperately needed. The personal cost to Enzo for him selling to Ford would have been almost unthinkable. Enzo and his family very likely would have had to leave the country. So I believe Enzo never really had any intention of accepting an offer from Ford.

Instead, I believe he was playing a bit of a card game. Enzo's business model was failing, and he knew he needed to sell Ferrari to Fiat, really the only logical buyer. But he needed to have the best possible bargaining position with Fiat and Ford's interest in buying Ferrari gave him considerable leverage during negotiations.

In the end, Enzo's double-dealing paid off and he struck a wonderful deal for himself: He avoided bankruptcy, freed himself from the passenger car part of the business (which he didn't like, anyway) and was able to continue racing. And he retained half the equity.

A crafty old man, he was.