The changing profile of Ferrari owners

This will cause controversy, hopefully not too much but I expect many wont like this thread for mant different reasons.

Some will say I am stuck in the 1980's I wish to re assure those people that I am not however its plain to see the Ferrari of the 90s an 00s has become ever more marketing driven, there was a time where the factory produced what it thought the customer wanted, cars like the 288 GTO were the result, cars like the 355 were the result but then came the California, a fine car, with a fine name and some style and its proved to be a success despite intial views of the car. Now in no way is this meant to be another FF hate thread but lets look at this, has Ferrari marketing over stepped or have buyers of Ferraris become very different types of people.

Why do I say this, well look back, has Ferrari ever built a shooting break, yes and no, there were coach built specials but clearly there was little or no demand because only 2 were made. Fast forward to 2011 and suddenly we have a mass market shooting break, a car endorsed by owners or potential owners. Would this car have been considered in the 80's or 90's , I suspect not because simply back them Ferraris were not built as everyday cars, the Ferrari owner has a car for that role and the Ferrari was meant to be the weekend blast car.

Whether Ferrari could have continued building harsh weekend blast type of cars is a moot point, we wont ever know but I like to think they could have. No doubt the cars are better build and better equipped than ever.

Has Ferrari made its cars too user friendly, has this ever increasing user friendliness diluted what Ferrari is? Yes, not everyone wants a Scud or a 458 and yes the FF will appeal to a different market but I cant help but think the profile of owners has changed, there seems to be a desire to make the cars more and more friendly and with that I feel some of the magic has been lost.

We can crow on about no manual gearboxes, again there was no demand for them, this again points to perhaps a change of owner profile but I will admit the F1 box/Double Clutch is superb.

Perhaps I am not forward thinking enough but one has to ask when will this quest for total usuability end, will it end with a 4X4, will it end with a saloon, Ferrari say they wont build either but I am not so sure, perhaps enough people will express interest and one of both will be built,will the marketing department continue to drive Ferrari into new segments.

Of course this is my personal viewpoint but when I see the FF I do become worried, I was slightly worried with the California but I guess the real test is going to be the successor to the 599 GTB, will this be a pretty car or will it not, will it go more GT like or more supercar like.

If there is one thing to thank owners surveys and the marketing department for its the fact that the range is perhaps more broadly defined.

Bottom line the world has changed and owners have changed, back in the 90s you were lucky if you got a decent radio, these days the cars can be had with premium sound systems, blue tooth, 30 gig hard drives, whether these items belong in a Ferrari is a matter of personal taste.

I just wish and hope those at the Factoy never forget what defines a Ferrari, never forget the amazing cars of the past but most of all never forget that the customer isnt always right, nor is the marketing department. For the FF and this new direction time will tell if it was the right move.

 

I really don't get all the hub bub about the FF. Geez Ferrari (including Ezno) built all kinds of machines for different reasons.

Why some people can't think of Ferrari as anything other than a 2 seat V8 low slung 6 speed sports car is beyond me.

For a performance car company to think that way long enough they'll find themselves another Morgan.

 

I am not saying they should be stuck in the past by any means, merely remarking at the fact that apparent customer demand has brought us the FF. The point is Ferrari's are sports and GT cars.

Personally I dont hate the FF by any means but I am curious as to why it was put into production, the motivation behind it and when I watch the presentation it seems more marketing and less Ferrari, more buy it becuase it can take 450 liters of baggage, since when are Ferraris about how much baggage you can haul, since when are they about off road ability, driving on ice.

The point is clearly Ferrari delivered exactly what the market wanted, its this change of market which I find interesting.

 

People said similar things in the 1970s when the 308 series came out. Then the argument was that they were cheapening the brand, building too many cars, all real Ferraris have V-12s, etc.

Ferrari has a very long tradition of building fast luxury cars-- look at the original SuperAmericas from the 1950s, or the 500SF from the mid-1960s. The 2+2s from any era. None of this is new.

 

You are right if you look at the FF in light of those cars it perhaps does make sense, coach built unique cars designed as flamboyant cruisers. To be honest I hadnt thought back to the SA's and other one off unique cars.

 

Oh My. You do know Ferrari is a car company and not a religion huh? Why all the wringing of hands because they built a car you don't want. Are they not allowed?

As long as they keep producing the cars you do want, who the hell cares what else the build? If anything the more profitable lines help amortize the R&D et al.

So what if your nightmare scenario comes to pass and Ferrari starts building nothing but 4x4s and wagons? Well, gee someone else will build supercars. McLaren (or whoever) will fill the void. Do you have some religious connection to a car company that you can't buy another brand? Dude, it's a car company... if they build products you don't want, don't buy them. You'll live through it, I promise. -- I don't find your post controversial. I find it silly.

And as far as saloons go, I'd love if Ferrari built a competitor to the S63 AMG. That would be a kick in the pants. (blasphemy I know lol)

 

GASP!?!

And you imply that Mercedes-Benz and Ferrari are... competitors!?!

Perish the thought!!! LOL!!

I had to club some baby seals after posting a similar thought not long ago

 

The market is NEVER wrong.

Dale

 

They have a huge Factory to pay for........

 

The fact is that entire world has changed and Ferrari has changed along with it. Some of those changes, depending upon one's perspective, can be labeled as "good" and others as "bad". Personally, I think that most of the purely mechanical changes are good. Styling is another matter, unfortunately. We must also consider that the competitive landscape has changed enormously, too, and Ferrari no longer enjoys its niche unchallenged, a very positive development in my mind. Competition brings out the best!

However, respectfully, it seems from your post that much of your feelings about Ferrari are based upon a highly romanticized version of Ferrari's history rather than based upon fact.

The fact is that, by the end of the 1960s, Enzo's business model was a failure. Enzo didn't sell out to Fiat because he wanted to, but because he had to. By '69, the company was essentially bankrupt. The personal feud that Enzo had fought, and lost miserably, with The Deuce at Le Mans was a financial catastrophe and the Ferrari image had taken a nearly fatal hit.

So, to survive, the company had to change. What we're seeing today is the natural progression of the changes set in motion when Fiat took the reigns. While I consider the FF as grotesque and an offense to my delicate sensibilities, I do understand how and why it is being built. At the end of the day, from Fiat's perspective, Ferrari is not any different than any other of their marques. It's just another way to make money. Ferrari will continue to evolve and modernize and increase production because it must. Otherwise, it will disappear.

 

+1. People have a very short memory for Ferrari history. Ferrari has been building 4 seaters for decades. They have also built cars in the past with an eye towards being luxury daily drivers-- ie, the 400i and even earlier the 365GT 2+2. The very fact that Ferrari could not build a car reliable enough and low maintenance enough to actually suit this goal is more a function of where the Italian motor industry was decades ago than anything else.

People pretend that Ferrari began with the modern Testarossa and the 308. For decades prior, Ferrari built elegant, sophisticated and somewhat understated "sports cars" and luxury coupes. It seems that once Lamborghini entered the picture people's definition of an expectations of Ferrari changed and now the expectation is Ferraris should look, drive and be outrageous. This is not in keeping with the tasteful designs of earlier decades. In fact, if I may go out on a limb, cars like the 612, the 550, and now the 458 are much more in keeping with the Ferraris of old in terms of design philosophy than cars like the Enzo.

Cars like the California are perfectly in line with Ferrari heritage, regardless of whether or not they appeal to me. As for the old line about Enzo being adverse to technology...it is not true. If you read enough about him you will understand that it wasn't technology he was adverse to, it was technology for technology's sake. Once you could demonstrate the merits of a new mechanism or design, he was on board...he just wasn't willing to give up on the reliability of the proven system to embrace a yet unproven one. To that end, dual clutch gearboxes would have been embraced under the old regime just as they are today.

Its OK to live in the past, its not OK to reinvent it

 

There is one new trend that is a very good one. That is, the new 458 Italia is smaller and sleeker looking than the 430 it replaces.

This is very encouraging and, almost unexpected, given all the other trends toward bigger and more comfortable Ferraris.

I agree that the upcoming 599 replacement will be an important trend indicator for the company.
I'm hoping it will be a front-engine V12 that is no larger in size than a 550, and a few hundred pounds lighter than a 550.

 

YES!!!

Btw I dont like the FF so who cares? I wont buy one. I bet, however, there are some higher ups at F thinking "WTF?!" - in Italian of course!

 

As long as we're being inflammatory...

If I were a company seeking to up my annual revenue for a luxury product I wouldn't care about some overweight, middle aged American baby boomer who is too broke and underwater to buy a Ferrari as a midlife crisis.

Instead I would focus on the three newly minted millionares in the east that want to flaunt their wealth and style the car for that customer.

In my opinion to find the luxury consumer in greatest numbers look east.

 

I think Ferrari is coming out with a more complete product line. These cars appeal to everyday people with a bit of money, and not necessarily someone who is looking for a beast to take to the track. If a typical f-car commute is to go to the golf course or dinner and back, why not make something that will make that more convenient for the user?

 

I think the 458 was proven to actually be heavier than a 430.

 

The way I see it is the customer demand for the Porsche Panamera has brought us the FF. Plain and simple.

Just my two cents.

 

It's a "shooting brake". No one has ever built a "shooting break".

The entire car market has changed. We are technology-obsessed, accustomed to automation, and bigger/heavier than we used to be, so instead of a 250 GT SWB you get disposable video game/cars like the 599, California, etc., that are both very fast and easy enough for your mom to take to the mall. It's impressive and disappointing all at once.

Cars are a mirror of who we are. We are the market, and the market has spoken.

The FF reportedly lists at $350,000 and is sold out for three years. The market wants a status symbol that is fast, easy to drive and carries a lot of stuff. We long ago (decades ago) lowered our standards with regard to style, so the FF/599 is what we "asked for".

 

My thoughts exactly. Last I checked, Ferrari is still a for profit enterprise and by that measure, they have done a great job the last 15 years. Even the world wide recession did little to depress profits.

Truth is, in western countries atleast, buyers have gotten older, fatter and want their luxury along with the exotic performance. How many Ferraris ever see a track? I'd bet less than 1/4 of Scuds have even been on a track.

Dave

 

It's a safe bet the FF design was well along before the Panamera appeared.

Dave

 

You may judge it sleeker, but it actually is heavier and has bigger dimensions.

Dave

 

When I bought my first Ferrari back in the early eighties. Selection was limited and my entry level 328 was 70K. Now with options its 300K +. Even the wealthy are looking for some kind of value to help justify todays prices. I think it makes a lot of sense to build a Ferrari that has more than one use and still delivers the same emotional rush as a limited use balls to the wall sportscar with no trunk,backseat, or room for the kiddies. Todays customers are looking to get some use out of their Ferrari besides the ceremonial once a week, sunny days only Saterday morning drive. So I have to agree that the customer base is indeed evolving and will continue to change since these cars will only continue to become more expensive. While I'm afraid the writing is already on the wall for the Ferrari purists.

 

Mercedes and BMW have already been building those cars for years.

Ferraris aren't supposed to make sense. I believe they will do better in the Consumer Reports plywood test, but ... so what.

 

And the Panamera is already out and on a second year of sales. How long ago was that design in place? Company A is always out to find out what company B is up to and vice versa. It's a vicious cycle . . .

 

I would tend to agree.

Just watched the video. Love the front end, but the ass end? Need some time to consider the backside of this FF.
MB