Interesting view point GM vs Ferrari

The California is _all_ about fakes and boobs, it's FIAT's homage to fake boobs:
A badge-engineered psuedo-Ferrari for arrested-adolescent poseurs.

And what in Enzo's name does an aftermarket exhaust have to do with Ferrari legend, tradition, heritage, least of all racing history?

 

i believe that as an unsubscribed user, i support the site more so than the elitist subscribed members, by being shown ads.

 

Touche ! good one !

 

Brother..this post doesn't deserve a response....but hey...it's 10pm on Saturday night and I have a nice buzz going. Folks spend 90% of the time looking at the outside of a car when buying but they spend 90% of the time INSIDE the car once they own it. American car interiors SUCK...PERIOD. They miss the point...the German marques figured this out years ago...VW paces with it's dollar group, BMW is original and expresses quality, MB is good but could be a bit better, Audi is one of the best in the auto biz. The Corvette exterior design is appealing and aggressive...makes me want one. Sit down and you realize it's just another piece of **** from detroit...sorry all you dedicated vette boys but it really is a complete let down. GM needs to spend some money INSIDE the car so the full package fits well. I'm proud of Ferrari for taking all the R&D dollars spent at the massive manufacturers and perfecting the technology for us. Grey Goose didn't invent vodka..they just convinced you that you needed to spend more for it...well done! I've owned 6 GM cars and one F car...nothing from Detroit deserves to be mentioned in the same thread as Ferrari except the GT40.....

 

so true.

at least for the vette though, there are multiple aftermarket sources of interior updates which GREATLY enhance the appeal of the car. the cost isn't too bad, thanks to volume.

the only update i haven't seen is for the center console (the radio and such, not the surround), so you're left with a nice interior except for a tiny piece of glaring cheap looking and feeling plastic to focus on. still, you can get over that small exception quickly.

i know it's important to compare stock vs. stock, but one of the advantages of a mass production car like the vette is you can completely customize the interior and the car will actually go up in value.

 

I've got to agree with you there. Atleast they are trying to improve, slowly. In my opinion Cadillac did a great job on the interior of the new CTS-V, and it has the performance to back it up. I believe it's th fastest production sedan ever around the ring. The speed has always been there for American cars, they have recently improved the quality, and slowly the handling and interior.



And the Ford GT is really the only car from Detroit that can even be compared with a Ferrari. It can compete with the F430 in every category and even surpass it some. And it has that exclusive feeling like you get when you see or ride in a Ferrari. You also get that kind of historic feeling like you get with a Ferrari, not nearly as much but unlike the Corvette it's there.

There is no doubt the new Z06 is faster then just about every production Ferrari, and the ZR1 might top the Scuderia but speed isn't everything. Of course we are comparing a 100K ZR1 to a 300K Scuderia, so the Vette has to get some leeway. I would rather not comment on a few of the post in this thread. A few of them really boggle my mind. Finally got my first post over with.

 

Enzo was quoted as saying, "There is Ferrari, and then there is EVERYTHING else."

'nuff said.

We all are here because we love Ferraris; whether we each own one or not. Really, we just all appreciate nice cars as well. The Corvette has a place in the automotive world as a great performance car. It can compete, though maybe not always beat, many out there. Here in Dallas, they are a dime a dozen (like a belly button...everyone has one). If you want to see yourself coming & going, get one. I regularly see everyday people driving them as daily commuters; beats looking at all the Mecedes, BMW, Lexus, etc... on the road ("car-shaped" cars distgust me), but it is still a car, a nice one, but it is a car. So too, is the Ferrari, but there is just something else about the Ferrari that makes it "special".

Ford tried to compete in the '60's for the same reason that Ferrari did; bragging rights & prestiege. They won a couple, but when it came down to it, American engineering was no match to make a true name for themselves when compared to the likes of the Italians who LIVE to win and, I my opinion, have a much better work ethic. Quality makes the difference.

The Ford GT? Sheesh! I can pull an article from the internet or my files (if I could find it right now) about the development of the GT that clearly mentions (no less than 17 times) how they bought a 360 Modena disassebled it, copied what they could get away with, added a supercharged, then proclaimed a "victory" over the Ferrari. Let's add a supercharger to the 360 & see where the GT stands...it would be in the dust.

It is all about the makers image. GM does not try to BE Ferrari. Ferrari, themselves, does not consider themselves on level with any other maker, but that is the image they strive to project.

Let's all quit bickering about who is better; who really cares.

Like what you want, buy what you can, then drive it with pride.

 

Ford pulled out voluntarily after proving their point. it's completely unfair to say "oh they won a couple but aren't really that great". they didn't just win a couple, they demolished ferrari. yes, maybe they wouldn't have been able to keep that up long term, but we don't know that.

as for work ethic, i'm not agreeing with you but for the sake of argument, if it's true on average it isn't true down to the individual. it only takes a few dedicated people to pull off incredible feats, the rest of us lazy bastards be damned.

 

Wrong, they had to retired the car out by then.

Ferrari wasn't as much beaten by Ford as Ferrari lost for building a much more sophisticated machine that wasn't as reliable.

Ford won how many races as compared to Ferrari? Ferrari demolished Ford by a 1,2, and 3 right here on american soil, and that leaves a better feeling.

Remember that then Porsche came around with the 917 and that is/was the car.

 

Compared to the MK-IV the P4 was an antique. The MK-IV is much more sophisticated. The MK-IV won every race it entered. At Le Mans it beat the nearest P4 by 30 miles.

Ferrari's tube frame wasn't on the same planet as the MK-IV's honeycomb composite tub.

Speaking of Le Mans Ferrari hasn't won Le Mans since 1965.

 

oh, is that a rule? if not, what was the reason for forced retirement?

i'm sorry but that is the same thing. in an endurance race, strategic advantage matters and is every bit part of winning as tactical advantage. it's not like losing from being taken out of the race through no fault of your own (someone hits you).

if you lose in F1 due to poor (or less good) fuel strategy, you were beaten fair and square. the other team was better.

Ford entered how many races as compared to Ferrari?

The original argument was that american engineering cannot compete with italian engineering, and that statement was based on the long term record of Ferrari. I dispute that. Well, i guess i can't really dispute that but what i mean is we don't know the true potential of american engineering.

 

IMHO "Ford's" greatest contribution to motorsports has to be the Cosworth DFV. You can say that they bought it but the same is true for their Le Mans effort. BTY Ferrari's legacy has as much to do with longevity and persistance as anything else.

 

Weren't the reasons due to reliability that Ferrari wasn't as competitive because their cars had too complex motors for their time?

 

Napolis isn't biased on this as he owns both cars and he can answer your questions without taking fanatical sides. Funny thing is that Ford won but not because it had advance engine design but the opposite.

 

I think the Corvette is a pretty good track car... thats been proven, but I think there is still something more unique/special about a Ferrari.
Even the old Fords (Gt40) don't really hold a place in my heart like a Ferrari does (not that I hate them).

I will admit though, there are more and more cars from the US that have great performance/power for better price....

 

You must not know how much faster a Ford GT is over a 360. Adding a supercharger to a CS would be a different story, but the CS is basically a street legal race car. I love Ferrari's but that just isn't a very intelligent statement right there. The GT does the ring in 7:42. The 360 in 8:09. Adding a supercharger wouldn't get a 360 anywhere near. To keep it fair you could slap a smaller pulley on the GT and the gap will just widen.

 

The Ferrari's were great cars and very nimble. The motors were very reliable and Ferrari did win the Championship in 1967. Le Mans was a totally different animal. It was basically a VERY long straight connected by a few turns. The car that could go down the Mulsanne the fastest assuming it could last would win. The MK-IV could go 223 all day and all night long whereas the P4 could only go 199. That's why the MK-IV's were unbeatable. The MK-IV's could go that fast because they were 7 liters and made massive torque and they could do it under very little stress. The P 4's at 4 liters were maxed out and while some of them lasted they just couldn't make up the top speed deficit in the turns.

The MK-IV's tub was an engineering marvel very sophisticated for the time in composite honey comb the same material as the B1 bomber. The engine was a simple engine but it got the job done.

Both the MK-IV and the P4 were outlawed by the FIA for 68 as the Prototype engine size was dropped to 3 liter. Both Ford and Ferrari officially dropped out of Prototype racing in 68. The Ford GT that won Le Mans in 68 and 69 was a MK I chassis 1075 which ran as a production sports car as at least 25 examples had been built as a 5 liter which was allowed in that class.

Ferrari didn't return for a while and when they did they came up with a production sports car the 5 liter 512s/m which as you said weren't really up to the 917 Porsche's which ran as production sports cars 5 liter as well.

Ferrari 3 liter Prototypes came later.

Corvettes and Ford GT's are great cars but Ferrari's will always have a certain something even when they aren't the fastest cars around.

For those that dont care about that certain something Corvettes are fine.

Best

 

FYI a 956 Porsche did the ring in 6:30.

 

Thank you for summarizing it in a complete and effective manner.
I would only add that had the size of the engines been equal, the results in '67 would have probably been rather different, but history has been written and we cannot change that: only speculate.

 

not sure why that's funny (i assume you don't mean funny ha-ha). in lots of cases, simpler is better.

 

I think for $100,000 I'd rather buy an R8. It's just more my style. The vette has become quite an incredible car in it's own right. GM has done very well with that one. It'll never be a Ferrari though, so why compare them? Ferrari sells cars to pay for racing. GM sells cars to make money.

 

Good point (although you cannot get an R8 for under about 130k). There are a LOT of options at the 100k point. Including an enormous used market.

 

Oddly enough little Ferrari makes more money than mighty GM. Which business plan do you prefer