Why has Ferrari abandoned the upper middle class ?

Agreed.
Although.. there are quite a few middle aged gentlemen in my area that still cop an attitude and "peacock" in their new 911's. They don't wave either when they drive by.

I know I bought my 360 vs. a GT-R, in part because the GT-R is just ugly... same as Panamera.

 

Another poitn I would make would be to the very question posed by Jerry about Ferrari "abandoning the middle class."

I would retort that Ferrari primarily sells their cars to the middle class, always has and still does; albeit the Upper Middle Class.

Being able to afford a $250K car, or a $1MM car for that matter, doesn't then elevate one into the "upper class."
Upper class distinction has as much to do with social upbringing, education, family wealth as it does with the current size of one's accounts.
I would be willing to wager that "true" upper class people don't go out and buy new Ferraris, because desiring such cars would be gauche, and beneath them. I think more would be spent on high-priced art, historical items, public displays of wealth by donating to worthwhile causes and theatre (etc., to name a few).
An upper class auto enthusiast probably is more likely to purchase a historically significant Italian exotic, or a Dusenberg owned by some famous actress than to go out and purchase a 458 Italia from the local dealer.

 

Relax, I said it tongue in cheek.

I know that financing is often involved.

I also know that financing luxury goods / toys can cause people to get in way over their heads financially.

 

In that most Americans (by a large margin) identify themselves as "Middle Class" I'm not sure how the question can be addressed.

 

I didn't say he wasn't. Enzo was very adept at exploiting the fact that some of his cars were purchased by royalty and celebrity-types. This was especially true at the beginning of his manufacturing career but became less so as the company grew.

And you're off base on the 2+2s. The 2+2s were arguably the most ubiquitous of all the Enzo-era Ferraris and, comparatively speaking, few were sold to royalty or celebrity-types. The vast majority were sold to enthusiasts who possessed both the means and desire to own and drive a Ferrari. By the 1960s, one source says about 40% of all Ferraris were being exported to America (where we have plenty of elitists, but no royalty.)

This is not only represented in documented production/sales figures, but by current market prices. A '60-'63 250 2+2 sells on the low end for about $90k or less; '64-'67 330 for $70k or less; '67-'71 365 for $85k or less. Certainly nowhere near the prices of other Enzo-era V12 models.

 

Some interesting points to consider.

My first question is, How does one define "upper class"? Is it money only? Is it pedigree only? A combination of the two? Or something more (or less), depending upon one's perspective?

 

Seems pretty clear to me. For italiafan, if YOU make your money you're low class, if your great-grandparents made the money then you're high class.

 

No.

Class is like beauty...difficult to define, but obvious when you see it.


Truly "upper class" people generally are quite wealthy though, so I would surmise that money is necessary, but not sufficient for defining "upper class."

Upper class people don't jump int their 458 Italia and blast down to the local Publix to pick up some goodies for the Superbowl that evening, neither do they show up to a fund raising charity ball in one.

Actually, was quite funny, last night went out to dinner with two very wealthy guys (and I mean VERY wealthy). One loves his old station wagon with wood sides (looked like the car from National Lampoons Vacation), and the other guy showed up in his '98 Yukon (with Green Bay flags flying), owns some mines or some such thing up there. I joked with him about the Yukon, and he laughed, said he loved the thing so much he was going to be burried in it. BTW...he has his own Island and his "guest house" is a series of railway cars done up like the Orient Express.

 

how about ferrari vs rolls royce pricing over last 30 years? even more of a jump as phantom is more expensive than ferraris are now but i remember them being similar back in the day

imo, the working wealthy of the 1970's like doctors, lawyers, small business owners, etc were not the ones buying ferraris. it was the celebrity, athlete, entrepreneur, etc. its the preferred customer lists, pay over sticker price, etc we have now that makes it more difficult now vs then. not so much the msrp

 

There are different things, upper class, those above what people refer to as upper class, and those with class without wealth and the ones with rich family history and not very wealthy. It's hard to define.

 

You make an interesting point but one i don't completely agree with (or disagree). You suggest that Ferrari had benefited from the 'halo' void left by others. While the void existed from others actions (Porsche. Aston and others) to take advantage of it Ferrari had to not participate in similar strategies (lower price points). Not only has Ferrari not hit lower price points they've increased the price of their existing models. Their bread and butter cars in the last 10 years 360,430,458 have gone up instead of down. The California was originally intended to be below 200k but is well over now because of the others leaving the void AND Ferrari Pricing. I think they saw what the others were doing and consciously decided to do the opposite as a counter strategy...not just dumb luck.

Pricing is a function of Marketing (always remember the four P's)

 

Sorry, but the 2+2 models when NEW (which is what is relevant to this discussion) were more expensive than the comparable 2 seaters-- just as today the 612 is the most expensive car in the regular lineup.

I've heard it from people at Ferrari directly that the 612 is the car for their "best customers"-- often those who own multiple Ferraris. The same was true in the GTE days.

As for the "upper class" issue, there is quite a bit of stereotyping going on here... personally, I would leave "class" out of it.

 

It is amazing that Nissan can't make a beautiful Z (much as i love mine) or Toyota can't make a mid engine that feels like or makes you feel like your in a Ferrari (sorry to my old MR2).

Both have copied Ferrari designs before and haven't gotten it right, Nissan with the 240z taken from a Daytona design and the MR2 from the 308 (or may just be me looking through a Ferrari colored lens). I always wanted an Opel GT since the day my dad bought an Opel wagon in 1973 but when i first saw a Dino i was less in love with the Opel. Interesting that people make the poor man's Corvette analogy when it looks like a Dino to me.

That Nissan GTR is a technical marvel but odd and undesirable to me.

Looking forward to the day a high quality lower cost variant arives that excites the senses and looks as beautiful as a Ferrari.

One day...

 

It is all about choices and passion... in cars, spending, life etc. It is not about Ferrari or any other manufacturer "abandoning the upper middle class". I recall the 308/328 days and grew up middle to upper middle class and nobody - I mean nobody I knew had or even fathomed owning a Ferrari. Ferrari's were owned by either the wealthy (read: long-term sustainable wealth) or the rich (read: short-term, immediate and generally unsustainable wealth). Why? Because there will never be a rational explanation for owning a Ferrari or any other exotic car and middle/upper middle class people generally have to make rational decisions. I know people with house payments that wouldn't make a pimple on a new Ferrari's butt because they "need" to live in a "nice" area where little Johnny and Suzie can go to a "nice" school yadda, yadda, yadda. That same person "could" own a Ferrari but the financial argument is pretty tough to win. I know a lot of single guys who make good money but choose to spend it on clothes, video games, snowboarding, golf etc. etc. They, too "could" own a Ferrari but choose otherwise. My work parking lot is full of depreciating Range Rovers, Hummers, Escalades, BWM SUVs, Mercedes SUVs etc. - I am sure the owners of these vehicles "could" figure a way to own a Ferrari - but they choose not to.

Owning a Ferrari (more so than most other exotics) is about knowing and understanding the history of the marque and generally having the passion to make it happen and willingness to sacrifice other things and make choices to make it happen. Regardless of what "class" you are.

Cheers

 

Ferrari manufactured 954 250 2+2s, about 1,100 (actual number is unknown) 330 2+2s and 809 365 2+2s. Those are the highest production figures by far of any models from that era.

The 2+2s were the least exclusive models of the time and, the 250 2+2, for instance, had a price tag of @USD$11,500--expensive for the time, but hardly a princely sum. Perhaps that price is one reason, plus the two rear seats, Ferrari sold so many of them.

The two-seat 250 Lusso, on the other hand, was sleeker and sexier, was considered far more the "driver's car" and, consequently, had considerably more gravitas. Steve McQueen was just one of the many people who felt this way. That's why he bought one.

 

What was the MSRP of the Lusso? I'm pretty sure it was less than that of the GTE.

 

Agree - However I think there are more peripheral costs now than in the 80s that also weigh in to the decision to buy or not buy a Ferrari.

Another thing we can't debate is the absolutely genius of the Sugarhill Gang....

...I'm hot butter on my breakfast toast so let it rock... baby bubba... baby bubba to the boogity bang the booty to the beat, beat so unique so come on everybody and dance to the beat!

 

Sticker on the Lusso was about 1k more than the 2+2.

"Lusso" means "luxury" and they were up-scale of the GT/E.

You had it the other way around. Np.

 

Exactly, poor folks will say they are middle class most of the time, and until you are stinky Bill Gates rich, most wealthy Americans consider themselves middle class too. It comes down to more a values thing, than a wealth thing. Most individuals thinks they represent the norm.

 

Which is why phrasing the question in terms of class doesn't help.
Better to ask it in economic terms. Cost of a Ferrari vs a house or average yearly income etc. Even then its not apples to apples given inflation and income stratification, but its more quantifiable.

 

Agreed and you have to add geographic location as well.

I do think that an established working professional(your average lawyer, MD, upper manager) had an easier time buying a 308 in 1984 than a 458 today. Today you need to be partner in a large firm as a lawyer or the head of a large medical practice with some patents to your name to have the means to comfortably buy a new Ferrari today.

 

There are so many variables here its a bit like comparing athletes across eras.