Porsche 911 Turbo S Cab or Ferrari California?

Apples to oranges comparison...although I do think the P- turbo, while a great car, is over priced for a porsche. The turbo tends to have very steep depreciation curve. Plus , one is car, the other is a Ferrari......

 

I am going through the same dilemma looking for a new daily driver.
Cali is tempting but I am being swayed to 911 with it's AWD (Chicago) and incomparable performance that puts on on a different playing level from Ferrari.

 

What about the FF?

 

I don't have the numbers at hand, but the Porsche would probably score in the performance category and would certainly be more discreet.

The Ferrari gets points for being show-y and attracting attention.

I think it comes down to how important it is to you for other people to know how much money you spent on the car.

 

I'd pick the 911 turbo but only bc you can buy it with a real manual. California looks better and is a Ferrari, but in the end there's less joy in driving without three pedals for me.

 

Yoanna said it was an automotive form of hermaphrodite......

 

you asked a question and then answered it. Whats your point?

BTW the TT for me. the Cali is a car for females.

 

tough decision I agree .. although when I hear you people talk about 200k for these cars I simply cry. They're both closer to a million in my neck of the woods ... anyway I'd lean towards the Ferrari simply because it is, although the Porsche TTs is for me an all around better car. If I had another Ferrari in the garage though I'd definitely opt for the Porker over the Cali.

 

Problem is that for $200K there are a lot of other more tempting Ferraris. You could probably get a 575M with a manual gearbox and a lightly used 997 Turbo for the same money... or a nice 246 GTS... or...

 

turbo cabs cost around $180,000.
the california costs close to $230,000.
so if your are buying a new vehicle, the p-car is less expensive.

turbo porsches depreciate around 50% between 3-4 years.
the ferrari may depreciate around 30% in the same period of time.
so long term cost of ownership, factoring in depreciation, may favor the f-car in spite of the higher price.

to enjoy the turbo cab, i believe a manual transmission is required.
the pdk is so smooth, one cannot tell when the car is shifting gears.
even with paddle shifting, porsche has engineered "fun" out of the pdk.
i would pick any paddle shifting f-car over a pdk turbo 911.

an aftermarket muffler is another mandatory requirement for the turbo cab.
the stock muffler on the turbo 911 generates too little auditory feedback for my taste.

if you are considering a turbo 911, i think your are best to purchase a 3 year old, low mileage vehicle.
i am in the market for such a vehicle at this time.

 

Hahaha, i can see her point!

 

California is an amazing car. Have to be seen on the road to be appreciated.

 

The California is a chick car. So if you want a REAL man's Ferrari buy a 430 or 458.

 

For the mean streets of Chicago I would vote for one of those Dakar Rally Porsche 959 models with about a foot of ground clearence...
CH
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Does it have to be the California? It is such a hideous car from the rear, so awkward.

 

LOL, or buy a 997 turbo, turn it into RWD (like a real sports car) remove all traction controls, and have some fun. You only live once

 

Not sure about your assumptions on depreciation. I would also guess the Ferrari would be less reliable and more expensive to service.

 

Porsche keeps coming out with trendy expensive versions just to entice the people who are willing to spend the extra $$$ to have something new, they keep having to move on to the next "new" thing to stay trendy, the trendy value is no longer there when they sell it as its no longer new/unique, so the value is killed.

Look at the Boxster back when it came out, it was MUCH sought after, today? Its in the teens.

Ultimately, buy the car that you will enjoy. If it where my only car, I'd opt for the 911, far more practical.