Spin-off bad for brand, current owners?

If it worries you that much before you've even bought a car maybe you should starting looking for another brand

 

My thought as well, much of the press recently surrounds production #'s being kept low.
Personally, I have no concerns, I own a 458 already, the replacement is designed already, and the car I want, the F12, is out already.

Totally fair questions you are posing, of course.

 

I hope that any potential new suitor has the exclusivity and cache of Fiat and Chrysler. The minivan that we had when I was growing up was so cool. My friend's 124 that occasionally worked was pretty swanky too.

 

Personally I don't buy any car because of the potential of depreciation (or lack thereof)....I worked hard to buy it and will enjoy it to its fullest....I know I'm gonna lose in the end no matter what as far as depreciation goes....No matter what there is nothing else in the car world that even comes close to the Ferrari brand....

 

If the spin-off gets rid of shady tactics like the above to prop up false values, I'm all for it.

 

The sky is falling!!!! NOT!

 

Hopefully someone who loves the brand and has the cash can step in. As long as Ferrari maintains the ability to build the cars and call the shots without having to answer to anyone, the brand will always be what it is today.

 

Question: given that Ferrari will be it's own brand. Are there any regulatory requirements in terms of average fuel economy for the brand? Will this be more restrictive than when they were owned by Chrysler Fiat ?

 

everyone selling vehicles in the U S of A has to meet the same federal requirements
the small cars help sell the big trucks
Ferrari doesn't have any offsets = gas guzzler taxes
you wanna play......you gotta pay

 

My question, though, is whether they had less requirements before because they were part of Fiat or whether the situation is now different as they are fully independent.

 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regulations & Standards | Fuel Economy | US EPA

Fuel Economy | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

from car & Driver:
Starting this year with 2011 models, the federal government’s fuel-economy standards, which have sat frozen for years, are going to get a big-time thaw—the biggest change since the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law was created in 1975.

The average fuel economy for cars must improve from the current 27.5 mpg, where it has been since 1990, to 37.8 mpg by 2016. The truck standard has to rise from 23.5 mpg to 28.8.

This means cars must improve by 37 percent, trucks by 23 percent. Combined, cars and trucks in 2016 should average 34.1 mpg, up 35 percent from the current 25.3 mpg—a jump of 5.1 percent per year.

While pondering these figures, keep in mind that the tests used to measure CAFE numbers are based on old city and highway tests. Today’s window stickers take those raw numbers, massage them, and incorporate other tests with the goal of providing a more realistic, lower estimate. Example: A BMW 328i rated at 18 mpg city and 28 highway on its window sticker has a “raw” CAFE fuel economy of about 28 mpg—just above today’s car standard of 27.5.

Indeed, the new standards are not as severe as they appear. For one thing, automakers have been bettering the existing standards. As an example, for 2009, car fleets averaged 32.5 CAFE mpg, while trucks came in at 24.5 mpg. That’s 5 mpg above the standard for cars and 1 mpg better than the truck requirement. Beating the current targets gives automakers surplus credits that can be applied toward the future increases, which helps ease the burden of the 5.1-percent annual improvement that will be required in the coming years.

Just as they do today, the rules will allow automakers to average their fuel economy across a number of models. A guzzler that doesn’t meet the standard can be “canceled out” by one or more vehicles that better the mpg standard. However, the government’s 2016 fuel-economy numbers of 37.8 mpg and 28.8 mpg are projections because, unlike today, when every car and truck fleet must meet the same mandated average, the future requirements will be instead based on the size of each vehicle in a manufacturer’s fleet.

 

I would think that US quotas could go up if there is more scrutiny of the P&L, at least in the short term to get the listing done. The strong dollar will make each sale more profitable when converted back to Euros.

I'm wondering what will happen to the F1 team budget.

 

According to an AP article today; Ferrari and Maserati combined earnings before interest and tax were 484 million euros, up 55 percent from a year ago.

Which indicates the luxury brands are the opinc generators at FIAT. I think they will keep the F1 for the brand/marketing. I also think the spin off will minimize depreciation based on their goal to keep the marque above the other brands similar to how Rolex maintain value thru price control and perception of brand value.

 

I would expect price increases.

 

Precisely.

What you're going to see is dealers able to price cars as they want and get rid of waiting lists. The new org and investors will want as much money as possible for their investment.

More cars, more different types of cars, and higher prices are the way to get that. Limiting production is counter to that idea.

What I would also suspect is car models will be replaced quicker to help increase the number of early adopters buying more cars more often.

My other guess is co-brand participation as the infamous LeBaron Maserati TC. Perhaps not so obvious but I can see a Dodge Dart "Ferrari" special edition. Shelby did it. I can see the new investors in Ferrari saying "why not?"

 

Maybe I am a little slow.. Or not constructing the question well...my apology goes if this is the case or this is within the links.

Question is how is "manufacturer" (and "fleet") defined under the Cafe rules. Pre merger was the manufacturer "Chrysler Fiat" or "Ferrari" ? Obviously after the merger it will be Ferrari.

Seems quite a significant change if the "manufacturer" changes from Fiat Chrysler to Ferrari because some of those averages are calculated by taking a range of cars as per my understanding effectively letting the total mileage number be brought down by high mileage vehicles in the line up.. Chrysler Fiat has many Ferrari has few high mileage vehicles to bring down the average.

Obviously IF this is now changed Ferrari will have to accelerate fuel economy increases in their cars more dramatically than before. I would argue that means more turbos and perhaps cheaper models with smaller engines. Again I suppose it all comes down to how "fleet" or "manufacturer" is defined under the rules which I am unsure of.

 

+1 Eric.

I am also not the one to speculate.
I buy things which I REALLY want. And I buy them for my personal pleasure not for thinking about resale etc.
But the rest of the world might have a different attitude.

 

The best way to make more profit is not by increasing price, but to use the same platform, engine and chassis in many models, just like what VW group is doing.
With Ferrari now switching to turbocharged engine, they could make huge profit from saving in engine development. In NA engine, to increase power, you need to rev higher, increase capacity, and use special material for the highly tuned engine. With turbocharged engine, just reprogram the software to add more boost could easily give you 150hp extra. Even many local custom stores have been doing this.

 

If something is to easy it's become less prestigious, I think that V8 turbo cars will have bigger depreciation than cars with NA V12

 

With the age of the TT V8 Ferrari upon us, some enthusiasts will be attracted by the easy, huge torque. That "whee" and-off-I-go feeling. Quarter mile times will drop further. But it will not be the same. As for me, an F12 is in my future... I would prefer not because I like the mid engine nimbleness and cab forward sight line. But the V12 is wonderful. You can have your torque, sound, high RPM powerband, and response without heat soak.

 

With the age of the TT V8 Ferrari upon us, some enthusiasts will be attracted by the easy, huge torque. That "whee" and-off-I-go feeling. Quarter mile times will drop further. But it will not be the same. As for me, an F12 is in my future... I would prefer not because I like the mid engine nimbleness and cab forward sight line. But the V12 is wonderful. You can have your torque, sound, high RPM powerband, and response without heat soak. And did I mention the sound?

 

Do you think that more people will move to V12 like you?

 

Business economics would differ....price is a viable option, along with other options. Cost, scarcity, price, economic conditions, competition all come in to play.
Guitar Hero....took cost out of the system, and increased prices during purposely created scarcity period, as one example.