Marchionne Comments - Production Numbers and "SUV"

He also wouldnt have gone public so if people are going to hate on Ferrari for anything thats probably the thing as thats the impetus to generate more revenue.

The SUV is an effect, not a cause.

 

I still don't get all the hate for Ferrari making an SUV

Porsche does, BMW does, Maserati does, etc. Lamborghini made one over 20 years ago. The Alfa Stelvio will probably be Alfa's biggest selling car ever.

As long as they build the best SUV in the world we should be happy. If they use the money to stay in business and invest in new products why is that a bad thing?

I saw the same hate with the California. Its silly.

Would I buy one? No way. But I'm sure there are plenty of people who want the ultimate sport ute. And if they don't, Ferrari will stop making them.

 

The entire SUV thing proves Lamborghini was WAAAAAAAAAY ahead of it's time with the LM001.

I thought this was super cool when they made it and I still do today.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I'm in perfect simpatico with you. I would only add that the Lamborghini Urus looks like an easy target for Ferrari.

 

It really depends on what kind of SUV they make. If they make something really special, it would be great. If they make something that Mercedes or BMW would make, its just label slapping. That would be a huge disappointment.

The LM001 really pushed the limits. Ferrari needs to do the same.

But, take a look at the streets of LA today. They look like a 3rd world country. Having a real SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE to drive in LA would be very appropriate.

 

Mayor, I've reposted my post #54 for you here. That's the reason.

 

SUVs aren't cool? Since when?

Soccer mom wagons are not cool and if they built that I would agree. But not all SUV's are soccer mom wagons.

 

In modern America SUV's have replaced the station wagon. (Unless they are being used for a particular off road or business purpose.) They long ago became the go to form of transportation for Mom's with school aged children lugging their kids and crap around. JMHO.

Again, when I was a teenager an SUV, which we still called trucks, never got a second look from me or my friends, but a Ferrari always did.

 

The LM 001 was no "station wagon" replacement. As I said, it depends on what they make. If they build the best and most exciting SUV in the world, what's wrong with that?

 

Once Ferrari makes a truck they can never go back. They will never be exclusively a performance sportscar builder again. The fact that some don't get that is rather funny. Money and the bottom line rules the world and nothing is sacred anymore.

 

Huh?

You understand that Enzo Ferrari made GT's most of life, right? The Dino was an afterthought which begat the 308 which begat what we think of Ferrari cars today.

Enzo Ferrari made the 400. Was that a crime too? Did he not "get it"? OMG! A GM automatic!!!!

Dam you Enzo Ferrari for making the 400! You set a path that ruined your company!


Look... I "get it". If they make something that's a Mom wagon I'll be the first to shout it down. But if they build something awesome that is worthy of the marque, I will clap.

The devil is in the details.

 

Isn't the FF a Station Wagon / Suv already?

 

More like a station wagon, but not a truck/SUV. Sure Ferrari did make a few slow sportscars, but they were still sportscars. When they made the 12 cylinder GT 2+2 cars back in the 1960's they were smaller than most Ferrari's are now. Most had 2400-2600mm wheelbases . The cheaper lines were called ASA and Dino wich is how Enzo insulated his company from them. They should do that again now with the trucks.

Anybody remember the joke in I think Road And Track about the Jerrari, a Jeep and Ferrari conversion. I think most old Ferrari people would turn over in their graves if they knew what MR. M was up to..Enzo sure would!!

 

A modern SUV is not "a truck". Calling a Porsche Cayenne a truck is pretty insulting to Porsche engineers.

 

It is the size of a small truck or a pick up truck with a top on it. Call it what you want.

 

A friend from my local FCA chapter went to a client event sponsored by Ferrari. All the driving instructors were in FF's. None of the clients could keep up - not even close - and one had an Enzo. Not a wagon.

 

Blinders on again?

No one said they shouldnt make an F1. Thats and the crank handle comments are always where the only F1 people go.
No one said anything about hem being in better shape before LDM, thats clkassic fake news. More tot he comment is that LDM while financialy sucessful by sellign "useable" cars to those who cant drive, also cheapened the product from a drivers perspective. And yes LDM cars were "faster"

Cher Elton had ferraris back then, but they were the few, and just because they were celebrities doesent mean they couldnt drive. Peter sellers also had more than one as did some beatles. Clapton famously wrecked his BB. Do you think Paris Hilton can drive a TR?

Fact is if you have driven soemhting like a BB it takes far more comitment and skill than a manual honda accord and also rewards accordingly. The comitment factor is why sales were so low and why Luca by skewing the comitment driver reward ratio into "useable" grew sales so well. And I have nothign against that, other than the process of abadoning the the skilled and comited driver.

All this talk of "brand" is imo where you are lost. I care about cars, drivers cars, the the words "brand" is exactly whats wrong.

Yeah the F12 TDF Laferrari mean absolutely zip. they are not purchaseable except by the very few billionaire sychophants, and their price means other than to a veritable parade they are not driven.

No new stinkers, what was a cali if not an abanbdoned maserati and a stinker?


Thats a far cry from the 288 which ferrari feared it would not sell even 270 of because it was so raw. There is a reason why an F40 with all its faults is a 1.5 million dollar car even thoigh they made 1700. Ferrari simply makes nothing as alive or excellent to drive these days, even if the newer cars are paper "faster"

Once again, no issue witht he new cars, they "perfrom" great on paper, They sell in relative good numbers and make profit. I just have an issue that for under 350k you cant buy a drivers car from ferrari, they type of car that tytpified ferrari and upon which the "brand" halo was built and build amongst a core demographic of drivers.

Porches always cost elss than ferraris, was a dino more or less expensive than a 911. Will a 200K porche ourperform a 488. Whats the poitn of this comparsion other than to compare dollars, which seems to be the primary obession with most ferrari owners these days. My obesession is with how cars drive, and in the modern era how enagign they are at road attainable sppeds and how they go on track. At road attainable speeds a porche cayman Gt4, or the new manual Gt3 are streets ahead of any new ferrari in terms of driver engagement. Yes the porche is cheaper and its lacks the latin flair and drama we see in ferrari design and motors, but to drive on road? On track give me a Gt3 over a 488, not least because the porche is honed for track use, day afetr day, month after month. and their is ample support for such because many if not most owners use their car as such. How many 488s go tot he track, let alone run slicks multiple daus for a summer? .

My bet is Luca will look for piles of money, and just like ducati makes its classic series of bikes, he will make enaging drivers cars that are "slower" and harder to drive. Hopefully the sychophamt instant collectable keep mileage low for resale make mine red with tan crowd will be suitably put off by these slower cars and the rest of us meerly well off will be able to order and buy them.

Yeah I did see on Laf on track it was Grgio with tan and performed excellently, but thats 1.

 

You mean the guy who sold his company to THE maker of pedestrain cars called FIAT in the late 60s, and became a sunbsiduary of a public company for the bucks so he could get on with making a range of race cars(not just F1) which begat soem superlative non Gt road cars?. Enzo would follow the bucks as he did in the 60's, he would be thrilled to know he could go public, build an SUV and remain independant and persue his passion. He would use those bucks to make superlative racing and road cars as he always did, while also making the bulk of his cars of the GT variety for his "wealthy" clients. An SUV is no different from a 365 Queen Mother, which was the SUV ferrari of its day and an income genrator.

The only question today is whether the bucks from an suv and the componants from current exclusively Gt line(laf excepted)will be used like enzo would have to make some superlative drivers road cars(true sports cars) as porche does with its GT4 and Gt3, and whther we will see the return of ferrari road racers. These are type of cars that keeps a brand alive and gives it cred because "drivers" covet for the driving experience and use them for driving on road and track.

 

Yeah, but these guys were elite as far as clients go. All had been to race schools. Pretty sure any F1 driver in a Miata would have been smoked (I think that was hyperbole?).

I have never been able to find an official Fiorano lap time for the FF (Just did another search and no dice), and I'm sure they did one, perhaps because it is too fast and a lot of feelings would be hurt (I bet an FF could beat the F40 time of 1m29.6s easy).

I still don't think Ferrari selling a few thousand FUV's per year will hurt them as long as they keep making quicker and quicker cars.

 

If ferrari is all/only about being special and scarce, and not about being sometimes also a manufactuerer of superlaive driving sportscar then they lost the plot long ago. Thats probably why after driving the 360 456 458 I have yet to feel compelled to buy a newer one.

 

I always find it so interesting people are quick to invoke "what would Enzo do?"
As if it mattered...
Enzo lived to go racing.
His road car business was meant to finance that racing passion.
He famously regarded his road car clients with disdain.
He had to sell his company to Fiat to keep solvent...for racing.
He was a late adopter of new technology, particularly for anything non-engine-related (the horse pulls the cart and all that).
In the late 1980s his road cars were noted for shoddy build quality; and when getting beaten up on the streets by Japanese cars LDM needed to "revamp" the Company to make it competitive again. Going into the future the clients weren't going to tolerate that "Italian passion" while getting smoked by an Acura.

I suspect if Enzo were still at the overall helm he would do just about anything to finance his racing which he would run, and to remain competitive with his road cars someone else would be running the Factory.

 

Enzo wanted money for racing and he would have done anything to get it. Hell, he even sold the company to Fiat to get it. He would have sold it to Ford to get it.

If SUV's were around in his time he would have been all over it. The guy made more GT's than any other type of car. And he liked to sell them to rich Americans and Europeans.

So basically, nothing has changed today except China is no longer poor and someone "invented" the idea of the SUV even though it had been around since Jeeps and Land Rovers came into existence.

 

I have wondered- why do we recoil with the idea of a Ferrari SUV, but we don't with a car like the FF, or to go further back, the 612 and the 456 and the earlier 4 seaters. A SUV is typically AWD. Ferrari has already done that. A SUV typically will seat 4 or 5. Ferrari has already done a 4 seater. A SUV is heavy. Have you looked at the FF weight? And so on. This had me wondering- what's the difference (aside from ride height) between an FF (car we are OK with Ferrari building) and a SUV (car many of us are absolutely angry if Ferrari considers)?

My conclusion is the FF is a connoisseur's car. It will never be a volume leader. It is a car for those with other Ferraris and is a car for them to enjoy some Ferrari spirit when they are not enjoying their other Ferraris. And thus, the FF (or GTC4) is special. Whereas, a SUV is too mainstream. There is nothing quirky about its layout. It is mass market tested and assured. It is seemingly the most popular passenger vehicle layout. And everyone is rushing to do it. Thus the general notion of a Ferrari SUV can come across as a "me too"approach, too typical. The implication is it could be a high volume model for Ferrari. It could risk being ½ the total production. And the implication is many owners might have the Ferrari SUV as their only Ferrari. It is not the Ferrari for the times you need some practicality, it is a SUV but with some Ferrari essence incorporated. I think this (rightly!) makes many of us cringe.

So I ask the question: what if the Ferrari SUV isn't a me too SUV- but rather something interesting that only Ferrari can conjure? I am not the first to put my finger on this, others above such as Mr. Mayor and Italiafan have pointed this out. This is the big challenge for Ferrari if they make a SUV. It absolutely can not be a Maserati SUV with a better engine and suspension. And it should not be a GTC4 but higher up. It needs to be very much a Ferrari. That is a very tall order, but I think Ferrari has managed to surprise us with many great cars, so I say if they are going to make a SUV, then lets keep an open mind until we see it. The burden is on them. No need for we Ferraristi to lament over something we don't know and likely are imagining the worst. I think Ferrari knows this and if they do it, I would expect it to be brilliant.

As a side note I also think Mr. Enzo Ferrari would have used the SUV format if it were popular, as we all know he lived to go racing and that was all that mattered. I still think Ferrari is a racing company, and if they walk this very high tightrope just right, then they will convert the skeptics among us. I am one, I have my skepticism, but I am keeping an open mind.