The Tesla Plaid Will Smoke Every Car Ferrari Makes for $150k

I appreciate both sounds. I like Star Wars and MadMax.

Where I smirk is folks that become fanbois and start hurling mud. It exposes more about their own insecurities about their preferred 'sound.'



Like some Star Wars fan is destroying all copies of Max Max movies....

ROFL

 

It's all relative, I'm sure folks were having this discussion in the '60s with the horsepower wars.

I just didn't think so many in the Ferrari community would be the one pooh-poohing 'speed' as too 'excessive' - it just plays into a lot of the stereotypical tropes.

 

Why stop there?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
0-60 0.8 seconds.

Maybe because we're talking about stock production cars?

 

It has EVERYTHING to do with the OP's question.

 

That is precisely why 0-60 doesn’t mean anything to me when choosing a car.

There is always something faster. I’d much rather experience a bunch of fast corners than straight line acceleration. The best experience I’ve ever had was an aerobatic session with a champion pilot in a Pitts S2b. Never looked at “speed” the same.

To each their own.

 

But do I want all my neighbors mad maxing?

No garbage truck should make sound

 

Aren't they all "produced"? If not, then show me one that is not produced.

 

How so?

Electrification doesn't prevent you or Ferrari from resurrecting the plans of a 250 GT and recreating it. Just takes time and money.

Now if you're saying Ferrari should ignore the future and instead focus on just vintage recreations, hmmm - that's an interesting thought I must admit.

 

SO TRUE!!! Well said sir!

 

Production car in industry parlance means meant for the mainstream consumer.

As in, not modified, 3rd party, special one-off, track only, prototype, etc.

We're not talking about bikes, tanks, rockets, or funny cars.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea "to each their own."

The question posed, however, is not if we should condemn ICE lovers such as me.

The question is should Ferrari STOP advancing? Put another way, should they ignore electrification?

What do you think?

 

Ferrari should be able to make any vehicle they WANT to without interference from anyone. So, if batteries are their plan, then so be it. If ICE is their plan, so be it. If ICE/Battery is their plan, so be it. But, it's my money and I don't have to buy any of it. So, if Ferrari believes 0-60 mph is important, then it is, and if they think a rumbling, grumbling engine due to actual explosions making power, then so be it. But, the OP's questions is not constrained by 0-60mph and it speaks nothing of "production" cars. It said "The Tesla Plaid Will Smoke Every Car Ferrari Makes for $150k". The cost of "making" a vehicle and the "price" of a vehicle is two different things. Therefore, I believe Ferrari can build a car that will "Smoke" a Tesla plaid for $150k and I believe it could look like this:

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Where does it say that? Can you provide an actual definition or is it just an "accepted inference"? Wouldn't the proper term be "Stock" Car?

 

You never heard of the term Production Vehicle?

I can assure you being involved in the automotive business since 1999' - it's a common phrase.

 

Who's stopping you or Ferrari from Classiche?

Tell me, I got my pitchfork and torch right here, I'm ready to march with you brother.

 

I think Ferrari will build a $75,000 electric vehicle that will be extremely similar in overall performance to the Tesla Plaid and try to sell it for over $500,000. The torque and battery will pretty much match each other, but Ferrari, in my opinion, will have the upper hand in stability due to their long history and incredibly stable cars they already produce. I have been around ICE's and for many years, jet engines, and I like the smell, the grumbling, the excitement of those ICE's, so I am biased and my time will die out. But, Ferrari will move that way, but they will be selling a car for $150,000 and a badge for $400,000. That is reality.

 

That's absolutely correct. In other words, what they're doing it now already.

 

Well I already gave my two cents worth in #385 on what I think Ferrari will do.

What I think Ferrari SHOULD do is entirely different and admittedly based on my personal bias.

I've said before I truly believe EV is just a stop gap. I don't think it is the end all be all most do. I was inside the automotive design studios way back in 93-95 and contrary to popular belief they were already heavily looking at EV options. I believe going "all in" on electric will kill many companies once the bottom falls out or the tide turns. They would be wise to not put all their eggs in one basket.

The achilles heel IMO is the generation of electricity. It isn't clean nor neverending. I don't believe we would have the capacity to supply an entire world of EV's drawing off the system unless there are some major advances in energy generation or a sudden proliferation of nuclear plants. This doesn't even begin to scratch the other issues such as cold weather performance and battery disposal, etc. California can't even supply power now. I do believe there will always be a place for them such as in urban areas or light, automated transport but I don't believe they will be 100% of the solution.

Is the world ready for an EV Ferrari hypercar? Will their buyers line up to buy one? I'm guessing not right now. The average age of today's halo car buyers is probably between 55-70. I don't believe the majority of this age group wants an all electric hypercar. Now give it 10-15 years for the next generation to come up and this will probably change. I personally know of at least one major collector (within the aforementioned age range) who sold his LaFerrari because of the electrical "headache". He hated it, went and got a gorgeous TDF to restore instead. The vintage market and manual craze reflects this.

Is it worth it for Ferrari to invest the time and resources? I'm not so sure. I don't believe the core of their market is in this mindset but I could be wrong. It does give one pause to wonder why Porsche, who has clearly put some irons in the Ev basket, is busy developing their synthetic fuel program. Hell, given the current attitude towards cars amongst the current young generation I sometimes wonder if there will be a Ferrari at all.

If only we had a crystal ball...

 

I think Tesla, the largest auto company in the world by a large margin, has the resources to hire the best engineers money can buy and have plenty of change leftover. I remember when drag times was showcasing the Tesla against all comers couple of years ago and getting the best of them until the 7 series Macs started hitting the road. Also, Porsche hinted when the Taycan was released that unlike “others” they could reproduce the performance over and over vs one trick ponies, and at the time they had a valid point. IMHO, Tesla calculated what it took to beat all comers in acceleration, not just to 60 but far beyond and executed accordingly. Also, it seems they made a point to be able to repeat the performance. The plaid still turns mid nines at 20 percent charge. It appears that they met all those goals. If turning or supposed high speed stability was their goal, they would likely have met that goal as well. Remember Tesla knows how and where exactly all their vehicles are used. Turning quick does not seem to be on top of the list for them as evidenced by the safety test you have to pass in order to use full self driving. The software penalizes you for taking turns too fast as well as braking too hard. We r seeing the evolution to complete self driving. It’s inevitable. It will be a bitter sweet achievement, and IMO in 50 years no one will be driving themselves, if not sooner. Enjoy free motoring while it’s still a choice, no matter the propulsion mechanism. Ferrari is not mainstream transportation and I doubt it ever will be. To me, it’s more like a toy that many want and few have. I, for one, will leave my fcars to my kid one day while my plaid will likely be gone before it’s 3 years old. Currently, there is very little overlap on the 2 marquess
in terms of use, ability and cost.

 

So, the car "penalizes" me? Because "IT" doesn't like my driving style? That's exactly the point of why I don't want electric cars. NASA has extremely bright engineers, yet, 2 space shuttles disintegrated because of their decisions (I know the full story and I am summarizing). They launched a $100,000,000 rover experiment to Mars that had metric/inch conversion errors and had a massive conflict and that was the end of that. NASA launched the Hubble telescope that needed "glasses" applied later by one of those space shuttles to actually see. I wouldn't give the Tesla engineers such a pedestal, or we wouldn't have brakes catching fire and disintegrating on a 1000 HP, 1000 torque 5000 pound vehicle. Who would've thought?? Image analysis that doesn't know how to respond to a person stepping off the curb accidentally and thus the car runs right into another vehicle when a more logical solution from a human driver would have avoided all of it the investigation concluded. They have come a long way, I absolutely believe that, but they are not in ANY league that Ferrari is in (at this time). I would still buy one though!!

Also, I see your point, Who would want high speed stability in a car that, in fact, is marketed for exactly that??

 

this thread is stupid. attempting to compare a tesla or any other car to a ferrari. there are levels to this game son

 

Tell me which one you would rather maintain..which one is more wasteful to produce, and which one will last longer.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

So all these lifted GMC/Ford/Chevy/Ram trucks on the road, and lowered ferrari's are not "production cars/trucks"?

 

No.

Why are you even pushing the term?

Here you go. I even pull the 'kids' version for you.

this is just so bizzare.

 

Man, I can't go there due to P&R.

BUT,

This one can be maintained very easy:

Image Unavailable, Please Login