Dear all, here you are a provocative thread. I spent my last 40 years dreaming of the vintage Ferrari I got last month (if you are interested, see my other posts on this) so now I have a lot of free time to think about other matters. And the first one that comes to my mind is: can we find a way to stop the development of the Purosangue and to push the Ferrari management back on track? I cannot believe that, after Porsche and Lamborghini, Ferrari is going to sell her soul to the devil too just for the benefit of the stock option holders! In my opinion the sportscar brand of the world is supposed to keep making special sportscars, which by definition are light, agile, elegant, beautiful, and that in one word make you dream them day and night! I believe that any Ferrari project so far started with the idea to make not only a piece of motoring, but a piece of art too. I think that this goal was not fully reached on all occasions - I don't quite like or understand more than one model - but I believe that at least that on any project the Ferrari people had a chance. With a SUV instead, in my opinion the mission is impossible, simply because a SUV can be lighter, better, nicer than other SUVs, but certainly uncomparable with any real sportscar. A sportscar is distilled from the races, and the motor races are the modern version of the horse races - is it really accidental that Ferrari badge is a horse instead of a wild goat? A SUV instead has nothing to do with motor sports, or maybe it has with the truck races (that are not interesting at all to us here!) and has nothing to do with the pieces worth a modern art museum too: am I the only one who enjoyed at least once the Ferrari 641/2 at the MoMA in New York? I might be wrong, but can any SUV really make you dream? Or are you going to hang a SUV poster next to the 288 GTO? Or will you enjoy seeing a SUV in the MoMA? My answers are all no, so I believe that the Purosangue should not be a Ferrari, and that the Ferrari management is still on time to change their minds and save the brand and their souls. I just wish that any of them will read this... Want to join the poll? Thank you for reading! All the best, Nic Ferrari at MoMA: what's the link with Purosangue???
Ferrari is owned by shareholders who do not care one bit about the brand. Their primary interest is getting a positive return on their investment. SUV production has been a HUGE money maker for Lamborghini and Porsche and when Ferrari makes an SUV there will be a lineup of people around the town ready to buy one. It is an unfortunate and sad reality. Luckily there will still be a great number of classic Ferrari's out there that most of the new generation can't even drive because they have a manual transmission
It’s not like Ferrari never intended to make cars that could be used as daily drivers. Think of all the 2+2s, for example. But today, unfortunately, many people feel their daily driver needs to be an SUV. This is to compete with bad roads, increases in truck traffic, and to have visibility like all the other SUVs. Being at “ground level“ today feels uncomfortable to some drivers. Yeah it’s about the money but that also keeps the sports and racing cars going.
There's nothing that can be done by outsiders to stop the UglyHorse. The only thing that will do so is people not buying them. But on that note, Nick Cage said it best:
Porsche sets the standard of cognitive dissonance: https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayenne/cayenne-models/cayenne/ quote: Quintessential sports cars. The Cayenne and Cayenne Coupe: both boast a striking appearance and impressive performance, with up to five seats. Whether you prefer embarking upon your next adventure in the Cayenne together with friends, or fall for the iconic lines of the Coupe, it is purely a matter of personal taste. But one thing also applies to our two biggest models: every Porsche is first and foremost a sports car.
I think its a smart move for Ferrari. Ferrari is a business that exists to make a profit, not to coddle the overly emotional. The Puro is going to be the most profitable Ferrari ever.
I think Ferrari may have to up the game in this market.How many "moms" will be willing to put up with some of the stuff present day owners do? Mike
Couple of thoughts: Just about all production car manufacturers, including those conventionally known only for GT and Sports cars like Ferrari, Porsche, etc make cars their customers want and apparently many/most buyers today want SUVs with exotic "brand name". OTOH, Ferrari has already been making SUVs for a long time (think FF). SUVs are what Estate/Station Wagons were in the '60s & '70s or Mini-vans in the '80 & '90s.
My wife and I walked past a parked Urus a few weeks ago, and I deliberately said nothing. She did not notice it. I then pointed it out, saying it cost $250k. She said it was ugly, and thought it looked like a Hyundai or Kia model. It doesn't have good space or visibility. I wish Ferrari would style theirs more like a Range Rover, which is much classier and more useful, and not just copy the "platypus" shape of the Urus/Cayenne.
If, and that is a big IF, they do it right, I say go for it! BTW, your poll choices are not encompassing. I don't want one, and I wouldn't say I love it, but I have no problem if the make a good one. So I had to vote for I want one, even though I don't. Well at least not right now, maybe when I'm older and have kids and a couple dogs, I'll want one.
Can any one stop Ferrari leadership from making an SUV? No. only the market. Will the Market want one - Yes. will they hold value like the sports cars - doubt it - unless its limited supply. Here in Atlanta, you see the Lambo and Rolls SUV's every day. ( I like the cullennen actually ) -but they are not remarkable other than the badge. If Ferrari were smart they would take whatever Dodge Chrysler product, put some body panels on it big wheels and badges an sell them today for $500K - they would be a huge moneymaker. Ferrari the road car company exists today as an investment for the Angelli family - and its shareholders - I'm one of them.... so you want the investment to pay off, they have to go with the market. would I buy one? No. If you ask me when Porsche did this, they bifurcated the market - Porsche sports car owners and then daily driver owners... the two rarely mix other than someone who has one and buys the other ... usually you see a 911 owner - get a Mcacn or Cayenne for a DD... cause it's cool. I would think Ferrari would be in that league as well. I would suspect that most Purosange owners would be existing owners, OR are are attracted to the Marque for the first time because its an SUV with the Ferrari badge. if you have an 812 or collection - I can se people buying one to have it for the cool factor - but I would think that wears off quickly. Ferrari makes daily drivers - Cali's and FF variants.... I would think the Purosange is going to be one of those. I've even looked at used cali'T's thinking of getting a new 911... but in the end, Porsche makes more sense as the reliability factor is much better. The more cars you make - the greater the chance you get them right..... at least that is what I tell myself.
To those that think the road car company supports the F-1 & racing efforts, that is an outdated notion. the F-1 program is basically self sufficient, with sponsorship from F-1 and Phillip Morris... it's a profit center. does technology spill over into road cars? - some, but most of the current road cars have more tech than F-1 ... materials it's a different story. F-1 is about the materials used, and the combination with in the rules. Road cars are pretty much a blank page. - just have to meet regulations that are a lot less restrictive than F-1.
Ok, so for you I can add the choice "I want one when it will be depreciated to 5.000 €" and for some others "I don't want one, but I am in favour of killing the brand for a short term profit" I am joking, but in my opinion a true Ferrari enthusiast is either loving or hating a new car model. If you love it, you want one, if you hate, you wish to never see it. And then there are the Ferrari investors, speculators, etc.
I am a shareholder and I DO care about the brand. Very much so. But I am shareholder for simple sentimental, emotional and historical reasons. I don't care if I make a profit or not with my RACE shares. All I want is that they do not produce electrical cars and I already hate hybrid cars. I know, this is a different discussion. Marcel Massini
How can't you be overly emotional if you own a Ferrari or invest time wirting on this forum? Before selling a Ferrari, they should assess the customer emotional level, imho! Do you know that Enzo made prospect customers wait for hours in an empty room? If they weren't emotional enough, they'd walk away. At least the legend says this, and I like it. Ultimately my point is that Ferrari should not make the Purosangue because this car segment is light years away from the brand values and identity, and that in the long run these short term tactics will damage the brand positioning - and profitability too. To make an example that everyone can uderstand: why isn't Apple marketing microwave ovens or underwear? I am sure they could make immense profits with such garbage, but they don't. They are focussed. And Ferrari used to be focussed too, at least until Enzo was around. At Apple - and I hate using the Apple example, as everybody does nowadays, but they still are the nr. 1 brand - the mantra is "what would Steve do?". At Ferrari instead nodoby seems to ask anymore "what would Enzo do?" (the answer is he would sack them all!), but "what do the investors (read speculators) want?" Well, imho the speculators want a quick return and do not care at all of the future or the raison d'être of any company. I believe that today Ferrari is still so special because it is seen as the most aspirational, focussed and iconic car brand. Anybody can recognize a Ferrari on the roads, and this mix of strong identity and wide polularity is the base for the long term success - and profitability. Porsche was similar, then too many got a Cayenne; 20 years later you see way less Cayennes, because you don't want to be exchanged for the gipsy who's driving a used one. We will see what happens in 10-20 years form now. Sorry for being this direct, but I am overly emotional. Have a good day, Nic
Actually I think that you are the truest investor, the one believing in the company and in her future. Others call themselves investors but in reality are just speculators, who behave as life or companies were just money-centric, and would probably rent their wives if it was legal.
Ferrari's board always tell that the Purosangue is not going to be a SUV. I don't know what it means, but I want to believe that Purosangue will be very different from a Cayenne, a Urus and so on. Then, what do you think about Ferrari FF? It is not a "pure" Ferrari, it is a wagon or something similar.
I take it as you asked me Personally I never liked the FF, that made me feel a bit skeptic since her launch. I remember those odd promo videos on the snow, and I could not understand their meaning or the purpose of the car. She's heavy and I don't think she's beautiful - my personal tastes. Were they trying to make a more versatile 2+2? Sure, but I think that the end result was too functional at the expenses of style and the racy pedigree. Had Ferrari wanted introduce a 4WD, I'd have preferred to see it on a berlinetta, like Lamborghini did with Gallardo/Huracan.
Perhaps because nobody (before them) had created or thought of a market for “high performance” wagons or mini-vans and their own marketing research team didn’t at the time see it viable enough to enter soccer mom transporter business, but now… … that EVERYONE else is already making them and overall automotive technology with its generic, global uniformity in all today’s cars, including soccer mom vehicles, being nearly identical*, making it more level playing field… … they’re ready to follow. And if provocative thoughts are to be thrown around, another way to look at this is that Ferrari got on the slippery slope of starting to loose its uniqueness factor and soul already back in the ‘70s when it ventured into larger scale, conveyor belt type mass-production to offer lower cost/priced alternative models, i.e. 308s and all that followed. * This is just my personal perception, since I don’t follow or really care about modern vehicles, i.e. anything made within last 4+ decades, or their “technological advancements. I mean, how many cup holders, touchscreen controls/displays or snowflake safety sensor features car really “needs” ?
I fully agree with you! I am just thankful they slipped down to 8 cylinders otherwise I could not own one, but wish they stopped going down then!
