Did you buy your Ferrari because it was the fastest at the time?

Didn't make those specific purchases, but wanted to post since I had some of those thoughts when I purchased mine a couple months ago.

For comparison, I owned what at the time (and until the 2005 Bugatti Veyron) was the fastest production vehicle of any kind, the Honda V65 Magna; 1100 cc, 6-speed (third gear wheelies, the only one to do it) with an official quarter mile at 10.92 & top speed (in 1986) of about 184. "Fastest" is measured a few different ways; any of today's exotics and supercars can go faster than any normal human can handle, anyway, so it wasn't a significant consideration- they all could do what I wanted in one fashion or another.

The Ferrari is like the V65; I wanted to own it because it was the best of its kind, a beautiful piece of machinery that evokes an emotional response from folks who aren't even sure what it is. The craftsmanship, finish, sound of the engine and exhaust, the paint and leather; all of it create something unique. In short, the total package. I do enjoy blasting through the gears, so it was important for the car to have that "hang on" feel. I'm not sure shaving a tenth off my quarter mile would make any difference whatsoever, and know someone driving their GTR enjoys their ride- I also know they'd also trade straight up for mine.

Bob H

 

No.

 

To quote what I wrote in another post...

I feel sorry for those out there who only judge a car based on acceleration, top speed, and lap time. By this reason you say now that the Scud is here the CS is *****, outdated, etc. and since the CS laps Fiorano faster than an F40, well the F40 is crap too. You have really missed something very significant. If you need to only be in the fastest, latest car out there so that you can blow away anything that pulls up next you at the lights, again, my condolences. If I have an F40 in future, please pull up next to me and demonstrate your superiority. I will be content in the F40 and its inferiority.

If you need to have the fastest car to win races, that can be easily understood. Buying a car on numbers in the back of a magazine? Not interested. Lots of cars go fast, only some are special.

 

i am by nature a cheap bastard. so no i never bought a car because it was the fastest since by the time i got around to buying it there were many other faster cars.

to me the purchases (mostly) were made based on a long held desire and love of the shape, and the engine, and the feeling.

 

No. If I wanted the fastest car on the road, I'd have bought a modded Corvette or GTR.

I could give a rats about being the fastest. It's about driver feel, design, engineering and experience for me.

(On the engineering: You can disassemble and rebuild almost any component of a modern Ferrari. Porsches and other cars break when you try to fix them, or are designed with the breaks throw it away mindset.)

 

Fast - Fast is the posted Speed Limit.


Who here other than me, (us in Germany) does NOT have one of those pesky little things called a Speed Limit?

 

NO. I admired the Lusso for a lot of different reasons.

 

maybe if you dropped it out of a plane.

 

The motor, I bought a Ferrari for the motor. I am a gearhead and proud of it, I had a Colombo V12 block with a glass top as a dining room table back in the late 70's long before it was the fashion.

Yes, I also bought the car because of the looks and the road handling, I love the way it handles the road and it still takes my breath away when I look at the car.

But I bought it for the motor and got a model with the engine under glass for that reason.

 

I've had a 330 2+2 and now a 308QV - knew with certainty that they weren't to going to be stoplight demons. Performance for both good and adequate for my purposes.

 

Its tough to calculate the terminal velocity of a V65 dropped from the plane, but it would likely be less than its top speed under power. A skydiver reaches terminal velocity, for instance, at about 122mph, more if they tuck their arms. With the meteor strike today, someone somewhere will note the terminal velocity of meteors is almost always about 240 mph, about as fast as anything can drop without power assist.

The Magna has some buoyancy due to its mass and configuration, but at 590 pounds, would drop like the proverbial rock; probably not, though, more than 150-160mph. Since the factory specs for all four years of the V65's production baselined at 164, and since the 184 had been unofficially reported, I used that figure (the quarter mile out of the box was also given as a high of 11.2 to a low of 10.75; 10.92 is the official timing). I can attest that mine went 135mph without breathing hard (like a Ferrari) with about 1200 rpm left to the redline, so I know the lateral acceleration is most likely more than its terminal velocity...

Remember, your day is always a little better with some math in it...

Best Regards, Bob H

 

Fascinating question here. I have never bought a new Ferrari, but I have bought lots of other new cars and none of them have been because they were the fastest, quickest or generated the best skidpad numbers. The things that draw me to any certain car have little to do with its 0-60 time or top speed.

Every car is different of course, but to me I think that about 500HP is the most power that can be used responsibly on street tires and on public highways. Once super cars exceed that number, to me they simply cease to be driver's cars. They morph into dyno numbered, 1/4 mile dick swinging contest that has little bearing on what a "car" is to me. With tons of grip and lots of electronic nannies, most of the horsepower is being held back to the level of grip available. These cars start to be a contest of magazine reports and specification sheets rather than anything "driver" related. I'd argue that it makes this question irrelevant in the current technology driven car market. If you get hit by a falling anvil, or a falling airliner are you not just as dead regardless of the specifications or the speed of the drop?

For me it's all about balance and the entertainment of operating the machine. For me the older Ferrari's are the embodiment of this feeling. There is certainly nothing wrong with a 458, or a 599 of course, but the places to drive them to the limit are few and far between, which can get frustrating. I will conceded that you will get treated differently pulling up to the valet in a 458 than you might in a 308 or a 355, but it wont be because its faster.

To sum up, I believe that it is much more fun to drive a slow car fast, than to drive a fast car slowly. I own cars that cover the range, from a FIAT 850 Spider to a C6 Z06 Corvette, with my 355 right in the middle. All of them are fun and entertaining in their own way to me. Perhaps not to you!

The reasons folks decide to buy new a new Ferrari are as varied as the people themselves. I can certainly understand the pride of new Ferrari ownership, and if I ever do find myself in a position to be able to buy a new Ferrari that I covet, there is no doubt I will enjoy every part of the process from choosing the hides to the moment I drive it out of the dealership. But it wont be because its faster than something else, it will be that I feel it captures the intangible things about driving a "Ferrari".

 

No, I bought them because they were better.

 

As a physics major with a math minor I appreciate the post. As an advid motorcyclist I think it was within the thread discussion to point out a v65 would never break 150 tops in its day. My effort to call BS in a humorous way failed.

It's a bench/bar racing issue... Just like the thread topic. The bike was quick, sure, but not built for fast. Big difference. (acceleration versus top speed). as soon as you say 180+ for a bike in the 80s it loses all credibility.

Which back to the thread shows people buy for bragging numbers regardless of reality or actual use.

My track bike makes maybe 60hp and I drive a Mondial, so it's clear where I stand.

 

No intent to start a shooting war, and I appreciate the oblique humor (mine was also meant to be obliquely humorous, alas, that also went awry) even as folks learn the velocity of meteors, important if you ever need to outrun one...

We'll agree to disagree re the bike doing 150mph, but do so respectfully. I mentioned the specs primarily because most folks don't know the V65 existed, and Honda cut production back to a 750cc for both EPA and safety reasons after four production runs (too many people seemed to use them as the bike was capable of, but not their ability). It was, and is, a marvel of technology with water-cooled, six speed, shaft drive power...

Owning one, like the Ferrari, does present the satisfaction of owning the best (even if not the fastest), which was the intended point of the original post. As noted, my common sense has precluded any further forays into speeds of that genre, so I'll take the word of others who may push their cars to find out if the advertised speeds are there.

Thanks, Bob H

 

You, Sir, have summed it up beautifully. If you don't mind, I believe I shall quote / plagiarize you extensively.

(Even if you do mind, I probably will anyway.... ;-) )

 

Although I've owned 4 types of Ferrari, I think only buying a new Ferrari qualifies as an answer to the OP's original question, so only my 458 is relevant.

I bought my 458 without a single thought about its absolute speed. The principle reasons for buying it were:

1. I wanted the bucket-list thing of ordering a Ferrari new from the factory, and actually going to the factory to experience it. It was really worthwhile and I loved the whole experience. This was important to me because I've loved Ferrari since around 1975 and I know and love the history of the brand and how it relates to the modern cars.
2. I just love the 458's looks and appearance - the best looking modern Ferrari for a long time.
3. I knew it was fast enough to satisfy my needs.

After I bought it, I was pleasantly surprised at how benign the 458 is at the limit (at least in RACE mode), so the choice was affirmed as a good one and I've been 100% happy with it.

Wonderful car, wonderful ownership experience. Whether it is the fastest in its class, or not, I could not care less.


Onno

 

Hey Rosso, no worries, spread the word!

Btw, I had my 328 out the other day to run some Valentine's Day errands. It was one of those perfect sunny but cool days where the targa just is the perfect choice. I managed to locate the stops in 3 different towns so it was 'necessary' to take about 2 hours performing my duties. I could have taken a 'faster' car and been back a good 30 mins earlier...to 2 screaming toddlers. I'm sure there are a few out there can can appreciate this logic!

 

Funny how this means something altogether very different here in th UK... ;-)

 

I will be stealing this as well!

 

Shhhhhh!!!

Don't let on, or I'll get busted for doing that too!

Anyway... The way I figure, buying any thing - car, plane, boat, computer, cell phone, you name it - just because it is the biggest and bestest and fastest and coolest..... Well, that's a chump's game. Probably by the time you get it home there will be a bigger, bester, faster, cooler version.

Not saying no one should buy those things if they want them. But if the only reason you're buying them is for the bragging rights of having the latest and greatest , you are just volunteering yourself for a constant state of disappointment and anxiety because it turns into a hamster wheel of always having to keep up with the Jones-es.

 

No, not even close. My Viper and RX7 are both much quicker/faster than my 360.
I'm finishing up a 1968 Mini AWD that will probably be quicker to 100 - 110 MPH.
I got it because it's DAMM sexy!

 

Excellent post

 

And here I thought I was the only one...

+F40.