Ferrari F80 value thread

of course there are some who still drive them but it's extremely rare for people to actually put good miles on them
if the market does dip then it might be encouraging for people to do so!

 

relrevent in terms of hypercar performance on the race track:

the valk sets a production car record around Silverstone, faster than anything by 10 seconds and even beats the GT3 lap record (slicks etc) by 1-2 seconds

 

Indeed and very well stated. Yes, I enjoy hearing about those epic European road trips from our mutual friend. His cars are driven and enjoyed, though I am sure it does help he lives where no speed limits apply!

I think there will always be something intangibly special about Ferrari and my view to really understand Ferrari and really appreciated it, it does help to have some knowledge of the history. As for the value, there will always be value and that is to me a nice added bonus.

 

The jury is very much out on usability and long term reliability....

 

For anyone who’s interested, here is the post. Makes sense… I guess I’ll just have to try each before I commit to one

 

My personal preference is the LaF. Feels more alive than SP3 as it is considerably more powerful but not really heavier and the and the sound is better. I also prefer the experience behind the wheel, the cabin is easier to access than a SP3 with the roof on and the visibility is better.
Having said that, the SP3 can be driven without roof, has no batteries (big plus), is very reasonable to maintain, just 100 pieces more, is absolutely beautiful and it is not slow by any means. Plus it is still a V12 and GPF or not it still sounds great.
In the long run I suspect SP3 will be one of the most desirable cars, but that is just my opinion of course

 

Completely agree !

 

And short term reliability.

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

often discussed.....
the F40 total mkt cap if we use $2.5 mil/car average comes to nearly $3.3 billion fwiw.
which likely exceeds all the other big 5

 

maybe....

i read somewhere that 2 of the most universally recognizable cars on the planet are the 911 and the F40.

note that not one of the other ferrari hypercars are included.

many things can and will happen. but my own belief is that once they have built 1300 F80's that do not feature on boy's bedroom walls anywhere, nor be driven or raced anywhere at anytime, their attraction will wane. despite my personal appreciation of the f80 and its origins and engineering, i do not think they will be universally valued and worshipped. i just dont see it.

 

At the retail price there is less to be gained in resale and some are saying a lot less. As a result resale returns will be much more dependent on extremely low or even just delivery miles with a few drives around the block. This is always true but more so when the initial cost is deemed too high.

 

This excerpt from Wikipedia about the F40’s reception is both interesting and familiar. If they had doubled the price, 30 years later it would still have been great value for anyone who had driven and kept it for that time. It’s hard to make predictions about any car but I can’t think of any super-priced Ferrari from history that hasn’t worked out financially over time. If prices are weaker earlier on, perhaps that will encourage people to drive them a bit. Interesting that Gordon Murray was so critical of the F40 for being too light a build. He cites a 60’s sports car as his favourite drive and uses it daily (can’t remember which one).

At the very least, Ferrari’s F80 pricing will ensure that only people who actually want to own the car will shell out for one. I don’t like the pricing and it is a risk for both Ferrari and the owners. But they’re all seemingly sold.


When the F40 was unveiled in 1987 it received mixed reactions. Dennis Simanaitis praised its looks in Road & Track,[48] but others were unimpressed. Observers considered it a cynical attempt to cash in on speculators’ money after seeing how much was paid for used 288 GTOs and for the Porsche 959.[49] Speculators were expecting Enzo Ferrari's death and to benefit from raising prices.[50] It was estimated in 1990 that only 10% of the delivered F40s were used for driving.[51]

Speculators sold the cars with ever-rising prices, up to over seven times the list price in 1989 (before the bubble burst) which made it even more desirable.[52]

Autocar tested an F40 in 1988 at the Fiorano test circuit. The writer, Mel Nichols, stated: "I do not yet know how whether the F40 is tractable in traffic, fearsome on the wet, harsh on bumpy roads or too noisy on long journeys. It has no luggage space and getting in and out is awkward. But I do know this: on a smooth road it is a scintillatingly fast car that is docile and charming in its nature; a car that is demanding but not difficult to drive, blessed as it is with massive grip and, even more importantly, superb balance and manners. You can use its performance, the closest any production car maker has yet come to race car levels, and revel in it."[53]

In 1988, Ferrari invited journalists to test the F40 at their home track Fiorano Circuitand bring a Porsche 959 along for comparison. The Automobile Magazine and Carmagazines made an overall verdict, for both of them, the Porsche 959 was the better car.[54][55]

Gordon Murray analyzed the car in Motor Trend's July 1990 issue: "It's the lack of weight that makes the Ferrari so exciting. There's nothing else magic about the car at all...They're asking two- and three-inch-diameter steel tubes at chassis base datum level to do all the work, and it shows – you can feel the chassis flexing on the circuit and it wobbles all over the place on the road. It really does shake about. And, of course, once you excite the chassis the door panels start rattling and squeaking. Whereas the other cars feel taut and solid, this one's like a big go-kart with a plastic body on it." He severely criticized the old racing technology: "It's not even '60s technology, from a frame point of view, it's '50s twin-tube technology, not even a spaceframe. It's only got local frames to hold the bulkhead to the dash, attach the front suspension, rear suspension and roll bar. And then you have the marketing Kevlar glues in with a quarter-inch of rubber."[56]

Car and Driver called the car a "mix of sheer terror and raw excitement". The most fun was accelerating in first gear from 15 mph (24 km/h), "pure terror" was driving on a busy highway. The rear vision was so bad that lane changes required "leaps of faith". It was found unfit for daily road use, "clunky and cantankerous" around town, "so mechanically delinquent that an onboard mechanic is advised", to describe driver discomfort "Bangkok debtors' prison" was used. In a comparison test the Lamborghini Diablo was found better looking by the civilians while the testers opted for the F40.[12][57] When Car and Driver declared the Porsche 911 Turbo the quickest A-to-B four-wheeled transport on American highways, the "nervous" Ferrari F40 wasn't found competitive because of being a 30-minute car. "After that, you'd like a cool drink and a brief nap."[58]

 

Lukeylikey, we meet again.

GM first praised the F40 for being lightweight, and then he criticized it for being too light (ie not stiff) a build, saying it is not even 60s technology. If a 60s sports car is his favorite drive, that is entirely consistent with his criticism (you like people that are consistent, right?), because according to him even 60s technology is better than the F40's 50s twin-tube technology. Him criticizing the flexing chassis of the F40 is also consistent with him going on to build carbon tubs which are both lightweight - which he loves - and stiff. His criticism is entirely warranted from his point of view and still consistent with him driving a 60s sports car, which is still stiffer than the F40.

 

?! This isn’t Marvel comics. In point of fact we have never met and I’m starting to feel quite content with that

Yet again you miss the point by focusing on a detail. The point of the post was not that GM criticised the F40 and therefore he was wrong. The point was that he and others were most likely right. Yet it is 35 years later and the F40 is recognised as one of the most iconic cars of all time and is top of many people’s list of greatest ever cars. This is a pattern. No point arguing about it, we will all see in time.

 

i drove mine from london to geneva in one run, only stopping for petrol, and could barely walk the next day.
the fixed rake, odd steering wheel angle, noise, and smells, make it inordinately uncomfortable, but the rush of power, fantastic exhaust sound (with tubi), quick steering, and massive presence, make it exhilarating at the same time. GM is correct, you can hear every creak, groan and pebble, and the fit and finish is abominable - much like almost every dedicated race car i have had the occasion to drive....and that was the point.

btw, there is plenty of cargo space, especially if you have the fitted luggage.

 

You never disappoint, Baiteybitey. Hook, line and sinker!

 

Imperfections often make the experience perfect, giving the car a challenging and mythical character, and that's the case with the F40.

 

Ohh-kay. I was always under the impression forums were for multi-way conversation not two-way. Happily there’s a solution for that

 

Anyone who has the financial wherewithal to drop $4m on a car certainly understands that the same $4m invested would be worth significantly more in the long run. Or short run. If you can afford the car then you can afford to light $4m on fire. Buy it, drive the piss out of it and enjoy the ride. Life is short. All this talk about value and resale I find very confusing … $4m invested properly is worth $5m in … what … 3 years? Maybe 5, maybe less? How can anyone smart enough to have that much play money be dumb enough to care whether the price leaves them room to make money, when they can make 10x or 20x by NOT buying it? For those of you who have allocations, you are very fortunate and have undoubtedly worked very hard for that good fortune … drive it like you stole it! And send lots of pics!

 

I couldn't possibly agree more.

Any money not "invested" in such cars could be made to grow much more significantly otherwise. Always. And with much more certainty and control.

Rather than coming up with justifications for buying such cars (F80 included), I find it easier to answer "is there a reason I might regret not buying it". Nearly every time, although there have been some exceptions, the conclusion is to just buy it. That goes in line with "life is short".

 

This is all true, but most people with that kind of money don’t really want the cost of the experience to be horrific. The privileges of ownership are all part of the value equation, in addition to the financial element. If Ferrari did their job right and allocated these cars to people who are able and want to own them for the right reasons, then so long as the car doesn’t collapse in value they will be happy. On the other hand, if the flippers are in the mix then they’ll try and move cars on early putting pressure on values. Ferrari did seem to put in a lot of effort to make sure this won’t happen but stories of allocations being offered for a price, despite seeming more scarce than in the past, still exist.

 

Buying an F80 is not just buying one car.

One thing I would note to you all regarding the kinds of people who have the requisite funds to “light on fire”, they very likely have an army of professionals.

When the principal says to his or her people - I want to buy XYZ, and they say, oh ok, its safe, it holds value; vs: oh no, you’ll lose all your money… well, in the past few decades Ferrari was much more on the “safe” side of the scale. I think you should ask, what happens when its on the “not safe” side of the scale?

These professionals get together at their annual conferences and when the talk turns to what their wealthy clients are doing with their money, and when Ferrari comes up, does it matter if the discussion has shifted from “safe” to “not safe”? What happens when they are all discussing it, and then you have the articles that will naturally follow in publications like WSJ and Bloomberg.

And for those who don’t have the army of professionals or will do what they want, then they are good at keeping score- thats how they ended up being able to afford these things….

Does it matter? I would put it to you that it does matter. The question is just how much.

 

I bet if some of those wealthy professional trimmed the ranks of their "army of professionals" they could easily afford an F80, and the attendant depreciation that comes along with it, and have enough leftover for a Birkin bag or two for their missus.