Ferrari to Lambo not Lambo to Ferrari

I'm not sure what #'s you're looking at but the facts are in
04 Ferrari sold 4900 cars and that is the max number they can make.
04 Lambo sold only 1400 and they can make 5000.

One F dealer I know returned 40 deposit checks for 360's.
New G's and Murcies sell for under msrp.

Unless you have a great relationship with a F dealer you can't get a 430 for years with out paying way up for a used/flipped one.

Anyone who can write a check for 155K/ 255K can drive away with a new G or Murcie today.

 

I don't think total sales numbers were really relevant to what Italia was saying though, Jim. He was only referring to instances where Ferrari owners trade in for a Lamborghini - and that he hadn't heard of many or any trading in their Lamborghini for a Ferrari. An argument of total production numbers is not the core of this argument.

I think taking a survey of Lambo dealers/salesmen and Ferrari dealers and asking them if X gets traded in for Y would be the quickest way to get a sense of the frequency. My guess would be that Ferrari trading for Lambo is more common because Lambo is seen as more of a niche product with a [now lessened] reputation for being more eccentric/finicky to drive - people might start with a more manageable Ferrari.

 

I think production numbers is very relevant in this case. By pure stat, there are more Ferrari owners out there than Lambo owners, hence, by shear numbers, there should and will be more Ferrari owners that traded down to a Lambo. What should be calculated is: the percentage of Ferrari owners that traded down to a Lambo/Overall Ferraris made vs. the percentage of Lambo owners that traded up to a Ferraris/Overall Lambos made. And this should only be limited to single ownership cars, not the second or third owners as there will always be more Ferraris out there than Lambos, new or used.

I am not a Troll either, I too love the pre-Diablo Lambos.

 

I hear far more of Ferrari owners trading to Lamborghinis. Sometimes you hear of a Lamborghini owner adding a Ferrari to the stables, but never trading for it.

-Ben

 

I honestly don't think trading X for Y tells you anything about the merits of either car. I take jim's point about comparative demand, but i don't think that tells you much about the respective merit of the cars either, unless you believe that popularity is the measure. As to pejoratives of trading "down" to a Lambo, Anthony C., i think your comment only speaks to your attitude and not the cars themselves.

 

i dont think a move from f to a lambo or vise versa can be considered a trade up or down. to me its a lateral move. driving these auto's is a passion for most, not a purchase. each one brings a different driving experience to its owner and thats whats motivates us to purchase what we do. i hope to experace them all. it's about the passion, the way we feel when were behind the wheel. the rest is social BS

 

I agree with bobf430; they ARE different driving experiences. However, as I have worked for both a F dealer and L dealer, there was only one Lambo to a Ferrari trade in the 5 years at the Ferrari dealer. By comparison, the number one car traded for a Lambo is indeed a Ferrari, probably followed distantly by 996 Turbos. The other thing you have to keep in mind with production numbers is that before the Gallardo was introduced, the Murci (and Diablo before it) were in the mid to high $200k range, while Ferrari always had less expensive priced models that more people could afford.

 

Personally speaking, I'm glad that Lambo only produces 1400, as opposed to 5000. As an owner, the more exclusive the car, the better. I like the fact that they are not nearly as common as Ferrari's. And, I like the fact that not everyone has the same taste in cars. Sales figures shouldn't matter to the buyers. It should only matter to the shareholders and dealers.

Anyways, to answer your original question, I have personally not seen a Lambo owner sell/trade for a Ferrari. However, I have personally seen 3 people I know sell/trade a Ferrari for a Lambo.

 

The overall numbers simply speak to the overal demand.
The price they sell for over/under msrp. futher speaks to overall demand.
Sales figures, poor ones in the case of Lambo, are good for those who want Lambo's.
The good news for those that want a new G or a Murcie is that they can get one any time they want under msrp.
It also does make them more exclusive.

Hey I'd buy a new Murcie before I'd pay over msrp. for a 430 but it looks like there will be more who pay up for a 430 than will buy new Murcies and that is pretty wild. (Whether or not it's stupid is a separate issue)

If your looking for a new Murcie Spyder there's a Yellow 6 sp in Sundays NYT's.
The 03 Black 10K Murcie is also still at Kerbeck. Kenny?

Michael
True but as it was 400 murcies and 1000 G's that is no longer true esp as G's sell for less than 360/430's. The number of 360/430's the market seems to want is pretty impressive IMO.

 

I don't follow the production argument either. My sense is that more Ferrari owners "graduate" to a Lambo than the other way around. I'm also starting to think that Lambo has a higher proportion of enthusiast or car-guy owners than Ferrari.

 

2 different cars, ferrari's look good and sound nice, lambo's are more raw and performance oriented

 

Agree. I also think Lambo's are more cutting edge design. They look great in colors that would look silly on a Ferrari.

Will you be with the Lambo's at the NYAS? I'l be there on the night of the F party.

 

Exactly! And now more reliable also.

 

This mambo Jumbo is BS . If u hear more pple trading F to L its because there are probably 6 times more F owners than L owners. And also because Murcielagos are cheap compared to a 360 in perf/value.

 

man, i could never decide.....

it's like having to choose b/w janna jameson, the stunningly slutty porn-star and heidi klum, the beautiful and wholesome supermodel....

so i go back and forth.....

 

Wouldnt Price point have an impact to this argument.
How do we analyze this relationship?
How many 150k brand new ferraris are there?
How many new Gallardos are out there and what do they sell for?
Assuming a brand new ferrari is at a higher price point i.e. stradale, 360 spider, throw in the Modena, wouldnt that be a trade down to Lambo.
Or would you compare just modena to gallardo when making this analysis?
If I eat a $6 dollar burger at chilis and get the same one next week at Carls Junior am I trading up or down?

Do i gain something by spending less at CJs or am I stupid for eating at Chilis?

To each his own. We can justify anything and tell ouselves that we made a good buying decision.

I do like both cars. But something about an FCar that I have dreamed about.....

Out
MM

 

For the same reason that Italiacars feels that going from Ferrari to Lambo is "trading up" as in his initial post. It is all a matter of opinion.

 

I'd trade my Countach in on an F50 or a 57 Testa Rossa in a heart beat
Even trade of course LOL

 

Speaking as a shareholder, sales figures do matter.

Ferrari is running at 100% capacity utlization.

Lambo is at 28%.

Which do you think is profitable?

 

Given that both Companies can theoretically sell approximately 5000 cars per year and Ferrari does (and could sell more if it wanted) and Lambo doesn't - is somewhat an indication of their general desirability. Ferrari is more desirable to those that can afford to buy $160K - $300K Italian sports cars. Also, there are far fewer Lambo's on the road than Ferrari's by at least a factor of 5 to 1 - so if there is a trade, it is 5 times as likely to be a Ferrari owner trading for a Lambo. The fact that there are fewer Lambo's sold - and therefore some say they are more exclusive - is sorta backwards logic given that Lambo wants to sell as many as Ferrari does but cannot.

Now having said that - they are both great cars.

 

The only way to trade up between F-car and L-car is to have both
why choose
I Like Steak (Lamborghini) and Cheesecake (Ferrari)
///MK

 

To defend Lambo, any arguments of production capacity are a bit unfair. After all, Lambo released the Gallardo ONE YEAR AGO and went from making 400 cars a year to 1400 in ONE YEAR. To say they *should* be expected to multiply their sales by 12 in 5 quarters is absurd. That they tripled it in one year deserves kudos IMO.

IMO, Lamborghini is really at a stage of development right now where Ferrari was about 12 years ago. One year after Luca de Montemozolo took over it doesn't seem they were so healthy themselves, probably not until the 355 and then 360 were being sold.

In 3-4 years I think they'll be where they should be. I also blame the slow sales on customer unfamiliarity and that Lambo is really playing *more* of a niche market than Ferrari with their edgier shapes and styling. Ferrari has been playing to the middle rather strongly with the softer 360 and the blah blah 612. Now, this 430 is a *strong* statement from Ferrari that seems to be well-received so who knows.

 

will have a murci and a Gallardo at the show this year, and i will also be attending the eastside house benefit on the 23rd. drop me a PM we can meet up

 

I recall an article in an English mag that compared a Muira and a Daytona. The Muira was totally cutting edge with its mid-design, low center of gravity, etc, but a bit of a beast, heavy clutch, etc. . . The Daytona? nearly as fast, not as wild, refined, more predictable, etc. . .

Seems like the two cars were pretty comparable, and for the dreamers among us, they certainly were! BUT. . . .

Crash a Muira and try to fix it. Compare that with a Daytona. Now, I know we're comparing SUPERCARS, sure, but Ferrari certainly has been better situated to fix its cars over the years, eh?

Lambos are AWESOME, certainly, but Ferraris are AWESOME and a bit more RELIABLE, too (as supercars go, anyway. . .)

but what the hell do I know, I own a VW