future of sportscarcompanys?

Not intending to be rude... but that made me dizzy.

IMO porsche, ferrari, and lamborghini can survive and do well on their own. They have established a brand identity and have a following.

The newer smaller companies, are tougher to predict. I doub't bugatti could survive on its own. Can spyker survive? Can Zonda survive? I don't know... History doesn't predict success for smaller car companies...

 

Porsche just bought a controlling interest in VW so Porsche is fine

Lotus should be good too

Toyota, Honda are back on track

These are all highly adaptable companies

Ferrai seems to be less adaptable as far as hybrids, electrics etc

I'm worried about Lambo & AM now bcus AM was sold & Lambo may be sold soon

 

Agreed. TVR didn't make it, Pagani is kind of a one-off, etc.

And I'm dizzy. I probably missed 81% of what you meant to say. Maybe you're not a native English speaker, so don't take this the wrong way.

The Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini brand names are probably on top of the automotive world. They will likely always be owned by companies that have deep enough pockets to adapt. A 700bhp hydrogen-powered F540 Spider? Get on the waiting list now.

Porsche is independent, but arguably it sold its soul to stay that way (SUV, forthcoming 4-door Panamera sedan...) I'd be less concerned with independence and more with the product. For example, Fiat's ownership of Ferrari has been arm's-length and benign: Ferraris are made in the Ferrari factory, and you won't find F430 bits in a Fiat Panda. Lotus is making amazing Lotuses, not Protons, etc.

What worries me more is Audi testing the supercar market with its R8, and making the Gallardo a tad less exotic than its predecessors (yes, it's a great car, but it has a normal streak you don't find in Diablos, Miuras and Countachs...) I think survival of the exotic marques has much to do with not meddling in their turf.

 

Porsche figured out that an SUV occupies the other stall in the garage of most Porsche owners. Cayenne does not float my boat, but many porsche nuts love them. Porsche caters to their customers... Cup cars, etc. I see TONS of P's on the road. Obviously many more produced that Ferrari's, but surely less maintance costs (less paranoia?), high performance without the "Hey, look at me" factor Ferraris have.... Porsche has does well and continues to do so.

Hard to say if Ferrari is catering to their customers, other that the fabulously rich ones (FXX, Client whatever thingy for racing). Sales shinanagans and the like could easily backfire over the next decade.

 

All well said and valid points.

BUT is Porsche diluting its image as a sports car company? With the Cayenne and possible a four-door sedan in the mix, I see more similarities between BMW and Porsche than I do between Ferrari and Porsche.

Not to say Porsche is being naive - BMW is very successful, and Porsche is as well. But in terms of sports car companies surviving by building and selling sports cars, I'd put Lotus, Ferrari and Lambo on one plane of "purity", with Porsche and BMW a notch over on the spectrum. Probably putting too fine a point on it...

 

A big part of Porsche's business is consulting and designing for other car manufacturers. Odds are Porsche would be helping VW with engineering and new designs, not the other way around.

 

There will always be room for smaller, niche market companies, ie Ferrari, Lamborghini.

The problem is with upper/middle car manufacturers who are pricing their cars high (AM, Bentley) when equal cars are being built by Asian and German companies at less cost. (And higher quality may I add)

As with Alfa Romeo and Opel, who are struggling to compete against their Asian counterparts who are clawing at them in a segment which is all price and quality.

They have everything to lose and nothing to gain....ie losing market share and sales, and gaining nothing except higher costs attributed to redevelopment and manufacturing to compete.

 

? I don't see any love lost between the customer base and the factory. In their terms, we're buying the cars; in ours, we like what they're producing. Not to say that they don't need to push the envelope, but they aren't having much of a problem with that right now. And durability and reliability are up. Of all factors, I think that's the number one advancement that's been made in the last ten years. Surely customers appreciate that.

 

I'm talking longer term... 10 years from now.
For example, Ferrari will not be at the Chicago Auto show this year. Why? Why should they? they sell all their cars! (got that from one of the sales guys at an authorized dealer). As we discussed in the Chicago section, what about those impressionable 10-20 year olds who come to the show. Maybe they will not be bit by the Ferrari bug, therefore will not aspire to get one (new or used) in the future (or maybe more importantly, not but 20 tee-shirts, pens, umbrellas, computers, all branded by Ferrari- pure profit).

 

I'm no expert but between being sold to LV(if this is true) and the new Jaguar, Aston Martin's future looks like it's going down hill.

 

The publicity from a once a year car show is and always will be irrelevant to Ferrari. Their cars are (and will always) be covered by influential automobile magazines and bought by role models. Also, there is no shortage of enthusiastic teenagers showing up at Continental Autosports and Lake Forest Sports Cars to see the cars in the flesh. They do not need a trip to the Auto show.

 

I see emissions wars as a possible threat to sports/luxury car manufacturers.

"Porsche's chief executive on Friday warned of an impending business war between Germany on one side and France and Italy when he said plans by the European Commission to limit carbon dioxide emissions were an attack on German luxury carmakers."

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=FT&Date=20070126&ID=6396543

Emissions is a political move that is supported by the masses and one that could certainly change a few things.

 

Good point, but IMO if Ferrari's and Lamborghini's keep Piston and Gasoline engines, they will only COST more and have less WORTH when Hydrogen and Fuel cell technology take over.

 

Mostly agreed.

Obviously not. Porsche underproduce and sell every sportscar they make (like Ferrari and etc). So long as Porsche make true sportscars at competitive prices .... they're diluting nothing.

Well, I won't argue subjective opinion. Specially since i'm not a car nut. <chuckle>. But BMW do not make definitive sportscars.

No offense but here's my POV. Please keep in mind that since i'm not a car enthusiast my opinion might be more in tune w/the average sportcar buyer's POV than the average FChatter's. Therefore the following may sound strange. TIA for your understading.

Lotus: Expanding their product line into the mainstream sportscars field. Cooperating w/Tesla. Increases their survivability. Does not diminish their desirability as a sportscar MFG because they still make cutting edge sportscars. Albeit somewhat lacking for those who seek maximum performance and maximum usability. Which is why I don't own one.

Ferrari: Too much focus on luxury and HP. No longer a serious sportscar MFG. A niche product that will not survive long if they do not provide competitively priced cutting edge sportscars. Ferrari's only advantage to date is the F1 tranny. They shall not have that advantage for long (e.g. if Porsche had an automated manual i certainly would not own an F430). As for "Green" tech. Who knows but Ferrari don't seem to be in the running .... for now.

Lambo: Poor reputation. Better now that it's owned by Audi. But suffering more so that Ferrari when it comes to making good sportscars. Should benefit from Audi, et al's, work w/alternative fuels.

As for the other marques (e.g. asian) .... look for a brave new world. Nuff said.

Not at all. Undersprung and underdamped and so filled w/electronics (ie; computer tech) that one can't simply instal aftermarket suspension. Much too heavy in OEM condition. Too much of an emphasis on luxury and unusable amounts of HP (ie; ridiculous give the driver aids designed to LIMIT power delivery). Poor overall ergonomic choices that aare unexplained by a view towards providing cutting edge sportscars. Sorry, I don't call that "purity."

Invent the twin clutch manual. Decide that "pure" sportscar drivers DON'T want an automated manual. "Purity?" A sportscar is primarily about performance. So where's the Porsche F1?

And getting farther and farther away. Quality and reliability .... poor. Designs .... poor. Aftermarket support .... less than non existant, in fact one the worst in the auto biz. And as noted; they don't make a true sportscar.

We can argue subjective opinion. But the facts are hard to argue with. ;-)

Peace,

Richard.

 

I agree. In fact, it adds to the mystique for Ferrari not to bother with the auto shows. Brilliant move, actually.

Not quite what I meant. Porsche's biggest seller has been the Cayenne, and although it may be fast (in Turbo guise) it is not a sports car. Porsche is doing great things, but compared to Lotus and Ferrari they've diluted their formerly single-minded focus on cars that could be track-driven on the weekend and driven to work on Monday. Anyone who might have bought a Chrysler Town and Country could just as well go for a Cayenne S. If you're buying a Ferrari, shuttling the kids to soccer isn't part of the plan.

I would certainly like to see Ferrari put a harder edge on its cars, maybe to a lesser extent for its grand tourers, 599/612. I admire the 206/246/308/328 run precisely because they are pure drivers' cars. Of course the F430 will destroy them on a track, but that's with a bunch of computers doing all the work. And the horsepower is essentially useless, except on Internet boards and the rare flogging on the track, where most of these cars never end up anyway.

Not sure about the pricing - Ferrari feeds its own desirability by producing relatively few cars at a dear price. Cutting-edged sportscars - much needed. Competitive pricing, well...

 

You're forgetting about the Paris show, which is where Ferrari unveils its cars.

Frankly, here what I think the future holds:

1. Convertible GT sports cars that are hoot to drive up to 140 mph, but have torque, torque and more torque. Personally, I'd kill for a 599 that has been rebodied to look like a Cal Spyder and comes with a stick.

2. Track only sports racers.

Dale

 

As long as companies are able to adapt, and find new alternative fuel source, they should be fine. But, what would happen in the future if gasoline became scarce? Since current cars require gasoline to run, what would happen then? Gas stations would be replaced and gasoline COULD ealy become rare and hard to come by. What would happen if it got that far? Current Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, etc. would need to be converted to be able to run on a alternative fuel source. Just my thoughts.

 

Relax, There is plenty of oil. The oil is more expensive to get out of the ground and refine, but Texas is full of oil not to mention those areas not yet explored.

When will we run out of oil?? I have not seen any estimates. The last one was in the 70s and the estimate was 30 years max. Well here we are, year 2007 and no end n sight.

When we run out of oil, we will be long gone and I mean really long gone.

Ferrari will have sporty hovercraft running on electromagnetic anti gravity cells fueled with soilent green.

 

OK, I agree w/u here.

True. ;-) But consider that adding a good handling SUV to their line-up doesn't seem to have affected production of, e.g. 911s. Possibly due to underproduction?

Again true. OTOH, if I owned a Porsche and needed an SUV i'm sure I would consider a Cayenne.

Yes. But the Stradale helped. Unfortunately Ferrari, in all their wisdom, compromise ergonomics and usability. ***More on this theme below.

Great minds think alike. <chuckle> BTW, my F430's secondary purpose is to be "flogged" on the track.

Agreed. If one considers that Ferari appear to concentrate on a small niche market. I would guess (a humble guess <w>) that the market would be primarily composed of the affluent who wish to make a fashion statement, the "fans" who'll buy almost anything Ferrari make, and the elitist few.

That's a prety small market. But then again I don't own a piece of Ferrari. So? <shrug>

Look at it from my POV for a mo:

I'm not elitist. Thangs only mean I was financially able. Nothing more or less. <shrug>
I'm not out to make a fashion statement. Sure, I love the car's looks, etc, and I admit that I enjoy the positive attention (but there's more negative attention overall).
I'm not a car fan. I'm a sportbike fan turned bike HPDE fan whose no longer able (due to crippling injuries).

***So when I go car shopping I look for a car that'll be somewhat comfortable for daily driving (and long drives, 4hrs or mo, to the nearest track) and be competitive at the track. My F430 excels at neither. In fact it does very poorly as a street-car and doesn't handle as well as my M3 does on the track (discalimer; heavily nmodified M3 <chuckle>).

Although i'm willing to blow lotsa cash on my toys .... I do care about value. When I look at the competition I can see that the position Ferrari now hold is under jeopardy.

There are quite a large number of sportscars and sporty cars that will soon be available w/high power to weight ratios and automated clutches. And much better ergonomics and incidentals.

By 2008 (when the F430's replacement should be announced) one should be able to purchase several automated clutch sportscars for under $150KUS(well under in a few cases; guesswork based on common knowledge and a bit of experience).

Adding more HP, won't save Ferrari. It could have a detrimental effect (but i digress). Nope. What I think will hurt Ferrari most of all is when folks realize that $100KUS, or so, sportscars beat or match $230KUS Ferraris.

That is not quite the case today. But in a year or two?

Reminder: Ferrari base soooo much of their marketing on racing heritage, etc. But their only performance advantage today is the F1 tranny. If they are regularly reported and seen as cars for "fashionistas" .... Ferrari could find themselves in Lambo's unenviable past position(s).

Peace,

Richard.

 

Good post.

Methinks that i'll be long dead before that happens. Ergo: No matter how well maintained, the few examples, would be museum pieces anyway.

Peace,

Richard.

 

Neither am I. ;-)

 

You love the car's looks, and expect others to, and enjoy the positive attention. I feel the same. My Ferrari is both a lot of fun to drive and a rolling reminder to everyone how good cars used to look. It's a fashion statement in the way a painting hung in your living room is. When you hang it, you're making some kind of sign about your aesthetics. Nothing wrong with that. But (to be continued below)...

Ferrari has rarely if ever been in the technical vanguard. Enzo didn't make a mid-engined car till Lamborghini forced his hand with the Miura. The Germans were way out in front with fuel injection. And let's face it, 1980s Ferrari gearboxes were leftovers from the 1970s. The list goes on.

You can already buy five-figure cars that will handily take on a 360 or F430. Yet Ferrari has waiting lists for its V8 cars. Why? I'd guess because you can't buy the Ferrari experience, sound or cachet anywhere else. Even the injected V8 in my car, while no carb'ed 12, sounds like nothing else I've ever owned (Porsche and BMW included).

I'd say we bought our cars because driving a Ferrari is a rather blunt and emphatic statement that sports cars are the best kind of cars, and that ergonomics, practicality, etc., are nice but take a back seat (well, such as it is...) in the grand scheme of things.