I'm intrested in the history of the desirablity of Ferraris

I wanted a 308 the minute I watched the pilot episode of Magnum P.I. after that I had a Ferrari poster of some sort on my bedroom wall.

 

Don't ask my generation or younger. They are a bunch of dumb f**ks with Fast and the Furious posters.... why the hell would anyone would aspire to a Supra with a bunch of crap bolted on to it and an ugly paint job is beyond me... I don't get the whole skateboarding thing either.

 

i see the essence of your point, however, in due respect from one Ferrari fan to another, you may be assuming just a little too much.

i don't see today some en masse paradigm shift to Ferrari. i don't think a Ferrari is to everyone's taste, then or now. for example, i know many people in my circle of car homies that do not whatsoever get a hard-on for a Ferrari. out of these friends i am about the only one who much cares for them.

in my opinion, you're either a Ferrari person or you're not. it's very polarized. more people seem to be into Porsche than Ferrari. Ferrari is more exclusive a crowd (and in my opinion of a bit higher taste, but even that is open for rebuttal as i feel the Enzo is.. well... could use some design improvements).

what may influence your perception is the latest Enzo and FXX hysteria which is this generation's "Countach" masturbation object of fantasy for pubescent boys. the Enzo is the "ultimate" car today. and some other one will come along. some consider the Veyron the ultimate car (it's not as ugly in person as i saw one at the LA Auto Show last year).

 

I always thought people were really into certain cars because of what they can afford. Teens look at a sti, evo, 240sx, etc. because its a bit more attainable than a newer Ferrari. I bet if you ask a 15 year old from a middle class family, if he thinks he can get a 360 in 5 years he'd probably laugh. But ask if he can get a s2000 then he'd agree.

Teens with only performance in mind that needs a car for work, probably find it more better to them if they bought a good sports car drove it while they worked and added bolt ons, rather than save up for a long time and get a porsche, bmw, merc, etc.

 

Yet, a car like the Zonda will be on a higher plane to the same enthusiast than a F430. Ferrari has a rich and tragic racing heritage and that's it. Their cars are fast, sure, but they are also useless above 50,000 miles, they catch on fire when you go over a large rock, and are generally overpriced for what they are.

Hope this helps.

 

I can speak about the time period of the late 1960's and 1970's.

Ferraris were also "dream cars" during this era also. A friend of the family owned a 275 GTB and it had the same effect as driving up in an Enzo today. The 365 GTB/4 Daytona was the newest model at the time. As you can imagine, it was in all the car magazines and was sensational.

There were many other fun cars available in the marketplace. Many people consider the late 60's to be the pinnacle of car design. For younger people, the fun cars included all the muscle cars such as Camaro, Firebird, 'Cuda, Charger, Mustang, GTO, 442, Javelin & AMX, etc.

Corvettes were more expensive but obtainable. The mid-year Corvettes (63 - 67) were plentiful as a used car and the new shark style of Corvette was a stunning new design (68 - 72).

And there was a much bigger foreign car crowd back then. Young people could buy an MGB, Triumph TR6, Alfa Romeo spider, or Fiat convertible. The next step up were the Porsche 911, Austin Healey, or Jaguar E-type (aka the "XKE").

One of the more exciting cars of the era was the Ford Pantera. I remember seeing my first one in a Ford dealership. The look of that car in the early 70's was radical.

Another new car during that time was the Datsun 240Z. Its styling was "just right" and the dealers were always sold out of them. Prior to that, the Japanese cars were not very desirable - mostly considered just cheap transportation. Kind of similar to the way the entry-level Korean cars are viewed today.

Ferraris were rare cars to see on the road, but when you did, they were real crowd-pleasers. They were expensive and had the reputation of being mechanically fussy to keep running (mostly stories about synchronizing all those carbs). They were the cars that were owned by either serious sports car zealots or the rich and famous. I guess not much has changed about that in the last 40 years.

 

People like to spend money on ****tie products, just as long as it makes them appear wealthy to others. That is why companies like Ferrari are still around. If the company did not have such a successful marketing team and did not have such a carfully crafted racing history (which Porsche, Ford, M-Benz etc have just as rich a history) they would have been out of business long ago for building a poor product.

 

You are right but back in the day you could get a ferrari for a much more reasonable price then you can get it for know. It was not an un-obtainable car in the early 70s as it has become today, I mean look at the market prices in the last decade alone (yes they are down a bit now) but in a whole there are no more "finds" out there... at least I havn't found one

 

From my perspective as a child of the 70's & 80's, Ferrari's were pretty rare and super exotic... I would say around 1984 - 85, when Miami Vice took off, there was mass market appeal - national advertizing for Ferrari with the Testarossa... before that, it was a very select, and quirky bunch of folks who lusted after Ferrari's... but after Miami Vice and Magnum PI... I think all exotics got a boost with the younger generation...

When I was a very small kid... kids just did not know about Ferrari's, I did because my Dad was a F-1 fan, and had Porsche's and Lotus, but the rest of the folks in my neighborhood... never heard of Ferrari... or Lotus... back then it was all the big muscle cars... american iron...

I'm sure in places like LA, or NYC, Ferrari was more popular, but still it was not as mass appealing like today.... I would also say MTV had a part, showing videos with exotic cars also pushed the popularity....

When I was a kid, say back in 1975, if you saw a Ferrari on the road, it WAS the event of the week!!!, thats how rare, today even back in my PA home town - as depressed as it is, there are several 360's running around... it simply was not like that back then, and I think they were cheaper back then to... even with inflation factored in....

In Atlanta today, if you look for it, you can see a Ferrari on almost every day.... there was a time when you did not.

 

I'm 47 so I was first interested in cars in the late 60's and 70's. All my friends were into American Muscle but I only had eyes for the Lamborghini Miura and Maserati Ghibli. Then of course Magnum made me a 308 fanatic. I did love the late 60's Mustangs, especially the Boss, but I never thought of buying one.

I loved the sounds of a high revving engine, the looks and the exclusivity. Also, these cars could go around a corner while American cars only went straight.

Today, some people think I'm an idiot to have a Lotus. My wife keeps pushing me to get a Supra or S2000; something reliable and newer. She doesn't realize owning an exotic is different inspite of the car shows and interest in the car from strangers. Plus, nothing handles like a Lotus! If I had a Ferrari, she'd push me to exchange it for a Vette or NSX I'm sure. I'd say the lure of the exotic was there both in the 70's and now among lots of people; but not everyone!

Ken

 

The Zonda could be the next Vector. And I don't know if they're good cars at 70,000 miles - maybe you have further insights on this. You do tend to sound like a dork when you tell people you're driving a Pagani Zonda, though, fast though you may go (the name is marketing tripe at its worst).

There's a waiting list for new Ferraris, and they're getting flipped for huge amounts over sticker, so an economist would say you're blowing smoke. Are they the best bang for the buck in 0-60? Of course not. But when you say something's overpriced, and lots of people are waiting in line for the privilege of paying that premium, you likely don't understand the whole value of the car to actual buyers.

They do have a briliant marketing strategy - starve the world for product and keep prices moving onward and upward. But they've also cultivated a sense of style, and the racing legend you mention, in ways the others haven't.

Ford (and Cosworth) have accomplished plenty on the track, but mostly they sell F150 pickups and Hertz rental Mustangs. Then there's the plumped out new Thunderbird - or was. And the Ford Five Hundr -- er, Taurus. And the Windstar. Etc. The GT40 revival (now done) was a slavish rehash of the famed original, but made bigger for fat people and dolled up with electronic goodies. Good, but gone, and doubtful Ford will do another.

Mercedes had the iconic and brutally fast 300SL, but then look where they've gone with it. The make minivans (M series), aspirant luxury sedans (C-class), boulevard cruisers (S and SL) and wagons. Now they have Smart. Don't get me wrong, I love Mercedes for what they are, but their core product has very little to do with racing (the SLR McLaren being a footnote product.)

Ferrari may not be alone in the racing biz, but they are the only company that hasn't sullied their competition heritage with a bunch of irrelevant products. Part of what we spend on these cars is an homage to a marque that is obsessed with racing -- not on the crossover market, or economy of maintenance, or production capacity. You buy a Ferrari because they haven't sold out (yeah you could argue the merchandising is selling out, but that licensing doesn't alter the focus of the company.)

Porsche comes close - amazing history, mildly tarnished by the Cayenne/Touraeg. But Porsche has made it its business that anyone who aspires to own a Porsche will have one, and for less than the price of a pimped out Tahoe/Escalade. They've eroded their mystique, even if the Boxster/Cayman are worthy of the badge.

I agree, I think this was a turning point. Before that (in the 1950s and '60s) a Ferrari was obviously desirable, but you had to really be somebody to get one built for you. Also -- and I don't know this but I suspect it's true -- you had to be very car-savvy to be aware of Ferrari. The production numbers for the earlier cars are sometimes in the dozens or hundreds.

It's true that Magnum P.I. and then Miami Vice put Ferrari on the mental map for people who weren't F1/GP devotees. And Sammy Hagar's Boxer on MTV didn't hurt. Also there was a Tony Curtis/Roger Moore TV show, "The Persuaders", with a Dino 246 racing an Aston V8 -- but small time compared to the Magnum and 'Vice decade.

However, before TV figured it out, car mags were covering Ferrari in the '70s (and maybe earlier - I wouldn't know). R&T, C&D and others gave the 308 ample press.

Celebrities (guys like Steve McQueen and Miles Davis) would get photographed in their Ferraris, and that would register with the public. But really until the 308/Boxer years Ferrari seems to have made so few cars that they were probably desirable in the way a chateau in southern France is desirable -- i.e., yes I'd like one, and no I don't reasonably expect ever to have one, so no sense dwelling on it.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Lotus?

Ken

 

Agreed. Although Lotus doesn't have the same dorm-room poster/lust factor that Ferrari and Lambo do.

 

Brilliant...

 

They have however had to use Toyotas or Rover engines.

Great little cars but that takes some luster off.

 

Agreed. Lotus has stayed commited to certain core values, the main one being superior performance through light weight and advanced engineering.

My favorite Lotuses (or is it Loti?) are:
- The Europa, especially the black & gold Johnny Player Special model
- The Esprit, before all the aero-mods were added to it.

The new Elise and Exige are great cars but the styling, for me, is a little overdone. Lotus cars have a tradition of being "form follows function" type cars and the ones have a little bit too many swoops and curves to them.

The one thing every Lotus road car could use is a little bit more horsepower and torque. (Well, maybe not the original Lotus Sevens). And, of course, a little bit better reputation for reliability.

Overall, you have to give a thumbs up to the Lotus owners.

 

How about, Aston Martin? Jaguar? Never seen a 4x4 or minivan from them. Yes I know the brand cache isn't quite there, styling is strictly subjective but those are moot points.

 

Not much different, really. Substitute the Hemicuda for a Supra, and it's pretty much the same sorts of folks come at this one from the same sorts of angles.

 

Jag's desirability has probably waned. They had cachet during the XK glory years, but with X-Type wagons, the bloated S-Type and bland new XJ and XK, Jag fumbled it away.

Had they done the F-Type roadster, and made it a real performer and a real sports car, they might have resuscitated some of that storied past.

 

What about that front wheel drive masquerade? About as relevant as the Ford Probe...IMHO.

 

OK - a serious opinion after that Lotus slam.

There has only once before been a manufacturer which carried the same allure, racing heritage, personal magnetism, unobtainability, etc. etc. as the classic Ferrari.

It was Bugatti. Not, of course the Audi-Zonda-like experimentation of today -I mean the real ones, made when Ettore was in charge. There are many personal similarities between the two geniuses responsible for these.

It is a great priviledge to be able to have one of these works of art today for a reasonable cost - how many of us look back and say we wish we were smart enough to pick up a type 35B back in the 50's?

 

Lotus does get some 'dorm room poster' credit today. You will see Exiges and Elises up on peoples walls as often, if not perhaps more so, than you will see a Ferrari or a Lamborghini. And really the most frequent posters you see of Ferrari/Lambo are of the Testarossa/Countach and not of anything modern.

 

I thought '60s vintage Ferrari's were relatively cheap in the late '70s. As in, $5k-$10k or less which leads one to believe they were not very desireable. Current production models of the day were much higher with a starting price of $35k. This leads me to believe that the late '70s may have been sort of a dark age for the marques early cars. Nowadays, the earliest cars are the main event. This brings up the point again of what will our generation (born in the late 70s) consider classic in 30 years?

 

That's what I want to know. Clearly, Ferrari is "it" for me. But there are other cars that "do" it for me. I think exclusivity, rarity, and exoticness will always play a role.

The thing is, the whole Muscle Car thing I don't think works for us, i.e. "What cars remind us of our youth?" Most of us were driving around a POS civic or sentra (or 1980 BMW 633 CSi ) in high school/college. I don't think we'll be returning to those (lol, white civic hatchback hooptie: on the block for 1.5 mil! complete with bubbling tint job forms the perfect "patina" of college!)

I think the "Road and Track" cars of our youth may be part of it... I'm thinking of cars like the Lotus Esprit Turbo, but I'm just not sure if that car has the charisma to pull it off. It also doesn't quite have the pop culture presence that can make a classic (except for Basic Instinct, whats her face drove one! HOT!)

It's possible that with just the sheer volume of cars produced these days, and even in the 80's / 90's, that the numbers mean nothing is THAT rare, everything is obtainable, etc. Ferrari, Lambo, and the like may just be the only games in town who have managed to keep their numbers "low" enough.

Ya know... Aston Martin is another one that does it for me. When I'm older, I think I'll have one - lots of charisma in those cars + exclusivity.