Is Ferrari losing it's soul ?

FYI, an inanimate object or corporation can not have a soul...Ferrari is and has been a for profit company that manufactures cars...no more, no less....

 

I suppose the California is Ferrari's Cayenne but F is already making a lot of $$$ so its not like they were forced to sell out to make an Italian Lexus

Sounds like greed from Maranello

I would much rather have seen them build a nice lower priced 911 fighter instead of a silly 2 + 2

 

I completely agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

How is soul measured? The article is right about the cars gleaming F1 technology and that they are the most desired. Drive any car and then drive a new Ferrari. My cars are refined and they are fast and engaging. I have never liked the exterior of the Enzo and still don't. The mechanics of the car at the time were exceptional. I wasn't nuts about some of the pictures of the new cars but when you see them in person they are a lot better looking and really hot. I haven't seen the California yet and will reserve judgment until I see it in person. I think people are wanting some kind of retro styling that is aggressive in the next new car. The more I look at my 599 the better and better it looks. The performance is instant at any time in any situation. Ferrari is a business and if they don't screw it up a very good one making lots of cash. Their cars are expensive and the limited nature of them with the waiting lists has kept them hot. There have been other threads on here about the economic conditions and now it is global. It is not a good time to be expanding production.

 

Except the 911 is a 2+2! At least the price-point of the California will retain some exclusivity.

And since when does expanding business operations and scope to increase profits = greed? Find me one person in this forum that would turn down a sure money-making idea because it doesn't fit in with their "image"?

 

Not sure if I agree,

A lower priced model will result in lost exclusivity.
There's only so much of that "racing heritage" to go around.. j/k

I just wish they made the California better looking... that's all.

 

Wow, that article pretty much trashes the California, not only the design but the "parts" used since they are shared with Alfa and Maserati. It seems he has a problem with Ferrari producing 10,000+ cars per year. Really, with all the new markets opening up in the middle east, India and China, 10k+ cars does not seem like a lot. I do not think we are going to see a Ferrari on every street any time soon in the US or most countries.

 

They did, but they called it the Maserati Gransport

 

And then have people saying that Ferrari lost its sould AND its exclusivity?

 

With the California, yes. Ferrari should be about exclusivity, racing heritage, performance and design among other things. The California was built purely out of greed and it will do nothing but damage the marque while increasing it's profits. The aforementioned idea of a 911 rival would have been just as bad. Ferrari should have stuck with the three established models instead of selling out.

Modern Ferrari's such as the CS, 599, 430 Scuderia have the "soul" that the California is lacking.

 

was the 246 Dino a sell out ?

History seems to say not

a nice $100-140k car isnt exactly cheap and it would make $ and remain a lot more of a pure sports car than a 2 + 2

 

Not true! My first Ferrari many years ago was considered a Fiat. Production numbers at the time were considered high. At shows we had our own spot away from the others. Look at the 246 now! A real Ferrai and what a beauty.
Ferrari I'm sorry had a soul, when lead by Enzo. He was the passion, he was the soul. A man of humble beginning's built the best , most desireable cars on the planet.

 

Strong stuff, hard to argue with anything in the article. It does seem like they are going the way of Porsche.

 

I like this quote:

"Ferrari wants us all to believe that it can pull the California off while keeping its impeccable reputation intact and its iconic status at the top of the automotive mountain untarnished and unsullied. Ferrari also wants us all to believe that pandering to the siren call of volume won’t affect anything it does going forward, that it will still be every bit Ferrari while building 10,000-11,000 cars a year as it was when it built half that amount.

But I’m not so sure about that. "

I'm surprised he didn't mention anything about the standard issue cup holders?

 

I do not think this is true at all.
"Soul" is being used in an automotive context here, no need to be so pedantic about "inanimate objects." We all know what he means by "soul," and yes....a Ferrari has a soul in that context.
It is not "merely" a manufacturer of a widget for profit.
The very reason we, and others, love Ferrari is because of so many intangibles from history of the man, the marque, racing, beauty, sound, performance, etc.

A Ferrari represents so much more than materials. This is so self-evident I don't think it needs further explanation.

I can't understand why someone would bother posting >10K posts on FerrariChat and then come out with a statement saying it is "just a for profit car company without a soul."

That makes no sense.

 

Okay, so Ferrari has lost its soul. Or wait, they did that when they switched to Fuel Injection. Or when they built the "mass produced" Dino. Or when F/I/A/T bought them. Whatever. There will always be something, just like Porsche lost their soul when they made the Cayenne. . . . and before that when they made a water cooled 911 . . . and before that when they made the 924 . . . and before that when they made the 914 . . . hey, they're about to sell out and lose their soul YET AGAIN with the Panamera!

Enough with the "soul" already. Older cars had character due to their limitations. Whether they were under-funded, under-engineered, victims of the technology of their day, or the company's owner was a quirky person; these things all gave cars character, and asked a little more of their owners/drivers. But technology and money have carried us way beyond all of those limitations of old, and now any 6'4" 280-lb man or woman who doesn't know how to drive stick, heel-toe, check the oil, read the owner's manual, or which way to turn a screwdriver can hop in just about any car and use it. The market speaks.

And styling takes a back seat to aerodynamics, safety, regulations, and fitting big people into the cars.

 

I participate in FChat because I like Ferrari automobiles and have owned 6 over the last two decades. That does not mean I am willing to believe a car of any type has a soul however. In fact,that is quite a ridiculousness claim. I suggest you read up on the accepted meaning of a "soul", whether from a secular or religious source; I suspect you will discover it applies to human beings only. Now if you mean to imply that a Ferrari, like most Italian cars, have idiosyncrasies that make them seem like they have a mind of their own, I agree with that proposition.

 

We know what is meant by "soul" in this context.
Here's another word:
pedantic
4 dictionary results for: pedantic
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
pe·dan·tic /pəˈdæntɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-dan-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.

 

LOL!

Being that this is a web forum, that reminds me of another "word": PWN3D!!!!

 

What's PWN3D?
(I ask with trepidation....)

 

look up the dictionary results of the word "soul" and post it too

 

I knew what "soul" meant as it related to machines almost before I could tie my shoes. No, the machine doesnt have a soul as a human does, it has no consciousness or mind, or malice of forethought. They are inanimate objects. But stand in front of the Wright Flyer, the Liberty Bell, or Friendship 7, and tell me they dont mean anything.

When a WW2 war veteran is allowed to walk up to the very aircraft they flew, that aircraft can drop that man to his knees in emotion. When a man looks down in the belly of that airplane at the spot they had to shovel their buddies guts out the door and sop up the blood, that too is soul. When he can touch a part of it, any part of it, and he cannot resist wanting to touch it, that is soul. And not only an aircraft, but ships, houses, buildings, portraits, all kinds of objects can bring out emotion in certain people.

Often the emotions of the people who toiled with it, created it, or possibly died making it what it is are what create that passion we feel. I read a story recently of a 40 something man who was allowed to climb up and sit in the B-25 bomber his late father had piloted in WW2. His father never seen the plane after the war, now all restored and on display the son was allowed to climb up and sit in "the captains seat". Overcome with emotion the man broke down and balled. In another case, a a women seen all the rivets along a wing, and recalled her grandmother worked putting in rivets, and ran her hand over them and felt a connection. That is soul, man, and if you cant understand this you are simply blind or have no soul yourself.

When some of us look down upon the steering wheel of a Ferrari and see the same prancing horse that Nuvolari, Ascari, and many many other brave men looked down upon, its emotional. To know that my car was built in a place where Mr. Ferrari himself seen it, walked by it, or, in fantasy perhaps, may have ran his hand across it, that is soul. And while I may sound like a bluthering idiot to some, I know there are many others of you out there who know damned well what I am talking about. There are not many other automobiles that give people that kind passion.

I doubt anyone could say whether Ferrari today has the same kind of "soul" they had when the old man walked the earth. But maybe its a different "soul". I personally dont want a Ferrari that wasnt built by Enzo, thats just me. If you feel the same passion with the newer stuff, go for it. Who am I to say what another finds to be passionate about. Is the California souless? I dont think thats anything anyone can judge for another. I'm not turned on by all Ferrari's, anymore than another is turned on by WW2 aircraft.

 

Wow, good stuff.

To sum up what Artvonne said, it can bring a tear to your eye.

 

Yes/no. I think Ferrari lost their "soul" (in the abstract automotive sense, not equating cars to people...) a while ago, probably around the time Enzo passed on. Don't get me wrong, I like the 360/Spider/CS, 430/Spider/Scuderia, but they just aren't in the same sphere as the Boxer, Daytona or 308, which felt like they had rolled out of an Old World workshop.

I haven't seen the California, but based on photos and press I suspect I'll be disappointed with the Ferrari "SLK".

I concur. The California is a luxury car foremost, and that makes it similar to a lot of what you can get from Merc and Lexus.

Only Ferrari can do a hardcore sports car like an F40. Anyone can do a leather-lined, retractable roof 2+2 that carries golf clubs and cossets its overweight passengers.