Latest on Ferrari

It's pretty clear to me as an outsider that Ferrari SPA has no interest in their historical reputation except as far as they can use it to extract money from people.

An example of a company that clearly does care about their reputation as "we stand behind our cars" is Mercedes Benz.

As far as how it affects the "value" of these older ferraris, as silly as it is to discuss such things, I think it's irrelevant what SPA does. The older cars are documented and supported by the vintage market, the newer cars are (or aren't) supported by the dealers and SPA. The vintage market is large enough to be self-sustaining pretty much as long as vintage cars in general are used as cars. (people rarely use brass-era cars as cars these days).

Whatever.

They're beautiful, interesting, exciting, useful, and usable, and there's nothing SPA can do about it...

 

There's a movie deal in the works? I've been told by an automotive historian on the level of Nye and Ludvigsen that the book has a lot of errors, and passed over some important historical elements. Perhaps the producers will retain a competent technical advisor to assure authenticity and historical accuracy.

I read the book and found it enjoyable, but somewhat superficial, so....perfect for a movie!

 

The inference here is that a soft new car market has a relationship or correlation to the vintage market. But that just doesn't seem to be the case. Vintage prices seem surprisingly robust, judging by auction results. Commentators like Sheehan are working hard to manage expectations but even in the depths of last year's pessimism, his prediction was that prices were off no more than ~20% or so. Compared with what sounds like a 50% cut in new Ferrari sales in the press release, that doesn't seem so bad. Of course real data is hard to come by in the vintage market, so maybe there is a big build up of silent inventory which, once unleashed, will reveal a broad based price decline. But is it showing up yet?

 

Tight budget enthusiast pov on one aspect of this upscale marketing issue: it feels like Ferrari turned its back on those who love their vintage car(s), who wanted to establish their authenticity with a Heritage Certificate. Their fee increase made it simply undoable for probably many of us. Really disappointing.

Wouldn't Ferrari want to have as many of their vintage cars authenticated as possible for their own records? Wouldn't they want to maintain their base of less-well-off but diehard enthusiasts in their headlong rush into the wonderful world of logo mass marketing to the more well-off? Apparently not.

I hope someday they come around to realizing that their vintage cars are more than just a profit center. They are their history, and we can help them in further establishing that history if they would let us. Bring back reasonable Classiche/Heritage Certificate fees!

 

Jim
Bravo. Well put, especially the last sentence. You see the same happening in the art world but 100 times worse.
John

 

Bryan
Gee this sticks in my throat but I have to agree with you 100% !! When I go out with the vintage car guys for a spirited drive I have so much fun because they all "get it" about what made Ferrari different to other cars. Don't get me wrong. Other cars are good too but are different. Probably Bugatti are the closest to the vintage Ferrari but don't have the howl of the V12 at red line.
Cheers
John

 

I think you guys are a little quick to pile on the owners of new cars, and the cars, for that matter.

I suspect, without any data to back it up, that the profile of new Ferrari owners has been very similar since the 1950s. I highly doubt if most new purchasers of shiny new 275GTBs in 1965 cared, or knew, much of anything about a 10+ year old 250 or a 15 year old 166. If anything, I think the owners of new cars today are actually more interested in the vintage cars.

As for the new cars, sure, Ferrari splashes their brand all over the place. However, the cars themselves are terrific-- and have been since Luca took over in the early 90s. Compare any post 1995 Ferrari to it's contemporary competition, and you'll see what I mean.

 

What does all this have to do with vintage Ferraris? Ferrari cutting back is not going to turn my vintage Ferrari into a pumpkin - and when I say Ferrari I mean a car built by an independent manufacturer, not something administered by a bulk manufacturer.

Best wishes, Kare

 

It's important to realize that much of the value of the vintage machines originates with "the brand" that is Ferrari. That mystique, aura, and set of emotional associations we all have with the name underlies each of the million dollar trades... and $30 Scuderia socks.

But brands always serve businesses, first and foremost. With the business pressures they're seeing, the Ferrari brand is surely going to see some changes. The stated profit goals are double what they are now, making the oft-rumored "entry level" Ferrari not just a possibility but, perhaps, a necessity. With overcapacity, labor unrest and profit pressure comes effort to maintain production.

Exclusivity may be compromised accordingly and the power of the Ferrari name will change with it.

 

Oh, that explains why Duesies, Voisins and Isotta-Fraschinis are so cheap! Best wishes, Kare

 

There's a connection and it's interesting and complex.

As with many things Ferrari it's a bit Machiavellian.

Study 0818.

Think about why one of them got a Classiche Certificate.

Think about where this entire collection was one time headed...

 

What amazes me is that Ferrari has 3000 employees. Way way too many people. They should have about 1/2 of that for current production. Any one know how many people worked for Ferrari in the 50's and 60's?

I like the newer cars but love the older ones. In the art world and legal world 200 units produced is the separation line between a work of art and a manufactured item. I would like to see Ferrari go back to making works of art or have some models that are very limited production runs. With modern tech it would be very easy to do this and I have no idea why Ferrari is not doing it. TVR did something like this and made a bunch of strange and interesting cars before they went belly up. Ferrari could do the same. Make some whacky limited production cars with tube frames and alloy or composite bodies. Let the designers do freaky things like they did in the 50's. I bet they would sell every one.

 

Steve
That all makes sense to me. However remember that Ferrari is now a corporate entity. Ambitious corporate people will be calling the shots and their decisions might not make a lot of sense to us passionate car guys.
John

 

luckily the Worl Football Championship start soon, so all the experts on economy, finance and their effects on us and our cars can hype their skills on the teams, players and strategy in sports. We are left lonely here and we can talk about velocity stacks, oil, tyres and beauty, of course completed with nice pix and stories....For a lot of us probably too boring anyway.

ciao
Oscar

 

Unfortunately in today's regulated environment the days of small production runs are a thing of the past. The costs of certifying a car for safety and environmental regulations is so great, that you absolutely have to make thousands of cars to that spec to turn a profit. Possible years ago, but the days of small quantity manufacturing are gone even though the technology to design and build the cars in low quantity is there, the regulations simply won't let it happen.

Which brings us to the next point; you mentioned TVR and belly up... Is there a coincidence there??? Small constructors struggle for each sale because they can't possibly offer the value that we get from a mass produced item. Unfortunately, discerning customers are left out in the cold because what we get is a "dumbed down" product that is good enough to sell to the masses, but doesn't have the "soul" of vintage cars.

 

"TVR did something like this and made a bunch of strange and interesting cars before they went belly up. Ferrari could do the same."


I think you are answering your own question as to why they don't do this.

George

 

Porsche just announced the GT2RS - 500 cars to be sold worldwide. That's about as limited production as anyone gets, and by "modern" standards, that's quite low. Ferrari has done that with the 599 GTO (599), Enzo (~400), etc.

 

what is the consensus re the use of historic names now being applied to modern cars, such as Superamerica? as a modern car it is based on a modified production ferrari and as a vintage car it was an entirely separate line of model all its own.
ed

 

TVR went under due to a Russian idiot buying it and screwing it up. Ferrari has the capital to do something like this but they lack imagination.

 

This is the correct answer above. And before anyone mentions Pagani, remember those are emissions compliant MB engines that could be sold in the USA but the rest of the car is not DOT compliant. If Ferrari goes back to 1960s-70s production numbers, they will be out of business.

 

Personally, I think the 911 is Porsches biggest problem. Sure, the GT2 will be "limited" production, but it is still a 911, and there are zillions of them. If you like the 911, that's great. If not, then the options are limited. I personally like the Cayman/boxster styling better, but they deliberately are kept as second tier. The CGT is a fantastic car, and the only Porsche that I truly covet.

 

TVR was doomed long before the Russian idiot bought it. The insistence on building their own rather fragile engines was the nail in the coffin.

 

Like naming your son Elvis. Best wishes, Kare

 

"Fiat Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne unveiled a new five-year plan for Ferrari and Maserati April 21, along with new targets for all the group brands, calling for the two luxury carmakers to almost double revenue to about 4 billion euros by 2014 by adding products and widening model ranges."

FIAT has obligations to shareholders, Ferrari has powerful brand. If expanding the product line meant building a 4 Cylinder family car with KERS to sell for $80k USD with shields on the wings, can LDM tell FIAT no? There must be people at Ferrari who abhor the rampant and arguable misuse of the logo. And there must be people at FIAT who say use the logo up until the point we harm sales or ability to turn over customer base into new model road cars.

Enzo sold the company. And when companies get large (or sell) they often lose the mission/vision/values of the founder. And that is when competitors can take market share. IMO, when you say "I own a Ferrari" it seems to project to the listener the brand extension of the F1 team. The mission of winning, the passionate purpose that gave meaning, deep meaning to the Scuderia.

I think a lot of people at FIAT are watching Porsche Panamera sales very closely.

 

What's surprising is how little Ferrari has been compromised since the Fiat take over not how much.
The temptation to dilute the brand by adding down market cars is not one that most large automakers would have resisted this long. Particularly when you consider some of the desperate times Fiat has faced.