Mike Sheehan - The Ferrari Curmudgeon

Is my wife related to yours?

And it's worse if the car is in pieces...

 

You can always use the "its cheaper than hookers and coke" argument.

 

Early 911S's (pre-'74) are a different animal. Parts availability is phenomenal; the styling is literally timeless; they outperformed the 308s that came a decade later; and they're from the pre-smog, pre-impact bumper era -- simple cars to own, relatively cheap to maintain, etc. Steve McQueen vs Tom Selleck.

I suspect that Euro 308s probably are worth a bit more, because the U.S.-spec 308s (which were a big chunk of production) are widely viewed as less desirable, and because Europeans actually drive their Ferraris -- rain, mileage, wear and tear, etc. -- so survivors may be fewer in number.

The main problem with the Euro cars here in California is that they are generally illegal for smog. But, if they were legal, I'm sure a collector-level one would bring $50K.

 

And this is likely going to be an issue for the long term collectability at large, it's only a matter of time before CA says no more vintage vehicles on the road. Eventually people will loose interest and prices will go down.

 

REgarding this arfuement-discussion as to whether old Ferraris are assets or liabilities...

Pretty much everything is only worth what someone wil pay for it...even food. Take a nice ham to a Muslim country and it will be worthless. Or - as I well know - take a beautiful 2,500 sf house with a huge 3 car garage and nice swimming pool and spa and have it be in Las Vegas,,,and it is worthless.

What intrinsic value does gold really have? Yet, people are bidding it up to ridiculous prices.

So, you can take the asset-liability arguement to ridiculous extremes. You can come to the conclusion that everything has no value.

Old Ferraris and rare and beautiful and represent the epitome of an era that many hold dear...the era before governments dicated what you could build and drive.

Will the continue to hold value, go up in value, or become worthless? Obviously, a lot of pretty astute people (after all, they did get rich) are clearly betting that they will increase in value. I side with them. After all, all the teenagers of the late 1920s early 1930s are now pretty much dead. Yet, the Bugattis and Duesenburgs of those days are still worth a bunch.

Bottom line - people buy what they desire and (maybe) can afford. Don't bet against vintage cars - they seem to tug at the heartstrings of virtually everyone.

 

Doubt it. The U.S. laws in effect at the time of manufacture are the ones enforced.

California even has laws now allowing use to use vintage year-of-manufacture plates on our pre-1962 cars, which is very cool.

Two great points.

The pre-'74 European sports cars are always going to be special, probably the apex of automotive art, because design had not yet been dumbed down by regulation.

And I agree completely -- the idea that the market somehow chases whatever teenagers loved 40 years earlier ignores several realities about the actual cars. Some cars have lasting significance, and most of the Enzo-era Ferraris fall into this category. Modern stuff just doesn't. I think that's where Sheehan is coming from.

 

Don't count on it staying that way. The UAE passed laws banning cars > 15 years old from being registered, the EU is considering similar laws. It's only a matter of time. And it doesn't help that car enthusiasts are in the small minority on this one.

 

We are a minority, but we have a different legal system in the US. If a car was road legal when you bought it, I doubt we'll see any retroactive laws making it illegal.

There is too much wealth in the serious collector car community (especially in California, which sets the pace for US automotive regulations) for a law like that to pass or go unchallenged in court.

I do see increased enforcement of existing smog/safety laws, which IMHO makes grey market or Euro-version cars from the '70s and later a very bad long term bet.

You be the judge...

 

Wait until they pass laws that new cars must get - say - a minimum of 25 mpg. That's what I fear is coming.

What will that do to the value of existing high performance cars???

 

That depends on whether the new cars vastly outperform the old inefficient ones.

 

If they do, Ferrari will comply, and they will still be fast. Times change, but they are able to adapt.

Those looking at these cars as investments are better off gone anyway. They are to be driven, not stuck in someone's garage so someone can wack off looking at their possessions.
They have no value other than their usefulness, which is to be driven, in my opinion.

Art

 

Your comments about retroactive laws is NOT TRUE.

I had a 1966 330 GTC. There were no emissions requirements when new. Yet, I was forced to pass some arbitrary smog criteria in California every other year. Moreover, that criteria changed over the years to be more restrictive. They also demanded that I install a PCV valve (recirculation) into my system - something that the car was not required to have when new.

Governments can do anything they want. They appeal to the masses and get popular support for legislation to stick it to those rich guys and their fancy polluting cars. Do you know that Californai actually crushed a few Boxeers that they deemed had been certified improperly?

The government basically wants everyone to drive a Prius - except one made in the USA. The herd will be directed that way.

All of this is being written by a very left wing liberal. When I went to Berkely, we had a big sign on our house that read - There is no government like no government. A play on thewre's no business like show business. The city made us take it down.

 

Do you work directly with CARB on proposed legislation?

 

Yup. For many smog control-era vehicles they have actually changed the measurement limits for the smog test decades after the car was built. They cite some half-baked study that says, statistically, certain types of readings (below the limits) indicate major engine issues and high pollutants outside the testing range.

 

Agree 100%.

 

+1 That's about spot on. Sheehan's comments make more sense if viewed from the angle of someone who's trying to play both sides of the car market...for a profit.

Asking an opinion of someone who wants to buy below wholesale and sell above retail results in Sheehan crap. Never makes sense.

 

In all fairness to Sheehan -- what I wrote about dealers applies to ALL dealers who also provide commentary on pricing trends.


Speaking about pricing trends, I'll never understand why people say that the 308/328s will not be worth as much as the 246 Dinos based only on rarity.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, rarity actually works against collector value in production cars. It primarily is a positive factor only in low-production hi-po options on higher production cars (eg -- L88 Corvette, LS6 Chevelle, Hemicuda.) If the entire line of cars is very limited, unless it was a top-line ,imited production dream car of its day (Duesenberg J) or car with compeition success (V12 Ferraris through the Daytona, Cobras...)

Think of it this way: in most cases rarity means that the car wasn't a good seller in its day. Obviously there is a caveat for exotics, homologation specials.

But think of it this way:

Which is worth more: a '32 Ford V8 (about 60,000 built) or a '32 Essex (18,700 built)? '56 Belair coupe/hardtop (over 500,000 made) or a '56 Packard 400 coupe(3224 made)? A '64 GTO or a '64 Buick Riviera? Even '69 Camaros are worth far more than '69 Corvettes (with the exception of the two ZL1 Corvettes of that year.)

While the 246 IS iconic to those of us who love Ferraris and that era -- the 308 is iconic to an entire generation of folks who not only saw Magnum PI, but also saw them out being driven in most major cities.

The line I've used in many of my columns is:

"It's hard to be nostalgic about a car you never saw in its day."

Rarity is one factor, but it's importance relies on a couple other factors. For this reason, you'll find that the 308s/328s will eclipse the values of the Dinos starting in about 15 years. More cars means more exposure -- more auction sales to set price points and increase interest.

Personally, I'd rather have a 246 GTS than my 328 GTS, but that's another issue entirely!!!

 

Actually, California now allows you to buy and install vintage plates up to 1969 (black/yellow) and have even softened the dictate that are both steel. (the rear must be original steel, and you must have 2) PM me for details.

You can also reinstall 1969 up (blue/yellow) if you have anything that correlates the specific plate number with your specific car.

Trivia: The only years of car that do not require a front plate in California are 1945/46 which were only issued one rear plate because of the war effort. But I've still never seen a Corvette or a Ferrari with a front plate ;-)

 

The UAE also passed a law forbidding women from driving.

Might be a fair compromise.

 

"Berkeley".

Vehicles built prior to 1975 are smog exempt in California. There is no testing.

As far as Boxers being crushed, I don't know the circumstances, but odds are they were grey market, brought into the state illegally by someone who knew what he was doing and took his chances. Almost all Boxers would be subject to CA smog inspections.

I still haven't heard of a city/state/local government making a legally registered car illegal.

Thanks for the correction.

 

Sooooooo sorry I spelled Berkeley wrong.

Yes...NOW....cars pre-whatever are smog exempt in CA. This reinforces my point - the government does what it wants. First they enacted ever tightening rules that made it virtually impossible to get my 330 GTC to pass - a car to which the rules did not apply because the rules did not exist when the cars was new.

Then they excempted a bunch of old cars from all the rules.

Sooooooo, what will they do tomorrow?????

 

And.....ALL Boxewrs were grey market.

 

Art, very well worded.