Should Ferrari Listen?

yea, agreed.
i dont consider knowing how to drive a manual to be anything that special, although it does give me a chuckle when i hear people exclaim about a car with a manual around here - even had that comment about the F40 - as if they ever made it with an auto....

however, i will also add that the american market drives the direction and value of cars....and if the vast majority do not elect to get a manual, then that will be responded to by the manufacturer.
Porsche is not selling to the same demographic as Ferrari.

btw, i also have an F1 transmission 430, and frankly find that it suits the car quite well, and i like it. i once considered swapping it out for a manual, but unless the whole system goes kaput i will just stick with it - i have enough MT cars to scratch that itch.

 

My goodness that's smug.

 

Ferrari is already generating plenty of free cash flow. If they see an investment opportunity, they will have no trouble finding the capital. The new higher profits then, will undoubtedly be used for dividends or buybacks. Otherwise, it would be cash stuck on the balance sheet (not efficient).

Thats my point - they don't need the SUVs to finance capex or R&D. It's just more profit for shareholders. It's not going to magically result in better sports cars.

 

We'll never know, but I doubt it. By the time the Cayenne was out, Porsche was stable (setting side the fallout from its I'll-advised attempt to buy VW) and the era of high margin sports cars was beginning. This isn't Lotus (brought back from the dead on a shoestring) or McLaren (starting from scratch).

And if you set Porsche aside, I'm sure you'd agree Ferrari was very healthy even without the PS.

You mean by, say, selling SUVs?

I know my animus towards SUVs is unusual. And it's light-hearted. Do they dilute the brands in my eyes? Absolutely, yes. But if they're making others happy, who cares what I think?

Good and interesting point. If it turns out that the Cayenne saves the ICE, I will become its number one fan.

 

I can't speak for others, but manuals appeal to me because I find them fun and engaging. It's another way to interact with the car. F1 and DCT relinquish most of the task to a computer.

That said, I also enjoy a good F1 box or DCT. Variety is a good thing.

 

Certainly my fear. Though, as I think we all agree, Porsche continues to make great sportscars 20+ years into the Cayenne era. And IMO Ferrari is still making great cars today. So I'll simultaneously mourn the death of the Ferrari manual and fret about an electric future...and anxiously await (and often buy) their next masterpiece.

And a good cat. Thanks for the fun thread TF.

 

that’s the truth. Growing up Ferrari was such a big part of my life. I had relatives with fcars, who took me to dealers and car shows and fanned the flames. I would never have thought the day would come where I could be indifferent to what new f cars are coming out. I’m sticking to the back catalogue.

 

to me its like opening a bottle of wine.
you can be expert in using a traditional Laguiole waiter's corkscrew, and this adds a nice bit of panache to the serving of the bottle.... or you can use a Coravin pneumatic CO2 infusing needle, and pop the cork out in an instant.
the wine tastes the same.
but the experience is different.

 

Wow, never heard of the GM T.50 before!
Very interesting, thank you.
Bye,
Nic

 

I skipped a few pages, apologies if it had been said before: A manufacturer would be happy to produce only one version of transmission in a car.
Type approval, and not only emissions, is very expensive nowadays. And that multiplies for various regions and countries.

 

Richard Hammond makes a similar point in his GT3 drive video:



He states the obvious, that Porsche knew what they were doing with the GT3 and PDK, and that he was disappointed that the company listened to the American contingent who resisted the modern gearbox. Maybe Porsche listens too much? Similar to Ferrari, they have waitlists for everything.

 

Isn't the GT3 available with both transmissions?

If so...what exactly is wrong with giving customers the choice? Maybe it's bad for shareholders, but not for you and me.

If you prefer the PDK, great! They are fantastic!

I just don't get this holier-than-thou attitude towards enthusiasts who think manuals are fun.

 

As an aside, I actually dislike both Porsche transmissions.

Both are technically excellent. But the PDK will occasionally change gears on you even when you're in manual mode, and that drives me nuts - even if the computer is making a better decision.

As for the manual, the auto-blip, to me, takes about 90% of the fun out of it. Downshifts are the fun part for me. I know you can disable the auto rev-matching by taking it out of sport mode, but then you get a very flat throttle curve, so you can't get those satifying crisp blips on your own.

But those are just my personal preferences. Others love them. So I'm glad Porsche makes them. No judgment here.

 

I think Hammond’s point is that Andreas Preuninger and team know the optimal configuration for the highest performance 911s. If you’re paying for the best, don’t compromise.

To return the discussion to Ferrari, part of what you’re buying is the company’s legendary expertise in Formula One racing. If we insist on the state of the art from 1970, the classic car market is better hunting.



Sent from my iPad using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

can’t argue with you there. There are plenty to choose from, and I prefer the styling of the older models too, which is a win win for me.

I just worry about parts and experienced people to fix them, as the current Indy’s are getting older, and it doesn’t look like a lot of desire for next generation to pick up the torch.

 

Ferrari is listening. You are not a customer. Demand outweighs supply….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm not sure, they keep putting the engine in the wrong place!

Seriously though, yes, of course they know how to coax performance from the car. And of course the PDK will perform vastly better than a manual, even if Hans Stuck is at the wheel. No one would debate that.

But what if performance isn't the only thing some enthusiasts care about?

For me, a street car is about the experience. Performance is part of that experience, but it's not the only thing. Look, I love DCTs, they're amazing, and I'm glad we have them. But I love manuals too. Sure they're slower, but they're fun!

If that makes me a poseur in LVP488's eyes, so be it.

Indeed. And if best to you means the most performance, by all means, you had better check that PDK box on your build spec.

Classics are great. I want some. But with classics, you give up other things that make modern Ferraris so incredible in their own right: modern engines, modern suspension, modern brakes, modern crash safety, modern styling, modern fit and finish, modern interiors, modern reliability, etc., etc.

Something that blends the more analog, mechanical driving experience with these other advancements has an appeal for some of us.

I know it won't happen because it undoubtedly makes no commercial sense. But one can dream. And even if it's not your cup of tea, I'm sure you can see why others might like it?

 

For city driving a GT3 (not to say I'm desperate enough to pay an $80k ante to sit at ordering table) I would probably prefer a manual to keep the engine at the correct rev range for max. torque availability and I've been driving for roughly 46 years. Also, I love having cameras in my car for backing up, blind spots, and the birds eye view on my lowly AMG is a hoot. Having choices is a good thing.

 

This actually would destroy the brand, the proper approach is to stop making so many vehicles, reduce the amount produced each year and charge double. Increase exclusivity

 

The stock price is irrelevant, there are a million stocks to choose from. Why does Ferrari need to be a stock. Ferrari should’ve never became a stock. It’s a mythical lifestyle brand with a panache no other car brand has, very few people will have the chance to own and drive one. Diluting the Ferrari name by creating accessible cars such as the Ferrari California and the purosangue suv no one needed, all in the name of more sales and more profit. is ruining the very essence of what it means to have a Ferrari

 

I knew there was a lot of truth in this when I would encounter younger folks that would dismiss a car if it wasn't stick. Naturally, I would nod in agreement, and ask what car they drive? Many would sheepishly admit "I don't drive a stick either, but hope to learn one day." I always laugh inside.

Reminds me of the vinyl craze, yeah, I kept my turntable, doesn't mean I don't enjoy Spotify.

I half agree. With you 100% they need to keep exclusivity. However the SUV being 1/2 million should keep that gate intact. On the Roma? Out the door is close to 300K, I think this is the right 'cheapest ticket' and keeps enough of the hoi polloi out.

The Cayenne saved Porsche from bankruptcy. I've seen some say it was the Boxster, which is hogwash. Can you imagine Porsche today if it still only had two cars?

911/718. We have all these cool special edition 911s (and even regular models) precisely because they sell enough Macans to take risks and make low-volume halo models or invest in making the perfect even more so.

You're right; Ferrari doesn't need to make the PS. In the same way, they don't need to pay Lewis Hamilton 100 million (shhh, unless you want to see archaic fans get a conniption) to be the face of the company next year. Nobody needs to make more money. There will always be old Ferrari fans pooh-poohing the new Ferrari fans.



I ask, what camp would Enzo be in? (An old stagnant Ferrari, or a newer big business one?)

Look to 1969 for the answer. Or a the very least, his designated heir if you refrain from speaking to the dead.

 

Enzo wouldn’t like the big business idea, he literally wouldn’t sell someone a car if he thought they couldn’t handle it