Why does Ferrari not make the 308 again?

ONLY 1000 CARS! (one for me!)

Carbon fiber chassis
Titanium elements (engine, suspension....)
Ceramic brakes
longitudinal 4.2 engine (430 monza)
F1 gear
........and something more
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

hey you plnched my avaitor

 

I'm not so sure.
I used this inflation calculator: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Which said that the $45,000 that it took to purchase a 308 in 1980 would be the equivalent of $109,000 today.
Although you did originally say it was compare to income; but I can't think of an easy way to check that.

 

Like some already posted, I don't think Ferrari feels the need to compete w/ other makers in the entry level of sports cars.

Ferrari cannot even accomodate all new buyers of 360, nor F430. They don't have manufacturing capacity to produce 200 cars a month, and they probably have no intention to expand.

Since they are all selling what they are making, they don't need to further reduce their price nor cultivate new market.

If there're some strong competitors who will scare off Ferrari market, they will probably make action.

The term "affordable" doesn't sound right w/ "brand new exotic car"...

 

It's a what?? You obviously have not been out driving in a 308 lately. You would simply be amazed at how many people are floored when I tell them my car was built in 1978!! They all think it's a newer car!

Now if you were talking about the engineering side of the design, then yes it is dated! But like someone at Ferrari said about 10 years ago "The first 308GTB was an ultra-high performance machine when it debuted, and it remains an above average performer over 20 years on."

I still would like to see at least another 100bhp out of my little three litre!!

I agree with what seems to be the majority sentiment here that this is not and should not be a marketing direction for Ferrari to take. I do however think the 246 idea for Maser would be interesting!!

 

<It's a what?? You obviously have not been out driving in a 308 lately. You would simply be amazed at how many people are floored when I tell them my car was built in 1978!! They all think it's a newer car!>

And people think my Europa is an El Camino. I love the way the 308 looks, I mearly said it's old technology.

<Now if you were talking about the engineering side of the design, then yes it is dated!>

That's my point. The body isn't very aero dynamic; I personally hate wind tunnel designs but Ferrari has gone in that direction and shows no desire to make cool looking cars that have high drag.


<But like someone at Ferrari said about 10 years ago "The first 308GTB was an ultra-high performance machine when it debuted, and it remains an above average performer over 20 years on." >

Um, my Accord will kick its butt. A 308 will kick the average Geo Metro's butt however. I still love the 308; it's just not anything Ferrari would want to produce today.


<I still would like to see at least another 100bhp out of my little three litre!!>

Bingo. 205 HP from a 3 liter engine is nothing to write home about these days. Especially with the high maintainence 308's have compared to a modern car with half again more HP.


Ken

 

for 100k i would buy a new one right now, I love the look of the 308/328.

john

 

If I were to sell my 330 2+2, and go for another Ferrari:

Affordable, built in the last 25 years: definitely a 328 or 348. I don't care for the extreme sharp-edge look of the 308, and agree with previous posters that the 328 was a large improvement over the 308 at least aesthetically. 328 is an very good looking car, IMO, and I've also heard generally reliable.

Affordable, vintage/classic era: 365GTC/4.


Up there but conceivably doable, last 25 years: 550 Maranello

Same as above, vintage/classic: Daytona

 

Funny thing is that Ferrari hadn't sold 10,000 cars IN TOTAL when I bought my 308. Man have things changed.

 

leasing and our society of greed has killed the automobile industry for enthusiasts like us. Gone are the days when only the eccentric college professor drove a BMW and Bimmers and Benz's didn't depreciate as quickly as the Titanic. It has effected Ferrari too...why build a cheaper entry level car when you can lease and release a high dollar car to every one willing to make a monthly payment...just more profitable for the car companies now.

 

There is more profit in an expensive car than a cheaper model.
A lot of components in a $200,000 car will cost the same as (or only slightly more than) a $30,000 car. Therefore the profit margin can be larger per unit.

Think about it.

 

I want Ferrari to make cars that have dramatic styling impacts the way the 246, 308, Testarossa, F40, have done to us......

The impact is key......how it gets done is not as relevant.

The 360/575 line is cool and all that, but some of us yearn for a 21st century Testarossa-style car with wicked hp and engine noise! Lamborghini has taken the visceral V12 market away from Ferrari......when before it was up in the air.

IMHO, of course.

 

I think the price of something close to $200,000 for an entry level Ferrari is a bit too much money. The fair price would for 2005 model year F430 should not be over $150,000, if that target price can not be possible then strip the car from the things not really needed and sell them for less, I bet many would not mind buying a new Ferrari as plain as the old classics, imagine a light 360 Modena as plain as a 250GTO, thats the type of Ferrari I would like to buy, to drive a car for the only reason as to cover as much road as fast as possible in a supreme chassis and motor with gorgeous sheet metal covering it, that would be the car to hope for.

 

I believe Ferrari's target market is men 32 - 43 with 5 million net worth. Do you think 200k really matters to this market . . . nooooooo!!!! These cars are not made for the average schmuck, period. I don't' fall into this market(very far from it), but will drive an f-car during the remainder of my life, hopefully, probably not new in the near future. 308s are not comming back or dinos, so if you want one, buy one.

 

Wrong, the most expensive part of a car is engineering and developement. When you produce small numbers, depreciating this cost over a much smaller number of units is a big part of the final price. Also, try getting a manufacture to run 2000 of a unit as opposed to 2,000,000 of a unit which unit cost do you believe will be less? Ford is going to lose money on the GT, but it is a marketing tool.

 

Peter,

I couldn't validate the $1K number but considering that "manufacturing costs" is comprised of the tooling, the building, the component parts, and the manpower, its conceivable the pure manufacturing costs would be close.

Regarding the topic "why does Ferrari not make the 308 again," here's a different perspective. If you look at Ferrari as being a unique group of artisans, then asking them to build a 308 again would be like asking Van Gogh (when he was alive) to paint "Sunflowers" again. I don't think he'd have any interest.

 

I am on the list and will buy a new F430 but I wouldn't call anyone a "schmuck" (foreskin) just because they can't afford a very expensive car.

 

As a few have already stated, the 360/430 are the current iteration of the 3x8 line of cars, which themselves where their time's representative of what really should be considered the Dino class (the common elements being that they are smaller and lighter than the big v-12 cars, and always mid-engined). This is not a derogatory statement either; some of Ferrari's best cars are Dinos- 206SP, 288, F40 to name a few.

As for the styling rehash some seem to wish for, that is not Ferrari's style. They don't do retro like Ford has with the GT, Mustang, Thunderbird, etc. Ferrari's vision is to break new ground, while still drawing on elements established throughout its rich history.

On final note is that Ferrari has stated that they do not intend on offering an entry level model, and they do in fact consider Maserati their presence in the lower price ranges. On that note, the Grand Sport is a very nice car.

 

You guys forget what Enzo's original philosophy on building road cars was. If it could genereate revenue which he could put into fielding winning racing cars, he did it. Building road cars was only a means to an end for Enzo... To be the most successful racing stable.

Now, sponsorship takes the primary role in funding racing. But Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro (that's their official name) would not get anywhere close to the sponsorship money they get from their sponsors if they were "just another race team."

SFM is far from "just another race team" from a marketing dollars standpoint. If the Ferrari SpA brand identity becomes devalued in any way, sponsors would cease paying a premium to be associated with Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro.

The "cavallino rampante" would risk becoming the testarossa stepchild of the Ford Mustang if Ferrari SpA whored themselves out to every guy making 40k, by creating a mass produced facsimile of a legendary automobile. If their brand identity could be measured like a share of stock, it's value would plummet.

And then regular joes like all of us wouldn't have such a hardon for Ferrari's that we pay a guy money to log onto his website every single day and discuss how wicked cool their cars are.

EDIT: I just noticed that this is my 330th post. My second favorite website after this one is Tom Yang's, where he documents the restoration of hs 330 america. I instantly made the connection, and I'm going to take that as another symptom that I am completely diseased with Ferrari obsession.

PS - if you've never seen it, check out www.tomyang.net

 

I disagree only to the painting analogy. Monet did many, many paintings of his garden over his life, and as a series they are as fascinating as they are beautiful. I saw them as a series in Chicago years ago.

As his eyesight got very poor as an old man, it's a smear of color that is sublime in its beauty. Compare it to a version 30 years earlier and you see it's the same, but the earlier version is almost a photograph in a relative sense.

Perhaps Lotus did this with the Esprit. About 25 years of a progression of subtle changes. Frankly I'm glad Ferrari changes the model every few years. I was disappointed with the 348's plainess compared to the 328 when I first saw it, but I love the 355 which is almost the same car. And I like the 360 even better. So sometimes change is good.

Ken

 

Easy big fella, Sorry if you took it personally, but these are the facts and as I stated I don't fall into their target market(have a 308QV an e-type and a TVR), but would like to own a new one someday, if i choose to. However, will not be treated as some here have been by dealerships because they are not on the prefered customer list. The point is/was that they do not care about expanding their market downward with the ferrari line.

Congrats on the 430 they are beautiful. BTW, let's not get into all the literal translations here okay - my wife speaks Yiddish, so I am quite aware of what the word means.

 

Mazeltov

 

I can agree here to some extent, technology aside...the exterior and interior cues of newer models lack an exotic appeal, the 360 has that "bar of swoopy soap" goin' on inside and out. I've heard many folks in the club comment that the 355 was the last "Ferrari looking" 8-cyl model. Of course, close your eyes and rev the engine and the 360 is NASTY

I saw 430's last month in Italy during a stay/tour in Maranello...the exotic look is much more pronounced with this car...which is a trend in the right direction, and the 612 is very identifiable as a Ferrari in look. So, as a 308 owner, I vote: why not bring back some styling cues of the 246/308 evolution? I think Ford's new Mustang shows a wonderful marriage of "family lineage" and modern tech. PeterB.