Why Ferrari and not Porsche?

Cost of ownership and 50 year old styling aside, the P car just does not hold up over time. The Ferrari is more refined and even though the Porsches sometimes beat Ferrari, the Porsches are a fast fun road car for short trips and not nearly as intuitive as F's.

My bro's best friend is a Porsche mech at McKenna here in LA, he oftens road tests cars after service to make sure they are up to spec, as Porsche's company philosopjhy is to give it back in excellent condition by lighting the fires and kicking the tires. So I have ridden shotgun in several cars F and P.

Porsches are supposed to be 'Autobahn worthy' but they are really bumpy and do not soak up road conditions in a performance attitude like the Ferraris do. Ferraris are race bred, Porsches race to promote the brand, so the approach in quality is way different.

The sound of a 330gtc vs the sound of a P speedster, well, the P sounds like a flatulating, squeeky piece of junk, while the Ferrari is still purring.

Also remember Porsches may compete because they are wound up as good as they get with the turbo, but since you can bolt one on a Ferrari the Porsche really is as good as it can be, and the Ferrari can improve and leave ya in the dust.

 

Does anyone have a good side photo of a silver 360? I like to do a side-by-side shot. (This is the best I've found so far )

 

You can show people how rich you are with a ferrari.
A porsche can be had by almost anyone. Something to think about.

 

The Porsche aftermarket is gigantic and will happily take your stock 996 Turbo to levels that Ferrari can only have wet dreams about. Don't even attempt to delude yourself that you can modifiy a Ferrari to be better then the Porsche, because then a Ruf or an even more enhanced car will show up behind you and bring you back down to reality.

Love your own car and quit trying to beat up on a different, and in my eyes at least, superior brand. But hey, my blood is german and I grew up riding in Porsches so I won't even pretend to not be biased. I simply ask that you at least acknowledge your own gigantic amounts of bias.

 

Bias? no ****, welcome to fchat. LOL

 

I own a 02' Turbo and must admit that the car is an absolute blast to drive...I can never get enough of 600+HP at the punch and the sound of the Turbos spooling up ....Almost any car that want's to dance get's walked and left in the dust.

I am also considering a 360 and this car will be mainly for the sound that motor put's out (MUSIC TO MY EARS) that no other can produce. Also for the beauty of the lines and stance the car has from the ASS.

 

hmmm, i have been daily driving Porsches for 25 years, most recently GT2's and 3's. I find them practical and comfortable... and reliable and fast and fun... and cars are made for driving, even F and P's!!!

i plan on daily driving my CS.... we'll see if it cooperates.

 

In response to your PM. I don't believe in hiding statements, especially since that PM should of simply been a post. Because that resposne ^ looks like flame bait to me.

Do not claim you are not trashing when the statement "the P sounds like a flatulating, squeeky piece of junk," Is nothing but trashing.

Look, I'm going to constrain my reply to this, because if I continue I'll launch myself into a flame war with half of this board.

 

I really think that you are not serious with this stupid comment. I have invested way over $400,000 in Ferrari cars and still bought a Porsche turbo 2001 model that the purchase price was over $120,000. Thats a lot more cash than needed to buy either a Mondial or 308,328,348,Testarossa,512TR, some 550 Maranello's and 360 Modena's are in this price range. I could buy an F40 if I wanted to but right now I am having a lot of fun with my 996TT. Its true that there are many Porche cars that many many normal people can buy but most cannot afford to spend the cash needed for a new entry level no options 911. There are some turbo's with options up in the $160,000 and I am not talking about the GT2. And in reality I love Ferrari and I am of latin blood so I understand all about this most wanted cars but your comment is totally idiotic, its sad that there are so many like you sharing the honor of driving a Ferrari with the rest of the true sports men.

 

You are joking, right?

 

As a Porsche owner, and not quite a Ferrari owner yet, I think the comparisson is not quite apples to apples. Ferrari starting price is $142K plus options. Porsche's starts at $69K for a 911. For twice as much price and not to mention twice as much maintenance cost, the Ferrari BETTER be a better car.

Just like what the first question asked, I would buy a Porsche for under $100K, I would buy a 360 for $150. I am sure there are Ferraris' (355,250,348,308.....) for under $100, but I don't buy used cars. Just not my thing. I would not feel outdated driving a used (yuck) 355 when it's already 2004. That would suck.

Maybe this is why I "only" drive a Porsche (2004), I also could not afford an F-car at this time, however, already on the waiting list for a Scag.

 

ask the same question on the 6speedonline site

 

good point.

I must agree with the Wife and mistress comparo. But in real life, I would rather have a wife, my own, reliable and lower maintenance. A mistress could have been used several times already by other self indulging weeners. A mistress could also stop seeing you for any reason or when you run out of funds. Much like an F-car, it will leave you when you're out of funds.

Off the records, real life mistress's are ok in my books, once in a while.

 

Nice to see you visiting here, Watt!

 

bill,

i just got it it's W hart, not whart.... how are you babe? still diggin' the GT2????

ready for first comparo the other way?

CS outhandles GT2 by some margin [on the street]:

1] i have bumpy tight, some off camber turns on the way to work which the CS smokes through, and the GT2's would be bobbin' and scrappin'. weight differential quite noticeable. A+ vs B

2] from PCH to 10 freeway is a bumpy tunnel [McClure] where again the CS serenely tracks thru, whilst the GT2 jumps and wiggles and sets a much lower limit where you are concerned about hitting the wall. A+ vs B+

3] i put the stock seats, stock wheels back in the Gt2 when i traded it -- without racing seats and lightweight wheels, it feels like a cheap Carrera with extra power, wallowing down the freeway. granted it's only 4k for fikses and 2.3 k for GT3 seats and .7 for a rollbar, but i expect Porsche to deliver that kind of set up in their "GT"2, and 3. With seats and light wheels, the GT2 is an excellent package, much "faster" than a CS, ie has more torque and slightly more HP.

4] Theoretically a GT2 and CS are at equal price pioints. I bought my last 03 GT2 brand new for 140 off a 191 window in Feb/2004 [built 3/3, in service 12/3].. at that price it's a worthy competitor. In no way in my mind is a new 04 GT2 worth the 200 window, i value 04's at 155 vs 140 for 03, but PCNA still wants 200... in terms of relative value, if a GT2 is 200, a CS is 300. i doubt the CS will lose 25% of its window cost in one year, especially with no miles!!!

all that said, 02/03 GT2 is the performance steal of the century. i also like my GT3's at 95 a great performance bargain

Bill and I may be mirror images - he's headed for GT2 land, and I to CS country.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Now, I regard Watt's post as a good example of meaningful comparison: not "image" or "heritage" but what the driving experience is about between two specific models. The stiffness of the GT-2 suspension is, i agree, a mixed blessing, at least on the street. I haven't driven the CS, so i'll defer, for now. I still wish ferrari would make a stripped down 12, though, so you could have it all: torque, lightness, the beauty that comes with spartan, no-nonsense mechanical design that's all about performance. If i need to haul golf clubs, i'll just have to drive something else. But, rather than cater to the country club set, and short of spending the kilo-dollars for an Enzo (whatever you think about the car), it would be nice to get the full, twelve cylinder experience in a car meant more for sports, than touring. The only one i owned that came close was the boxer, and even that was a heavy, ill-balanced, obsolete chunk o' iron. But, it had oodles of road feel, and torque to boot.

PS Watt: you should really chat with Doody, a longtime member here and (i think) a participant over at 6 speed. He's contemplating a GT3 after having had a TT and a bunch of ferraris, including both 8's and 12's.

 

Well-done thread!

So, I searched this thread for the word "distinction" and didn't find it. There you have it: I believe that part of many people's reasons for Ferrari ownership is distinction. In fact, there was a poll on this not too long ago, if I recall. That poll had me thinking long and hard about my reasons.

I mean, seriously. I'm just a regular guy--why Ferrari? Why not some other $45,000 hot car--loaded Infiniti FX45, low end BMW X5, BMW this or that? Seriously, why not? They're practical, relatively reliable, well engineered (not to say that any given Ferrari is not these things); these are important.

After some soul searching, and looking past the awesome shape, sound, smell--looking past the pure visceral experience, the all-involving drive--there was an element of distinction that appealed to me that I see in other areas of life... From things like choice in watches and wine, all the way to brands of stereo equipment. I like distinction, especially when it brings new capabilities or experiences to the table not found elsewhere. And I'm willing to pay for it, recognizing that the most distinct and capable things do not necessarily represent the best value. In place of the absolute "best value," they offer instead a very personal experience that trancends the feeling of "I got the best bang for my buck on paper." In fact, there is no other car that could give me the "bang for my buck" for what I'm looking for than my hot little red 328, period.

And so it goes. As it is very personal, a Porsche does not represent these things to me. It's probably a better "Value" on paper and probably a more reasonable, daily-driving, reliable (not sure vs. a 328, actually), cost-effective choice. But it's more common, less distinct, and doesn't owe up to the experience that I'm looking for. It's about, among other things mentioned here, distinction, and, for me, any Ferrari has that over any Porsche. Looking back, I see it in all the cars I've owned: BMW 633, SAAB 9000 Turbo, Nissan Murano.

If I may be so bold, I suspect that this element of distinction is likely a factor in ownership for many Ferrari owners, and that they probably own, use, or do other things that provide an equal level of distinction.

--Mike

 

The GT2 is just awesomely cool, I really love the 911 GT1 as well but thats not new

The Murcielago is ok but I'd prefer a GT2 because its probably better on the track.

A Murcielago roadster however would be an excellent Miami car for cruising as well as for touring

 

Hell yes, Im not rich I don't own a ferrari.
And this statement doesn't go for all people here, but you have to admit
there are quite a few people who think this way, Sad but true.
Im surprised at how mad a few get, Very funny. Some people just need to lighten up.
And maybe really think about it.

 

I enjoy the older 911 Turbo's as they they are a blast to drive and stand out from the boxters on every corner. Good daily drivers, I just got a '91 to replace my '83 so its for sale if this thread convinces anyone that a Porsche in the garage is a good complement to a Ferrari. Much better daily driver for comfort and no hassle trips.

The older turbo's look good from behind

 

Why is it that whenever a comparison thread pops up so many posts deal with comparing the ultimate performance of the cars, when it should be glaringly obvious to everyone that that was one thing that almost certainly was not the main reason anyone chooses any (street) car? Past a certain point, most any car in a given class is "fast enough", and the real determining factor as to which one you want will be feel, which is so subjective its hardly worth talking about. Nor is it directly related to performance, inasmuch as a slower car can be more fun to drive than a faster car depending on how they are set up and how their components work together.

And yet it never fails that some performance benchmark is thrown up, and some people inevitably rise to the bait. Whether its ricers bragging about out-dragging a Ferrari at a stoplight or Porsche enthusiasts flaunting their road racing success, these posts don't deserve anything more prolix than "Who cares?", but inevitably start long threads defending the honor of the prancing horse.

Although certainly faster than most, as I understand it Ferraris have rarely been the fastest cars on the road. Indeed, it has ALWAYS been possible, for far less than the cost of a Ferrari, to hot-rod some more mundane car to the point where it will leave the average Ferrari in the dust. Nor do I think many Ferrari owners were deluded on this issue when they bought their F-cars. So I say: resist the temptation to get pulled into pointless discussions of performance! Whenever Although maybe not the ultimate quickest, Ferraris are generally pretty damn quick. Although maybe not the ultimate fastest, Ferraris are generally pretty damn fast. Everyone knows this. Only two kinds of people care whether their car can out-perform a Ferrari: racers (and racing is a whole different world from street driving, so let's leave them out of the discussion for now), and people with an inferiority complex who need to find some capacity in which to over-top Ferrari, since they can't compete with it on its own ground.

And what is that ground, to get to the point of this thread? I think Mike Procopio has said it best so far:

I wholeheartedly agree. I look at it this way: I think a car says something about the person who drives it; a car is an extension or reflection of me. I am an atypical person; ergo, I should drive an atypical car. At least where I live, a Porsche does NOT say, "I'm special, I'm interesting, I have dash and flair and stand out from the crowd." (Not the new ones, anyway.) They (and their German cousins) are just too common.

Now, I know there are Ferrari owners who bought their cars purely for the driving experience (although I don't believe anyone who says that image played NO part in their decision to get an Ferrari), and there are probably Porsche enthusiasts whose blood races whenever the lowliest Boxster or 924 cruises by, but I think that such people are way out on the fringes of the bell curve and one cannot draw generalizations from their opinions.

So, as Mike P. said, "distinction" is the most significant difference between Porsche and Ferrari. Any given car may or may not give you a better driving experience than any other, but the distinction difference is a constant.

 

BECUSE PORSCHE IS GAY AND MAD CRAZY WHATEVES sON.

 

Chas King: While its hard to argue against the proposition that many ferrari owners buy them for the distinction of having something recherche, i think lumping all performance considerations into a single irrelevancy for the "street" ignores those drivers, like me, who are very interested in how a car feels, and performs on the street. Its not just a question of bench racing, bragging rights, or stoplight macho; i have found that the more modern "production" ferraris, while certainly higher in sheer performance than their predecessors, have lost an edge by being a little too lux, and a little too multi-purpose. I don't regard this as a subjective issue either. So, whenever these comparisons come up, i think its worth reminding people that there is not just one game in town. Now, if you were driving an one-off ferrari from the 50's, i would agree that the kinds of performance considerations i am talking about are entirely irrelevant. But, for the modern cars, still in production, i think there is room for improvement. Not all of us are in this purely as a matter of ego, or image. As to Buttz' comment about Porsche being "gay," I'll leave that for another debate.

 

IT BE TRUE NO?