Ferrari vs. Porsche

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

Today, however cars seem to be perfect. They are very fast and very technologically advanced and the racing team seems to be winning everything (or at least it used to). This however has created a problem for Ferrari. Aware of their success, Ferraris have become arrogant and selfish up to the point, that you are almost embarrassed to be in one. They also seem to have put science and maths before passion and soul. And that's so un-italian.

Old Ferraris may have been worse, they may have boked down every hundred yard and they may not have been as well built as Mercedes-Benzes. But when you saw one you knew that it was just right. Yes the electrics were temperamental and the dashobard had more lights on than a christmas tree. But they were making automobiles. Some of the finest automobiles ever made. Now they are just making giant 200.000€ posters. They may be perfect, but the magic is somewhat gone. And that's just wrong.

not arguing with your choice or the reasons behind it, but this way of how Ferrari is seen today is quite frequent over the forum, and not only here.
I ask you, since I think you have the ability to express it, what it is really the problem with their cars, this lack of soul, passion, magic.

I don't personally think Ferrari is that much different from other companies of the same level, even if surely Ferrari si the big guy of the block, the most famous, the most visible. The are present in F1 and GT races at the top level, and their cars are the most repeated argument in cars related discussions, but they are as technological as all the others, they give exotic names to their new devices (the Manettino) as others (AM's ECU key) and they are enlarging their portfolio and sales figures as all the other automakers.
Perhaps Ferrari is considered or supposed to be different, superior to the laws of the market and to the requests of the customers. actually they never were, enlarging the line-up since the beginning even if slowly, considering the dimensions of the company, revving up the production, creating one offs or small series of cars for special persons and so on.
modern Ferrari are tasteless compared to older models? don't know, even considering I actually like both the Testarossa and the 400i/412i, I never liked the 250 GTE for example, I found it unfinished and proportioned, besides loving the GT Lusso.
Ferrari built road cars for financing the racing activity, even using race derived parts or idea, and it's still like that, but we don't like it.
so the problem isn't Ferrari, but racing and how it evolved? not exactly, even if we already discussed which was the golden era of F1, for example, and certainly, obviously, it isn't this one.

even not being a tifoso, I fail to see this arrogant and selfish side of Ferrari. I understand the embarrassment Ferrer was taling about, but it's due to what people say of the car or of the brand, not to what the car and the company actually are, I would be absolutely fine with that, and even being the kind of person who doesn't care of what other people think of him, I don't want to be the more visible dude of the town, not because the car is red, but because everyone think I drive and arrogant piece of iron.

I also think Ferrari is still embarrassing what Italy as to offer, something positive of course. playing with the fact we aren't great workers, we aren't precise and perfect as the Germans and so on, didn't turn out to be a good thing, since that casted on us that view from all the angle of the world. It's not completely Ferrari's or Fiat's fault of course, and it's not false either, but it wasn't a smart move. If I had to express what being Italian stands for, I would summarize it in: genius, culture, elegance.
three aspects I can found in modern Ferrari too.
I know the F430 isn't elegance, I'm considering the whole company as an individual.

watching F1 races, I see the whole circus is made of arrogant folks, especially when they are important enough to appear regularly on tv. so I would say that of the environment, regardless of the brand or company behind the team in particular.
about road cars, claims made by Ferrari aren't much more pompous than those made by Nissan or Porsche, just as a reference.
so basically, I could say that generally the whole auto industry of exotic and luxury cars is made of sharks looking just for money, but I wouldn't pick up Ferrari as the best example of a company loosing its path.
even if my personal prize for that would go to Porsche for obvious but still debatable reasons, I really would like to understand what would make me feel embarassed driving my 599 GTB in blue tour the france down the Alps, because I'm pretty sure I would catch an eyed, sooner or later, saying "you stupid buyer of a badge" or something similar.
I wouldn't care actually, but still, what's the reason behind it?

[cmcpokey]

excellent post Leon. and it got me thinking...

you can question ferraris motives for their cars. stuffing tech in them, and seemingly detaching themselves from the 'soul' that they used to have. i really don't buy that.

think of what ferrari has done. or better yet compare it to what porsche has done. the standard argument for the Cayenne is that its sales support the development of ability of Porsche to bring the GT2/3s to market. Great, more power to them. But what has ferrari done? they have continued to make sports cars. real sports cars. and nothing but. their biggest softest car will still run circles around damn near everything, including all but the most hardcore 911s.

they have never bragged about ring times. they barely even acknowledge that they even have competitors.

and despite all this, they still have booming sales. even in a time of economic disaster, they are selling all the cars that they make. higher re-sale values than damn near anything else. they have a fan base that any other brand would kill to have. and with their yearly sales volume being on par with a month of porsche sales (or less), they can still afford to run one of the most expensive racing enterprises of all time.

they have managed to expand their technical prowess, image, and brand value, while never making a mass market car. and every car they make is better, more reliable, and faster and better handling than its predecessor. its truely phenomenal.

[Ferrer]

I will try my best to explain myself.

But first a quick word for Porsche. It's a common misconception that they needed the Cayenne to survive. They didn't. Porsche was in financial trouble in the middle of the 90's when the 911 was the only car in the lineup, after the 928 and the 968 had been discontinued.

But then came the Boxster, which helped sales and saved Porsche. And afterwards the 996, which took the 911 into the 21st century. The Cayenne came much later, once the financial woes had already passed. The Cayenne was just meant to make money, not to save Porsche. I think that this is the clearest indicator that at Porsche making money is more importan than making cars.

And yet, there's a fundamental difference. Porsche's sportscars are some of the purest of the mass produced ones. They still use manual gearboxes and they don't have five way traction controls. And still retain the classic shapes which have matured nicely over the last 60 years. They are arguably trapped by the 911 legend, but at the same time that has given them stability.

And that doesn't happen at all with Ferrari. Yes they haven't made any psuedo-off roader but what they have done is put a little bit of Cayenne in all of their cars, in a way. Ferraris today are better than ever. They are faster, handle better, more efficient. They can even be considered reliable nowadays. However there's been something that has been lost in the process. Call it styling, call it passion, call it soul, call it what you want.

It's a bit like the BMW 1 series I drive. It's a fabulous car. It drives brilliantly, it's fast, comfortable, frugal and superbly built. However I wouldn't buy another one. It's perfect but somewhat there's something missing. Now the Mini, it's not perfect, it's thirsty, noisy and uncomfotable. And yet I can help loving it. It brings a smile to your face every time you drive it.

And that's possibly the best way to describe it. The 911 brings a smile to my face. Ferrari doesn't.

[Revo]

Ferrer, now I know that you are a man without soul.

How can BMW 1-series NOT bring a smile to your face? I enjoy every single km with my little 1-series. Driving that car is still an event.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by Revo

Ferrer, now I know that you are a man without soul.

How can BMW 1-series NOT bring a smile to your face? I enjoy every single km with my little 1-series. Driving that car is still an event.

I enjoy it just like (I guess) I would enjoy a Ferrari.

But I don't love it. Perhaps it's diesel or something.

The Mini on the other hand, every km is epic. You just downshift and redline it for the sheer fun of it. I never do that in the BMW.

And then there's the agility and nimbleness...

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

I will try my best to explain myself.

But first a quick word for Porsche. It's a common misconception that they needed the Cayenne to survive. They didn't. Porsche was in financial trouble in the middle of the 90's when the 911 was the only car in the lineup, after the 928 and the 968 had been discontinued.

But then came the Boxster, which helped sales and saved Porsche. And afterwards the 996, which took the 911 into the 21st century. The Cayenne came much later, once the financial woes had already passed. The Cayenne was just meant to make money, not to save Porsche. I think that this is the clearest indicator that at Porsche making money is more importan than making cars.

what I knew is that the former cars fixed the debit, the Cayenne made the money. you are analisys is correct btw.

Originally Posted by Ferrer

And yet, there's a fundamental difference. Porsche's sportscars are some of the purest of the mass produced ones. They still use manual gearboxes and they don't have five way traction controls. And still retain the classic shapes which have matured nicely over the last 60 years. They are arguably trapped by the 911 legend, but at the same time that has given them stability.

And that doesn't happen at all with Ferrari. Yes they haven't made any psuedo-off roader but what they have done is put a little bit of Cayenne in all of their cars, in a way. Ferraris today are better than ever. They are faster, handle better, more efficient. They can even be considered reliable nowadays. However there's been something that has been lost in the process. Call it styling, call it passion, call it soul, call it what you want.

It's a bit like the BMW 1 series I drive. It's a fabulous car. It drives brilliantly, it's fast, comfortable, frugal and superbly built. However I wouldn't buy another one. It's perfect but somewhat there's something missing. Now the Mini, it's not perfect, it's thirsty, noisy and uncomfotable. And yet I can help loving it. It brings a smile to your face every time you drive it.

And that's possibly the best way to describe it. The 911 brings a smile to my face. Ferrari doesn't.

I understood what you meant, but a few points, I have to say:
Ferrari and Porsche are on the same level about technologies flooding their cars. about the Manettino? well, Ferrari gave it a name, and positioned it on the steering wheel, screaming "hey yo! I have a new gizmo for you", while Porsche did the same, just positioned the ecu under the bonnet, called it with a serial number and screaming "see how fast our simple and old school car is!".
both marketing BSs of a different kind though.
about the gearbox issue, Ferrari offers the manual as well, just buyers don't want it, because they all want to be like F1 drivers.
The California doesn't (at the moment) offer the manual, but it's quite obvious: the new DSG cost quite a lot, Ferrari even valuated to build it in house and renounced mainly due to developing time since last time they did a gearbox from scratch in house was about 25 years ago, and those engineers are now out of business or simply out of Ferrari. So offering the car just with that gearbox ensures a faster recover of those costs, besides the fact manual's orders would have been very very low.
also, considering the range of prices Porsche covers, I can understand there are people managing by a small margin to buy a 911, so forget about spending more money on the tiptronic, which besides wasn't up to the level of the F1 transmissions. I would think the new PDK will invert the trend, though.
while, spending at least 170.000 euros, instead of 70.000, means your financial situations is a little different, so even if the F1 costs about 7.000 €, it's not a big deal. also, buying the best car, I can imagine customers want also the best stuff available too. shame on theme, but that's not about Ferrari, it's again about the market and the customers.

[cmcpokey]

albert, sometimes you mystify me. you go about as far from practicing what you preach as possible. for a man so hell bent on cars with soul and passion, you willingly bought a modern bmw. granted its 1 series which is closest to the true classic ethos of BMWs, but it is still not even close, and on top of that you got a diesel. it may be practical and frugal. but it far from light or beautiful.

maybe since it was a joint purchase you were bit hindered with what could be sacrificed for driving pleasure. but i am curious as to what you would buy if you had the choice. not any sort of dream car, but if you were to buy a car that was approx the value of your 118, any car, what woudl you buy?

[Ferrer]

Good analysis.

But the 911 GT2 costs 210.000€.

[LTSmash]

Give Kitdy a blue ribbon for starting this thread, this is brilliant. You have all got very interesting things to say on both companies. I'll add my lengthy bit when I have time, but I just had to say well done my friend.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

Good analysis.

But the 911 GT2 costs 210.000€.

and it's just a drop in the ocean, Porsche sold 34.000 cars just in the last 6 months according to autoblog.com

I admire their hardcore cars, the GT3RS could be my daily drive (together with a pocket masseur for my back), but even if some say those Cayenne&Co thingys are there to bring the money for those hardcore models, I think those cars are the bone you trow to the dog to keep it quite, while you build the Cayenne&Co gang.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by cmcpokey

albert, sometimes you mystify me. you go about as far from practicing what you preach as possible. for a man so hell bent on cars with soul and passion, you willingly bought a modern bmw. granted its 1 series which is closest to the true classic ethos of BMWs, but it is still not even close, and on top of that you got a diesel. it may be practical and frugal. but it far from light or beautiful.

maybe since it was a joint purchase you were bit hindered with what could be sacrificed for driving pleasure. but i am curious as to what you would buy if you had the choice. not any sort of dream car, but if you were to buy a car that was approx the value of your 118, any car, what woudl you buy?

Well we're doing a bit over 30.000km a year, so it had to be a diesel. If we went for the BMW it was because I wanted rear wheel drive, and given the constraints the 118d was the best we could go for.

Now that I've experienced rear wheel drive in all sorts of conditions I can tell you that I prefer rear wheel drive to front or four wheel drive. But while it's nice to have it, it wouldn't prevent me from buying a car if I liked it.

But if didn't have any constraints... I don't know an MX-5 2 litre soft top could be a good option (considering new cars).

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by cmcpokey

but i am curious as to what you would buy if you had the choice. not any sort of dream car, but if you were to buy a car that was approx the value of your 118, any car, what woudl you buy?

I am curious too.

Ferrer, was the Mini leaving your choice or your mother's choice? Do you prefer the diesel with RWD over the supercharged gas with FWD? What about the gas 1-series' compared to the Mini?

Originally Posted by LTSmash

Give Kitdy a blue ribbon for starting this thread, this is brilliant. You have all got very interesting things to say on both companies. I'll add my lengthy bit when I have time, but I just had to say well done my friend.

Thanks for the kind words LTSmash.

This thread I bet unlike other Ferrari vs. Porsche threads is actually interesting, well written, and thorough. I wonder if this had been made in the early days of UCP what it would have looked like...

Looking forward to your thoughts.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Ferrer, was the Mini leaving your choice or your mother's choice? Do you prefer the diesel with RWD over the supercharged gas with FWD? What about the gas 1-series' compared to the Mini?

It was a joint decision.

We needed something more practical and which used less fuel. But I still wanted something that was good to drive. Hence the 1er diesel, which I reckon is a good compromise. But a compromise nevertheless.

If had to choose between the two, without any sort of economical or practicality issues... then the Mini without any doubt. I haven't driven any petrol powered 1er, but I have driven other petrol powered BMWs. And I'd take a Z4M over the Mini...

[CdocZ]

I am definitely biased, being the (future) owner of a Carrera 911

One, many people can generally afford a modern Porsche. My dad and I have one of the last air-cooled Carrera's, and it is cheap to keep around. I am not on the insurance, but my dad pays around 500 American Dollars a year to insure himself on it, full coverage. Its been getting better gas mileage than his Infinity G35, and it is so docile on the road it is almost amazing to think that this luxurious feeling car is MUCH stiffer, harder-cornering and faster than his G35.

Which brings me to my point; maybe Porsche has thrived almost entirely on keeping the 911 DNA the same for so long. Sure, it gets a little boring when even a totally revised model looks more like a face-lift and little else. But they have spent so much time on this single design, you know it has to be worth something if it can last, evolutionarily speaking, so long. It is a pretty nice looking car pleasing to the eye, without being too radical (usually, GT's and related are another story). And when you look at it, you know it is a Porsche; for some people, that is simply a status symbol, and just bought the car because their recent bonus could cover it. For myself and my father, among others like the members of the Porsche Club of America, however, the fact that you can look at it and immediately recognize it is a source of pride: "I own a Porsche, a damn fine piece of automotive engineering, and a brilliant combination of luxury, power, and practicality".

Not everyone looks at their Porsche and thinks that, but I know there is a decent sized population of owners who do. Hence why I feel much more attached to Porsche (and my bias ).

As for Ferrari, I have never even sat in one, so I do not really have much to say. I can say that I really enjoy their designs, but I often find them a little too striking even when I do like the shape. I almost feel like they are not meant for the road, which is probably half the point; still, something just does not seem right when I see an F430 go by on a road. I feel that when I do see an F430 go by, it should not be just idling along, happy and content at 2,000RPM, and is too much of a treat, and an exceptional sort of toy, for that. Still do not mind seeing them on the road though

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by LTSmash

Give Kitdy a blue ribbon for starting this thread, this is brilliant. You have all got very interesting things to say on both companies. I'll add my lengthy bit when I have time, but I just had to say well done my friend.

I have to agree completely with that.

And I reckon I didn't have high hopes when I read the thread title...