Ferrari AWD

[scottie300z]

Go back 10 years.
Replace Ferrari with Porsche.
See it was an unbelievable premise back then.
SO, the idea that it mihgt happen in th future is there too.
Car makers HAVE to make profit and if the flotation of Ferrari succeeds it will lose the bankrolling of FIAT that kept it afloat for the last 30 years !!
The bean-counter at Porsche who justified the Cayenne may move jobs to Ferrari

PS: Learn "humour". Nobody is SERIOUSLY saying it WILL happen. But to try to say it will NEVER happen ignores history !!!

Actually it wasnt an unbelievable premise back then, porsche and ferrari are two different car makes. in my mind porsche is similar to bmw. If you made a totem pole of car manufactures w/ makes like kia at the bottem and ferrari and similar makes at the top, porsche would be w/ bmw and below ferrari sort of inbetween car makes that make lower to mid level cars to ferrari. So basicly id say porsche would be a maker of mid to high level cars along w/ bmw. That means their reach goes from people who buy the base model boxster (not necissarily rich) to the gt3(upper level cars) in this mid to high level there is room for a high quality suv to be sold much like the cayenne and thats why it worked. the cayenne fit well with the reach of the company. Ferrari's reach doesnt stretch that far, their market is only the top parts of the totem pole, and if you'd refer to point A of my earlier post, i ask if it is possible to make an suv worthy of being that high, or would ferrari have to risk being made lower, porsche didnt have to deal w/ either of these issues.

I understand that there may be humor, but if from the beginning your posts you were all about humor would it have gone this far? And if you go back and read all the posts by people saying they hope it doesnt mean they will build a suv or that they most likely will, there arent really hints of humor, if i missed them sorry. And i never said that it could never happen, im just pointing out that i dont think it would be happening anytime today. Basicly if i was in a marketing room and that bean counter was working at porsche these are some point i would bring up to counter his proposal, and i think they are things that ferrari would have to consider and think about.

[scottie300z]

I dont think so. If ferrari can make a high-volume SUV, it can be priced according to ferrari standards.
And about the brand image, i think it will only aid in ferrari's suv. One reason why the 612 sells is because it is a ferrari. If it were sold as a Maser ,Bentley or Lancia it would'nt have been selling as it currently is.

But really, i don't think so that building a AWD platform is about making SUVs (Lambo Murcielago, Audi RS4)

thats a good point, the ferrari name would help sells of it, but do you think it is possible for any car make to make a suv with enough quality that justifies it to be priced according to ferrari standards? And if its priced at ferrari standards how high volume is it? it couldnt be high volume enough to save any car manufacture from financial woes. And if they tried to make a suv w/ that much quality but failed wouldnt that hurt its brand image? And do you think making a "softer" more family oriented vehicle at least hurt its brand image a little consider that image used motorsports and performance a great deal to be built?

[Matra et Alpine]

Ferrari "quality" is not any better than Porsche "quality".
IF they let the bean counters do the market analysis for them to be as porfitabel as possible - the aim of all car makers - then the argument to build a $100,000 SUV is compelling.
When you make the point about Porsche I think you compare TODAYS Porsche and BMW etc and not the one of 10-15 years ag as our little "conjecture" is drawing the parralel with.
Take it back to when PORSCHE were the insurmountable technology leader in motorsport with Le Mans, GT, prototypes and F1 TAG

using the "fail" concern is valid but seldom considered in modern boardrooms when the upside of profit and company survivability become paramount. Liek you I tihnk if I was in the boardroom at Porsche I'd have voiced concerns adn for that reason I swoudl put forward that many probably did but the Cayenne went ahead. CLEARLY a profit producer for them but (IMHO) has ruined the Porsche name outside of the US.

[scottie300z]

Ferrari "quality" is not any better than Porsche "quality".
IF they let the bean counters do the market analysis for them to be as porfitabel as possible - the aim of all car makers - then the argument to build a $100,000 SUV is compelling.
When you make the point about Porsche I think you compare TODAYS Porsche and BMW etc and not the one of 10-15 years ag as our little "conjecture" is drawing the parralel with.
Take it back to when PORSCHE were the insurmountable technology leader in motorsport with Le Mans, GT, prototypes and F1 TAG

using the "fail" concern is valid but seldom considered in modern boardrooms when the upside of profit and company survivability become paramount. Liek you I tihnk if I was in the boardroom at Porsche I'd have voiced concerns adn for that reason I swoudl put forward that many probably did but the Cayenne went ahead. CLEARLY a profit producer for them but (IMHO) has ruined the Porsche name outside of the US.

B.Fiat may be loosing money but is Ferrari? Last i have read Ferrari was doing really good financially, so would the owner company of ferrari try and fix its own financial woes by making ferrari build a suv? Most likely not, why? Well even consider that if ferrari did and it actually was successful what would that do for fiat? not much but only offset their losses, not fix them. and how is that smart? When a company finds that some of their products are loosing money and some of them are making money they do not mess with the successful ones to make up for the loosing ones. Nope, they try to find ways to make their lacking ones successful that way to have a completly well rounded successful company. So dont look to fiat to mess up the ferrari winning combination it is running currently, loot to it to make changes in other parts of its company.

The reason that the cayenne helped porsche is b/c their models may have been making money, 911, boxster etc... but porsche still needed something to bump their sells, hence the cayenne. Ferrari and Fiat are not in that same position, Fiat needs to assess where its loosing money in order to get back on the plus side of things not add more models. And in a boardroom, when the upside of profit and company survivability is the main issue a "fail" concern is very valid, b/c it has to do w/ losses and profit. If your company is in trouble much like fiat why do something that could burry it deeper? why not see what is failing and make that a success? porsche didnt have much that was failing, all their models are solid they just need that extra bit, fiat on the other had needs a turn around, not an extra bit.

And 10 years ago was 1995, i would still think they would hold the same place on the totem pole as far as the market is concerned. they had the boxster which sold to many different incomes and they had their higher end models as well. Much like bmw, with the mase model 3 series which you see many different incomes buying and then they had their higher end model as well. So i would still say mid to high.

[Matra et Alpine]

The reason that the cayenne helped porsche is b/c their models may have been making money, 911, boxster etc... but porsche still needed something to bump their sells, hence the cayenne. Ferrari and Fiat are not in that same position, Fiat needs to assess where its loosing money in order to get back on the plus side of things not add more models.

it was heamorhhaging (sp!) money from Ferrari/Maserati group last year !!
It's why they've been thinking to sell Maser as s agoing concern adn takgin Ferrari to the stock market.
Ferrari sales were up, but no comment on PROFITS on 2004 yet, so in all likelihood it has dropped below the 3% return again

And in a boardroom, when the upside of profit and company survivability is the main issue a "fail" concern is very valid, b/c it has to do w/ losses and profit. If your company is in trouble much like fiat why do something that could burry it deeper?

Baceuse boardrooms ALWAYS try to find the upside toute OUT of problems. as it is a LOT harder to take the downside route and clsoe factories, fire employees and get otu of markets.

why not see what is failing and make that a success? porsche didnt have much that was failing, all their models are solid they just need that extra bit, fiat on the other had needs a turn around, not an extra bit.

Porsceh were not makign enough money to invest in the 911 family to make the necessary improvments in the premiere product line.
It was widely written about.... I'll try and find some of the articles ....

And 10 years ago was 1995, i would still think they would hold the same place on the totem pole as far as the market is concerned. they had the boxster which sold to many different incomes and they had their higher end models as well. Much like bmw, with the mase model 3 series which you see many different incomes buying and then they had their higher end model as well. So i would still say mid to high.

We have a different perspective on 10 years ago.
It may be cultural, regional or age-related
Porsche were on the top and Ferrari were producing medocre cars.
( Ferrari Mondial, 456, 550, ? not the "best" in the brochure ... a few others but more for looks which is VERY personal )
Porsche are now producing more mediocre cars then performance
From 2004 report "Porsche Group’s turnover went up by 13.9 percent to a total of approximately 6.35 billion Euro (5.58 billion Euro in the previous year). Porsche’s sales increased by 15 percent to a total of 76,827 units (66,803 in the previous year). This is primarily due to the outstanding success of the Cayenne: In the fiscal year Porsche sold 39,913 units of its SUV, almost twice the previous year’s figure (20,603), when this new model line was being introduced successively to international markets. On the other hand, for life-cycle reasons, sales of Porsche sports cars went down by 20.6 percent to 36,692 units (previous year: 46,200 units)."
So over HALF of the sales of a once-great sports car producer are now SUVs.

I lament that and hence why I raised the possible spectre of Ferrari taking the same route.

[scottie300z]

Baceuse boardrooms ALWAYS try to find the upside toute OUT of problems. as it is a LOT harder to take the downside route and clsoe factories, fire employees and get otu of markets.

Porsceh were not makign enough money to invest in the 911 family to make the necessary improvments in the premiere product line.
It was widely written about.... I'll try and find some of the articles ....

i wouldnt say im suggesting closing factories, im suggesting making the failing aspects of the fiat company into successful ones, i wasnt as specific as shuting down things ang getting out of markets. Id actually suggest staying the markets but maybe redesigning or marketing the products to different people in different ways.

and thats sort of what i was trying to say about porsche, they needed that extra income that they got from the cayenne, they didnt really have many failing models, not like fiat does. I understand that if ferrari could make a suv much like the cayenne and it could be successful but i wouldnt use fiat's finanancial situation to support that, it might help but in reality fiat needs its marketers to do their job w/ the failing portions and not bring in something new. porsche didnt have certain parts of its company bringing it down like fiat does, a suv would only offset those losses not solve them.

[Matra et Alpine]

i wouldnt say im suggesting closing factories, im suggesting making the failing aspects of the fiat company into successful ones, i wasnt as specific as shuting down things ang getting out of markets. Id actually suggest staying the markets but maybe redesigning or marketing the products to different people in different ways.

and thats sort of what i was trying to say about porsche, they needed that extra income that they got from the cayenne, they didnt really have many failing models, not like fiat does. I understand that if ferrari could make a suv much like the cayenne and it could be successful but i wouldnt use fiat's finanancial situation to support that, it might help but in reality fiat needs its marketers to do their job w/ the failing portions and not bring in something new. porsche didnt have certain parts of its company bringing it down like fiat does, a suv would only offset those losses not solve them.

Scottie, I';m not sure if you realise that Ferrari ARE trying to get the Maserati comapny OFF THEIR BOOKS. It is losing money they cannot afford. If they dont' find a buyer than may be closure. So it's not just FIAT board who have to think about reducing and "marketing" - but at the end of the day you cant' sell anything but the BEST products at the top of the range - why Porsche are losing 911 sales !!!
Ferrari have relied on FIAT bank-rolling for decades. The Ferrari SpA group return is too low to support the investment in new car design they need.
Same position I suggest Porsche were in way back.
How to get the income to "redesign" thse sports cars ?
Make SUVs WILL come on to the tabel as an idea and teh profit from the Cayenne shown as rationale for making the move.
It will be VERY hard for the Ferrari board NOT to go that route.
Enzo isnt' there anymore to keep them focussed on his ideals. A bit like Hewlett Packard computer company - a once BEST company and now nothing special after the hands at the controls didnt' have the personal "love/lust" !!

BUT they woudlnt' jump there, so we hopefully can have a good decade of some seriously focussed 4WD sports cars from the Ferrari stable. Will it better or just follow the path of the Bugatti EB110 ( bust ) or the Lamborghini ( bust ) ?

Maybe BMW will then buy Ferrari as Audi bought Lambo and the "totem" can be full circle

[scottie300z]

Scottie, I';m not sure if you realise that Ferrari ARE trying to get the Maserati comapny OFF THEIR BOOKS. It is losing money they cannot afford. If they dont' find a buyer than may be closure. So it's not just FIAT board who have to think about reducing and "marketing" - but at the end of the day you cant' sell anything but the BEST products at the top of the range - why Porsche are losing 911 sales !!!
Ferrari have relied on FIAT bank-rolling for decades. The Ferrari SpA group return is too low to support the investment in new car design they need.
Same position I suggest Porsche were in way back.
How to get the income to "redesign" thse sports cars ?
Make SUVs WILL come on to the tabel as an idea and teh profit from the Cayenne shown as rationale for making the move.
It will be VERY hard for the Ferrari board NOT to go that route.
Enzo isnt' there anymore to keep them focussed on his ideals. A bit like Hewlett Packard computer company - a once BEST company and now nothing special after the hands at the controls didnt' have the personal "love/lust" !!

BUT they woudlnt' jump there, so we hopefully can have a good decade of some seriously focussed 4WD sports cars from the Ferrari stable. Will it better or just follow the path of the Bugatti EB110 ( bust ) or the Lamborghini ( bust ) ?

Maybe BMW will then buy Ferrari as Audi bought Lambo and the "totem" can be full circle

My point was that i dont see making a suv to be profitable for ferrari as it was for porsche. Sure it may have helped porsche a great deal but would it do the same for ferrari? Thats why i made the whole "totem pole" of car makes. That wasnt necessarily based on quality but it was more like a social class of cars based on its largest target market. Thats why i said ten years ago it wouldnt be much different then now, b/c porsche reaches lower then ferrari, w/ the boxster all the way up to the bottom of ferrari w/ its 911. Now with this in mind if ferrari made a suv what would it be?

Would it be A) a very high class suv of the likes not seen today and is priced in the ferrari price range? If so is it possible for ferrari to sell enough and make enough profit off of these to help any financial situation? Why wouldnt it? well the vast majority of suv buyers wouldnt spend that much on a suv even if its labeled ferrari. It would be compared to the cayenne and if performance wise it did not seem to make its worth in the difference in cost, it wouldnt sell.

Or B) Would ferrari decide to lower the bottom part of its "range" in order to mass produce their suv and price it much like the cayenne? This move would most likely alienate more members of its target market, as a large part of a ferrari's apeal is it being a pure sports car. Now im not saying this did not happen with porsche but wouldnt you say that it is a bigger deal the farther up in class you go? The porsche already accomedated a wider range of income class with the boxster, and actually some people would argue that the cayenne is of better quality and just a better overall vehicle then the boxster. This way porsche hasnt changed as much as you might think even if they never made a suv before. But with ferrari it wouldnt be the same there would be more changes involved which would have reprocutions (sp?), so even if a suv did pick up sales it would most likely hurt sales in other parts.

And also just like your point of selling lower cars to support the upper and flagship models also goes for companies. Instead of bringing down ferrari in some sort of hope that an suv that might also damage ferrari some saves the company, why wouldnt FIAT make needed changes to the other aspects of their company in order to support the higher ferrari? And then if they solved these other problems that is making them loose alot of money they would be then on their way to profit. In otherwords spend the money on developing a suv on fixing what is wrong w/ their current situation.

"FIAT AUTO

The 106-year-old car unit accounts for about 43 percent of overall revenue but has long been a drag on the group"

Fix this and how much of a problem would they have. Maybe FIAT should release a suv, they could make a deal w/ gm even if they have hard feelings to sell the fiats in the us. I doubt this would happen and im going on a really large limb, but if fiat could pull off such a feat it would be a real big step. And maserati is pulling down ferrari, if they do get ride of it then that is another big loss that they loose. Of course they could have also retooled maserati, it didnt really have to be that high of a luxory brand, think if they made it something a little lower from the start, something like a bmw or porsche, that way they could reach a larger market, when as is alot of maserati competes with ferrari for the same dollar. They could have made a maserati suv, in order to support ferrari which is where they're real intrests lies.

I never said it was impossible or wouldnt ever happen, or even that it wasne enticing, i just said its my opinion that ferrari wouldnt go that way, and might instead go another. Or well fiat might go another. About half or a little over half of fiats intrests make a loss, and a little under half make a profit or a slight profit or holds its own. Ferrari is actually one of their better intrests when you compare it to the other intrests of fiat.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...2&page=1&pp=15
and just now it seems they did sell maserati. if that post is correct.

[Matra et Alpine]

I'll await next weeks numbers before proclaiming Ferrari as "profitable">
As I'd said the numbers from last quarter had Ferrari down at 3%.
FIAT have tried for years to "move up market" with their export cars and can't really shake the "Italian engineering/fit issues" that hang around from the 70s !!
FIAT putting out an up-market SUV would have no credibility.
There ONLY hope of success is to take their "jewel" marques and produce SUVs from there.
So Lancia has been talked about producing one. Ferrari woudl be even more kudos - as a bean counter will no soudbt say in the meetings
Remember Lambo DID produce an up-market SUV from Italy - so history doenst' bode well for them !!
Previous year had been loses of $2.5B for the GROUP and $1.2B for Fiat AUTO. So what year was the "drag on the group" comment from ???? Looks like Fiat Auto is losing the same as everyone else - Iveco and their agricultural subsidiaries have supposedly been "better" this year. We'll not know by how much or the ROI until next week.......

[Matra et Alpine]

Ferrari is actually one of their better intrests when you compare it to the other intrests of fiat.

IVECO is the star at the moment, with tractors runnign a close second !!

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...2&page=1&pp=15
and just now it seems they did sell maserati. if that post is correct.

No.
They've transferred Maserati from the Ferrari subsidiary back to the group and have announced this is to allow them to use the technology in the LANCIA range.
So they've not REALLY "sold" it but not clear if they will try to sell parts of it now they can asset-strip the technology for Lancia.
Wait a week and it should all be clearer

[scottie300z]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...utos-77695.htm

It was from february.
And lambo suv not working is a good example of why ferrari shouldnt make one either. The bean counters may push for one, and it is hard to argue with the bean counters and the dollar signs they throw out, but id also think that if they wrote out plusses and negatives and looked at other ways, and other examples they would come up with better solutions.

It is very interesting though.

[Matra et Alpine]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...utos-77695.htm

It was from february.

That is terribel journalism !!
He comments on the Fiat Auto and then if you go over the figures you see that others are as bad.
Look at the Ferrari "jewel" he called it.
€1.2B SALES and €2M profit !!!
Sorry in real terms that is a drop in the ocean on profit and is atrocious return on the revenue.
THAT was why I was questioning the view that Ferrari is "healthy".

And lambo suv not working is a good example of why ferrari shouldnt make one either. The bean counters may push for one, and it is hard to argue with the bean counters and the dollar signs they throw out, but id also think that if they wrote out plusses and negatives and looked at other ways, and other examples they would come up with better solutions.

It is very interesting though.

Hence why I pointed out the Lambo.
do you really think the Lambo engineers and marketing folks DIDN'T do a swot analysis on their options ?
They did and STILL screwed the solution up.
Likewise I propose that Porsche have seriosuly damaged their reputation by puting out a lame-arsed SUV !!

As you say the times are interesting and I will certainly enjoy seeing how Ferrari chose to go with AWD given their experience in keeping it light and focussed. I'd hate to see an Enzo that was 200kg heavier

[johnnyperl]

theres no point to your guys' argument because ferrari will never build an SUV! it has the same chance of happening as Ducati releasing a SUV.

but dont let me stop you.

the article says what the transmissions is for. there are big differences between an SUV tranny and one for an 800+hp supercar.

thanks for the link Scottie, didnt know that FIAT owned Magnetti Marelli.

[Matra et Alpine]

theres no point to your guys' argument because ferrari will never build an SUV! it has the same chance of happening as Ducati releasing a SUV.

Or Ducati doing a 4 cylinder bike engine ? Or BMW doing a sportsbike ??
oh wait
Never say NEVER !!

but dont let me stop you.

the article says what the transmissions is for. there are big differences between an SUV tranny and one for an 800+hp supercar.

We know. There is a big differnce between a 959 and a Cayenne, but it didnt' stop the lunacty did it ???

[sunk]

thats a good point, the ferrari name would help sells of it, but do you think it is possible for any car make to make a suv with enough quality that justifies it to be priced according to ferrari standards? And if its priced at ferrari standards how high volume is it? it couldnt be high volume enough to save any car manufacture from financial woes. And if they tried to make a suv w/ that much quality but failed wouldnt that hurt its brand image? And do you think making a "softer" more family oriented vehicle at least hurt its brand image a little consider that image used motorsports and performance a great deal to be built?

so did the mondial, 348, Testarossa ruin the brand image ?