Ferrari vs. Porsche

[whiteballz]

that actually might be an interesting way of highlighting the difference - ferrari people think it's about as perfect as it is from factory, and leave it alone - whereas porsche people happily buy spare sets of wheels for the track, swap out the standard wheels (for, say, BBS R-GT's) etc etc like any other sportscar.

Nail on the head.

I couldn't leave a car stock from the factory.

Its just not right.

[RUF917LH]

I believe that technically RUF is considered a small manufacturer (like Alpina).

TUV certified since 1983! And we were the quickest in practice but the IMSA performance car crashed. But we won the 24 hours of nurbirgring which is a tougher and more contested race for 3 years in a row.

[RUF917LH]

The F430s cleaned up this year did they not? How does the CGT have "superior dynamics" over the Enzo (what are superior dynamics?). Undisputed superiority? I dispute it simply because the Ferrari factory effort left in the early 70s. What about Porsche's failure in F1?

I mean you are giving Ferrari no credit at all basically while I see merit in both companies and both companies track success.

In terms of handling. Porsche could easily have made it quicker than the Enzo but didn't to lower the price. Damm Wiedeking. What about Ferrari's failure in sportscar racing after the Porsches became a threat with the advent of the 906. Porsche failed to suceed in F1 becuase of Ferrys stinginess. It lacked about 15 H.P. to make it competitive. Come to think of it, Porsche helped Ferrari design the 2004 F1 car. I'm a Porsche fan no mistake about it. And I adore Ferrari road cars. But the 512s performed so poorly that in its ineptness was almost laudable. And Ferrari will never manufacture a car faster than the 917/30 Talladega car. Nor as nice sounding as a 917 (although this is purely subjective.

[clutch-monkey]

Nail on the head.

I couldn't leave a car stock from the factory.

Its just not right.

agreed, but there is less customising of ferrari as it is a bit more...i dunno.. sacred? or something? whereas a porsche is more like a sportscar, i think roosterjuicer's comparison with the vette is a good one in this respect.

[Kitdy]

In terms of handling. Porsche could easily have made it quicker than the Enzo but didn't to lower the price.

Is it really better handling? I thought the Enzo was pretty dang good at that. The CGT is no slouch, but could it outhandle the Enzo? I dunno...

The money argument could be said for anything - any car could be faster than any other car if they had more money pretty much.

[RUF917LH]

Is it really better handling? I thought the Enzo was pretty dang good at that. The CGT is no slouch, but could it outhandle the Enzo? I dunno...

That has been established long ago my friend and laptimes attest to that. When I was a small kid I read every comparo I could get my grubby little hands on.

[NicFromLA]

Come to think of it, Porsche helped Ferrari design the 2004 F1 car. But the 512s performed so poorly that in its ineptness was almost laudable. And Ferrari will never manufacture a car faster than the 917/30 Talladega car. Nor as nice sounding as a 917 (although this is purely subjective.

1. I've never heard anything about Porsche being involved with Ferrari's F1 efforts.

2. By the time the 512 began racing, Ferrari had made sports car/GT racing their second priority. And NOBODY was going to beat the 917 anyway.

3. No one will ever manufacture a car faster than the 917/30.

[LeonOfTheDead]

If this is indeed the case then how do you account the thorough trouncing of the 512 by 917? Or this years GT3 RSR prevaling over the F430. How about C.H. Pozzis miserable performance in a Ferrari. Or the Carrera GT's superior dynamics over the Enzo. The 959 excelling in all surfaces. Or Porsches undisputed superioroity in endurance racing wins. The dominance of the small Porsches against the larger Ferrari prototypes at the Targa (you recall the initial win there was a 1.5l 550 Spyder piloted by Umberto Maglioli against 3liter Ferraris) and the 908 beating the Ferraris on several occasions. The only reason Porsche wasn't racing in top tier during this time was purely financial.
Granted Ferrari road cars are prettier and more exclusive. But you can't argue with laptimes.

racing =/= road

I don't know if I'd compare a tuner with a manufacturer here.

this, even if TUV certified, which doesn't mean anything at all.

TUV certified since 1983! And we were the quickest in practice but the IMSA performance car crashed. But we won the 24 hours of nurbirgring which is a tougher and more contested race for 3 years in a row.

Ferrari doesn't race in that race, so not adding something to the comparison, and also the 911 it's probably the most used car in that race, it goies by statics that it won the most times.

In terms of handling. Porsche could easily have made it quicker than the Enzo but didn't to lower the price. Damm Wiedeking. What about Ferrari's failure in sportscar racing after the Porsches became a threat with the advent of the 906. Porsche failed to suceed in F1 becuase of Ferrys stinginess. It lacked about 15 H.P. to make it competitive. Come to think of it, Porsche helped Ferrari design the 2004 F1 car. I'm a Porsche fan no mistake about it. And I adore Ferrari road cars. But the 512s performed so poorly that in its ineptness was almost laudable. And Ferrari will never manufacture a car faster than the 917/30 Talladega car. Nor as nice sounding as a 917 (although this is purely subjective.

The Enzo actually proved to be as fast as the Carrera GT, if not even more, on various track.
second, besides being 200.000 euros cheaper, the Carrera GT was produced in 1350 units, or so, the Enzo in 400.
also, since when porsche lacked money recently?!
there won't be again cars as fast and crazy as those prototypes from the seventies, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be defeated. afaik, Ferrari was involved in much more areas than Porsche in those days.

That has been established long ago my friend and laptimes attest to that. When I was a small kid I read every comparo I could get my grubby little hands on.

again, as said, the Enzo proved to eb as fast if not faster than the Carrera GT. since both cars where unveiled 6/7 years ago, and back in those days you said you were a little kid...what are you now?

[LTSmash]

I know I'm late on a response to this (damn University) but I really wanted to make a response on this thread. I'd say more but I'm really short on time due to the recent pile-up of tests and such, so here's my bit.

If I were to say my favorite of the two today, I would say Porsche. To me they seem to have stayed the path of appealing to the purists (with the GT3, RS, and GT2) but, they have also made some big mistakes with the Cayenne, Bosxter (you had to see that coming ), and the Tipp. Ferrari has declined more in my opinion by shifting to a wider market (I know, Porsche has done the same but you can still get a GT3RS or a turbo happy GT2 with a stick). Ferrari styling has also declined in my eyes where Porsche hasn't lost the overall shape of the 911. In all honesty the only thing Porsche has today is the 911, without it I wouldn't give them a second look.

Now, when I was younger it was a different scenario. Ferrari was king then, all starting with my first ride in one. The father of a close childhood friend of mine had a red 355, and one of the greatest days of my young life was him driving me around in what is to me, one of the most beautiful autos ever... That experience being the reason the 355 is my ultimate dream car. And it sure beat all those damn SL's at home. I really feel that the 90's were a good time for Ferrari cars; they had the 355, the 550, the F50. Those were all so wonderful and so appealing. Today I can't say the same. The Enzo (F60) wasn't a worthy successor to the F50, the main reason being the styling (for a Ferrari to be brilliant, it needs to be insanely attractive too). The 430 seems a little overstated to me and the 599 makes me wish the 550 would come back even more. I guess you could say the Scuderia is the Ferrari for hardcore fans but that still doesn't get me super excited. I know it's been mentioned many times on UCP that it's all just proper marketing and branding, but screw that! Make rides for and only for the enthusiast and let all the would-be's drive their torque converter BMW's and bland Merc SL's.

Concluding I say tie. Both manufactures suck compared with years past and they are continuing down the path of more 'sucky-ness.' But they are still at the same time brilliant and I hope one day that I will be the owner of a proper 911 and Ferrari. They both have had excellent models in the past and stellar racing histories to give them credibility. Simply put, Porsche and Ferrari are the crème' de la crème of all autos.

[DesmoRob]

Wow, I can't believe I missed out on this thread. Looking at the dates though I can see it was in action while I was working up north with little time to access a computer. So, forgive me for reviving it, but I had to.

Had I been asked this question not too far into the past, I would have probably said Porsche. The company had such an impact on me starting from the time I was a small child with my battery powered, remote-attached-to-car-via-cable, 1/18 scaled 959. Again in 2000, they caught my attention with the Boxster, and I was instantly hooked on cars, but for good this time. All that said, I still want a Ferrari.

It only took one look at a red 360 Modena for me to think to myself that this would be the ultimate car to ever own. No Porsche has ever done that for me, despite them nurturing my car geekiness into maturity. The sound of the Ferrari, the look of the Ferrari, and the sheer presence that a Ferrari has are each enough to make me completely weak in the knees. I can safely say now that they are my brand of choice. To most, they will seem totally unattainable for various reasons, and therefore out of the question. What they need to come to grips with is that all dreams can be realized through step by step actions that are payed consistent attention to in daily life. Of those that have to work hard for their money, only the ones that truly love and lust for the car will have one, because they will be the ones that make the required efforts throughout their lives. Its not about waiting for a big break or hoping to win the lottery (which by the way is just a voluntary tax paid by those with poor math skills), but rather the consistent positive actions we take every day by getting proactive. I believe anyone can own a Ferrari. The only obstacle standing between a person and that car is their dismissal of the idea that it is in fact possible. It doesn't have anything to do with working harder than everyone else, but merely making smarter decisions than everyone else.

[cargirl1990]

Nail on the head.

I couldn't leave a car stock from the factory.

Its just not right.

why? whats your ideal car custom parts?
- 3ft spoiler?
- ricey wheels?
- outrageous bodykit?
- ugly custom head/rear lights?
- ridiculous sound system?
- oversized muffler?
( im joking )

[P4g4nite]

"The joy of owning a Ferrari is in knowing that it is sitting in your garage, the Joy of a Porsche is in driving it."

Just something my neighbour told me when I asked about the Carrera in his driveway.


It does seem to me that Porsche's are built to be driven and Ferrari's are made to be admired, but I haven't driven either yet, just admired.

[DesmoRob]

"The joy of owning a Ferrari is in knowing that it is sitting in your garage, the Joy of a Porsche is in driving it."

Just something my neighbour told me when I asked about the Carrera in his driveway.


It does seem to me that Porsche's are built to be driven and Ferrari's are made to be admired, but I haven't driven either yet, just admired.

Either cars are capable of doing whatever their owners feel like at that given moment in time. Both are driver's cars, and both can be left to collect dust too, as with any car really. I can assure you that when the day comes that I have a Ferrari, it won't be doing very much sitting, granted the weather cooperates. Your neighbor only says that because people tend to use their Porsches for daily drivers much of the time, and Ferraris are saved for special occasions or sunny days. That doesn't mean Ferraris weren't built to be driven, but rather that they aren't practical enough to be driven a lot.

Another reason you don't see too many high miles on a Ferrari is because most owners are too busy keeping the car as mint and desirable as possible for the next guy. The most ironic thing about the whole situation is that the garage queens are typically the problematic ones too because their engines don't get the required exercise they need to keep their little bits n pieces from drying up. Kind of defeats the purpose of owning a car like that. They really are made to drive. As long as a higher mile Ferrari is serviced appropriately by its owner, without the owner cutting any costs, it will still be a happier car than the mint looking one with its delivery mileage still on the odometer.

[Black Edition]

"The joy of owning a Ferrari is in knowing that it is sitting in your garage, the Joy of a Porsche is in driving it."

Just something my neighbour told me when I asked about the Carrera in his driveway.


It does seem to me that Porsche's are built to be driven and Ferrari's are made to be admired, but I haven't driven either yet, just admired.

ferraris have astonishing performance too. driving a ferrari is also part of the joy of owning one

[LTSmash]

Another reason you don't see too many high miles on a Ferrari is because most owners are too busy keeping the car as mint and desirable as possible for the next guy.

This theory only applies to 250's, 356's, and other collector’s items. If I had a Stradale or GT3RS, I would be doing my best to add miles to those on the track.