New F 430 Scuderia

[visionology]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

In general, the cost of a car's maintenance is proportional to its performance envelope. --Andre
I think the maintenance is more relevant to the cost of the car as there are many super high-end cars with high maintenance and have mediocre performance in relation to other cars costing the same. The automobile companies who make cars in such small numbers have to have high maintenance costs to re-coop the costs to develop the cars which can't be spread out over volume. I always point to this article, http://www.sportscarmarket.com/articles/archives/939 which I am sure many of you have read, documenting the maintenance of a Ferrari 550 over the course of 6 years. The amount of parts that had to be replaced frequently (including the windshield washer reservoir for $529?) was astounding for a car with very few miles and no track time. It seems as though they replace parts simply based on a mile number rather than on wear.

 

[imageWIS]

Two points:

1) In the case of Ferrari, the cost of ownership is relative to not only the cost of the car, but also the quality of the product, since most of the parts are designed not only to work in the real world, but to be able to run at capacity levels (so anywhere between 186 to 215 mph, depending on the model) on a track weekend, and then back to the real world when Monday comes around. Just because the owner doesn't take the car to the track doesn't mean that the parts will not wear out as fast as if the car was tracked, because the parts are designed more with performance and flexibility in use than longevity.

Obviously an F22 which doesn't see combat will need more replacement parts over its life span than a commercial jet. Its parts, like a Ferrari's are designed for a different purpose in mind.


2) Some things, especially high-performance and almost-artisan mechanical items (watches, for instance) are oftentimes wasted on their owners. Take zjpj, he truly is a Ferrari connoisseur, and fully appreciates his car for more than just its performance and its name brand and the showing that it "˜entitles' the owner. His F430 isn't wasted on him because he appreciates the car, in all its aspects. And while an owner doesn't need to be as knowledgeable as he is, he must like zjpj have true respect for the item, an appreciation FOR the item, not just what it represents to the world. Unfortunately, most owners purchase their Ferrari's for one reason, and one reason only: to show off.

Jon.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by visionology

I think the maintenance is more relevant to the cost of the car as there are many super high-end cars with high maintenance and have mediocre performance in relation to other cars costing the same.

That may also be true, but for performance-related parts (brakes, engine, tires, suspension), design choices were usually made to favor performance over reliability, longevity, ease-of-serviceability, or something else a Toyota Camry might have chosen. Tires on a Corvette cost about the same or more than a contemporaneous Ferrari's, for example. Same deal with brake rotors and pads since many are sourced from the same places (Brembo, etc.).

The article you linked had a car that was pampered (fixing curb rash 2 or 3 times?) and had lots of other issues not really related to its performance.

--Andre

 

[Chris "Italia"]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Me too - I want a 512TR badly. I also would like a 993 - I have some sort of yen for the 1990s.)



The 1990's produced some of the best looking Ferrari's.

1987-1992: F40.
1991-1993: F348
1995-1998: F355.
1995-1997: F50.
1992-1994: 512TR and 512M.

 

[JetBlast]

IMO this is my favorite affordable Ferrari; considering it's not usually at least $100K. Either the 512TR or the Testarossa.

JB

 

[Southern-Nupe]

Originally Posted by Chris "Italia"

The 1990's produced some of the best looking Ferrari's.

1987-1992: F40.
1991-1993: F348
1995-1998: F355.
1995-1997: F50.
1992-1994: 512TR and 512M.
I've been a fan of the F355 for awhile, I remember a guy that lived down the street from my parents, using his as a daily driver, unfortunately he later traded it in for a Maserati.

 

[DNW]

Originally Posted by visionology

I always point to this article, http://www.sportscarmarket.com/articles/archives/939 which I am sure many of you have read, documenting the maintenance of a Ferrari 550 over the course of 6 years. The amount of parts that had to be replaced frequently (including the windshield washer reservoir for $529?) was astounding for a car with very few miles and no track time. It seems as though they replace parts simply based on a mile number rather than on wear.

I don't think spending 10 grand a year is a bad price to pay for maintaining a Ferrari. However, I do think that bringing it in the shops that many times a year is a pain **********.

 

[visionology]

Originally Posted by DarkNWorn

I don't think spending 10 grand a year is a bad price to pay for maintaining a Ferrari. However, I do think that bringing it in the shops that many times a year is a pain **********.

Yeah, it isn't that bad when you consider the car costs > $200,000 and is a performance vehicle however the price per mileage is what gets me. Nearly $3 a mile is pretty high to me. I would go crazy if every 250-500 miles I had to bring my car in for another major service.

This statement from the same article however sums up the service nicely:

"Ferrari ownership is both a lifestyle and a socio-economic statement, just as owning a polo pony is a different venture than keeping a draught horse. As one former owner of S/N 111317 put it, "I spend more than that on crap on eBay every year." No other statement quite sums up the difference between those who lust for a Ferrari from those who can pay the price of ownership."

 

[GQgeek]

Would it be a sin to own a ferrari and NOT take it in for service every time drove it?