 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ferrari Cars / November 2003Relative Merits of Testarossa vs. 355
It seems that the 355s are dropping into a range that the Testarossa are in, pricewise, at this point. What do any of you see as the relative merits of ownership of one or the other. Clear cut choice in your minds? The closest to a Testarossa that I've driven was the 512 Boxer, and the other day a 360 Spyder. The seemed like completely different experiences. The 360 seemed like a car that could be a daily driver, but infinitely better than most other vehicles I've been in....... but...... not quite magical. The 512 Boxer seemed like a car that would be a genuine pain to be in as a daily driver, and a nightmare in bumper to bumper traffic..... but...... on the open road, in the twisties, extremely challenging and involving. Opinions? The 85-91 Testarossa is a heavy car, the wonderful flat 12 showing its age with outdated dual K-Jetronic fuel injection, and unfortunately fresh meat in a street race (until 100 or so) for many newer asian 4 cylinder cars. With the newer cars to compare, is seems like now, more than even, the big 12 is offset by weight and old engine management systems (not to mention balky shifter) to the point where it's sheer complexity vs. sheer mass. It's lovely but obsolete, and the same TR's are for sale month after month. To me, at least, the f355 represents the first of the "lean and mean" Ferraris with the same output as TR, less 4 cylinders and 500-600 pounds of weight netting impressive performance by today's standards, and with 1996 and newer, ultra modern OBD II Motronic 5.2 engine management. Add the F1 trans in 1998, and the total package makes the TR look 20 years older. By the way, do not buy a 1995 F355 (Valve Guide wear, Exhaust manifold issues) - it is very easy to put 10K into a 95' 355 to resolve these issues when you could have used the 10K to get a 96-97 in the first place. The only disadvantage (to me) of the F355 is that it's a V8 Ferrari, which takes away a little of the 12 cylinder aura and magic, and it was not Ferrari's top of the line car, whereas the TR was By the way everyone, I am actively searching for a 1998 or 1999 F355 F1 5-15K miles Fly Yellow preferred (would consider other colors) if anyone in this group has any leads, please e-mail me. Bond >It seems that the 355s are dropping into a range that the Testarossa are in, >pricewise, at this point. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Opinions? A few common cars that might be embarrassingly close to the TR in acceleration: 1989 Ferrari Testarossa 0-60 6.2 14.2 1/4 mile (Road and Track) Honda Accord Coupe EX V6 0-60 5.9 14.5 1/4 mile (Car and Driver 9/03) Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 0-60 5.0 13.6 1/4 mile (Car and Driver 6/03) Nissan Altima 3.5SE 0-60 5.9 14.6 1/4 mile (Car and Driver 6/03) Subaru Forester 2.5XT 0-60 5.3 13.8 1/4 mile (Car and Driver 8/03) Subaru WRX STi 0-60 4.6 1/4 mile (Car and Driver 6/03) - this is virtually the same as the 1998 F355 F1 (0-60 4.6 13.0 1/4 mile)! And there is always: Mercedes Benz S600 0-60 4.3 12.5 1/4 mile (Car and Driver 7/03) Audi RS 6 0-60 4.4 12.8 1/4 mile (Car and Driver 5/03) Bond >The 85-91 Testarossa is a heavy car, the wonderful flat 12 showing its >age with outdated dual K-Jetronic fuel injection, and unfortunately [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> >>Opinions? Understood. I can buy a Corvette Z06 that will probably eat both of the Ferraris alive, but I'm considering a certain amount of panache in addition to stats on a page. > A few common cars that might be embarrassingly close to the TR in > acceleration: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > >> > >>Opinions? > Understood. I can buy a Corvette Z06 that will probably eat both of the > Ferraris alive, but I'm considering a certain amount of panache in addition [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > >> > > >>Opinions? Re Testarossa - went for a ride [as a passenger] in this TR: http://classiccarfair.com/1987ferraritestarossa.htm around suburban avenues a few weeks ago, and the gearchanges were strongly reminiscent of a Doug Nash box in a racing Corvette, or even double-declutching on upchanges in an old English box: several spring to mind prewar. The car was so wide and the extremities invisible, not practical for any city. A monster on the open road, which is the point. Cheers from NZ > Understood. I can buy a Corvette Z06 that will probably eat both of the > Ferraris alive, but I'm considering a certain amount of panache in addition > to stats on a page. This is a shameless copy of a post over in another FerrariList from "ROUNDEL" magazine. I thought it summed nicely what you just said about looking at more than just numbers. ROUNDEL (July 2001) (the magazine of the BMW car club of America) has a test drive comparing a BMW-M3, Porsche-911, Mercedes-AMG/CLK-55, and a Ferrari 360 Modena. The conclusion: "Sports car perfection, thy name is Modena" ----- " you can buy three M3s or two 911s for the price of a Ferrari 360 Modena and have a fair chunk of change left over. For all that money, the Ferrari will only give you about a half-second quicker 0-60 time, so is it really worth it? In a word: yes. After driving the 360 Modena back-to-back with the other three cars in our group, we realized why Ferrari's are so special and so coveted. Comments from our drivers were nothing if consistent: "Every time I tried to make a comparison with the other cars, I just kept coming up with, 'There is no comparison," says Artie Heissenbuttel. "the Ferrari is on another plane. In handling, breaking, acceleration, and even comfort and ergonomics, the 360 Modena is way ahead of the others." Jonas Musson concurs, "The Ferrari out-shifted, out-braked, and simply out-performed all the cars that I have driven" he says, "This machine is a true work of art and excited every one of my senses when I drove it." Brian Morgan made it unanimous. "The 360 Modena is in another league altogether. It responds with immediacy and feels like an extension of your central nervous system. If money is no object, there's no question that the Prancing Horse is the winner." What is it that makes the Ferrari so special? More than any other car on the market today, it has a soul firmly planted somewhere in all of its metal, rubber and glass. While the other cars certainly possess this intangible quality to a certain degree, the 360 Modena embodies it in all of its parts. Klaus Scnitzer summed it up in three words: "I'm in love." >A few common cars that might be embarrassingly close to the TR in >acceleration: [..] Noted. But, as oft been said and C&D explicitly mentions in their 575 review/test: If you're into drag racing Ferraris, you've missed the point. <<The 85-91 Testarossa is a heavy car, the wonderful flat 12 showing its age with outdated dual K-Jetronic fuel injection, and unfortunately fresh meat in a street race (until 100 or so) for many newer asian 4 cylinder cars.>> Why on Gaia's green earth would anyone care how an almost 20 yr old Ferrari compares in 0-60 times against a brand new Japanese car? Hel, why would anyone care how a new Ferrari compared in 0-60 times to any Japanese car?? <<With the newer cars to compare...>> Who does this? My '95 GT will out perform a '65 Fastback in all areas, but I still want one. My '98 355 F1 Challenge car will lay waste to an '80 Boxer in many ways, but I still want one. <<Add the F1 trans in 1998, and the total package makes the TR look 20 years older.>> The TR is 20 yrs old. So what? <<A few common cars that might be embarrassingly close to the TR in acceleration:>> I can't figure out if you *get it* or not. My current race car has twice as much torque as my Challenge car has horse power. It out performs the Challenge car in every way except braking and even there, it's damn close. Ya know what though? No matter how well it performs, it's still not a Ferrari. Specs and stats tell only part of the story. More importantly, anyone who is worried about being *fresh meat in a street race* has no business driving a Ferrari anyway. C. > Why on Gaia's green earth would anyone care how an almost 20 yr old Ferrari > compares in 0-60 times against a brand new Japanese car? Hel, why would anyone > care how a new Ferrari compared in 0-60 times to any Japanese car?? I guess the same people who think McDonalds sell good food because it's cheaper than eating in a restaurant and you get more calories. >. More importantly, anyone who is worried > about being *fresh meat in a street race* has no business driving a Ferrari > anyway. It's a shame we can't confiscate their keys. Paul  SignatureHttp://www.redmist.freeserve.co.uk <<It's a shame we can't confiscate their keys.>> We can't? So I should stop doing that? C. >It seems that the 355s are dropping into a range that the Testarossa an, > pricewise, at this point. > What do any of you see as the relative merits of ownership of one or the > other. Clear cut choice in your minds? Well, they are both different cars so they each have their own merits. I've never driven a F355 but everyone I know that has says nothing but the best for them. The Testarossa was a huge success when it was launched in 1984. Its flat 12 is still a gem today, and was written up by "Classic and Sports Car" to be one of the best engines ever produced. Like any other car, the F355 has benefited from 10 years of development and technology from the TR. It accelerates slightly faster, corners better, has a updated interior, but as we Ferrari enthusiasts know, newer doesn't always mean better, just different. I do disagree with Bond's comment about the TR being 'fresh meat' for asain four cylinder cars, there is no asian four banger that will come close to any Ferrari flat 12. That has got to be one of the most assinine statements ever typed on Usenet. Enter the 512M. Produced in limited numbers in the early 90s, its to die for. With 421hp, it goes like hell and the engine sound gives you goosebumps. > The closest to a Testarossa that I've driven was the 512 Boxer, and the > other day a 360 Spyder. The seemed like completely different experiences. > The 360 seemed like a car that could be a daily driver, but infinitely > better than most other vehicles I've been in....... but...... not quite > magical. Your not the first to think that, its been written many times that the 360 has lost the 'soul' that many people associate with Ferrari. The engine isn't quite as vibrant and the looks are questionable. IMO the 512BB is one of the best mid-engine Ferraris you can buy, its very rare, it has stunning looks and a racing heritage like no other. Right now their prices have bottomed out, but in 20 years from now my guess is they will be much more valuable than a 360 spider. > The 512 Boxer seemed like a car that would be a genuine pain to be in as a > daily driver, and a nightmare in bumper to bumper traffic..... but...... on > the open road, in the twisties, extremely challenging and involving. Agreed. I have driven many cars with webers and FI, and in the end when my heart rules my head, I'll take carburated car in a New York minute. The sound they give you is so rich and pure and just screams "FERRARI!" Driving one is like being transported back in time 40 years, with the engine roaring behind you, you could swear you were driving a race car. Yeah they need to be tuned more often, sure their less tractable, but its a small price to pay. But in the end it all depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for a daily driver, a F355 is going to be your car, if you want a weekend toy, a 512BB is a thrill and sensation you will never forget. And then again, its completely subjective even at that...but just remember, no matter what you buy, your still own a Ferrari, and no matter how old it is, what motor is in it, its still going to be an experience you never forget. Each Ferrari is unique, has its own personality and soul, and you will be amazed how you bond with the car, no other marque is as emotional with car/driver as Ferrari is. Own one and you will understand =) >I do disagree with Bond's comment about the TR being 'fresh meat' >for asain four cylinder cars, there is no asian four banger that will come >close to any Ferrari flat 12. Matt, I take it that you did not read my follow up post a few minutes after the main post with the stats on a few asian 4's that will take the 85-91 TR (notice I was careful to specify the year range of the TR's that were at a disadvantage to the 4 cyl asian cars, which I have also specified by citing the particular magazines) - the Subaru WRX is a good case in point - reread my follow up post - what did you not understand about this simple math?, then to make a blanket statement that "there is no asian four banger that will come close to any Ferrari flat 12" oh really ANY flat twelve?? - how about a 1978 512BB (0-60 5.5 seconds - Road and Track 8/77) against the Subaru Forester SUV 2.5XT I cited in my follow up post (0-60 5.3)? Any more uninformed blanket statements that you would like to make for me? Bond > >I do disagree with Bond's comment about the TR being 'fresh meat' > >for asain four cylinder cars, there is no asian four banger that will come [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > TR's that were at a disadvantage to the 4 cyl asian cars, which I have > also specified by citing the particular magazines) I stand corrected. It was late when I was writing that last night and my brain must not have been in hear. Apologies. The Ferrari heritage is richer than Honda's, Toyota's, etc. The Japanese may be able to build a hell of a lot more rice burners per year that can put up acceleration times matching a twenty year old Ferrari, but they are nothing but meaningless pieces of sheet metal that roll off of an assembly line. Each Ferrari is hand-made, embodying a sense of passion and of soul within it. The reason why a flat twelve is and will always be superior to the Japnese four cylinder is because the Japanese are so preoccupied with saying and getting the "most horsepower" they forget all about the actual important number, torque. 250HP does nothing for you with only 153ft/lbs of torque at the wheels. This is why they want you to compare quarter mile times, rather than acceleration up past 80MPH. In other words the TR has constant power throughout its spectrum, while the Japanese "sports" cars have plenty of power out of the gate, they are utterly useless in the higher speed ranges. > The Ferrari heritage is richer than Honda's, Toyota's, etc. The Japanese >may be able to build a hell of a lot more rice burners per year that can put >up acceleration times matching a twenty year old Ferrari, but they are >nothing but meaningless pieces of sheet metal that roll off of an assembly >line. Each Ferrari is hand-made, embodying a sense of passion and of soul >within it. Well put, just standing next to a Ferrari gives a rush, whereas the NSX (for example) leaves me cold. I just spent 30,000 on a hand-built german piano, where the third generation family CEO personally signed the piano of which 200 units were built for the worldwide market in 2002. A chinese piano maker churns out 20,000 of the same type at 20% of the cost but asian pianos don't speak to me. Bond > Well put, just standing next to a Ferrari gives a rush, whereas the > NSX (for example) leaves me cold. I won't put down Japanese durability and reliability, but, that's about where it ends. I have driven just about all the Japanese sports cars and found them to be quite boring. I own a 328 GTB and my friend just got a 93 NSX...similar performance ,but the Ferrari is leaps and bounds more the sports car. Japanese generic feel and performance is king in all of their copycat designs. > I just spent 30,000 on a hand-built german piano, where the third > generation family CEO personally signed the piano of which 200 units > were built for the worldwide market in 2002. A chinese piano maker > churns out 20,000 of the same type at 20% of the cost but asian pianos > don't speak to me. As the saying goes, imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery ;) > Japanese generic feel and > performance is king in all of their copycat designs. Except when it comes to the Skyline - the definitive sports sedan. MC > > Japanese generic feel and > > performance is king in all of their copycat designs. > > Except when it comes to the Skyline - the definitive sports sedan. That's not a car, its a Romulan Warbird in disguise (!) I. (Who would not be surprised to find out that the Skyline has some kind of cloaking device!!) >>> Japanese generic feel and >>> performance is king in all of their copycat designs. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (Who would not be surprised to find out that the Skyline has some > kind of cloaking device!!) That's right, Iain - there's one in the next lane right now kicking your a.s!! MC <<I have driven many cars with webers and FI, and in the end when my heart rules my head, I'll take carburated car in a New York minute. The sound they give you is so rich and pure and just screams "FERRARI!">> Well, I'm not certain that all carburated cars scream the same thing, but I agree with the essence of what you're saying. <g> <<just remember, no matter what you buy, your still own a Ferrari, and no matter how old it is, what motor is in it, its still going to be an experience you never forget.>> Indeed. It's been suggested to me that I sell my '85 Mondial QV Cab and my '95 Mustang GT and buy a new BMW with the SMG. Utterly ridiculous. My Mustang costs me pennies to own and drive daily and the Ferrari is, well, a Ferrari. If I sold those and bought a BMW, what would I have in a few yrs? I'd have an old BMW that costs me 5 times as much as the Mustang did and I wouldn't have a Ferrari. C. > Indeed. It's been suggested to me that I sell my '85 Mondial QV Cab and my '95 > Mustang GT and buy a new BMW with the SMG. Utterly ridiculous. My Mustang >costs me pennies to own and drive daily and the Ferrari is, well, a Ferrari. If I > sold those and bought a BMW, what would I have in a few yrs? I'd have an old > BMW that costs me 5 times as much as the Mustang did and I wouldn't have a > Ferrari. Hey now, be nice to the M3....for the price it is one of the best cars you can get. It has some of the latest state of the art engineering, it's engine is a sonorous masterpiece, the interior is rich, loaded with options and nice enough to drive all day long in supreme comfort. IMO the exterior styling is a big step up from the previous M3's, the flares add a subtle look of aggression but keep the car from looking too flashy, a well polished sleeper. I DID get to drive one and if I had a extra thirty g to plunk down, this might be my choice for a daily driver. > > Indeed. It's been suggested to me that I sell my '85 Mondial QV Cab and my > '95 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > sleeper. I DID get to drive one and if I had a extra thirty g to plunk > down, this might be my choice for a daily driver. Nobody said the M3 was a bad car (!) just that "If I sold those and bought a BMW, what would I have in a few yrs? I'd have an old BMW that costs me 5 times as much as the Mustang did and I wouldn't have a Ferrari." See those old Mk1 3 series bags of bolts driving around these days with rusty bits and chrome wheel arch strips?? That's what a new M3 will look like in 10 or 15 years time (and be pretty much worthless into the bargain). 'nuff said methinks (!) I. > See those old Mk1 3 series bags of bolts driving around these days with > rusty bits and chrome wheel arch strips?? That's what a new M3 will look > like in 10 or 15 years time (and be pretty much worthless into the bargain). Ignorance must be bliss! The Germans only build the best car over the long haul, they are built to last more than any other brand. > > See those old Mk1 3 series bags of bolts driving around these days with > > rusty bits and chrome wheel arch strips?? That's what a new M3 will look [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ignorance must be bliss! The Germans only build the best car over the long > haul, they are built to last more than any other brand. Against a Ford/VW/GM car I'd take the BMW as a daily driver every day. Against a Ferrari as a car to drive & enjoy? Not on your life...... And if the choice is a reasonable VW + a Ferrari versus an M3 (which is effectively what it is for me) then I'll stand by where I am on the first option! rgds I. >> See those old Mk1 3 series bags of bolts driving around these days with >> rusty bits and chrome wheel arch strips?? That's what a new M3 will look [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ignorance must be bliss! The Germans only build the best car over the long >haul, they are built to last more than any other brand. Any projections on what a curb-side reverse-dipping rear-view door mirror motor will go for in 15 years? <<Any projections on what a curb-side reverse-dipping rear-view door mirror motor will go for in 15 years?>> To be fair, it will probably be easier to find one of those than it will be to find a side view mirror for a 348. Might even be cheaper. C. ><<Any projections on what a curb-side reverse-dipping rear-view door mirror >motor will go for in 15 years?>> > >To be fair, it will probably be easier to find one of those than it will be to >find a side view mirror for a 348. Might even be cheaper. But one is for a Ferrari, and the other a ridiculously over-engineered gewgaw for a tarted up Ubermenschenvagen... <<But one is for a Ferrari, and the other a ridiculously over-engineered gewgaw for a tarted up Ubermenschenvagen...>> BMWs are fun cars and the *gewgaws* are part of it. They all work the way they're supposed to and again, they're fun. C. ><<But one is for a Ferrari, and the other a ridiculously over-engineered gewgaw >for a tarted up Ubermenschenvagen...>> > >BMWs are fun cars and the *gewgaws* are part of it. They all work the way >they're supposed to and again, they're fun. There is a frightful, if not disgusting, distinction between a 3.0CSi and a 330cs... ...But if micro-motorized nonsense is what you want, or need, you can't do "better" than modern German "sporting" sedans. <<...But if micro-motorized nonsense is what you want, or need, you can't do "better" than modern German "sporting" sedans.>> Name a car in its class that you prefer over the M5. C. ><<...But if micro-motorized nonsense is what you want, or need, you can't do >"better" than modern German "sporting" sedans.>> > >Name a car in its class that you prefer over the M5. It's a false premise; why assume I would want an M5? BMW have become an obscene caricature of themselves; Once light and lithe sporting sedans, with the emphasis on sporting, they are now rolling barges for the Burghermeisters or wheeled codpieces for pretenders to sporting inclination and temperament. They are drastically overweight, they are laughably over- "engineered" (the dipping mirror is one example; there are more motors in a 330CS dash than in the Apollo Command Module), and they are ridiculously expensive to repair. One could have any of several real BMWs (SEE 3.0CSi, etc.) and a older Ferrari or two for the price, while demonstrating some individualistic style rather than conforming to current automotive fashion. So... I would prefer a 3.0CSi and a 330 America, maybe a 365 GTC/4. ...That's sounds like "class" to me. <<It's a false premise; why assume I would want an M5?>> What part of *name a car in its class that you prefer over the M5?* even implies that you would want a car in its class, let alone an M5? I would never want to own an SUV of any kind, but if asked which one I prefer in that class, I am perfectly capable of responding coherently. FTR, my answer is the X5. <<BMW have become an obscene caricature of themselves; Once light and lithe sporting sedans, with the emphasis on sporting, they are now rolling barges for the Burghermeisters or wheeled codpieces for pretenders to sporting inclination and temperament.>> Have you ever actually driven an M5? Have you driven any of the cars in that class? <<They are drastically overweight, they are laughably over-"engineered" (the dipping mirror is one example>> They are German cars. German cars are rather well known for their innovative engineering. BMW has always been known for their gee-whiz gadgets. What other cars in 1975 came with on *onboard computer*? <<they are ridiculously expensive to repair.>> You can't beat their new car warranty and after that, well, I believe they are cheaper to repair than Ferraris. <g> <<One could have any of several real BMWs (SEE 3.0CSi, etc.) and a older Ferrari or two for the price, while demonstrating some individualistic style rather than conforming to current automotive fashion.>> I could give a rat's fuzzy butt what is current *fashion*. I drive what I like. I have always liked BMWs. <<So... I would prefer a 3.0CSi and a 330 America, maybe a 365 GTC/4.>> None of those cars are currently available, nor are they exactly in the M5 class per se. Care to answer the original question or are you just going to keep trashing new Beemers for no apparent reason? C. > <<It's a false premise; why assume I would want an M5?>> Would I be correct in assuming we've come to the end of the answers to the Testarossa vs. 355 question I originally asked? >> <<It's a false premise; why assume I would want an M5?>> > >Would I be correct in assuming we've come to the end of the answers to the >Testarossa vs. 355 question I originally asked? ...The natural progression of any 'fish versus fowl' comparison. <<Would I be correct in assuming we've come to the end of the answers to the Testarossa vs. 355 question I originally asked?>> Ah, thread drift! It's what keeps the blood pumping thru a NG! C. :::who would never suggest to anyone that they should buy a TR::: >> See those old Mk1 3 series bags of bolts driving around these days >> with rusty bits and chrome wheel arch strips?? That's what a new M3 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ignorance must be bliss! The Germans only build the best car over the > long haul, they are built to last more than any other brand. <sound of A.A.F. active-poster permit being pulled> "Snap to it, boy! Off to alt.pretentious.autos.bmw with that rubbish!" MC > >> See those old Mk1 3 series bags of bolts driving around these days > >> with rusty bits and chrome wheel arch strips?? That's what a new M3 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "Snap to it, boy! Off to alt.pretentious.autos.bmw with that rubbish!" Well its true, just because I state a fact doesn't make me a "Beemer pig" or some other derogatory term often associated with German car drivers. > Well its true, just because I state a fact doesn't make me a "Beemer > pig" or some other derogatory term often associated with German car > drivers. But ... it's NOT true. It's just your opinion. In one hour I could find a hundred auto enthusiasts who disagree with you without breaking a sweat. I mean I don't want to be derogatory, but you couldn't even throw JD Power statistics at me to support your loving, wistful but weak statement. MC > But ... it's NOT true. It's just your opinion. In one hour I could find a > hundred auto enthusiasts who disagree with you without breaking a sweat. I > mean I don't want to be derogatory, but you couldn't even throw JD Power > statistics at me to support your loving, wistful but weak statement. > > MC It's not true? Wow MC...you are a mess To pick your weak argument apart the first thing I WILL do is throw JD powers right in your face. Porsche. The LEAST amount of problems than any other manufacturer. To top that all off, they went further and ranked the long term reliability in each category and in the Premium Sports Car Category the Porsche 911 was number one and the Boxster number three (sandwiched between the two was the Honda S2000). There is no denying the inferior build quality of American and Japanese cars. It has a lot to do with quality of materials and attention to detail, a reputation of quality that German cars have enjoyed the past 50 years. Like Ferrari (compared to the copy cat NSX) there is no confusing a hand built automobile with an assembly line machine built car. You can't justify that in anyway. That is what has kept a lot of older BMW's, Mercedes, and Porsche's out of the graveyard unlike the other cheaper makes. The Germans have pioneered much of the technology and innovation we use today. The autobahn has widely been regarded as one of the reasons they have excelled so much in their vehicles, they were using a lot of things in the 50's and 60's that many companies are now just starting to incorporate into their cars. You are kidding yourself if you don't think makers of luxury cars or sports cars don't look at the Germans as the leaders in those divisions of the automotive industry. We disagree, and let's leave it at that. Now, back to talking Ferrari.... > > But ... it's NOT true. It's just your opinion. In one hour I could find > a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > luxury cars or sports cars don't look at the Germans as the leaders in those > divisions of the automotive industry. If you want to talk surveys and the reliability of German cars have a look at this http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/prog16/survey.shtml Surveys from 43,000 owners of 137 different models from 35 different makes. Only one German in the top 10 (the Z3, Ho Ho!) although Skoda is owned by VW - but a lot of German cars in the last 15 (look at dem Mercs!) The 5 Series BMW isn't in the top 20 and the 3 series isn't in the top 30. The first Mercedes is at number 57 as far as I can see. Doesn't unfortunately list the questions/criteria used but I know that it covered everything from "Does it meet your expectations?" to "Is it reliable/how many faults have you had?" through "Is the dealer any good?" & all in some detail. This is not the first year its been done & these surveys have always been pretty well regarded AFAIK. German build quality is becoming quite suspect in some areas it would seem. I. > If you want to talk surveys and the reliability of German cars have a look > at this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The first Mercedes is at number 57 as far as I can see. Yeah i'm well aware of the misfortunes that are going on right now. The problem is with small electronical failures such as window regulators and other things that will nickle and dime you to death. That seems to be the case with a select few cars only, Many people report no problems at all. Of course the engines, transmissions, suspensions and all the heavy duty expensive parts of the car are still high quality and long lasting, just like they've always been. Despite all this, the current crop of sportscars from these marques is quite possibly the most brilliant display of automotive engineering ever put into production automobiles. The entire new BMW M-series is a work of art and feat of engineering which people will be admiring for years to come. The Mercedes AMG division is producing handbuilt, performance-tuned engines which give their ultra-luxury model line a serious kick. The SLK32, CLK55, E55, S55, SL55 and CL55 redefine sports luxury. Never before has near-exoticar performance been able to be garnered from such comfortable and luxurious platforms. Audi is on the cutting edge with its avant-garde designs and refined engineering, and the S-models of its luxury sedans combine high performance with their trademark all-wheel-drive system. The Japanese and American automakers simply cannot compete with this kind of innovation, in any way, on any level. The best they can do is copy it three years down the road, and sell it for ten grand less. <<The Japanese and American automakers simply cannot compete with this kind of innovation, in any way, on any level.>> What makes you think they're trying to? Different markets, different standards. << The best they can do is copy it three years down the road, and sell it for ten grand less.>> The paddle shifter in my Mustang is head and shoulders above the one in my Ferrari and the current SMG system that BMW uses and everyone who has driven both the Aston Martin (owned by Ford) Vanquish and the 360 says that the former's system is hands down better. I don't know what the argument is here. BMW makes great cars, much better than your standard Japanese car, but you pay a helluva lot more for them the whole time you own them and they don't hold their value like Ferraris do. So which is better? Answer... they each have their niche. Depends on what you are specifically looking for and what you can afford. I've owned and driven everything from a Sunbeam Alpine to a Ferrari 355 F1 and I've loved something about each of those cars. As the definitive word, price and practicality be damned, nothing else is Ferrari. But we all knew that. <g> C. > The Japanese and American automakers simply cannot compete with this > kind of innovation, in any way, on any level. The best they can do is > copy it three years down > the road, and sell it for ten grand less. I don't know how this ever got into a discussion of American/Japanese vs. German anyways. We started out comparing older Ferraris, and their pricing, vs. newer German cars, specifically Germans. I would have never doubted an argument about German build quality vs. American/Japanese. Pretty sneaky, Matt. This one should be hot-potatoed. In fact, the sneak preview shots I've seen of the new M5 are flat-out awesome. And they stuck a much-aluminum V10 in it, to boot. MC >Never before has near-exoticar performance been able to be garnered >from such comfortable and luxurious platforms Is this a line from a brochure? MCPD SignatureHttp://www.redmist.freeserve.co.uk >> >> See those old Mk1 3 series bags of bolts driving around these days >> >> with rusty bits and chrome wheel arch strips?? That's what a new M3 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well its true, just because I state a fact doesn't make me a "Beemer pig" >or some other derogatory term often associated with German car drivers. "Bought My Wife"... <<See those old Mk1 3 series bags of bolts driving around these days with rusty bits and chrome wheel arch strips?? That's what a new M3 will look like in 10 or 15 years time (and be pretty much worthless into the bargain).>> Hey there, ho there! One can maintain a BMW with the same care that we maintain our Ferraris. My dad still has the first BMW he ever bought. It's a '75 530i and it's still a solid looking car. It's been repainted once and well cared for since he bought it almost 25 yrs ago. I drove it once when it was about a decade old and it got as much or more attention at that time as the new cars did. If I could drive it now, I certainly would. C. >> Indeed. It's been suggested to me that I sell my '85 Mondial QV Cab >> and my '95 Mustang GT and buy a new BMW with the SMG. Utterly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to drive one and if I had a extra thirty g to plunk down, this might > be my choice for a daily driver. Scotty! He steps up to the plate and makes SOLID contact!! MC <<Hey now, be nice to the M3....for the price it is one of the best cars you can get.>> I don't think I ever said otherwise. Although for 55 grand, it damn well better be a nice car. << IMO the exterior styling is a big step up from the previous M3's, the flares add a subtle look of aggression but keep the car from looking too flashy, a well polished sleeper.>> You're quite right. I love the way that BMW has evolved their cars. At least I did up until I saw the 2004 cars. Ish! Chrysler would be proud of those designs. << I DID get to drive one and if I had a extra thirty g to plunk down, this might be my choice for a daily driver.>> If I had 55 grand laying around the house, then I would happily snap up an M3 with SMG, but I'm not about to sell my Ferrari and put myself into debt to buy one. C. :::off to sink another 10K into her *new* '65 Fastback::: > but just remember, no > matter what you buy, your still own a Ferrari, and no matter how old it is, > what motor is in it, its still going to be an experience you never forget. > Each Ferrari is unique, has its own personality and soul, and you will be > amazed how you bond with the car, no other marque is as emotional with > car/driver as Ferrari is. Own one and you will understand =) <wipes tear from eye> You said it, Matt, you said it. <Sniff> MCP-emotional-D SignatureHttp://www.redmist.freeserve.co.uk > > Each Ferrari is unique, has its own personality and soul, and you will be > > amazed how you bond with the car, no other marque is as emotional with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > MCP-emotional-D You've been out to your garage in the pouring rain & given ol' Smokey a hug this evening havn't you??? Go on, admit it! I. <<It seems that the 355s are dropping into a range that the Testarossa are in, pricewise, at this point. What do any of you see as the relative merits of ownership of one or the other. Clear cut choice in your minds?>> Completely depends on why you want one. It's already been said that the 355 has it all over the TR as a daily driver and maintenance is far easier on the newer car as well. Since you have no burning desire either way, for your first Ferrari, I'd go with the 355. <<The closest to a Testarossa that I've driven was the 512 Boxer, and the other day a 360 Spyder. The seemed like completely different experiences.>> Ya think? <<The 360 seemed like a car that could be a daily driver, but infinitely better than most other vehicles I've been in....... but...... not quite magical.>> Comparing Ferrari to Ferrari, I would agree with you. C. >It seems that the 355s are dropping into a range that the Testarossa are in, >pricewise, at this point. >What do any of you see as the relative merits of ownership of one or the >other. Clear cut choice in your minds? 512 TR: If you must... 355: Modern engine and engine management systems, lighter car, much more responsive dynamics; much more attractive styling and design. Neither car, however, has limits one can responsibly use on the road. For the same $$$: Get a 330 GTC. >The closest to a Testarossa that I've driven was the 512 Boxer, and the >other day a 360 Spyder. The seemed like completely different experiences. >The 360 seemed like a car that could be a daily driver, but infinitely >better than most other vehicles I've been in....... but...... not quite >magical. The rap on the 360 and even the 550/575: Ferraris for owners who don't care to learn how to drive. >The 512 Boxer seemed like a car that would be a genuine pain to be in as a >daily driver, and a nightmare in bumper to bumper traffic..... but...... on >the open road, in the twisties, extremely challenging and involving. > >Opinions? Of the three; find a nice no-stories 512 BBi: Not as corpulent as the TR, not as FIAT as the 355; buy an Acura sedan with the leftover money, for when you absolutely positively have to be somewhere on time. > The rap on the 360 and even the 550/575: Ferraris for owners who > don't care to learn how to drive. but, but, but... surely each Ferrari will get 'easier' to drive (OK, there will be the occasional exception). You go from drum to disk, it gets easier, you go from carb to FI, it gets easier, you go from 'stick' to 'F1', throw in traction control, ABS, stability control, etc, etc... Thems the times we live in... ...of course they could bring out a 575 drum brake special (with cart springs for the true enthusiast), but who would buy it? I know what you're getting at Mark, but I fear the only way to experience the thrill of driving a classic Ferrari is to drive a classic Ferrari. Paul (does a 308 qualify as 'classic' yet?) SignatureHttp://www.redmist.freeserve.co.uk <<It's a false premise; why assume I would want an M5?>> What part of *name a car in its class that you prefer over the M5?* even implies that you would want a car in its class, let alone an M5? I would never want to own an SUV of any kind, but if asked which one I prefer in that class, I am perfectly capable of responding coherently. FTR, my answer is the X5. <<BMW have become an obscene caricature of themselves; Once light and lithe sporting sedans, with the emphasis on sporting, they are now rolling barges for the Burghermeisters or wheeled codpieces for pretenders to sporting inclination and temperament.>> Have you ever actually driven an M5? Have you driven any of the cars in that class? <<They are drastically overweight, they are laughably over-"engineered" (the dipping mirror is one example>> They are German cars. German cars are rather well known for their innovative engineering. BMW has always been known for their gee-whiz gadgets. What other cars in 1975 came with on *onboard computer*? <<they are ridiculously expensive to repair.>> You can't beat their new car warranty and after that, well, I believe they are cheaper to repair than Ferraris. <g> <<One could have any of several real BMWs (SEE 3.0CSi, etc.) and a older Ferrari or two for the price, while demonstrating some individualistic style rather than conforming to current automotive fashion.>> I could give a rat's fuzzy butt what is current *fashion*. I drive what I like. I have always liked BMWs. <<So... I would prefer a 3.0CSi and a 330 America, maybe a 365 GTC/4.>> None of those cars are currently available, nor are they exactly in the M5 class per se. Care to answer the original question or are you just going to keep trashing new Beemers for no apparent reason? C. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.