..and I thought, that used to be considered one of the fastest road cars back in 1982. Now, sadly a 2007 Honda Civic Si (heck, just about every sport compact made currently for that matter) would make short work of it in a drag race and probably every other performance category. The Ferrari's unique engine sound would be the only thing the Civic Si couldnt beat. I sort of forgotten how far along performance has come in the last 25 years. Back in 1982, any car that could accelerate faster than 0-60 in 6 seconds was considered somekind of super car. Now in 2007, there is a Bugatti Veyron running 0-60 in like 2.6 secs, unimaginable performance in 1982 (even for CART Champ cars!). I keep wondering if cars have reached there street performance limit and it is down hill from here on??


"...nevermind maneuvers lieutenant, just go straight at them!"
-Admiral Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar

I don't think we have hit the limit of road car performance but I think that because of a frequent push for environmentally friendly vehicles and alternative fuels/alternative power sources we have hit a plateau, with so much government pressure on automakers I dont think many automotive manufacturers will continue to push the speed envelope. Maybe in time cars will again continue to advance past anyones expectations once the new generation of automobile is commonplace

well considering theoretically an electrically powered vehicle can get you from 0-60 MUCH faster than gas can i dont see how we have reached a plateau with the oncoming environmentally friendly cars. if anything we may be on the steepest incline of automotive speed and technology ever.




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

Nathaniel O'Flaherty wrote:well considering theoretically an electrically powered vehicle can get you from 0-60 MUCH faster than gas can i dont see how we have reached a plateau with the oncoming environmentally friendly cars. if anything we may be on the steepest incline of automotive speed and technology ever.

1 word: Tires. That might be the drawback. Or at least as far as street cars go. I'd be suprised if a "street tire" or even a forumal 1 tire could sustain speeds of 280 mph+ Let alone hold the traction of a car that produces enough power to reach that speed.




And FYI, I'd still take the Ferrari, not even a contest. I'd take a 4 door mondial Ferrari over a Civic anyday. Cause.... it's a Ferrari, a classic at that.

the same goes with the porsche 944, Id take that over a civic or a cavalier even though it is considered the poor mans porsche.

I'll take the Civic, why?

- I can drive a civic daily.
- It doesn't require $400 for an oil change
- I can insure a Civic for replacement value
- I don't have to wait for service parts for a Civic.
- I can drive a Civic in all 4 seasons (even though we're stuck on late fall currently)

I'm not a fan of Ferraris, the 308GTS was cool, but only because it was in Magnum P.I. I'm a fan of Porsches, and Aston Martins (later iterations though, the earlier ones were wonky in that oh-so-British way).

If I HAD to have an itallian car I'll take a Lamborghini... even if it was a miura. More style from there anyhow.

As for the rest: Electric cars have the serious drawback of range, so they're fast, but they're not feasible for day to day yet...

For gas/alt fuel: The air coming out is better than the air that went





And now for something completely different... Click the Minister.

lol, I gotta agree with GAM on this here. Ferrari's and other high end cars are cool, but when it comes down to it. Oil changes, brake work, tires, etc all cost an arm and a leg. Don't get me wrong, Ferarri's are gorgeous cars, but I could not see myself owning one just for that reason alone.

if you can afford a ferrari, you can afford the tire changes, oil changes, brake work.
and the insurance.

....and the aggravation.

Honestly, I know 2 Ferrari owners, and they only drive them in the sun, in Summer (not spring or fall), and baby the hell out of the cars... That's not driving a car, that's owning a pretty pony.

High marque cars are nice to own, but you also have to remember, you need something to drive the other 9 months of the year (or when it's raining). What's the point of dumping all that money into a car you "just can't!" drive everyday? Not much point at all.

Just personal preference, but given the choice, I'll take a Civic and the rest of the money to pay off my house, thanks.






And now for something completely different... Click the Minister.

GAM said it well.
Old exotic cars are nice to look at but not practical to own.
I remember Top Gear had a great episode on just that that. Old exotics are crap. lol



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I'll take the Civic, why?

- I can drive a civic daily.
- It doesn't require $400 for an oil change
- I can insure a Civic for replacement value
- I don't have to wait for service parts for a Civic.
- I can drive a Civic in all 4 seasons (even though we're stuck on late fall currently)

I'm not a fan of Ferraris, the 308GTS was cool, but only because it was in Magnum P.I. I'm a fan of Porsches, and Aston Martins (later iterations though, the earlier ones were wonky in that oh-so-British way).

If I HAD to have an itallian car I'll take a Lamborghini... even if it was a miura. More style from there anyhow.

As for the rest: Electric cars have the serious drawback of range, so they're fast, but they're not feasible for day to day yet...

For gas/alt fuel: The air coming out is better than the air that went

Yea, big surprise, it costs to own a Ferrari. Obviously on my income if I had to daily drive it, id choose the Civic. But as Tom Hnatiw (Err something like that) would say "Do you need a car like this? No. Do you want a car like this? Hell Yes!"

I can't rip on the Porsches, I like them, but they just don't have the passion like a Ferrari. They are precision built machinery and excel at what they do, just I dunno, kinda low on the excitement for me. I'd rather have a earlier Aston Martin, because well, they aren't Fords. and the new Aston trannies are more quirky than just about anything on the Market.

Lambo's aren't Italian any more IMO. Just like Porsches to me.

Basically, as far as I see it, Ferrari's are the last market to truly race bred. They develop race cars, and that technology goes into their street cars, almost directly.


Anyways, my point being is that, DUH, old exotics would suck to own from a cost stand point. But to me your missing the point if you see a classic car, and think, "What a money pit" There are few cars that are good investments, and the cars that are are the CLASSICS, restored or NOS. And those cars are worth money because they are important to people for sentimental reasons. 30 years from now, that Civic will be dust, because well, there will be a billion of them. But Ferrari 430 will probably still be worth $100,000 or more.

Exotic cars are for people who want a car that is full of passion and power. Which is not a Civic.
Provided I can afford it, I would buy a 308 in a heart beat. But I'd run the hell outta it and enjoy it.

Maybe someday.....

My point was that the costs of owning a classic Ferrari are way out of line with the payback.

Same with any other high mark car. Money pits are fine if you really enjoy dumping money into something that will do little more than depreciate. Common sense dictates that if you're going to invest money into a project, you should either REALLY REALLY REALLY enjoy doing the work required, or at least break even on the money invested and return price.

I don't begrudge anyone for liking Ferrari, but seriously, they're prima-donna cars. They're more expensive to service on the whole than MacLarens, and are pretty ubiquitous and worse: unlivable. You don't drive a Ferrari in winter, ever. You don't drive it on rainy days unless you like de-valuing your car and earning a poor reputation from other Ferrari owners.

Anyhow, I know what you're talking about and the point is: if you had all the money in the world would you buy this... it's a pie in the sky exercise. Do you want something like that? Sure. You also want a 13" penis, cheap gas, and a hot woman on either arm at all times. What I'm trying to say is fantasy is one thing, but the reality is that a 308GTS may have been all diesel-style in the early 80's, but now, it's not nearly as fast as other new cars that are the same price, and the other cars aren't nearly as temperamental, pedigreed, or as hard to find parts (either for repair or modification) for.


I'm going to leave it at this: There are WRX STIs and EVOs that will out accelerate/brake/corner Ferraris, and do it at about half the cost. I'm sorry, it may have Passion, but that's something that I have in my heart, the car is an extension of that. If I can't put the car on the road or track at any point of the year, what good is it having it other than as a museum piece? When was the last time you saw a vintage Ferrari 250GT stretch out its legs in the last 30 years? Not too often... and the reason is because they've become so freakin' valuable that their original intent is lost due to the amount of money you need to drop on it to get the car in the first place.

I'd rather see the cars run and enjoyed, mainly because that was the original intent of them anyhow. Even better: build a kit car like this, spend a quarter the cash, have better performance overall, and leave the red prancing buggies for the fools that have more money than good sense and lust for adventure.

I appreciate that there is a segment of people that will like that kind of car, but they're also the kind of segment you or I have only a very faint prayer of ever joining, and they also rarely drive those cars like they were meant to be driven. Forgive me, but I'm a realist: Ferraris are overrated, overpriced, and were only ever meant to be a means to the end of financing the Racing Division. As much as I hate to say it, road certified Ferraris have about as much in common with race-only Ferraris as "race-bred" Honda race-only cars have with "race-inspired" Honda road cars. (namely, 4 wheels and a factory badge) Ferraris have their place, and if you like them, more power to you, but while you gawk at how Miami Vice cool the Ferraris are, I'd rather be flogging the living hell out of a Corvette, Camaro, Mustang (if I had to) or even my Alero.

Capability is nothing without will and effort.







And now for something completely different... Click the Minister.

Eh, I think your over looking just how much technology is in the new Ferraris, their E-diff, etc and a good portion of other things are directly related to their F1 counter parts.

The Enzo is much more closely related to the previous Generation F1 car than anything Honda makes (or made for that matter).

I'm too young to be impressed by Miami Vice(Although Micheal Mann has produced some of my favorite films), Magnum P.I., etc. I like Ferrari's.
I like the way they are designed, I like their pedigree. I don't see them as over priced, I see them as expensive, no doubt. I look at an STi and EVO's and think,
well yeah it's fast, and it's cheap, but it doesn't do anything for me. Unless your living in New York, LA or some other city where people have too much money, Ferrari's are not ubiquitous. STi's and Evo's are. My head doesn't turn when I see one. However, I've come close to breaking my neck, from turning so fast ot get a glimpse of a Ferrari.

I think you're trying to lump me in with every Ferrari owner you know. Or for that matter anyone who misses the point of having a performance car. I know people who have Corvettes, special edition F-Body's, etc. Who keep them trailer queened everywhere. Who have had them for 5 years and put 3k miles on them. What a waste. I'd have to have that thing out at least on the weekends flogging the crap out of it. Corvette, Ferrari, Camaro, Sunfire, doesn't make a difference to me. in turns of trying to keep it museum-esque. Granted, I don't think I'd want to daily drive a Ferrari or Corvette, because I drive 80 miles a day, in rush hour traffic, and what's the point of putting miles on a car like those, when you can't actually DRIVE it, right?

It may break often, be expensive, and not be as fast as some of the other cars out there, but then again, if your buying anything more than a Civic, J-Body, etc you're not buying it for it's reliability, you're buying it for a function (like an SUV, Minivan) or just the joy of having it. Because anything past that point of "basic transportation" has no logic other than that.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
As for the rest: Electric cars have the serious drawback of range, so they're fast, but they're not feasible for day to day yet...

that is just battery or charging technology needing to catch up.

there is talk about charging stations at current gas stations that can pulse charge batteries in 10 minutes for an electric car. this is a long way off but if that could happen it nearly solves the range issue without even having to upgrade battery tech at all.

so if we up battery tech to something better AND have pulse charging systems at gas stations electric cars will be faster, and environmentally friendlier.


electric owns as far as acceleration and speed goes. only thing holding it back right now is charging and or battery technology.




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

ferraris are raced more then you know....just gotta know where to find them...and the drag strip isn't a good place to look

a lot of areas in the states have summer weather year round, which triples driving time in one.....they are practical to some...impractical to others...and are impractical to the vast majority of society...but thats the point of owning one. It's a rarity, and its that exclusivity that sells you a ferrari...the fun driving is just a perk

Attachments

Image066.jpg (13k)

Id take an entry level econo-box from 10yrs ago over that heap of trash.

And just for clarification ...

Lambo > Ferrari

Porsche > Ferrari

Hell, Even Vettes > Ferrari


Even their current line up, minus the ENZO, is horrible.

perfect example....

In 1990 my Thunderbird SC was car of the year in 1989, and considered a technological, and performance trendsetter. Yesterday a S/C Scion tC was beating the crap out of the old bird down an old road.

In 17 years Toyota has managed to build a cheaper, lighter, more efficent, and more technologicaly advanced car with more power from a 2.5 liter 4 banger. The kind of performance that 17 years ago took a supercharged 3.8liter V6 to perform.

So that alone tripped me out. But to put a happy ending to that story my 4000 pound supercharged tank was all over that Scion...i just couldn't out run or pass him. pretty impressive for a car that weighs twice as heavy as the Scion.



"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net

Capo di tutti capi wrote:Eh, I think your over looking just how much technology is in the new Ferraris, their E-diff, etc and a good portion of other things are directly related to their F1 counter parts.

I was referring to older Ferraris. Even still, how often do you see an Enzo on a track?

Quote:

The Enzo is much more closely related to the previous Generation F1 car than anything Honda makes (or made for that matter).

True, and it's price is also equivalent to about 20 Hondas. Either way, you're not going to see a Ferrari on a winter road. Again, I like classic Ferraris to look at, but beyond that, they're a little rich for my blood. The Factory Five car I linked to would be closer because you can buy a frame that is closer to a GT vehicle than a Ferrari is, at less than half the price. Even an Ultima GTR is streetable and made for racing primarily, and the same price... but you use an LSx for the powerplant.

Quote:

I'm too young to be impressed by Miami Vice(Although Micheal Mann has produced some of my favorite films), Magnum P.I., etc. I like Ferrari's.
I like the way they are designed, I like their pedigree. I don't see them as over priced, I see them as expensive, no doubt. I look at an STi and EVO's and think,
well yeah it's fast, and it's cheap, but it doesn't do anything for me. Unless your living in New York, LA or some other city where people have too much money, Ferrari's are not ubiquitous. STi's and Evo's are. My head doesn't turn when I see one. However, I've come close to breaking my neck, from turning so fast ot get a glimpse of a Ferrari.

I guess I'm living in a city that has a lot of people with too muh money. I pass by an exotic car dealership (Mostly high end German/British cars, some Italians, but not a lot) roughly every day.

The point I'm making is that other than the superficial, the speed part is more or less equal between a $120,000 Ferrari and a $35,000 STI/EVO with 15,000 worth of go fast goodies... so the only difference is $70,000 and a leather interior.

Quote:

I think you're trying to lump me in with every Ferrari owner you know. Or for that matter anyone who misses the point of having a performance car. I know people who have Corvettes, special edition F-Body's, etc. Who keep them trailer queened everywhere. Who have had them for 5 years and put 3k miles on them. What a waste. I'd have to have that thing out at least on the weekends flogging the crap out of it. Corvette, Ferrari, Camaro, Sunfire, doesn't make a difference to me. in turns of trying to keep it museum-esque. Granted, I don't think I'd want to daily drive a Ferrari or Corvette, because I drive 80 miles a day, in rush hour traffic, and what's the point of putting miles on a car like those, when you can't actually DRIVE it, right?

No, I'm saying that most owners of cars like vintage Ferraris (or Porsches, musclecars to an extent) are sunday drivers, at least in my experience. Drive to a car show, show off the pretty pony, and then take it back home, wash it and put it in the garage. The problem is that really stretching out these kinds of cars' legs means you need open space, and no speed limits: meaning tracks. The moment I hear about "investment" and cars, I have no illusions about what the car is going to have as far as a life.

My point is this: The car itself means nothing beyond going fast. If you buy a Ferrari, you're buying it for one of 2 reasons: Power or prestige. Power: you can get the same amount out of another car for considerably less (like a Corvette). Prestige: you're buying it to "compensate" Okay seriously, it's a fine automobile, but you can live with a Vette or an EVO/STI. A Ferrari by it's nature is something that draws attention (and yes, you can dress down an Evo or STI to look like a standard Lancer and Impreza RS) and a Corvette to a lesser extent. Either way, putting money into a high-end car that will take away its "number correctness" or it's original tune is a double waste because you need to set it back to factory to put it into highest saleable position. I'm not trying to drag down Ferrari enthusiasts, but when you own an F40, and have to spend $12,000 to get the engine tuned, timing chain changed, and all lubricants drained and replenished after 40,000 kms, I wonder about what the money could be used for otherwise. Not in a holier than thou way, but a realistic way.

Quote:

It may break often, be expensive, and not be as fast as some of the other cars out there, but then again, if your buying anything more than a Civic, J-Body, etc you're not buying it for it's reliability, you're buying it for a function (like an SUV, Minivan) or just the joy of having it. Because anything past that point of "basic transportation" has no logic other than that.

My point before was that you can have "basic transportation" in a Civic SI, and do everything and more that a 308GTS would be able to.







And now for something completely different... Click the Minister.