Crown
Board: Ferrari
Language: English
Region: Worldwide
Close
CloseForum - Thread
Re: Daily Driver
F has had same quality/reliability and cheaper total one-yr oper costs (incl deprec) vs P/MB for past 2-3 yrs... 
Only hold-back on daily-driveability is safety....430/612 still lack even primitive side/head airbags....and 599 only has first-gen side/head airbags, only some 10 yrs behind MB/P on safety front....
Only hold-back on daily-driveability is safety....430/612 still lack even primitive side/head airbags....and 599 only has first-gen side/head airbags, only some 10 yrs behind MB/P on safety front....
Jan 11, 2007 9:27:35 AM
- Jeff (in SF)
- Pilot
-
- Loc: SF, CA, USA , United States
- Posts: 340, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 13, 2003
- Reply to: WBH
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
VKSF said:
F has had same quality/reliability and cheaper total one-yr oper costs (incl deprec) vs P/MB for past 2-3 yrs...
Not if you consider miles driven and compare on a like basis. How many 1 year old F cars do you see tooling around with 10k to 15k miles on them? If you do find one, they're not the shining example of deprec/oper costs you mentioned.
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
rangerat1 said:
Will Ferrari ever build a daily driver?????
When M took over Ferrari several years ago he recognized that Ferrari reliability for daily driving was less than desireable. With the 360, they made major improvements in reliability. The 430 is a major improvement over the 360.
As a result, the present day Ferrari is as reliable as any supercar for daily driving.
The problem is the attention it attracts. Leaving it in an unguarded public garage for extended periods of time can lead to various problems.
Finally, as far as holding value, the Ferrari has no peer. Many of us drive a new one almost cost free.
Jan 11, 2007 4:49:23 PM
- easy_rider911
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: London , United Kingdom
- Posts: 22190, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 8, 2004
- Reply to: nberry
Re: Daily Driver
Nick, the only way you're driving a new F almost cost free is because of the supply/demand/allocation situation in the US.
Here in the UK, allocation is hard to come by but the cars certainly depreciate all the same. Perhaps the UK used car market focusses a little more on sliding scale depreciation with less regard for the desirability of the marque in question.
Talking about safety: with all due respect, why count the number of/and position of airbags as the primary measure of car safety? They are only one safety device out of many. In any event, airbags only help in the case of actual impacts from certain angles only. One should not overlook the fact that, in certain collisions, due to the angle of impact, airbags might not deploy so having them provides no actual advantage.
I have to say that I prefer to focus on the 'preventive' safety in a car far more: e.g. great brakes, ample torque/hp to accelerate out of danger or to overtake safely, great handling/cornering stability, good traction in dry/wet conditions etc.
If the car scores highly on these preventive aspects then it may be the case that one may simply not need to concern oneself as acutely with impact safety.
Ideally though, one should obviously desire a car that is strong on both fronts.
Moreover, there are so many other 'impact measures' of which airbags are only just one example: crumple zones, seat belt tensioners, safety cages, rollover protection, high strength steel bars, the manner in which the steering column collapses, the dashboard architecture etc etc.
Plus what about the variables: driver alertness, alcohol consumption, tyre treadwear, brake pads/discs condition, driver skill/observation, whether airbags have been properly maintained over their serviceable life etc.
That's why such comparisons (e.g. Euro Ncap) are always such a rough and ready process.
Imagine a middle-aged mom with a child in the back seat driving a supposedly 'safe' car like a Merc E Class but because of her (possibly) lower level of driver skill compounded by her (hypothetically) lower concentration level (e.g. if she is trying to amuse the kid to stop him/her from crying), it matters little how theoretically safe her car is. The variable factors more than outweigh the theoretical safety measures which the manufacturer has endeavoured to engineer into the car. Such situations are all too common on today's school run trips which I think are more dangerous than attending driver training schools or going on a non-competitive track day.
Just my view...
Here in the UK, allocation is hard to come by but the cars certainly depreciate all the same. Perhaps the UK used car market focusses a little more on sliding scale depreciation with less regard for the desirability of the marque in question.
Talking about safety: with all due respect, why count the number of/and position of airbags as the primary measure of car safety? They are only one safety device out of many. In any event, airbags only help in the case of actual impacts from certain angles only. One should not overlook the fact that, in certain collisions, due to the angle of impact, airbags might not deploy so having them provides no actual advantage.
I have to say that I prefer to focus on the 'preventive' safety in a car far more: e.g. great brakes, ample torque/hp to accelerate out of danger or to overtake safely, great handling/cornering stability, good traction in dry/wet conditions etc.
If the car scores highly on these preventive aspects then it may be the case that one may simply not need to concern oneself as acutely with impact safety.
Ideally though, one should obviously desire a car that is strong on both fronts.
Moreover, there are so many other 'impact measures' of which airbags are only just one example: crumple zones, seat belt tensioners, safety cages, rollover protection, high strength steel bars, the manner in which the steering column collapses, the dashboard architecture etc etc.
Plus what about the variables: driver alertness, alcohol consumption, tyre treadwear, brake pads/discs condition, driver skill/observation, whether airbags have been properly maintained over their serviceable life etc.
That's why such comparisons (e.g. Euro Ncap) are always such a rough and ready process.
Imagine a middle-aged mom with a child in the back seat driving a supposedly 'safe' car like a Merc E Class but because of her (possibly) lower level of driver skill compounded by her (hypothetically) lower concentration level (e.g. if she is trying to amuse the kid to stop him/her from crying), it matters little how theoretically safe her car is. The variable factors more than outweigh the theoretical safety measures which the manufacturer has endeavoured to engineer into the car. Such situations are all too common on today's school run trips which I think are more dangerous than attending driver training schools or going on a non-competitive track day.
Just my view...
Jan 12, 2007 12:25:07 AM
-
MAVERICK
- Veteran
-
- Loc: Cincinnati, OH (USA) , United States
- Posts: 1145, Gallery
- Registered on: May 31, 2004
- Reply to: easy_rider911
Jan 12, 2007 6:41:24 AM
- WBH
- Expert
-
- Loc: CA
- Posts: 1963, Gallery
- Registered on: Jan 2, 2004
- Reply to: Jeff (in SF)
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
Jeff (in SF) said:Quote:
VKSF said:
F has had same quality/reliability and cheaper total one-yr oper costs (incl deprec) vs P/MB for past 2-3 yrs...
Not if you consider miles driven and compare on a like basis. How many 1 year old F cars do you see tooling around with 10k to 15k miles on them? If you do find one, they're not the shining example of deprec/oper costs you mentioned.
Drive a fully loaded $340K 599/$155K 997TT/$200K 65 15K mis in a yr and trade-in in US.....likely deprec about $0K for 599/$50K on 997TT/$80K on 65.....
Prob 90% of these caliber cars in US are leased $0 down for capital and sales tx-efficiency reasons...
Frankly, even if one is so lacking in relationships that one can't figure out how to get 599@MSRP, if one bought new 599 for some $500K in secondary mkt, it's not clear to me that 599's value will deprec any more in one yr than a 65/997TT certainly will w/an @MSRP purch.....
Reality is in SF/NYC most repeat buyers of 65/599 are busy guys w/2-3 commuter cars (like 599/65/997TT); have a 10 mi daily round-trip commute to office (think Woodside/PacHts/Greenwich to MenloPk/SF fin dt/Greenwich fin dt); fly a fair amt for business; and often fly on their bird to a wkend house in Tahoe/LA, etc....so simply don't put more than 5K mis on any F/MB/P they own before trade-in b/c any car is obsoleted/debugged each MY.....once one's net worth reaches certain lvls, renewing one's car fleet annually/semi-annually to have the latest-tech/debugged/unscuffed cars represents about as much rounding-error in one's cost-of-living as it does for middle-class guys getting a new iPod/cell ph/PDA/plasma TV, etc....
Jan 12, 2007 7:24:39 AM
- WBH
- Expert
-
- Loc: CA
- Posts: 1963, Gallery
- Registered on: Jan 2, 2004
- Reply to: easy_rider911
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
Nick, the only way you're driving a new F almost cost free is because of the supply/demand/allocation situation in the US.
Here in the UK, allocation is hard to come by but the cars certainly depreciate all the same. Perhaps the UK used car market focusses a little more on sliding scale depreciation with less regard for the desirability of the marque in question.
Talking about safety: with all due respect, why count the number of/and position of airbags as the primary measure of car safety? They are only one safety device out of many. In any event, airbags only help in the case of actual impacts from certain angles only. One should not overlook the fact that, in certain collisions, due to the angle of impact, airbags might not deploy so having them provides no actual advantage.
I have to say that I prefer to focus on the 'preventive' safety in a car far more: e.g. great brakes, ample torque/hp to accelerate out of danger or to overtake safely, great handling/cornering stability, good traction in dry/wet conditions etc.
If the car scores highly on these preventive aspects then it may be the case that one may simply not need to concern oneself as acutely with impact safety.
Ideally though, one should obviously desire a car that is strong on both fronts.
Moreover, there are so many other 'impact measures' of which airbags are only just one example: crumple zones, seat belt tensioners, safety cages, rollover protection, high strength steel bars, the manner in which the steering column collapses, the dashboard architecture etc etc.
Plus what about the variables: driver alertness, alcohol consumption, tyre treadwear, brake pads/discs condition, driver skill/observation, whether airbags have been properly maintained over their serviceable life etc.
That's why such comparisons (e.g. Euro Ncap) are always such a rough and ready process.
Imagine a middle-aged mom with a child in the back seat driving a supposedly 'safe' car like a Merc E Class but because of her (possibly) lower level of driver skill compounded by her (hypothetically) lower concentration level (e.g. if she is trying to amuse the kid to stop him/her from crying), it matters little how theoretically safe her car is. The variable factors more than outweigh the theoretical safety measures which the manufacturer has endeavoured to engineer into the car. Such situations are all too common on today's school run trips which I think are more dangerous than attending driver training schools or going on a non-competitive track day.
Just my view...
Have always argued US F game is a fun Ponzi scheme, offering essentially free new F's every 6-12 mos for repeat buyers
....and when it unravels, real guys will simply drive F's b/c they want to....and incur deprec that they're already absorbing on the inevitable 65s, etc that they buy every yr anyway for their fleets for various driving needs.... Sure, safety is a complex, multi-faceted analysis of active/passive safety.....let's assume equally competent drivers and cars with equal active safety attributes (like 599 vs 997TT vs CL63)....
Doubt any car mfr producing a 4350lb+ GT car (like 612; and realize the ultra-safety-focused CL63 weighs 4500lb
) in '07 that lacks side/head airbags really has safety as part of its corporate/engineering DNA, no matter how much alleged racing the co. does .....need scale of 10K+ units/yr produc vols; corporate focus on engineering safety into passenger cars; and smart/innovative engineers to think through/implement class-leading safety strucs/systems into cars....Another aspect of safety that I only recently began to focus on (and part of why I recently traded-in my 997TT in favor of a CL600....and a CL63 in March) is ride ht.....esp in US, the land of cheap fuel and rusty 6000lb SUVs often driven by inept, dangerous drivers, I'd rather be in a CL than a low-lying sportscar either in urban settings/mtn twisties where a side/head-on impact is more likely to injure one's head/spine in a low-lying vehicle, given otherwise equal active safety/crash strucs/airbag systems.....
Ultimately, we each need to place our own risk/reward bets when we choose which car to drive for what purpose.....and live w/the consequences if we bet incorrectly or the possible negative scenarios materialize....
BTW, have lim confidence in so-called driving training programs to instill better driving skills in real-world conds.....my obsvn is that guys w/strong risk/reward judgement in life and in business tend to have fairly good, common-sense driving skills....they know when/where it makes sense to drive in a more spirited manner and where/when ultra-conservative/defensive driving makes the most sense, even if one's car has 600+hp and a 200+MPH capability....
Interestingly, some of the most dangerous/aggressive/road rage-prone drivers I see on the roads drive the oldest/cheapest/most degenerate cars.....yet I rarely see a <1 yo 599/65/997TT, etc being driven in an unreasonable manner....and, from what I gather, driving records and insurance premiums of many owners of high-end cars confirm my anecdotal obsvns....Darwinian selection does prevail....they don't hand out certain cars to just anybody......
Jan 12, 2007 9:47:37 AM
- Jeff (in SF)
- Pilot
-
- Loc: SF, CA, USA , United States
- Posts: 340, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 13, 2003
- Reply to: WBH
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
VKSF said:
Drive a fully loaded $340K 599/$155K 997TT/$200K 65 15K mis in a yr and trade-in in US.....likely deprec about $0K for 599/$50K on 997TT/$80K on 65.....
Prob 90% of these caliber cars in US are leased $0 down for capital and sales tx-efficiency reasons...
Frankly, even if one is so lacking in relationships that one can't figure out how to get [Email]599@MSRP[/Email], if one bought new 599 for some $500K in secondary mkt, it's not clear to me that 599's value will deprec any more in one yr than a 65/997TT certainly will w/an @MSRP purch.....
Reality is in SF/NYC most repeat buyers of 65/599 are busy guys w/2-3 commuter cars (like 599/65/997TT); have a 10 mi daily round-trip commute to office (think Woodside/PacHts/Greenwich to MenloPk/SF fin dt/Greenwich fin dt); fly a fair amt for business; and often fly on their bird to a wkend house in Tahoe/LA, etc....so simply don't put more than 5K mis on any F/MB/P they own before trade-in b/c any car is obsoleted/debugged each MY.....once one's net worth reaches certain lvls, renewing one's car fleet annually/semi-annually to have the latest-tech/debugged/unscuffed cars represents about as much rounding-error in one's cost-of-living as it does for middle-class guys getting a new iPod/cell ph/PDA/plasma TV, etc....
I hope you're kidding. You seem to forget that Ferrari's don't sell at sticker price so the premium many people pay must be factored into the equation. And how can you speculate on the 599 in the second hand market w/ 15K miles when it's just getting released? Remember the Testarossa? Or the 512/Maranello? I don't see those cars trading for sticker price with 15K miles. It's called a 'bubble' my friend. Ferraris went thru the same thing back in the 80's - ask Ron Tonkin (F dealer in Portland). When it bursts, I hope you're not hurt too bad. You live in the bay area as I do so you probably remember the dot-com bubble/burst. But to each his own. I've already posted in the past that any depreciation costs factored over miles driven is a better metric of enjoyment of a vehicle anyway. $10K depr on 1K mile cars (whatever brand or model they are) is a bigger waste of time/money in my opinion than someone who loses $20K and drives 15K miles.
Jan 12, 2007 10:59:39 AM
- easy_rider911
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: London , United Kingdom
- Posts: 22190, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 8, 2004
- Reply to: MAVERICK
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
MAVERICK said:Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
whether airbags have been properly maintained over their serviceable life etc.
What maintenance do airbags require over their service life?
Some people might assume that, once a car has airbags, that's it, they're good for the entire life of the vehicle say 15-20 years. This is not correct. Typically, one should replace the small compressed air cylinders used to inflate the airbags after usually about 10 years.
Jan 15, 2007 5:29:05 AM
- WBH
- Expert
-
- Loc: CA
- Posts: 1963, Gallery
- Registered on: Jan 2, 2004
- Reply to: Jeff (in SF)
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
Jeff (in SF) said:Quote:
VKSF said:
Drive a fully loaded $340K 599/$155K 997TT/$200K 65 15K mis in a yr and trade-in in US.....likely deprec about $0K for 599/$50K on 997TT/$80K on 65.....
Prob 90% of these caliber cars in US are leased $0 down for capital and sales tx-efficiency reasons...
Frankly, even if one is so lacking in relationships that one can't figure out how to get [Email]599@MSRP[/Email], if one bought new 599 for some $500K in secondary mkt, it's not clear to me that 599's value will deprec any more in one yr than a 65/997TT certainly will w/an @MSRP purch.....
Reality is in SF/NYC most repeat buyers of 65/599 are busy guys w/2-3 commuter cars (like 599/65/997TT); have a 10 mi daily round-trip commute to office (think Woodside/PacHts/Greenwich to MenloPk/SF fin dt/Greenwich fin dt); fly a fair amt for business; and often fly on their bird to a wkend house in Tahoe/LA, etc....so simply don't put more than 5K mis on any F/MB/P they own before trade-in b/c any car is obsoleted/debugged each MY.....once one's net worth reaches certain lvls, renewing one's car fleet annually/semi-annually to have the latest-tech/debugged/unscuffed cars represents about as much rounding-error in one's cost-of-living as it does for middle-class guys getting a new iPod/cell ph/PDA/plasma TV, etc....
I hope you're kidding. You seem to forget that Ferrari's don't sell at sticker price so the premium many people pay must be factored into the equation. And how can you speculate on the 599 in the second hand market w/ 15K miles when it's just getting released? Remember the Testarossa? Or the 512/Maranello? I don't see those cars trading for sticker price with 15K miles. It's called a 'bubble' my friend. Ferraris went thru the same thing back in the 80's - ask Ron Tonkin (F dealer in Portland). When it bursts, I hope you're not hurt too bad. You live in the bay area as I do so you probably remember the dot-com bubble/burst. But to each his own. I've already posted in the past that any depreciation costs factored over miles driven is a better metric of enjoyment of a vehicle anyway. $10K depr on 1K mile cars (whatever brand or model they are) is a bigger waste of time/money in my opinion than someone who loses $20K and drives 15K miles.
F's sell at sticker at FoSF and Miller Greenwich, arguably US' (and world's) two most relevant, powerful F dealers
; any young guy in tech/finance who wants new F@MSRP can find a more senior colleague who's a repeat F buyer to "introduce" him to dealer....just as simple as getting a supposedly "impossible" short-notice dinner rsvn at FrenchLaundry/PerSe.... Sure, bubbles burst...but would observe 360Spider premia held fairly well in the post-Bubble era; and the SL55 (a favored car among SilicVy centimillionaires/billionaires)was released in the depths of the post-Bubble era, yet commanded a $50K premium for several mths
.....unlike the '80s, 1000s of <50yo guys in NYC/SF/LA are worth >>$100MM (post-Bubble) and can afford any car they want no matter deprec ....prob 90% of these guys don't really care about cars and just get a new CL/SL/S every 2-3 yrs....so getting a new 599 at MSRP isn't as daunting as one may assume.... Would suspect a majority of guys getting early 599s @MSRP in NYC/SF also have fast-depreciating 65s in their fleet...and also casually spend $5-10K/flt hr to head to their wkend houses in PalmBch/LA/Hawaii, etc on their bird every wkend
....so deprec on cars isn't that big a deal....need to consider socio-economics and net worth profile (and relative youth) of repeat new F buyers in the US' 2-3 most competitive urban regions....and fact that only 50 599s were deliv'd in US in CY06, w/only 140 expected for CY07......small nos. indeed in a world w/rapidly increasing wealth concentrations in certain urban regions.... 
Jan 15, 2007 5:42:49 AM
- WBH
- Expert
-
- Loc: CA
- Posts: 1963, Gallery
- Registered on: Jan 2, 2004
- Reply to: easy_rider911
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:Quote:
MAVERICK said:Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
whether airbags have been properly maintained over their serviceable life etc.
What maintenance do airbags require over their service life?
Some people might assume that, once a car has airbags, that's it, they're good for the entire life of the vehicle say 15-20 years. This is not correct. Typically, one should replace the small compressed air cylinders used to inflate the airbags after usually about 10 years.
Vaguely recall various mfrs claiming a 10yr lifespan for airbags....but would question what the decay curve of airbag effectiveness is in terms of response time/industrial gases used (i.e., how much less effective are 3/5/7/10 yr-old bags vs those <1 yr old?)....my view is any car is a disposable entity w/an unacceptable risk/reward from a safety (and warranty/mtce) standpoint after 3 yrs max....need to carefully value one's time (for mtce nonsense) and value risk of injuries/surgeries/disabilities post-collision in any car w/outdated safety technologies w/unknown decay cycles...
Jan 15, 2007 9:33:13 PM
-
MAVERICK
- Veteran
-
- Loc: Cincinnati, OH (USA) , United States
- Posts: 1145, Gallery
- Registered on: May 31, 2004
- Reply to: easy_rider911
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
Typically, one should replace the small compressed air cylinders used to inflate the airbags after usually about 10 years.
Most manufacturers dictate
their specifications or standards so that the airbag will
survive field exposure for a minimum of 15 years and
always provide the necessary occupant protection in the
event of an accident. (There are some airbags
designed for markets other than the USA that have
design lives of only 9 to 10 years, we will not consider
these modules in this study). The requirements and
specifications include temperature and humidity
variations, shock and vibration, and various
combinations of these to mimic field conditions including
extremes.
The above quote is interesting because one of my friends has a late 1990's USA Volvo V70 that calls for airbag maintenance at the ten year mark. Does this mean 1992-94 Ford Taurus airbag modules have better durability than 1999 U.S. market Volvo's or that Volvo has a higher emphasis on safety checks and precautionary maintenance? I wonder if Ford says anything in the Taurus owner's manual regarding airbag maintenance in comparison to the following quote from what seems to be a USA V70 owner's manual:
There is no maintenance to perform on the SRS yourself. The only periodic maintenance recommended on the SRS is that the air bag modules and front seat belts (including tensioners) should be replaced approximately every ten years and that the other components in the system (wiring, connectors, etc.) should also be inspected at this time. The SRS decal on your car shows the month and year servicing is due. This service must be performed by an authorized Volvo retailer.
Sources:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1It...t=clnk&cd=4
http://apps.volvocars.us/ownersdocs/1999/1999_SV70/99sv70_004.htm
Jan 16, 2007 3:56:18 AM
- DavidSF
- Senior
-
- Loc:
- Posts: 525, Gallery
- Registered on: Jul 7, 2003
- Reply to: Jeff (in SF)
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
Jeff (in SF) said:Quote:
VKSF said:
Drive a fully loaded $340K 599/$155K 997TT/$200K 65 15K mis in a yr and trade-in in US.....likely deprec about $0K for 599/$50K on 997TT/$80K on 65.....
Prob 90% of these caliber cars in US are leased $0 down for capital and sales tx-efficiency reasons...
Frankly, even if one is so lacking in relationships that one can't figure out how to get [Email]599@MSRP[/Email], if one bought new 599 for some $500K in secondary mkt, it's not clear to me that 599's value will deprec any more in one yr than a 65/997TT certainly will w/an @MSRP purch.....
Reality is in SF/NYC most repeat buyers of 65/599 are busy guys w/2-3 commuter cars (like 599/65/997TT); have a 10 mi daily round-trip commute to office (think Woodside/PacHts/Greenwich to MenloPk/SF fin dt/Greenwich fin dt); fly a fair amt for business; and often fly on their bird to a wkend house in Tahoe/LA, etc....so simply don't put more than 5K mis on any F/MB/P they own before trade-in b/c any car is obsoleted/debugged each MY.....once one's net worth reaches certain lvls, renewing one's car fleet annually/semi-annually to have the latest-tech/debugged/unscuffed cars represents about as much rounding-error in one's cost-of-living as it does for middle-class guys getting a new iPod/cell ph/PDA/plasma TV, etc....
I hope you're kidding. You seem to forget that Ferrari's don't sell at sticker price so the premium many people pay must be factored into the equation. And how can you speculate on the 599 in the second hand market w/ 15K miles when it's just getting released? Remember the Testarossa? Or the 512/Maranello? I don't see those cars trading for sticker price with 15K miles. It's called a 'bubble' my friend. Ferraris went thru the same thing back in the 80's - ask Ron Tonkin (F dealer in Portland). When it bursts, I hope you're not hurt too bad. You live in the bay area as I do so you probably remember the dot-com bubble/burst. But to each his own. I've already posted in the past that any depreciation costs factored over miles driven is a better metric of enjoyment of a vehicle anyway. $10K depr on 1K mile cars (whatever brand or model they are) is a bigger waste of time/money in my opinion than someone who loses $20K and drives 15K miles.
Correct. And let's not forget the high price of Ferrari service and any repairs that may be required compared to Porsche. There's nothing intrinsic to Ferrari cars that make it hold its resale value. It's certainly not because it's a better car than Porsche. It's all about supply and demand, and since Ferrari chooses to produce cars in low volume so they can get away with producing terrible looking cars (the F355 was the last good looking Ferrari), the resale value is pretty good. This is also assuming low mileage. Once a Ferrari pasts 50k miles, the resale value comparatively is on par with Porsche. That's why many Ferrari owners choose to not enjoy life as much as they could with a Porsche. Too bad.
David
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
VKSF said:
[...] and can afford any car they want no matter deprec
However, where is the fun?
Jan 18, 2007 9:38:17 PM
-
MAVERICK
- Veteran
-
- Loc: Cincinnati, OH (USA) , United States
- Posts: 1145, Gallery
- Registered on: May 31, 2004
- Reply to: easy_rider911
Re: Daily Driver
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
Thanks Maverick for finding those quotations etc. Always useful to have hard facts
You're welcome. If you had not mentioned that inflators may need replacement and VKSF had not wondered about decay curves, I would not have done any digging. Thanks to both of you.
Forum
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
