Nov 18, 2004 5:40:47 AM
- Jeff (in SF)
- Pilot
-
- Loc: SF, CA, USA , United States
- Posts: 340, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 13, 2003
Porsche vs. Ferrari Ownership costs (slightly long)
As an exercise, I flipped thru the classified section of Autoweek which has a decent selection of used Porsches and Ferraris, and decided to compare the most popular models of each marque in a slightly unusual way.
I captured only a few variables: model year (1999 and newer only), miles driven, and asking price in the ad. To complete my analysis I had to add 2 more numbers. One: I assumed each owner drove an average of 40mph over the total miles driven which should be pretty accurate considering a mix of city & highway speeds. Two: I had to put in the likely purchase price for each car which I also feel is pretty accurate since I visit tire kick P & F dealerships once or twice a year and religiously read the Autoweek classifieds to see new car prices. I thought about considering mpg or servicing costs but after the simple analysis of the figures above, I thought things would only be worse for the Ferraris which get worse mileage and have much higher servicing costs - no one can argue about that.
In my comparison, there were 11 Ferrari 360's, a mix of coupes & spiders, and 15 911's, which I divided into Turbos and non-turbos. Below are my findings (the detail of each car and calc'd values is attached in a .txt format - couldn't upload Excel format) and you can find the same cars in the back of the current Autoweek or visit their website to verify):
With a model year average of 2002, the average # of miles on a used 360 is 4,905 meaning they drive about 2,500 miles per year. If you assume an average 40mph over the life of the car, that means that the 360 owner drove their car an average of 123 hours. Obviously 123 hours over 2 to 3 model years isn't a lot and confirms that most Ferrari owners prefer to keep their cars in the garage instead of drive them.
The average depreciation on a 360 is $26,500 after comparing the current asking prices and plugging in the likely purchase prices as I mentioned above. This depreciation amount when factored over the # of hours the car driven means that it costs a 360 owner $304 per hour to drive their car. Using depreciation over miles driven yields a cost of $7.59 per mile.
Now onto Porsche...
The model year average was the same (2002) as the 360 for both the 911 group and the Turbo group (which also included 1 GT2). The average # of miles on a used 911 is 11,500 or more than twice the average of the 360. Turbos were driven slightly less with an average of 9,000 miles. Interpretation - 911's get driven a lot more and justify the nickname 'everyday supercar' or 'everyday sportscar'. If you assume the same average 40mph over the life of the car, that means that the 911 drivers spent an average of 287 hours in the car compared to 224 hours for Turbo owners.
The average depreciation on a 911 is almost the same as the 360 in absolute dollars = $26,550 but on a percentage basis, it's obviously higher. However when you compare the depreciation of the 911 over the time spent in the car and miles driven, the depreciation rate is actually MUCH less than a Ferrari which confirms my theory that Ferraris really are disposable because if you find one with any miles on it, the depreciation is substantial (see * below). This depreciation amount when factored over the # of hours driven for a 911 owner means that it costs $118 per hour to drive their car (vs. $304 for 360) but costs a Turbo owner $395 per hour which surprised me. The depreciation costs per mile are $2.96 for the 911 and $9.88 for Turbos. (In this example the higher costs for Turbos are due to some really low asking prices on recent cars with really low miles but those are the numbers.)
*Footnote: there were 2 high mileage 550 Maranellos (1 2001 with 30,000 miles and 1 1999 with 13,700 miles). The cost per hour for these 2 cars works out to $239 and depreciation cost per mile is $6 - both numbers are actually less than the 360 averages. Consider though that while 360s sell at a premium to the MSRP, 550's sell at MSRP or slightly less when new which means owners paid about the same for a new 550 as they would for a 360 spider. That's where it gets ugly because these high mileage Maranellos are now worth about 1/2 what they were after 4 years. That's a jaw dropping $117K in depreciation in the hopes that someone will buy with the high mileage (and pending big service bills).
Bottom line: I agree that Ferraris are beautiful cars and once put a deposit on a 360 spider. After talking to others though, I couldn't deal with the 'baggage' that accompanies the brand = virtually everyone who sees you on the road will admire the car but hate you as the driver out of envy or whatever. The inevitable stress & panic of parking in public places, leaving your car with the valet, etc. meant it would be difficult to get much enjoyment out of the car if I intended to actually drive it much. If you want to buy a car and look at it, Ferrari is an interesting choice but there are other pieces of beautiful art that will appreciate in value year after year - unfortunately they're not as much fun because you can't drive them (usually you hang paintings on a wall). Besides, I really like the look of the 911 and their uniqueness (don't Toyota MR2's and Lotus Elises share the same mid-engine arrangement with the 360?)
I don't expect this comparison will silence the Ferraristi (you know who you are) but you can't argue with these 'facts': Porsches get driven MUCH more than Ferraris. If a Porsche isn't driven as much, the sad part is that it still depreciates so might as well get out there and drive them folks. But at the same time, I think it's fair to say that if you can find high mileage Ferraris, they've depreciated at a rate about the same or a little higher even than Porsche but because they cost so much more, the Ferrari's depreciation dollars will always be substantially more. It would be interesting as a 'Part 2' to scour the internet and eBay to compare Ferraris and Porsches with similar mileage to confirm this. One day when I'm bored...
Lastly, I think it's interesting that certain people criticize Porsche for shrewdly managing their business to achieve the highest profit margins in the industry. Ferrari doesn't quote its profit margins but after you factor in Schumacher's salary, maybe that's why they might lose money or have much lower profit margins, I don't know. What I do know however is that the Ferrari dealers get away with charging RIDICULOUS price premiums for their cars because of the artificially constrained supply. Why doesn't whatever his name is complain about that? Or the fit & finish of the cars? Or that besides the 360 there isn't another pretty car in their lineup - can you say Ugly-etti, I mean Scaglietti?
All in good fun.
That's enough for now.
I captured only a few variables: model year (1999 and newer only), miles driven, and asking price in the ad. To complete my analysis I had to add 2 more numbers. One: I assumed each owner drove an average of 40mph over the total miles driven which should be pretty accurate considering a mix of city & highway speeds. Two: I had to put in the likely purchase price for each car which I also feel is pretty accurate since I visit tire kick P & F dealerships once or twice a year and religiously read the Autoweek classifieds to see new car prices. I thought about considering mpg or servicing costs but after the simple analysis of the figures above, I thought things would only be worse for the Ferraris which get worse mileage and have much higher servicing costs - no one can argue about that.
In my comparison, there were 11 Ferrari 360's, a mix of coupes & spiders, and 15 911's, which I divided into Turbos and non-turbos. Below are my findings (the detail of each car and calc'd values is attached in a .txt format - couldn't upload Excel format) and you can find the same cars in the back of the current Autoweek or visit their website to verify):
With a model year average of 2002, the average # of miles on a used 360 is 4,905 meaning they drive about 2,500 miles per year. If you assume an average 40mph over the life of the car, that means that the 360 owner drove their car an average of 123 hours. Obviously 123 hours over 2 to 3 model years isn't a lot and confirms that most Ferrari owners prefer to keep their cars in the garage instead of drive them.
The average depreciation on a 360 is $26,500 after comparing the current asking prices and plugging in the likely purchase prices as I mentioned above. This depreciation amount when factored over the # of hours the car driven means that it costs a 360 owner $304 per hour to drive their car. Using depreciation over miles driven yields a cost of $7.59 per mile.
Now onto Porsche...
The model year average was the same (2002) as the 360 for both the 911 group and the Turbo group (which also included 1 GT2). The average # of miles on a used 911 is 11,500 or more than twice the average of the 360. Turbos were driven slightly less with an average of 9,000 miles. Interpretation - 911's get driven a lot more and justify the nickname 'everyday supercar' or 'everyday sportscar'. If you assume the same average 40mph over the life of the car, that means that the 911 drivers spent an average of 287 hours in the car compared to 224 hours for Turbo owners.
The average depreciation on a 911 is almost the same as the 360 in absolute dollars = $26,550 but on a percentage basis, it's obviously higher. However when you compare the depreciation of the 911 over the time spent in the car and miles driven, the depreciation rate is actually MUCH less than a Ferrari which confirms my theory that Ferraris really are disposable because if you find one with any miles on it, the depreciation is substantial (see * below). This depreciation amount when factored over the # of hours driven for a 911 owner means that it costs $118 per hour to drive their car (vs. $304 for 360) but costs a Turbo owner $395 per hour which surprised me. The depreciation costs per mile are $2.96 for the 911 and $9.88 for Turbos. (In this example the higher costs for Turbos are due to some really low asking prices on recent cars with really low miles but those are the numbers.)
*Footnote: there were 2 high mileage 550 Maranellos (1 2001 with 30,000 miles and 1 1999 with 13,700 miles). The cost per hour for these 2 cars works out to $239 and depreciation cost per mile is $6 - both numbers are actually less than the 360 averages. Consider though that while 360s sell at a premium to the MSRP, 550's sell at MSRP or slightly less when new which means owners paid about the same for a new 550 as they would for a 360 spider. That's where it gets ugly because these high mileage Maranellos are now worth about 1/2 what they were after 4 years. That's a jaw dropping $117K in depreciation in the hopes that someone will buy with the high mileage (and pending big service bills).
Bottom line: I agree that Ferraris are beautiful cars and once put a deposit on a 360 spider. After talking to others though, I couldn't deal with the 'baggage' that accompanies the brand = virtually everyone who sees you on the road will admire the car but hate you as the driver out of envy or whatever. The inevitable stress & panic of parking in public places, leaving your car with the valet, etc. meant it would be difficult to get much enjoyment out of the car if I intended to actually drive it much. If you want to buy a car and look at it, Ferrari is an interesting choice but there are other pieces of beautiful art that will appreciate in value year after year - unfortunately they're not as much fun because you can't drive them (usually you hang paintings on a wall). Besides, I really like the look of the 911 and their uniqueness (don't Toyota MR2's and Lotus Elises share the same mid-engine arrangement with the 360?)
I don't expect this comparison will silence the Ferraristi (you know who you are) but you can't argue with these 'facts': Porsches get driven MUCH more than Ferraris. If a Porsche isn't driven as much, the sad part is that it still depreciates so might as well get out there and drive them folks. But at the same time, I think it's fair to say that if you can find high mileage Ferraris, they've depreciated at a rate about the same or a little higher even than Porsche but because they cost so much more, the Ferrari's depreciation dollars will always be substantially more. It would be interesting as a 'Part 2' to scour the internet and eBay to compare Ferraris and Porsches with similar mileage to confirm this. One day when I'm bored...
Lastly, I think it's interesting that certain people criticize Porsche for shrewdly managing their business to achieve the highest profit margins in the industry. Ferrari doesn't quote its profit margins but after you factor in Schumacher's salary, maybe that's why they might lose money or have much lower profit margins, I don't know. What I do know however is that the Ferrari dealers get away with charging RIDICULOUS price premiums for their cars because of the artificially constrained supply. Why doesn't whatever his name is complain about that? Or the fit & finish of the cars? Or that besides the 360 there isn't another pretty car in their lineup - can you say Ugly-etti, I mean Scaglietti?
All in good fun.
That's enough for now.
Just kidding...we don't have anything on our walls at home. 
