Old vs New Ferrari Build Quality

wanker

You need to drive a Countach and re-post this comment.

My friend's 512TR seems easy by comparison.

Countach begins to make perfect sense at fun speeds.

Oh no. Say it isn't so.

ain't that the truth

 

it would be interesting to compare relative reliability and maintenance of a 20 year old 275 and a 20 year old 550. I wonder if there is anyone who can chime in. I am sure my 550 was an outlier in terms of going wrong every time my back was turned. But given what others said about 456, maybe that was a 90s Ferrari thing.

Though my F512M is 90s also. And rock solid. I give up.

 

Please elaborate, I want to know what makes you say that. Is it a matter of how it was assembled like it was made solely on monday mornings or friday afternoons or it was just a poor design?

 

As some may pass on that privilege, I take great pride in addressing you has “my dear friend” Paul:

You are right. Although I meant no disrespect at all towards the Mondial, I was indeed excessive (and wrong) making that assessment.

In all honesty and fairness, I was incorrect also by omission: what I regrettably failed to mention that it was my very first Ferrari and it made me happy beyond words, even with all its “quirks” and idiosyncrasies. At the time, I felt some of the things I said about the car from the off, but I was so over the moon with the car that it could have eaten one of my legs and it still wouldn’t dent my absolute love for it.

Love is a complicated affair indeed. Sometimes we can’t adequately explain why we’re enchanted by a flawed machine. So, I apologize for my previous post regarding the Mondial and I hope this helps to balance the scales.

The car’s electronics were fragile (ABS fault kept coming and going for no apparent reason), but in terms of durability and reliability, both mechanical and in terms of materials used in the cockpit, it was built like a tank. Mine was an 88: everything worked and leather was soft and fresh.

I think complexity in modern Ferraris is both a blessing and a curse. I’m of the opinion that even complex, modern cars with be serviceable in the future. These cars will become old and not every owner will ditch them. I believe therefore the market will eventually adapt, as there will always be demand for classic Ferraris, and in 20 or so years, these modern cars will become classics and not everyone will fancy driving plug in cars that sound like a glorified vacuum cleaner. We may be forced to, but no one will force me to like them!

Paul, as for seating position and the heel and toe technique: just goes to show what I’ve always known to be true; you’re a much better driver than I’ll ever be!

Kindest regards to you and your family, and thank you.

Nuno.

 

Thank you very much, Daniel. You’re too kind!

Darius, thank you very much. I assure you it won’t happen again. I promised not to come back to this thread, but I’m not prepared to do without your irreplaceable and invaluable insight, Daniel’s and Paul’s wise input, Jack’s expertise nor without all contributions made my members more interested in having a meaningful, enriching debate than anything else.

Thank you once again to you all and kindest regards,

Nuno.

 

Hi Nuno, truth be told, nothing wrong in your post. Honesty is what is best. Many people do not like the Mondial. It's true, and it's okay. I just wanted to give a counterpoint as somebody that loves the Mondial.

I've often wondered if the silver sheen of the prancing horse clouds my judgment? I had to get a second Ferrari to be sure, while my 456M is a fantastic car as well, it doesn't stir my soul as the Mondial does, so it can't be high school sweetheart effect. The NSX I had (supposedly the Ferrari killer of the epoch.) Forget about it! For me, as much character as a blender.

My Quattroporte runs circles around both, but I sleep while driving it.

I wish you and your family every joy and good health my friend! I hope all is well in Italy.

Forza Italia!

 

This tread is depressing.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

You don’t want to buy a Fancy Fiat. We are about to return, to Y2K F car prices.

 

you would be hard pressed to find 2 better cars imo.

interesting to note that the maven found the 512m to be solid, and the 550 to be problematic.
i think my 512tr is solid, and the 456mgt - same era as the 550, to be problematic.

i used to think that it was the arrival of montezemolo that raised the build quality, but this anecdotal evidence would belie that.

also referring to the maven's comment, the 575 seems to be a car i need to try - it certainly seems to be a bargain.

 

My experiances with the Cali are not good, they are indeed quite a pile of lard (i apologize to any current owners of the earlier models). However, take heart! As long as there are Chrysler Mini Van parts available, many of the electronics will be very simple and inexpensive to replace.

 

That is interesting, Ross. It could be a coincidence as it’s a sample size of four cars. But our experiences seem to be similar.

575 is quite sensitive to spec, model year and so on. I waited a while for my ideal one, a gated manual late model with Fiorano Handling Pack. It happens also to have Daytona seats and a leather rear shelf which are bonuses, and a lovely TDF blue/tan colour combo.

It has now done more than 30k miles and goes very well. like the 550 it has twin characters of louche GT and being great fun when really pushed. It’s fast, too. But also like the 550 it sounds boring (without a good exhaust) and the looks are just ok. The subsequent V12 Ferraris are amazing cars but a bit hypermanic for me, also much more complex.

The 550 was looked after by the same techs and on its annual check there was always something, usually many things. Though it never left me stranded.

For anyone interested, I have attached detail from two successive invoices from two years’ checkup lists of stuff that went wrong for the 550 - The 575’s list is always empty apart from the service (so far!). I’m convinced the 550 had components going wrong in places where the 575 doesn’t have places.




Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

While YMMV, quite literally, for me, Ferrari represented one thing in my life that lived up to the hype.

Of course, everybody's experience will be different, but for me, one of this short life we have's pleasures is driving down a beautiful road with a vintage Ferrari.

The emotional payback has been worth every penny.

The newer models are no doubt faster, more refined, and capable; but there's just that subjective 'feel' I like on my analog vinyl setup vs my digital system.

No right or wrong, what gives you the biggest smile, whatever epoch that may be, is the truth for all of us.

 

I think pile of lard is a bit harsh, I've only driven the Cali t, and it was a lot of fun, and a very easy daily driver.

 

Surprisingly enough, I've documented that the supposed 'most unreliable Ferrari' I own ended up being on par for total cost vs if I got a brand new Toyota 86'.

With the right shops, and if your willing to wrench on some things yourself, some Ferrari that have bottomed on the depreciation curve can be quite reasonable vs new some brand new cars because of the latter's impending depreciation.

 

I agree with you, Paul. I think the California is a very versatile, user-friendly and fun Ferrari. A very nice all rounder. Don’t know if “lard” in english has more than one meaning, but I didn’t find the car to be sluggish. I felt it a bit heavier than I’m used to, but with a curb weight of almost 1.900kg/4.200lbs it’s no surprise. Still, didn’t think that fact takes away from having pleasure driving it. It’s a convertible GT, it’s bound to be a little more “chubby” than a full blown sportscar. Anyway, I think the California T addresses that problem quite nicely with the extra power, but namely extra torque.

I’ve seen some abused cars of sale in my neck of the woods. Californias being GTs, get driven quite a lot, and not always by loving, caring owners. Interiors held up quite nicely. Mechanically, there are the (in)famous potential gearbox sensor failures, but many variables come into play here.

Kind regards,

Nuno.

 

Finally. I was getting worried, 80+ posts into this thread without someone giving the Cali grief. My #1 take away from F-chat when I was an aspiring owner was that purchase price is only the entry price to the party. No one likes $$$ bills, but if you went into Ferrari ownership with expectations of Honda sized reliability and repair bills, well I'm not sure what to say.
T

 

Which is why I currently drive a 95 SL320....

 

I'd rather let the specialists do what they know in older, "analog" cars than be a DIY mechanic. Will gladly do simple stuff wherever possible.

 

Moving past "this particular car vs that particular car"...

It seems (emphasis on "seems", not "isn't") as if the author isn't aware that every single major car mfg is doing things exactly as Ferrari does, with similar results and challenges.

Navigation and Bluetooth? Perfect example. Perhaps Ferrari has lagged behind Porsche, but the greater question is "Was this ever actually a feature that anyone needed in the first place?" Apparently it was, as I see a lot of Fchat & Porsche posts moaning about their nav system.... written by people that have google maps on their cell phones. Technicians aren't a fan of this modern feature crap; at least I'm not. Whenever I see a work order of "Customer has problems with their phone/stereo" i take a cigarette break, because usually it's something that either a) I'm depending on a server update that may or may not work or b) the customer doesn't have a compatible phone in the first place.

I fail to see what's wrong with a regular DVD player, but many of you demand your "ApplePlay". Or you say you want a true sports car, but the first option you click is heated/cooled seats.

Similarly: ECU vs Carbs or K-jet injection. If you want 600 HP and sub 3 sec times, you're going to need an ECU/TCU. It's a simple fact. If the market wasn't demanding N/A cars that are faster than a Tesla, it might be different... but they are.

Do you enjoy your RACE/Normal/Snow suspension settings? I suspect most do. That won't happen with 1984 stock Konis.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. It's not an issue of "they just don't build with quality like they used it." It's an entirely different machine now, with different design goals.

The market cries for it, and Ferrari - or anyone - responds.

And that is why we have Ferrari Station Wagons and SUVs that require a $35,000 computer to maintain.

 

You’re raising a most excellent point, one about which I’m still on the fence.

Don’t know if they died because they aren’t on demand, or if the industry is forcing you, pushing you, shoving you on a new product and you don’t really have a choice.

Like fashion: there’s a difference between tweed jackets being out of production because no one likes them anymore, or if a particular brand/industry is forcing you to wear t-shirts now instead of tweed because they’re more profitable and they’re out to convince you t-shirts are the way of the future and tweed afterall killed baby seals according to a new study. And they’ll do the same to t-shirts once they find a new, more profitable piece of clothing, their chief concern being taxes and profits, not keeping you warm and stylish as fashion should be all about.

An analogy or course. Although I’m undecided, I feel the death of NA engines has more to do with taxes and environmental arguments made by politicians sat at a desk, than people suddenly waking up one morning and decided they don’t want them anymore because they suck.

Kind regards,

Nuno.

 

I think it's both, in many ways. But at the heart of it, the customer is the one to blame. As a company - how you react, is what matters most.

Look at the Porsche 718, for example... a car that I highly considered buying, before I bought a Ferrari instead. What's the #1 complaint? The sound. People hate the 4 cyl/turbo sound, despite the fact that it completely outperforms every 6 cyl that preceded it. (Personally, I didnt care about the sound.) What's Porsche's response? Last I read, they're going back to a 6 cylinder config. And you'll be able to have it in a manual, if you like.

Styling? Ferrari used to be the best on the planet at styling. For the recent past, they're now following the Lamborghini or Honda path.... make the headlights as unusual as possible, and add some more vents. 1 vent in the hood is good, but 2 are preferable... because kids just love vents.

What's Ferrari doing? What everyone else does. You get a 6/9/12/infinite speed transmission with a turbo. Sorry if you don't like it. Because they value 0-60 results more than what an owner wants. And this can be proven; if no one bought a DCT, Ferrari (or anyone) would adjust their plan. But, Ferrari owners are worst than most in this respect... as they'll buy a station wagon, just to get ahead on "the list" for the next car they actually wanted... So, there's no incentive to do anything differently. Sales = success, and if enough people bought your product, then you don't need to change how you do things.

 

I drive my 95 E320 Wagon. Great car but am selling

 

For the amount of money that modern Ferraris cost, They should be absolutely bullet proof at least up to 100 K mile, but they are not. The fact that Ferrari has not dealt with such a ridiculous issues such as interior parts turning into crap is a shame. The older Ferraris are built much better than modern ones, its that simple. My 328 has 102,000 miles, and the interior still looks new, and I have not had any failures , other than the starter , alternator. Of course over the last couple of years I replaced the AC system. Even the suspension was working well, up to the time I completely replaced it. If I had deep pockets , I would buy a 488 GTB, and just deal with any issues, since I would have the money to fix them. Higher maintenance would not keep my from owning a modern F car.I always talk to the mechanics and ask them about problems with the modern F cars,, and from what they say, they have a lot of issues.

 

It’s hard to argue with anything you’ve just wrote on your very articulate post.

However, I sometimes wonder if the price to pay for the evolved, modern amenities and creature comforts we hold so dear in cars nowadays, isn’t an increased unreliability rate.

Any car, regardless of manufacturer, is much more comfortable and luxurious today than they ever were, namely in the 70s and 80s. A lot of that came from technological advances in the field of computing (electronics, sensors, microchips, ECUs, etc), which in turn added complexity. And can we truly have the comfort we today take for granted without complexity? And is complexity dissassociable from electronics?

We can’t have it both ways I fear. We want bluetooth in our Ferraris. And sat nav. And Apple’s CarPlay. And digital dual zone AC. Electronics aren’t known to be sturdy beyond a doubt: cell phones, laptops etc, fail. When put on a car, subjected to dust, rain, contact with other cars, etc, they quickly become an Achille’s heel of sorts.

Rightly or wrongly, we commonly associate electronics with unreliability. The less a car has, the less it can go wrong. But what’s the alternative? Are we willingly to go back and have cars that had four wheels, a couple of seats, a steering wheel and that’s it?

The only digital thing my Mondial had was the clock (and even that was problematic). The only analog thing my 458 has is the rev counter pointer. I think at some point we have to make peace with the fact that there’s a cost to all this evolution in the automotive industry: the ocasional added unreliability.

Luca di Montezemolo, when speaking at Stanford and making a veiled reference to Porsche, said it was better to have a beautiful car that yes, can break down on occasion, than a german fridge that never fails you.



Kind regards,

Nuno.