Purosangue: The ‘crazible’ Ferrari

We took delivery of our Purosangue a short while ago. Late to the party but our TM spec seemed to take an age to come through. It all felt fairly simple at TM, but somehow we managed to spec a preposterously expensive version of Ferrari’s FUV. Opaco paint, Bordeaux carbon outside and in, and a white leather interior. Having picked myself up from the floor at learning the price, I wondered what we would make of the car itself.

I suppose the point of this thread is to ‘reason’ with people who have the same dilemma as us with this car. I saw the piece from Richard Hammond which makes a good point about what really is this car for and why is it so expensive? But then I drove it (we have done 500 miles in a week, far more than we have done in the first few months of our XX). It is a sort of ‘sensible’ Ferrari but somehow it is also imbued with a vein of craziness - hence my made-up word in the thread title. Truthfully, I’m a little shocked by this car. How can it be so illogical - it’s a four door, practical, high Ferrari, with a V12 engine - and theoretically easy to dismiss, yet be so hard to dismiss?

We have winter tyres on ours for the time being - to be swapped soon - but even in cold temperatures and with winter tyres, the Purosangue has no right to be as good to drive as it is. For context, we’ve had both FF and Lusso. We obviously enjoyed the FF enough to buy a Lusso, both were great cars. But not like this. Those who think the Lusso represents a cut-price Purosangue, forget it. This car is way better than what went before it. I don’t really care that it is higher and heavier, and I’m not really thinking about the looks, which are an entirely personal thing (though I think the look is utterly beguiling and beautifully done). The Purosangue is a more sporting and enjoyable drive than the Lusso and FF. I enjoyed those cars but they delivered exactly what I imagined a detuned, front-engined, V12, with extra size and weight would deliver. No surprises, just very Ferrari but in a less overtly sporting and more practical package. What’s not to like if you need the practicality? Thing was, the two-door configuration was a bit of a pain because if you need the rear seats the driver is constantly getting in and out of the car to give the back-seat passengers access. If you didn’t need the rear seats then better to use an F12 or 812. Neither car was especially rewarding to drive compared with the two-seat cars and with a bit of inclement weather (surely part of the point of using a four-wheel-drive Ferrari) they were quite tricky on the limit and prone to a wayward rear-end when you least expected it. I enjoyed them but never much thought about them after they were sold.

This thing though. It’s a revelation to drive, save a couple of issues, but really, has no right to be able to do what it does. Specifically, the performance level is very well judged (more shove is just not necessary), the feeling from behind the wheel is sporty and rewarding. Lifting off the throttle and tucking the nose into the corner, the car really responds, then feeding that beautifully linear throttle back in again and the car unwinds with progression and good energy and throws you out of the bend in a way that makes you smile….before becoming thoroughly confused. How is it possible that this car is so good? Seriously, how did they do that?

The Purosangue is a much better sports car than the (whisper it, slightly disappointing in this regard) FF and Lusso. Somehow that is playing with my brain. I walk up to the car, it is practical and a lovely thing to own and drive - as expected - but also a really brilliant car to drive quickly. I would happily take it on a road trip unlike my conclusion about the Roma Spider which didn’t really do it for me last year around Italy. Roma is a great car, just nowhere near as great as the SF90 touring through Italy, France, Spain etc. The Purosangue on the other hand, I’ve discovered is a great-handling and great-sounding Ferrari V12. It will always be that. Still not an alternative to a mid-engined car on a trip but for a winter occasion or when you need to take more people, perfect. I think I am more surprised about this car than any other Ferrari we have owned. Could it be that remarkable suspension? Maybe that’s part of it. But there’s more to it I think.

We paid a, what is to me, completely unimaginable amount of money for it, enough to make me think “what on earth am I doing?” But the TM leather, the Bordeaux carbon everywhere, mixed with the way this car looks and drives, I almost don’t think about the price. I don’t know what I will do with this car long term. And I didn’t really think we had space in our lives for it. But I’m already thinking that to be without it we would really miss it. It’s probably my wife’s new favourite Ferrari (though she will really enjoy the 12C Spider). It has four doors so is more practical than the Lusso, it looks better than the Lusso, it drives better than the Lusso, it has a better noise than the V8s and V6s and I don’t imagine there will be another one like it in the future. It’s crazy and it’s sensible. But it can’t be sensible. So maybe it’s just crazy? Yet it’s also brilliant. I have no idea what the market will make of this car because it is the first Ferrari where I have no idea what to make of it. Two things are for sure, Manzoni’s design is brilliant and De Simone and the chassis team did an incredible job. We did TM ‘in case’ we liked the car. And the extras really make for a beautiful finished result. But the depreciation will be huge if I put 10k miles on it in a year - which would be very easy to do. I’ll still put miles on this thing. Probably about 3k per year. Maybe the smartest Purosangue buyers are those who buy a cheaper spec car and just use it regardless of the mileage and depreciation. Maybe, just maybe, you could find a way to justify the cost if you stuck 50k on it in a few years. You’d maybe lose half the value, maybe £180k. That’s only £3.60 per mile. Would I pay that? You bet. It would be crazible not to!


Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I don’t have any nice ones at the moment but I’ll try and find some time to take something decent.

 

My sister has a Cayenne GT. She likes it but has decided to sell it. It’s a great car but, strangely, it’s not the same thing. The V12 engine and way the Purosangue handles, while unlikely to be as quick around a track, plus the level of luxury, sets it apart. I’ve also never been tempted by a Urus. I can see why people love them but it’s a Lamborghini SUV, based on a corporate platform (like the Cayenne). That makes a difference. I’m not saying these are not excellent cars, they are. But you approach them as super versions of a familiar genre. Ferrari set out to do something completely unique and to a large extent I think they achieved it.

The thing is, in doing so, they also made the car more illogical when viewed through a normal car-buying lens. I always wondered what I would do with such a car, what is it for? I still do, yet I’m driving it a lot because I like driving it, and also because I often need to use the rear seats. It’s not an SUV - nowhere near as practical as the Porsche or Lamborghini. It’s a Ferrari for those occasions when you need to take extra people or things and you still want that Ferrari experience. I’ve been really surprised by it. It follows different rules and that’s also why some people will hate that it exists. I don’t criticise that view, I understand it. It’s just that I really like it when I’m using it. Maybe it’s a modern day 308 GT4 or Mondial more than it is an SUV. It probably drives better and sportier than the two lower cars, such is the brilliance of Ferrari’s engineering these days.

What makes it so illogical is the price. For the price of the options on our car (ok, you don't have to tick the boxes) we could have bought the Cayenne outright. In any sane sense of value the Purosangue can’t compare to a car like the Cayenne GT for that reason alone. Hence the title of this thread. It makes no sense. I have wondered about my own sanity, spending such an amount on such an illogical car. Yet, as per the suggestion in my original post, if you drive it regularly - something its design concept allows for much more easily than other Ferraris - it might just be the best value Ferrari out there. Just don’t spend that amount of money and park it. I can’t see how that could ever make sense.

The Cayenne GT, like other Cayennes, is a proper car. The Purosangue isn’t. But the Purosangue is a Ferrari and the Cayenne isn’t. I guess whether you could ever see value in it is down to what you think about modern Ferrari. I tell you this though, it may not be as fast (though it feels plenty quick enough - you don’t ever need more) but I dare anyone not to enjoy driving it, even if you could never justify it or hate it and the fact that it exists. Ferrari are masters of driving emotion in any genre and they didn’t go easy on the Purosangue.

 

Depends on the time of year and who’s going with me. For most times I would drive to Italy it would have to be the 12C spider though. 12C coupe might be a little harder. Put it this way, if you had already put plenty of miles on the Purosangue, it would be cheaper to take that for probably 10% less fun but 50% more practicality.

 

It drives better. The Lusso felt like a detuned 812 that was a bit spiky when it got wet, which, driving in inclement conditions was part of the point. It felt bigger, more cumbersome than the 812. The Purosangue still feels different to the 812 but still really fun and sporty to drive. I enjoy it much more than either the FF or Lusso.