Why Are Ferrari Supercars So Sensitive To Mileage?

My assumption on this matter is, one cannot (using the F40 as an example) rewind 20 years, so in order to have a 'new' F40, such a car should have as little mileage as possible. Every man, and indeed woman, who wanted to buy Ferrari history and heritage with their F40 does not nessecerally wish to have 20 years of possible bastardisation aswell. Simple sense tells you a 100km car would be closer to 'As it left the factory' as a 20,000km version of the same vehicle. Personally, I prefer a vehicle with miles, and battle scars (stone chips), previous owners is quite acceptable, afterall, it could have been somebody who you wish owned the car previously, thus making the car much more desirable than all other 'concourse' examples so commonly adveriesed for trade.

Best

Michael J

 

simply stated, there is just less wear and tear on a lower mile car. presumably. YMMV.

 

"Amercian" issue in my opinion. In the States there is a strong motivation to keep and not to use. I imported a Mercedes 190SL from Florida some years ago, outstanding history but rather poor condition when it came to the body work. It took $20k to make it a straight 1-2 on classic data and a delight to drive. For the dealer the car was trash and i agreed to pay a "trash-price"

 

The only cars that the market doesn't seem to care about mileage are Classics and Race Cars which don't even have odometers. The battle scars and History, especially if put on by famous drivers at famous races adds to value. An F40 is not a classic yet and those that want them seem to prefer as low mileage examples as possible for the reason's you've stated. When F40's get as old as 275 GTB's are today Mileage may no longer matter but for the present time it does.

 

This is my point. Add 10-15 years to this equasion, we are talking of an F40 30-35 years old. Hypathetically, you have two F40's for sale, one has stone chips, high mileage and a bit tatty, also had a owner who was once the greatest driver on the planet, a one Michael Schumacher, the other is a museum piece that had 500km and a collecter owner. I bet my fortune the first is worth more. Shame the market is as it is, it may mean some of the second type cars never make it to see another 15 years.

Best
Michael James

 

So true

 

Could be that because more than a few were mothballed at birth as future time capsule collectibles - and the significant price delta between these and the driven cars - that they'll likely remain parked (and pricey). That is, until internet message board wisdom holds sway and the drivers become more valuable than the garage bunnies!

One of ones, first and last in a series and prototypes might be mileage proof, tho.

 

I think it's sort of like... why do doctors get paid more than dishwashers? Well, the doctor can do the dishwasher's job, but not vice-versa.

Anyone can take a perfect F40 and put rock chips in it, wear and tear on the seats, etc. But you can't take a rough F40 and make it new.

And as others have said, as time goes on, there are fewer and fewer mint examples available. Supply and Demand.

 

Not always the case....

 

And there are a few of those here in the USA...

Joe
www.joesackey.com

 

Its not the supercars but the owners who are mileage sensitive. Most supercar owners just dont want to get their money's worth I guess. If I could afford an F40 or an Enzo, I would "track" that thing (they were made for it!) as much as I can and then drive it home afterwards!

 

And the fact that they exist with stories galore, means they aren't "as good as new". If they were, potential buyers wouldn't steer clear of them. I guess all it takes is one buyer who doesn't know the history of the car though.

 

Its probably because better examples are still available.

 

Can you site some examples? Maybe with before and after pictures and vin or serial numbers?

I'm always interested by this. It would seem that a seller who passes off a wrecked and repaired car as original is defrauding his client, and the buyer, who unwittingly end up with such a car, should have recourse against the seller.

Do you know specifically of any US cars that fit this description, can you name them?

Dave

 

Graham.

Not so.

If I intend to sell a car, and know that it has been wrecked and rebuilt but sell it as pristine and new, or original, then I am committing fraud. Fraud is a crime here in the Colonies, even for a used car salesman. Caveat Emptor is not absolute.

This must be one of the improvements we made on British law when we broke away from Mother England.

As to the other issue. If Joe has specific knowledge about specific cars that are wrecked and rebuilt, or that have mileage discrepancies, I think he is honor and duty bound to reveal that information here.

Dave

 

I think on limited edition cars with complete ownership history, ascertaining what happened, and when, to a car such as an F40 would be relatively simple.

Once that has been determined, it would also be simple to assign responsibility for fraud. If the damage was never revealed, and owner 3 says car was fine, and owner 5 says "Er, no it wasn't" then it is clear that seller 4 fibbed. If either a private seller, or a used car dealer, then he's the bad guy.

A cautious approach, and extensive PPI are always the best defense. Again, prior to purchase on a car such as this determining owners should be easy. Talking with them about the car should also be. And their honesty about what happened to the car during their possession should help immensely in making a buyer more comfortable, OR LESS SO, with a purchase.

But again, in a market (Say in the US) where less than 200 cars exist, it is imperative that anyone with facts about particular cars be forthcoming with them. No innuendo, no sneaky **** that leaves it to the reader's imagination, just straight up facts about what one knows, or conversely, does not know.

Less than that is simply doing wrong by this community.

DM

 

It's funny how some people look down on an F40 that has been rebuilt after damage. However if some long lost 1960's Ferrari chassis was dug up and all the rest of the car was 'restored' there would be a line of cheque waving fans. Each would be begging to give their money on this 'restored' Ferrari. Fantasy? A certain Maroon Ferrari sold for over 1M dollars with just such a history. The whole point of restoring a car is to bring it back to how it was delivered when new, and yes some people chose a specific race period to restore as. The fact that someone kept a F40 with only 700 miles merely brings that car closer to many people's goal of a new 'old' Ferrari. A tired used up car should not be confused with a historic race car that was merely parked after it's last race.
CH

 

Dave I do, but I would never post it on a public forum without written authorization from the car's owner. Anyone with a problem with that can chat with my attorney.... just imagine if it was your car.

BTW, none of the cars as such are on the market, or have been handled by myself in the market. If such a car were to come to the market, the owner would immediately be instructed to lay bare the facts about accident damage, repaint and so forth. If they were reluctant I wouldnt handle it. It is only at THAT point at which a car is being marketed in the public domain with non-disclosure that I have a duty to publicly disclose such sensitive information in my possesion. And beleive me gentlemen, if such a situation arose, I would! This is just common sense. Until such time, the efforts of my investigations and culling of information over two decades remains within my possesion in my private registry and is part of the database that I use to assist individual collectors that seek my service.

Dave I beleive all this started from a comment that I made about an F40 being an "interesting car withan interesting history". It seems to me that some let their imagination run wild, or are in fact a touch insecure about the histories of their own cars...

Joe
www.joesackey.com

 

+1 agree totally, the innuendo is just self serving.

 

I think the public expects race cars to have been crashed & repaired, but is less forgiving of road cars having had the same fate. I think the Classiche Program seeks to address all these issues...

Joe
www.joesackey.com

 

Joe.

Then implications about histories of cars, or damages to said same need to stop from all parties here.

I've closed threads because of this.

I'm willing to accept that you fear lawsuits from unsupportable statements, or even from those that can be supported by documentation, photos or whatever. People sue over just about anything these days, right?

But if you guys are gonna toss **** at each other about these cars, then either put up or shut up.. Back up claims with facts, or leave the innuendos at home. It's more insidious to peck at the edges of a claim or rumor, than to simply state facts.

Pretty simple really. I'm tired of the mud slinging, and the reputation attacks that aren't bound by any sense of decency or fair play. I don't think I'm alone here, either.

DM