Of course you lose 50k, theres also 50k in markup in the car. You buy a Porsche 996TT, drive it off the lot, you lose 20K, same premise, on half the cost. The Lambo or the Fcar will lose money initially just as the porsche, but later decline at a slower rate.

 

Low-mileage 2000 360s in excellent condition are currently selling for nearly their 2000 MSRP (see www.cars.com). If you bought a 2001 turbo and kept it in you living room until 2004, see if you could do the same. Too many cars with ordinary styling and somewhat ordinary performance (in today's world) is the problem.

 

When the 930 came out in 1978, it's 5-second 0-60 was absolutely extraordinary. "Turbo" was on everything for 20 years.

Now a Porsche turbo is not the fastest car. On ordinary roads with ordinary drivers, it will be met or beat by a Viper, Corvette, Mercedes sedan (!), Lamborghini, Ferrari and now even a Ford. That was not true in 1978. The problem is Porsche's changes were just too small. It took them over 15 years to go from a 0-60 in 5 seconds to 3.9 seconds! That gave everyone plenty of time to catch up.

 

No, I quoted a poll by actual owners illustrating their actual experience with the cars. I've yet to see anything remotely like this offered to support the Fcars are a POS argument.

 

I don't think many feel Fcars are a POS -- but wouldn't you agree that their reliability has been suspect ... Yes they have improved dramatically from the real trash days, but do you know many people who use a current Ferrari for let's say 10k miles a year without issues? maybe a poll should be run ... my informal poll of at least 5 people I know (non-MB) is that they had (or perceived) problems, enough to have to 1) drive the car a minimal # of miles and 2ndly lead to eventual sale. This is with 360/550 experience, not older models. Of course I still want a 575 though

 

I was indeed one of the ignorants up to a couple months ago when it comes to the reliability and service needs of the 360. I've not talked to a single owner yet who has had anything negative to say about their experience in either respect - and I've talked to a lot of them. As a result of realizing I'd just been helping further a myth that dates back to when it was based on reality, I bought one. It would seem the harder and more often they are driven, the more reliable they are. Then again, remember I've not heard anything negative from the poseur garage queen owners to the drive the **** out of them guys. So, maybe they're just rock solid either way. That said, I doubt I'll own the Fcar longer than the 3 year warranty anyway. Given I've only put on 16k miles in 4 years on my 996, I'm expecting to pay for tires, pads and a 5k service during my ownership.

 

My 355 has been trouble free.

 

Most people dont want to pay the Ferrari service bill.

 

i agree

 

Yes, Porsche is cheap to fix! LOL

 

A broken porsche is worth fixing. Whereas a broken ferrari or lambo is not.

A porsche is a car worth driving. A ferrari is a prize that's worth owning.

 

No need to fix the Porsche, junk it, buy a new one.

 

Are you kidding. A 356 or spyder or any 911 is worth fixing forever. An old lambo (minus the miura) you wouldn't want to be caught dead with, like old out-of-date Italian clothes.

 

Allanlambo, your 97 spider worth more the than 01 turbo, they are cost about the same when both are new, ferrari has best resale value hands down.

 

Yeah id definately never be caught dead in an old Countach! LOL

Im not a fan of the older Lambos, ie Espada, Urraco, Jarama etc. But values on them have been increasing. Saw an old Espada sell for 50,000! On the same note, im definately not a fan of an old Porsche either, wouldnt be caught dead in a 356 or early 911.