my87944s

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...tem=4520227372

joseph mitro

i'm not an expert, but if i'm correct that's actually a dino, the predecessor to the 308.

my87944s

well, i am even less of an expert... but the manuals and the insignia say Dino 308GT4...

Chris_924s

308GTB would be my Ferarri money pit of choice- well besides a 264GT California..
Nontheless- a dead sexy car.

Chris_924s

I was perusing the Ferrari's for sale on e-crap- not one of the 61 for sale have 100K miles?? WTF!!

Do they not make it that far?

FSAEracer03

Chris, you know as well as I that Ferraris aren't like Porsches. They aren't made to be driven. They are made to gawk at and get you laid. When owners get the misconception that they're meant to be driven, the Ferrari politely reminds them of their error and breaks down (many times in the form of blowing a head gasket). Pre-355 Ferraris are not cars to buy if you are a "driver"... not unless you are "rich"

Chris_924s

I s'pose you have a valid point Kev. Buy it new and pimp it out when you are done. I guess resale is nothing when you are spending 500K for a known loser. But a complete engine rebuild at 30K miles? None of us would ever stand for that crap, we'd be in Supra's in no time flat.

Thank Ferry for reliability. Ferrari's are pretty- in the garage where they belong.

FSAEracer03

Truer words have never been spoken, Chris.

Btw guys... here's my take at the F-cars. I'm a performance minded guy, as many of us are. Sex appeal and passion are one thing... but what gets my juices flowing isn't just looks and sounds, it's the feel of g-forces. Not only did the 944/951 outhandle almost all of the Ferraris of it's day, it was even quicker in a straight line!

Here's observation point #1, this car: (times are 0-60 and 1/4mi)
1977 Ferrari 308 GTB 8.2 17.0
For another point, here are other Ferraris that was made around the timeframe of the 944/951 series:
1986 Ferrari GTO 5.0 14.1
1990 Ferrari 348 tb 6.0 14.3
1989 Ferrari Testarossa 6.2 14.2

Here are the numbers for our beloved cars, stock, from their day:
1984 Porsche 944 9.0 16.4
1987 Porsche 924 S 7.8 15.8
1986 Porsche 944 Turbo 6.0 14.6

Not only are the ol' 944 and 924 S quicker than that f-car, the stock '86 951 almost matches the 348 from 4 years and about $60k later, the GTO (which was the first of the Ferrari supercar series),and the ever-coveted Testarossa . Factor in that the 951 outhandles it, and with $200 of mods falls into high 13's... why bother? Ferrari's are neat to be driven and all, but IMHO aren't up to par with shear exhilaration! The average modified 951 on these boards is most likely as quick as many of the 90's Ferraris, as the 456, 348 and 355 ran throughout the 13-second range.

Anyways.. that's my take on it. More performance and reliability for far less money. That and I just love driving my car!!

Dan87951

I love the looks of Ferrari's but man they are built no better than a Yugo IMO. I was talking to a salesman at the Detroit Autoshow and he says for a car that cost that much it shouldn't have to spend more time in the shop than your own garage. I got a kick out of it and agreed, but they are deadly gorgeous cars, expecially the new F430.

Chris_924s

I'll stick with my daily driver- a Porsche. Can Ferrari say daily? or Lambo? Any Italian supercar crap?

I'd LOVE to meet another daily driver guy driving Ferrari, Lambo etc. I'd eat my own hat.

Lets see a Italian car do 300K. I'd love to own one- but I'd be better looking at pictures and contnuing the Porsche driver tradition,

Dead sexy? Yes. Reliable? no. period.

pcarfan944

Ferraris aren't made to be driven? That has got to be one of the most assinine statements ever typed on this forum. Wow. Ignorance is bliss, I guess..

Mighty Shilling

Yay! I'm faster than a Ferrari!

cheetah chrome

Ouch man....the F40...the 348 challenge...512....the original testrossa...not driver's cars. Kevin..whats going on buddy?...some guy in an F car steal your girl or something?



If the house was built I'd seriously put a bid on this car. So close too....be a nice retirement gift for the old man!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...518906732&rd=1

Chris_924s

I am concluding that Ferarri's suck. Pretty to look at, great to drive when they are new.

If you cant pay the price for admission- stay away.

I do miss my 78 Ghibli purchased fron the original owner when he gave up- it was pretty to look at, but never ran correctly. A garage queen wannabe.

I guess thats par for the course.

TaylorSea4

Um... Kev, methinks you need to seriously double-double check those numbers. The last GTO (a twin turbo'd beast) did NOT run 14.1 quarters; I seem to recall it being faster than Testarossa it preceded. And a flat-12 Testarossa that's marginally quicker than a new Civic VTEC?? No.

Dude, I'm with you on the reliability, the daily use, the practicality, and even the classier coachwork. But a Testarossa is no slouch and would only bow to the REALLY fast 951/911 crowd. It should go without saying the F40 was (and still really IS) a top level supercar.

edit- The only reasons those awfully conservative numbers would be right is that the clutches were babied. Those cars I mentioned would be sucking PAINT off of any stock 951 or 930 by 3rd gear. And seeing as how a lot of us dis drag racing at every chance, are acceleration times really legit? Don't gemmie wrong. I think Ferrari's are WAY macho, but ya know, to suggest that they're not a driver's car just looks like pro-Porsche propganda.