Damn you Egan...

TR8owner wrote: In reply to Andy Reid: I remember the owner I knew once saying that his 308 took the "Fix it again Tony" concept to a higher lever. :-)

The fact that 308s were more "affordable" than the V-12s creates problems for all future owners. When these cars were new, many people had the wherewithall to buy one. Unfortunately, they didn't have enough money to "own" one. Many folks do not understand the ongoing financial commitment necessary to own one of these cars. So they take shortcuts or skip maintenance altogether. This dilutes the car's reputation in the used car market. People signing on as a second or third owner inherit all the problems and lack of proper maintenance caused by previous owners. If one cares enough and has the financial resources necessary to rehab the car plus maintain it as required, they can be extremely rewarding. Otherwise, it's a frustrating money pit.

Tahoe wrote:

wspohn wrote: In a very real car-guy sense, anything but a V-12 is not really a proper supercar.

What a load of you know what! Come clean, I know you don't really believe that in a "very real car-guy sense".

Yes, actually I do.

Have you ever owned a V-12 powered super car? If not, get back to me when you have and we'll see if it changes your opinion - because if you haven't, then you don't really have any basis for offering an opinion because you have no first hand experience, just supposition.

There is a clique of mostly Americans that worship the V8, but aside from that, much of the rest of the world holds the V-12 format in highest esteem.

Jerry From LA wrote: People signing on as a second or third owner inherit all the problems and lack of proper maintenance caused by previous owners. If one cares enough and has the financial resources necessary to rehab the car plus maintain it as required, they can be extremely rewarding. Otherwise, it's a frustrating money pit.

Exactly right, Jerry! You need history on these cars because what would be normal routine maintenance on most cars can be a serious hit to the wallet on the 308s. They can be delightful cars, although not really that fast as these things go today, but I have first hand knowledge of two ownerships that ended in tears.

I always wonder how much of the appeal is attributable to the 'Magnum Effect'.

In reply to wspohn:

What a load of you know what! Come clean, I know you don't really believe that in a "very real car-guy sense".

Yes, actually I do.....If not, get back to me...

Please tell us you're not really serious? I honestly thought you were joking when I read your first post. I still want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

wspohn wrote:

Tahoe wrote:

wspohn wrote: In a very real car-guy sense, anything but a V-12 is not really a proper supercar.

What a load of you know what! Come clean, I know you don't really believe that in a "very real car-guy sense".

Yes, actually I do. Have you ever owned a V-12 powered super car? If not, get back to me when you have and we'll see if it changes your opinion - because if you haven't, then you don't really have any basis for offering an opinion because you have no first hand experience, just supposition. There is a clique of mostly Americans that worship the V8, but aside from that, much of the rest of the world holds the V-12 format in highest esteem.

Guess what, you're right. I've never owned a V12 nor do I have the means to own one. However, I don't hold any V8's in esteem either. I certainly don't think V12's or any other cylinder configuration deserves a certain advantage over any other configuration in regards to what makes a supercar. I won't deny the sound from such a machine is intoxicating to say the least, but if you limit supercar status to only those cars with a V12's you're dening too many other bonifide entrants onto that elite list.

In reply to Tahoe:

Wasn't the last time Ferrari used a V12 in F1 around 1995 or so. Guess this guy has never heard of the Ferrari F40. But then why would he since it was only a V8 so can't possibly qualify as a super car. Neither would Mercedes SLR McLaren, Koenigsegg, Brabus B63, Vector V8, Lotus Elite V8 turbo, Ford GT or any Porsche ever made since they don't have V12's. And this is just a few off the top off my head.

Hmm... one could use a 308 as a basis for one of these:

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2011/04/12/hemmings-find-of-the-day-1967-ferrari-p41979-ferrari-308-gt4/?refer=news

Joe Gearin wrote: Our hobby isn't a logical one, it is a passionate one!

... how true it is.

After growing-up with the hopes of someday getting a 308 GTS, I recently entered the market in search for one. After reading a bit here and there I learned that 308's have been known for "suspiciously-vanishing-motor-oil" syndrome. Regardless of being a low-millage or several thousand miles 308, the motor will eventually need to have oil added regularly without any engineering or Ferrari factory explanation; no one seems to know where the oil goes! This has redirected my search for a 328 GTS. The 328 motor is apparently more maintenance-friendly and reliable. Especially by not having to remove the motor for certain minor service intervals, thus reducing this expense considerably. I know this is not a Ferrari site, but I just joined the forum today and happened to stumble onto this thread. Any ideas or sites where I could continue my research? Thanks, Robert

Andy Reid wrote: I have honestly never known anyone who has bought a Ferrari with eyes wide open who has not thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

I'm working on owning one Andy, as I stated above. But I'll tell you this, my cousin flew to Palm Beach last year to meet me at the Barret-Jackson Auction and we rented a low millage F430 for the weekend. We certainly checked one off the bucket list. Sure, the technology on this F1-type Ferrari with paddle shifters, etc, doesn't compare to the 80’s 308 or 328, but they all have their own attractive personality.

Robert

~HERE~ is a guy on another forum talking about his recent restoration of a 308. He mentions the Egan article.

In reply to aeronca65t:

Thanks!

Hmm... I wonder how hard it would be to take a 308 engine and Megasquirt it... ...oh wait... wrong forum.

If a cheap 308 sounds scary... how about a "cheap" Testarossa?

http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/ferrari/testarossa/1222479.html&refer=news

A cheap TR should scare anyone and everyone. The clutch replacement is a $7,500 bill. Seriously, that is the case of a car that you cannot fix in your own garage and need to take to a proper facility for any work. A cheap one runs about $40,000 and the best ones about $60,000. Spend the 60k and you still have a car that is atrociously expensive to run.

Next on the flame war happening here, let me step back a bit and offer some insights and background.

I have owned a number of V12 cars including a Ferrari Daytona and a Daytona spider(V12's). Also I have owned a Maserati Ghibli(V8), a Lamborghini Jalpa(V8), a Aston Martin DB7(6 cylinder), a Ferrari 308 GT4, a Ferrari Mondial a Ferrari 328 GTS(All V8's) and a 911 Turbo(Flat 6).

Even when compared to each other or even modern cars, all of them are supercars. Don't think so? Drive one and get back to me.

To the comment from the poster about all supercars I offer the McLaren F1 as an argument against your statement. Does anyone seriously not consider the F1 a supercar? Also how about the Ferrari 288 GTO and the the Ferrari F40(Both V8 Powered) and the Ferrari Enzo(V10)? Lets not limit it to Ferrari, how about the Lamborghini Gallardo(V10).

A supercar is defined by much more than the engine it has. It is the magic combination of elements that makes it fast, beautiful, not very sensible and a blast to drive.

Also keep in mind I did mention a good V8 Ferrari and not a bargain one. The cars needs a full service history to be considered. Want a great inexpensive example, here is one:

http://fantasyjunction.com/cars/1053-Ferrari-308%20GT4-3.0%20liter%20V8

In reply to Andy Reid:

I know beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, but doesn't the GT4 remind you of either a stretched out Fiat X19 or a less pretty Lotus Elite? I've always thought the GT4 is a bit fugly, at least compared to many other Italian cars. Even bright red paint can't salvage it.

I fit in the GT4. :) Too tall for a GTB or GTS. I can make myself fit in either and actually has a 328 but it was still uncomfortable. I also fit in the Mondial, another one I have owned and I like the Mondial styling wise a bit more than the GT4 but after painting the GT4 and doing the interior I decided to keep it.

Andy Reid wrote: To the comment from the poster about all supercars I offer the McLaren F1 as an argument against your statement. Does anyone seriously not consider the F1 a supercar? Also how about the Ferrari 288 GTO and the the Ferrari F40(Both V8 Powered) and the Ferrari Enzo(V10)? Lets not limit it to Ferrari, how about the Lamborghini Gallardo(V10). A supercar is defined by much more than the engine it has. It is the magic combination of elements that makes it fast, beautiful, not very sensible and a blast to drive.

I made the comment in regard to Ferraris, which is what we are talking about. The full meal deal with Ferraris is a V12. The rest are a step down.

I don't get taken in by the Ferrari mystique and believe that a car has something you can't see or fell by driving it. You can call a Dino a Ferrari (but Ferrari never did) or a 914 a Porsche (but Porsche never did - not in Europe where people were less easily fooled than in North America), but it doesn't make them supercars.

I agree that there are lots of supercars with other engine formats, in other makes, and you have cited a bunch of them. But for Ferraris, (or Lamborghinis) the V8 is a step down from their supercar stratum, that's all.

Everyone (car nuts, anyway) should own an Italian high performance sports car at least once in their life and just hope it doesn't hurt too much (usually a chronic ache in the wallet) and that the times when it is running well make up for all the other times.

I still beg to disagree with you over the Ferrari deal. The F40 and the 288 GTO are both bona fide Ferrari supercars and neither have V12 engines. The V12 engine making a Ferrari a supercar stems from a one time quote by Enzo that real Ferrari cars all have V12 engines. He later retracted this quote as well.

To be really accurate, the F40 may well be the first Ferrari supercar and as I stated above, it definitely has as a V8.

Opinions?

In reply to Andy Reid:

"Opinions? "

Its beyond me how anybody could not consider F40 or GTO as super cars, even with a "lowly" V8 engine. Its not like the V8 in these cars is a Chev or Ford btw.

Didn't the first Ferraris have I-6 engines?

The V8 V12 argument is bunk. I owned a 400i in 2003 and that is NOT a super ar. I would rather have another 3000GT VR4. It was a great cruiser and I plan to own a 308GT4 for that reason again in the future. Owners without the money or inclination for proper maintenance is the biggest worry.

Here's a real head-scratcher...

http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/ferrari/308gtb/1249777.html

Only a V-12?

I admit I was pretty impressed by my first experience with a 567 cubic inch supercharged V-12. But if you're looking for real power & might, you need to consider a 645 cubic inch V-24 with a turbo, overhead cams, & 4 valves per cylinder.

That ride will make everyone else look like they are stopped!

That gives me displacement envy.