Ferrari vs Cessna

A

asicer

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
10,036
Display Name
Display name:
asicer
Someone at work mentioned that 25-35 year old Ferraris are bottoming out in price and might be an interesting collectible sometime in the future. This got me thinking...

Purchase Price
For the Ferrari consider the F355, last of the "classic" V8 Ferraris. For the Cessna consider the 172N-172P, last of the "classic" Skyhawks.
Ferrari: $40000-$70000
Cessna: $50000-$80000

Insurance
Specialty insurance on the F355, where you pretty much declare it a weekend toy but severely limits who can drive and how often, runs about $1000. Mainstream insurance (Geico, Allstate, AAA, etc) runs about $3000. We'll use the middle of the range.
Ferrari: $2000/year
Cessna: $1000/year

Annual
Ferrari's legally don't have an annual, but the maintenance schedule for a F355 calls for a timing belt replacement every 4 calendar years or so. It requires an engine removal and runs about $10000.
Ferrari: $2500/year
Cessna: $1000/year

Storage
Most residences usually include some sort of arrangement for parking at least 1-2 cars.
Ferrari: $0/year
Cessna: $125/month = $1500/year

Maintenance
Probably a wash.
Ferrari: parts made from unobtainium
Cessna: parts made from unobtanium

Fuel
Figure the Skyhawk is flown 100 hours per year or about 2 hours each weekend. 2 hours in the F355 probably translates to about 60 miles/week or 3000 miles/year.
Ferrari: 15MPG, $3/gallon = $600/year
Cessna: 8GPH, $4.50/gallon = $3600/year

Total
Ferrari: $55000 to start, $5100/year thereafter
Cessna: $65000 to start, $7100/year thereafter

If for some unknown reason I ever lose my medical, this might be something to think about.
 
asicer said:
Someone at work mentioned that 25-35 year old Ferraris are bottoming out in price and might be an interesting collectible sometime in the future. This got me thinking...

Purchase Price
For the Ferrari consider the F355, last of the "classic" V8 Ferraris. For the Cessna consider the 172N-172P, last of the "classic" Skyhawks.
Ferrari: $40000-$70000
Cessna: $50000-$80000

Insurance
Specialty insurance on the F355, where you pretty much declare it a weekend toy but severely limits who can drive and how often, runs about $1000. Mainstream insurance (Geico, Allstate, AAA, etc) runs about $3000. We'll use the middle of the range.
Ferrari: $2000/year
Cessna: $1000/year

Annual
Ferrari's legally don't have an annual, but the maintenance schedule for a F355 calls for a timing belt replacement every 4 calendar years or so. It requires an engine removal and runs about $10000.
Ferrari: $2500/year
Cessna: $1000/year

Storage
Most residences usually include some sort of arrangement for parking at least 1-2 cars.
Ferrari: $0/year
Cessna: $125/month = $1500/year

Maintenance
Probably a wash.
Ferrari: parts made from unobtainium
Cessna: parts made from unobtanium

Fuel
Figure the Skyhawk is flown 100 hours per year or about 2 hours each weekend. 2 hours in the F355 probably translates to about 60 miles/week or 3000 miles/year.
Ferrari: 15MPG, $3/gallon = $600/year
Cessna: 8GPH, $4.50/gallon = $3600/year

Total
Ferrari: $55000 to start, $5100/year thereafter
Cessna: $65000 to start, $7100/year thereafter

If for some unknown reason I ever lose my medical, this might be something to think about.
Click to expand...

Where can you get a hangar for $125 a month? The lowest I've heard around here is $400.
 
Years ago (when I was young and stupid), I looked into maybe getting an older Ferrari, and decided the oldest I'd go was a 360 Modena because IIRC it was the first model that didn't require pulling the engine for some of the servicing.

But I'm so glad I didn't get one, as it would have been a huge drain on my budget for what would have been, at most, a weekend toy.

I love Ferraris, especially the 360/430/458/488 line. I remember seeing a 360 for the first time in person and thinking it's one of the most beautiful body styles ever made. Still is. But I'll probably never be in a financial picture to own one. If I'm going to spend that much $$$ on a "toy" (ie, non-essential pleasure vehicle), I'd rather get an older SR22T someday and REALLY break the budget :)
 
If you're going to compare a Ferrari to a Cessna, I don't think a 172 is a good example. 172s are simple, really closer to a Ford than a Ferrari. Compare to a 340 and then let's try again.
 
As always, what's your mission? ;-)
Is there any pretense of practicality? If so, the Cessna probably gets a lot more validation.
If you're looking to show off to the public, the Ferrari has a decided edge for visibility.
 
G-Man said:
Is there any pretense of practicality? If so, the Cessna probably gets a lot more validation.
If you're looking to show off to the public, the Ferrari has a decided edge for visibility.
Click to expand...

Or go for both practicality and showing off, and get a Vision Jet :)
 
I owned a 95 348 spider. very fun, handled like a souped up go kart. I was told that the 348 was the last one before much computerization and therefore less expensive to maintain. but as someone mentioned it requires pulling the car for the required belt service which ultimately is what led me to sell it.
attachment.php(3).jpeg
 
Last edited:
I spend about $800 a year on insurance, and maybe $300 a year on parts. Cessna 177. $2340 a year on a hangar.
 
I have never understood people's obsession with a Ferrari. They have to be one of the worst cars of all time from a quality and dependability front. Who cares how they drive, with the exception of the super elite nobody is going to take their Ferrari to the limit. In day to do driving they are terrible to live with. But since people fawn after these over priced Fiero's they will increase in value while your Cessna sits pretty much flat.

If you want a nice driving car that will be somewhat reliable and gain value go buy and air cooled Porsche. They are still over priced for what they are but at least you can enjoy it without fear of bursting into flames. Or better yet, if you just like to drive go buy a Corvette.
 
Were I in the market for a supercar I'd buy a Vette. The new ones will do everything a supercar can do for about a quarter the price. Vettes rock. Best thing is I had a bike that'd easily outrun any Ferrari or any other car for that matter. It cost 6 AMUs to buy, nothing to store and not much in maintenance. Was wildly uncomfortable to ride below about 100 mph.
 
At 10k for a TB I would just roll the dice. Unless Ferrari uses natural leopard foreskin to make the belts they are going to last longer than 4 calendar years.

If you want to speculate on it appreciating, why change the TB or insure the thing at all ? Pickle the engine ans put it on blocks in a climate controlled warehouse.

I have an old Porsche. Regular plates, regular insurance and if need be I take it to work. Too much fun to put it on a pedestal.
 
asicer said:
Someone at work mentioned that 25-35 year old Ferraris are bottoming out in price and might be an interesting collectible sometime in the future. This got me thinking...

Purchase Price
For the Ferrari consider the F355, last of the "classic" V8 Ferraris. For the Cessna consider the 172N-172P, last of the "classic" Skyhawks.
Ferrari: $40000-$70000
Cessna: $50000-$80000

Insurance
Specialty insurance on the F355, where you pretty much declare it a weekend toy but severely limits who can drive and how often, runs about $1000. Mainstream insurance (Geico, Allstate, AAA, etc) runs about $3000. We'll use the middle of the range.
Ferrari: $2000/year
Cessna: $1000/year

Annual
Ferrari's legally don't have an annual, but the maintenance schedule for a F355 calls for a timing belt replacement every 4 calendar years or so. It requires an engine removal and runs about $10000.
Ferrari: $2500/year
Cessna: $1000/year

Storage
Most residences usually include some sort of arrangement for parking at least 1-2 cars.
Ferrari: $0/year
Cessna: $125/month = $1500/year

Maintenance
Probably a wash.
Ferrari: parts made from unobtainium
Cessna: parts made from unobtanium

Fuel
Figure the Skyhawk is flown 100 hours per year or about 2 hours each weekend. 2 hours in the F355 probably translates to about 60 miles/week or 3000 miles/year.
Ferrari: 15MPG, $3/gallon = $600/year
Cessna: 8GPH, $4.50/gallon = $3600/year

Total
Ferrari: $55000 to start, $5100/year thereafter
Cessna: $65000 to start, $7100/year thereafter

If for some unknown reason I ever lose my medical, this might be something to think about.
Click to expand...

You might as well complete the calculations with a present worth analysis since you're 95% there. Assume some time period and interest rate.
 
Grum.Man said:
I have never understood people's obsession with a Ferrari. They have to be one of the worst cars of all time from a quality and dependability front. Who cares how they drive, with the exception of the super elite nobody is going to take their Ferrari to the limit. In day to do driving they are terrible to live with. But since people fawn after these over priced Fiero's they will increase in value while your Cessna sits pretty much flat.

If you want a nice driving car that will be somewhat reliable and gain value go buy and air cooled Porsche. They are still over priced for what they are but at least you can enjoy it without fear of bursting into flames. Or better yet, if you just like to drive go buy a Corvette.
Click to expand...

Lol, worst from a quality standpoint? I've only driven two (both owned by FIL) but I didn't see anything that was of low quality. They ran like they were on rails, especially the '90 Testarossa. He only owned them for about a year each, essentially due to wanting to say he owned one without having to eat the TB expenses or other high-$ maintenance items. Getting in/out of the Testarossa was certainly a chore you wouldn't want to do on a weekly basis, but once inside it was far better than any "Fiero". C'mon, I get not thinking that they're worth the price people pay for them, but comparing them to a crappy 80's Pontiac is a little disingenuous.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Lol, worst from a quality standpoint? I've only driven two (both owned by FIL) but I didn't see anything that was of low quality. They ran like they were on rails, especially the '90 Testarossa. He only owned them for about a year each, essentially due to wanting to say he owned one without having to eat the TB expenses or other high-$ maintenance items. Getting in/out of the Testarossa was certainly a chore you wouldn't want to do on a weekly basis, but once inside it was far better than any "Fiero". C'mon, I get not thinking that they're worth the price people pay for them, but comparing them to a crappy 80's Pontiac is a little disingenuous.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is at all. If you strip away the badge and reputation of a Fiero and park it next to a similar vintage Ferrari nobody short of a car guru wouldn't think they were related that maybe the Fiero was a base model.

Ferrari_308_and_Pontiac_Fiero_1-18_scale_models_(illustrative_of_Ferrari_v._Corporate_Concepts_involving_Mera)_no._5696.jpg

1988-Pontiac-Fiero-GT-cabin-03.jpg

Ferrari%20Testarossa%20(8).jpg
 
Grum.Man said:
I don't think it is at all. If you strip away the badge and reputation of a Fiero and park it next to a similar vintage Ferrari nobody short of a car guru wouldn't think they were related that maybe the Fiero was a base model.
Click to expand...

Having similar appearances has nothing to do with quality of craftsmanship or materials. Hell, a Datsun 240Z looks a lot like a Ferrari 250 GTO, but I don't think anyone is saying the Datsun was of equal quality.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Having similar appearances has nothing to do with quality of craftsmanship or materials. Hell, a Datsun 240Z looks a lot like a Ferrari 250 GTO, but I don't think anyone is saying the Datsun was of equal quality.
Click to expand...

We will just have to disagree on this one. In those days Ferrari used cheap plastic switches just like Pontiac. If anything the Pontiac was better built, you don't see many Ferrari with 30k miles that don't need major work much less 100k+. Fitment was no better either at Ferrari, those cars are literally falling apart after 30k miles or less. obviously the Ferrari had a better performing engine but that was GM just trying to protect Corvette. Ferrari cars are like Range Rovers, people buy them because they give them status and sell them or return the lease before the catch fire or fall apart at 30k miles. haha.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If you're going to compare a Ferrari to a Cessna, I don't think a 172 is a good example. 172s are simple, really closer to a Ford than a Ferrari. Compare to a 340 and then let's try again.
Click to expand...
Yeah; if you compare by top speed, youp
G-Man said:
As always, what's your mission? ;-)
Is there any pretense of practicality? If so, the Cessna probably gets a lot more validation.
If you're looking to show off to the public, the Ferrari has a decided edge for visibility.
Click to expand...
If your mission is to get somewhere, the Ferrari is likely
SoonerAviator said:
Lol, worst from a quality standpoint? I've only driven two (both owned by FIL) but I didn't see anything that was of low quality. They ran like they were on rails, especially the '90 Testarossa. He only owned them for about a year each, essentially due to wanting to say he owned one without having to eat the TB expenses or other high-$ maintenance items. Getting in/out of the Testarossa was certainly a chore you wouldn't want to do on a weekly basis, but once inside it was far better than any "Fiero". C'mon, I get not thinking that they're worth the price people pay for them, but comparing them to a crappy 80's Pontiac is a little disingenuous.
Click to expand...
He may be thinking of 30+ years ago; they were crap (my boss had one, and a Rolls, and I got to drive both numerous times. Both hideously expensive if you had the dealer work on them.) They've gotten better; the Acura NSX proved that one could have a [at the time] super car and drive it daily. Ferrari took note, and in only a decade or so, sorted things out.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Same as all other GM cars except for the dressing.
Click to expand...

Well, not always 100% the same, but close. Most of the top-performance models had a few extra goodies in Pontiac trim that you couldn't get in Chevy trim. (WS-6 Firebird vs SS Camaro) (GXP Grand Prix vs Monte Carlo SS, etc.) In any case, the "dressing" was the best part anyway. It took the boring Chevy and added more aggressive body lines.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Same as all other GM cars except for the dressing.
Click to expand...

Disagree. No Chevy could touch my Bonneville SSEi with its combination of speed, comfort, and style. GM has yet to come out with a car better than the Pontiac G8 or one as fun to drive as the Solstice. Hell, even the Fiero mentioned above, that thing was a blast to drive.
 
Let's not forget the crown jewel of the Pontiac dynasty, the mighty Aztek!

267901.jpg
 
Grum.Man said:
We will just have to disagree on this one. In those days Ferrari used cheap plastic switches just like Pontiac. If anything the Pontiac was better built, you don't see many Ferrari with 30k miles that don't need major work much less 100k+. Fitment was no better either at Ferrari, those cars are literally falling apart after 30k miles or less. obviously the Ferrari had a better performing engine but that was GM just trying to protect Corvette. Ferrari cars are like Range Rovers, people buy them because they give them status and sell them or return the lease before the catch fire or fall apart at 30k miles. haha.
Click to expand...


I just haven't seen the same thing, with my limited Ferrari experience. The '90 Testarossa had closer to 60K on the clock, and it looked brand new. The '98 F355 was more refined than the Testarossa, but wasn't quite as "iconic". I only drove the F355 around for a few miles on a rural road, so I can't attest to much of its handling prowess. Either way, from a mechanical aspect, the two are worlds apart in design and I don't think I'd want to be in a Fiero going 100+mph, the Testarossa felt right at home above 100mph.
 
Grum.Man said:
I have never understood people's obsession with a Ferrari. They have to be one of the worst cars of all time from a quality and dependability front. Who cares how they drive
Click to expand...
Uhhhhh... you obviously don't get the point of a Ferrari. Save for the few GTO models, they are race cars. They aren't designed nor intended for everyday driving.
 
FORANE said:
I owned a 95 348 spider. very fun, handled like a souped up go kart. I was told that the 348 was the last one before much computerization and therefore less expensive to maintain. but as someone mentioned it requires pulling the car for the required belt service which ultimately is what led me to sell it.
View attachment 66920
Click to expand...

Man, I've always wanted a red 348 targa. Sweet car. What do you mean by "requires pulling the car for the required belt service"?
 
BrianNC said:
Man, I've always wanted a red 348 targa. Sweet car. What do you mean by "requires pulling the car for the required belt service"?
Click to expand...

He meant “pulling the engine” as accessing the timing belt and associated components is only possible by dropping the engine/subframe out of the car. That means having a lift and competent (read: expensive) mechanics who are usually trained in exotic car repair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SoonerAviator said:
He meant “pulling the engine” as accessing the timing belt and associated components is only possible by dropping the engine/subframe out of the car. That means having a lift and competent (read: expensive) mechanics who are usually trained in exotic car repair.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ouch.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If you're going to compare a Ferrari to a Cessna, I don't think a 172 is a good example. 172s are simple, really closer to a Ford than a Ferrari.
Click to expand...
I can't afford the $11million for a GT40 :)
FORANE said:
I owned a 95 348 spider. very fun, handled like a souped up go kart. I was told that the 348 was the last one before much computerization and therefore less expensive to maintain.
Click to expand...
I thought it was the F355, hence "the last of the classic V8 Ferraris". I was told the 360 Modena was the start of the modern era. Maybe it's more because of the aluminum and plastic that replaced the steel and leather.
Grum.Man said:
I have never understood people's obsession with a Ferrari.
Click to expand...
Yup. Almost as nonsensical as spending tens of thousands of dollars per year to sit in a loud, hot, unconfortable, noisy, dangerous piston airplane a couple times a week. ;)

Trying to explain a Ferrari to a non-enthusiast would be like trying to explain being a pilot to a non-flyer. I'll try a little bit but will probably regret it later: To begin with, Porsches, Corvettes and Fieros don't have a 5 valve engine with a screaming 8500RPM redline.

Actually, I've probably already said much more than I should.:)

BrianNC said:
Man, I've always wanted a red 348 targa. Sweet car.
Click to expand...
I'm more of an F355 person myself. Those cheese graters on the flanks are just too 1980's-1990's for me.
 
Last edited:
Depends how you look at it. 355 was the first with the "F1" trans. The 430 was the last with a gated manual
 
labbadabba said:
Disagree. No Chevy could touch my Bonneville SSEi with its combination of speed, comfort, and style. GM has yet to come out with a car better than the Pontiac G8 or one as fun to drive as the Solstice. Hell, even the Fiero mentioned above, that thing was a blast to drive.
Click to expand...
/sarcasm
 
BrianNC said:
Man, I've always wanted a red 348 targa. Sweet car. What do you mean by "requires pulling the car for the required belt service"?
Click to expand...
You don't pull the engine. you pull the car off the engine cradle for the belt service.
 
I always wanted a Countach
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top