One emphatic vote for “Yes”!

by Wallace Wyss –

Sergio Marchionne head of Fiat Chrysler, said in remarks to the New York Stock Exchange Oct. 9th something to the effect of Ferrari will make an SUV.

Now I know the traditionalists are going to say “Horrors, no” after all they have fought the battle against a Ferrari four door sedan since the Pinin show car was developed and then shelved.

The traditionalists consider an SUV to be even more a slap across the face of ol’ Enzo, may he RIP.

I beg to differ.

PORSCHE THE MODEL

Here’s my argument. Porsche has a somewhat similar history to Ferrari. They have been in F1. They have been making sports cars for about the same amount of time (first Porsche in 1948). Where they differ is that, from time to time, Porsche has gone into middle class budget type cars like the 914 and 924, both made in VW factories.

But then it seems they would remember their mission was to build great driving sports cars and they would go back to developing something like the 911R, 911 Carrera, etc. Then they developed an SUV, the Cayenne. The traditionalists were against it, figuring it would dilute the image. They were wrong. The car was a rousing success, selling in the hundreds of thousands and spawned a lower price kin, the Mecan.

I think Ferrari recognizes that the people who bought the Cayenne were loyal Porsche owners but they didn’t want to drive their precious 911 in the winter, on salted roads (like in the Midwest) and wanted something sporty to drive in winter, hence a 4 WD machine.

After all, they had made it in their collective fields, be they doctor, lawyer or Indian Chief, and bought a cabin in the mountains so who are these critics to tell them they can’t drive a Porsche in winter, if only there was a 4WD version, which Porsche created to fill that need.

Porsche needed the SUV to expand its market (ever notice how much sand there is in the Middle East?) and Ferrari needs an SUV for the same reason—first to have something their proud buyers can drive to the cabin in Big Bear or Telluride in winter and secondly, to have something to drive all winter while keeping the more precious Ferrari two seater in their heated garage.

Ferrari needs to grow its unit volume faster than the growth of the super-high-end luxury car market, which has a big hiccough every time there is a bubble bursting in real estate, military contracts, etc.

Short sighted automakers anxious to make up for lost volume go around the showrooms cutting prices but that isn’t going to make you a profit. The solution? Make something the public wants. And expand into new segments.

Ferrari is not a low cost company to run. Built on the original idea that you would build race cars and then sell tamer versions of those cars to the public, they still need to be in racing. But look how long it’s been since they won Le Mans—more than 50 years. So racing drains money which other automakers don’t have to spend. Yet they need to do it for the honor of the marque. If selling 20,000 to 50,000 SUVs bearing the prancing horse badge in the grille will help them keep competitive in racing, why not?

Plus there’s the competition. Lamborghini’s SUV is just about on the market. Jaguar has a SUV. Maserati has an SUV. It hasn’t hurt their sales in the least.

I know the objections. I quote this one from the website Ferrarichat.com
“They are shooting themselves in the foot long term. Ferrari used to be special, a racing company that built road cars to support racing. They then evolved nicely and built truly unique special road cars and that created the reputation of being the best. Ferrari has lived off that reputation for a while and has even created the 2-year wait and new cars worth more than MSRP myth that is currently fueling it. Ferrari has become less differentiated from the competition and there is much more competition now than the 80’s and 90’s when it was just Lamborghini, Lotus, and sometimes Porsche. “

That same forum poster figures that when you demystify Ferrari, “There are now dozens and dozens of manufacturers that are beating Ferrari in looks, performance, racing, and price. When the bubble they’ve had going breaks it will be exponential. They will then keep increasing production and offering more and more standard cars. Ferrari will be something, but it won’t be the same company that created the passion for being the best.”

I disagree. A lot depends on how good it is. And how good it looks. And reliability-wise, well it will have to be pretty damn perfect, maybe not the match of their sports cars in terms of horsepower but a vehicle that is polishing the name “Ferrari.”

It is essential that they use the extra profit from an SUV to still make competitive cars in racing. Wins in F1 will justify a lot of this new direction.

WHO IS THE MARKET?

The amount scheduled to be built will be reflective of their intentions. If it is say, under 20,000, then they will count on exclusivity to keep the prices high. That would be the right amount if they are counting on Ferrari owners as buyers (maybe restirciting sales to those who currently own a Ferrari).

But if they throw out their current marketing scheme of “exclusivity” (used for limited edition models like LaFerrari) and are intent on expanding their reach to those who never owned a Ferrari, they are going to have to change a lot in the servicing, reliability and other areas so they can match Porsche.

In other words they aren’t ready to make a mass market car yet, with their current way of doing business.

In other words, the worst thing they could do with an SUV is bring out one that hasn’t been thoroughly tested (I mean across the steppes of Russia in winter, across the Saudi desert, etc.) and made super reliable.

If it’s a success, they can pour the profits into supercars, winning in F1 and GT’s, and building class leading sports/touring cars, and even develop a Dino that would rival the 911.

Another very astute observer on FerrariChat said that those opposed to a Ferrari SUV are “lament(ing) the loss of a company that never was. Ferrari had some amazing hits and a few misses. It still is a brand of dreams. Truth be told, I haven’t seen many misses, if any, lately. The product line is great and it seems to have a great future. Are they perfect? No, but I don’t think its a scorched earth by any means.“

In other words, it’s sort of like a demanding a film company that has one hit, keep making the same movie over and over (Fast and Furious anyone?) but an astute moviemaker will try different genres.

THE LOW COST ROUTE

They could make a Ferrari SUV on the same platform as the Maserati SUV just have a lot of Ferrari design cues. It doesn’t have to be 100% a new design…there are others who say that the Levante isn’t world class, that such a car wearing the Ferrari prancing horse would be disappointing but I say “reliability out of the box” is crucial and would rather have it built on a platform that has all the bugs out of it than a new platform that will get a bad rep if it has flaws.

The naysayers also say why not put the money on a lower cost sports car for a market below the current V8 and V12, with a Dino built at the rate of 3,500 a year?

True, that keeps the original mission but doesn’t solve the problem of Ferrari loyalists going up to Vail, Telluride, Big Bear or the Alps in winter.

RIDE THE WAVE

The whole thing is, when you are making products, you have to be like a surfer, ride the waves, on top of the waves preferably. Sure Leica could keep pushing film cameras but they embraced digital and still hold a reputation as one of the world’s finest camera makers.

Ferrari has to reckon with reality and the market is currently dominated by SUVs. Bentley had a very successful one and even Rolls is coming out with one so why not a Ferrari SUV ?

Let us know what you think in the Comments.

 
 
THE AUTHOR: Wallace Wyss, a fine artist, occasionally slips away from the easel to give an opinion. He has been involved with several automakers, including being a consultant with Ford, GM, and Lancia. A list of his car art can be obtained by writing Photojournalist2@gmail.com.