It is fascinating that Porsche still uses a steel structure and their cars are so light, yet Corvette has switched to an all aluminum one and it's still not lighter than the Porsche. The field vision is a similar argument brought up between the Mclaren 12C and the Ferrari 458. The former permits the driver to sit better on the road, reportedly, but the 458 is the more visceral experience, nonetheless.

Here, apparently, the more visceral experience was the 911. Again.

You're right, none of them make financial sense. It's ultimately a value argument - I can get approximately the same car for 1/8 - 1/2 the price. In real life, price is everything. People don't wake up and say I need a new car - let's shop and see which one is best regardless of price, a Ferrari or a Honda?

Well put.

They clearly say they based their ranking on handling: Porsches really ARE sweet driving cars. The Ferrari came in third because of handling, even at a third of a million dollars and a mesmerizing zillion RPM V12!

NOTE: There is GM engineering in all three cars: ALL have GM-patented "rheological" shocks

The GM engineers are have done a fantastic job and it shows: my C7 is 4B00 and I going nuts waiting for it. But if the 2016 C7 gets a double clutch tranny and AWD I will buy one in a heartbeat. I'm hoping GM gives them the freedom to continue to develop an ever-better car.

Billsee

He does not get it...some people have money to burn. He is not one of them.

Approximately by numbers, yes. But numbers are not the only things that make up a car. Nor does the car itself only define the ownership experience. The Porsche and Ferrari are in a different league in terms of customizing it to exactly the way you want it. The Porsche has safety and convenience features not found on the Corvette at any price. And while 911 and Corvette guys are smug in the knowledge that they bought the "better" car, the F12 buyer is stepping into an F12XX Evo at Spa Francorchamps or Monza, as part of Ferrari's client program in helping to formulate what its successor might be like.
As I say, the F12 might make financial sense in that it is a gateway to Ferraris that don't lose value and can even make money.

Example:
Enzo
2003 MSRP: $643,330
2013 Auction result: $1,320,000
http://www.rmauctions.com/lots/lot.cfm?lot_id=1057513

Buying a Corvette or Porsche 911 won't do anything for you in that regard.

:iagree:

These 3 posts absolutely nailed it!:yesnod:

Price is not everything to everyone. A buyer contemplating a Ferrari doesn't wake up and say I need a new car - let's choose the Honda because it's 70% as fast around a track for only 5% of the price. Meanwhile, for some Lambo buyers, they don't give a rat's a$$ that a 458 is faster on a track; they prefer the Lambo ethos and don't like the hoops that some Ferrari dealers make their customers jump through.
It doesn't have to be daily, but some people do buy cars more often than some people buy $50 steak dinners (which for some people never even happens once).

Except to those who do not want a dime a dozen car! Having something not everyone else does and the prestige is worth a lot of coin to some.

I have zero problems with the article and zero problems with Randy Pobst.

There are rumors that after the results of the last few such showdowns, Ferrari has indicated that they will never again lend anyone a new super car to go up against the Corvette ZR-1 type cars.

Everyone has forgotten that GM said that their target was the 911/991. I think this review clearly shows they have hit their target dead center. Once the new ZO7 hits the track, I believe it will reign supreme over any street car under $400,000 and will likely knock off most of those cars too.

Props to the GM teams!

And, for heavens sake, would everyone quit erupting in defensive acrimony anytime some guy says the C7 isn't the greatest thing on earth? It shows a lack of class and a lack of confidence in the C7. It simply says that maybe the nay sayers are right.

Another thing I forgot to mention that could add to the confidence is the AWD. Past Porsches have been noted for confidence-sapping rear-engined antics and power-on understeer (which should be worse with AWD), yet the 991 C4S seems very well balanced. With this added traction and lower power, it could mean that the driver is able to (or needs to) call upon more of the engine's rev range more of the time. This is also partly why the 458 offers the more visceral experience. It's naturally aspirated motor needs to be wound out more than the comparatively muffled and effortlessly torquey McLaren, but that adds to the fun factor. Which I'd argue is a huge part of the sports car buying decision in the first place.

The C7 is now 0-2 in comparos against the 911. I think the first one was Edmunds. I thought the ****** C6 seats and interior were the only things holding it back.

It's not a 911, it's a 4S. The ZO7 will handle the 4S quite nicely and still run $30k-40k less. Just as the C7 Z51 handles any 911 quite well.

MT's online editor:

"The type of person who buys a supercar isn’t always the same type of person who lusts over its specs and attempts to wring out every ounce of performance at the track. Ferrari should hope the latter group of enthusiasts aren’t clamoring for its new F12 Berlinetta, as we found in our First Test that the prancing horse’s latest flagship has more bark than bite — though its bite is probably more than enough for the average buyer’s needs. For today’s Thread of the Day, we want to know if you think F12 buyers should care that it’s not the fastest thing on earth.

In all fairness, the 2014 Ferrari F12 Berlinetta was never pushed as an all-out sports car, rather a very capable grand tourer. But considering it has 731 hp and 508 lb-ft of torque from a 6.3-liter V-12 and initial claims that the car could keep up in a straight line with an Enzo, we expected better than its 3.6-second 0-60 mph result. The culprits here are the F12′s curb weight of 4003 pounds and a lack of grip. The stock Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires couldn’t put the power down during hard launches, but once they gain traction, the F12 accelerates with the rapidity you’d expect from 700-plus-hp.

But how many Ferrari owners will go out to a track and explore the F12′s performance at the limit? In many ways, the F12′s specs and $322,638 starting price ($434,144 as tested) serve only as bragging rights for the uber-rich — a bonus to go along with its stunning exterior. Odds are many who can afford an F12 will spend most of their time driving on public roads. As we noted, though, even driving the front-engine coupe on the road can be a hair-raising experience, as the car constantly feels like it’s at the edge of its grip, which doesn’t enhance driver confidence.

What do you think? Should Ferrari F12 owners care about the car’s performance? Tell us in the comments below."

http://wot.motortrend.com/totd-shoul...ce-409917.html

I think those are all fair points. But what is puzzling to me, even more so, is their comment that the Corvette has the best steering of the three, and the Porsche, as we know, has tremendous steering. Here, I presume they mean steering feel, how much the car communicates to the driver. One would think the more communication, the better driver experience, at least that's how I interpret it. Therefore, it's even more surprising that the 911 won the comparison, regardless of price.

I would agree that that holds true, but within that regard and assuming all else is the same. What the C4S trades in steering feel, it could more than make up for in traction. Then there are the things we haven't touched on yet, like how the brakes feel (easy to modulate, descriptive of the surface, fade resistance). Is the car stable under braking? In the video, they commented that the C7 was great in the corners and on exits, but felt less stable than the C6 under braking.

I don't think they are picking cars for the performance....maybe the P car is just the better car in their eyes?

It was more than that. However, this is NOT the 997 Porsche that the C6 would have been most compared to. This is the 991 which is a major improvement over the 997. The fact that the 991 and C7 are so close now, even on the subjective areas where the C6 fell down vs. the 997, speaks volumes about how far the C7 has come.

Yeah, that's a gut-wrenching comment, IMO, that it's less stable than the C6. It's tail-happy, pitches, maybe has a little more body roll. They used the word "fear", that the car has to be respected, whereas the 911 there is no fear -- that's where the confidence comes into play. I have to say, again, I'm a bit surprised by the MT commentary.

I take the exact opposite from their comments. I think they were hugely positive.

A 465 ft.lb torque RWD car will ALWAYS be more tail happy and induce more fear than the low torque AWD car. It is part of the DNA. I have had track time in both types of cars and the difference in RWD vs. AWD on a track is meaningful. having said that, RWD cars are also WAY more fun IMO.

The fact that GM has tamed it to the extent it has (and MANY reviews have commented on how the C7 has made the performance so accessible to everyone vs. the C6) speaks volumes!!

I don't understand why the Stingray did not beat the P car in this competition?
The C7 cost less.
The C7 was faster 0 to 60
The C7 was faster around the track.
The C7 stopped shorter.
I did not read the entire article but what was the kicker as to why it did not score higher? Still love all three cars.