BRZ/FR-S vs. Ferrari Testarossa

[Turbowned]

OK, I'll admit it, I've got nothing better to do on a Monday morning. However, I just opened up the latest issue of Automobile to see that a 1986 Ferrari Testarossa had sold at Bonhams Auto Auction for $43,290.

Since some of you out there have a budget of greater than $30k to spend on a sports car, I thought it would be fun to compare the twins to what looks like a serious bargain on a classic Prancing Horse! I got to thinking, "jeez, if I had a cool $50k to blow on a sports car, that would be awfully tempting!" Obviously these cars are quite a bit different, and you certainly wouldn't be able to use the Ferrari as a daily-driver, but hey, they both have boxer engines and are both designed to go fast so why not?

Let's look at the specs:

1986 Ferrari Testarossa
Red over black leather interior
4.9 liter flat 12
Five speed manual transmission
380bhp, 333lb/ft
3,590lbs curb weight
Coefficient of drag: .36
0-60 in 5.5sec, 1/4mi in 13.6sec, top speed 180mph
Average fuel economy: ~13mpg
Original MSRP: ~$100,000 (approx. $209,000 adjusted for inflation)


I'll give my personal thoughts on who I think wins each category:

Outright performance: Testarossa
Looks/styling: BRZ/FR-S
Presence/Wow factor: Testarossa
Engine sound: Testarossa
Price: BRZ/FR-S
Maintenance/operation costs: BRZ/FR-S
Aftermarket support: Who needs to mod a Ferrari? OK, Tubi/Kreissieg exhaust, and done.
Reliability: BRZ/FR-S
Gets you laid: Testarossa

Share with me your thoughts on the topic: if you had $50k and plenty of money for maintenance/gas sitting in a bank account and had the choice to buy a sports car as a toy (not a daily driver), would you consider picking up the quintessential symbol of Ferrari excess, or would you decide to be more reasonable/practical and get the BRZ/FR-S?

[Mishimoto]

Tough decision here. If I had a backup vehicle I would probably end up with the Ferrari, If not I would choose one of the twins.

The aesthetics of both are definitely my style, its hard to argue with a 12 cylinder.

[Dadhawk]

You aren't factoring in the insurance cost. That could kill the deal alone. I speak from experience. In my mid-20s had the opportunity to get a rock bottom deal on a Ferrari. Problem is, the insurance was almost 40% of the cost of the car per year!

That was with a completely clean record, no tickets, no accidents. It would obviously be better for me now, but something that needs to be figured in the equation.

To answer the original question, it would be tempting but I'd be more likely to spend it on something with wings and a prop as a second vehicle since its for "joy riding" purposes only.

[Texas BRZ]

I drive my cars very enthusiastically, so I don't think I'd be able to manage the upkeep on an older exotic like this.

I'm all for buying a car and getting good use out of it... The Testarossa seems like a very limited use car for today and mostly to be stored in the garage as a collectors item... And that's not how I like to treat my sports car.

I'm happy with my new $25k FR-S with a factory warranty... Couldn't imagine the Ferrari as a second car either.

[Swancoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

You aren't factoring in the insurance cost. That could kill the deal alone. I speak from experience. In my mid-20s had the opportunity to get a rock bottom deal on a Ferrari. Problem is, the insurance was almost 40% of the cost of the car per year!

That was with a completely clean record, no tickets, no accidents. It would obviously be better for me now, but something that needs to be figured in the equation.

To answer the original question, it would be tempting but I'd be more likely to spend it on something with wings and a prop as a second vehicle since its for "joy riding" purposes only.

I speak from more experience. i.e. I currently own a Ferrari, and am currently paying for insurance on it. It is the cheapest car to insure that I own. I assume this is due to the fact that the accident rates are actually quite low.

Insurance quotes of 40% of the car's value sound ridiculous to me unless you're a teenager, have a very unclean driving record or bought the car for $3,000.

Buying a Ferrari, especially an older one is ALL about maintenance costs, not insurance costs.

[p911gt3]

Is it reasonable to say that all single men here should say the Ferrari just because of the last line in your comparison? lol

[p911gt3]

Originally Posted by Swancoat

I speak from more experience. i.e. I currently own a Ferrari, and am currently paying for insurance on it. It is the cheapest car to insure that I own. I assume this is due to the fact that the accident rates are actually quite low.

Insurance quotes of 40% of the car's value sound ridiculous to me unless you're a teenager, have a very unclean driving record or bought the car for $3,000.

Buying a Ferrari, especially an older one is ALL about maintenance costs, not insurance costs.

I would just like to remind everyone that Insurance-Credit-Score does play a significant part in insurance costs, not to mention coverage limits and state. The same coverage in CA may cost 1.5x as much in NC. States with No-Fault coverage may differ from states not offering it.

However, I would like to comment that swancoat is correct in saying the biggest expense for Ferrari's is the maintainence. Especially the Mid 80's to mid 90's. Historically, Porsche, Lamborghini and Ferrari were hurting in reliability ratings during this time period. This rough patch in terms of quality is widely regarded as one of the reasons the NSX did so well at the time of its release.

All I can say about Porsche vehicles from those years is:
DME problem,
Leaky Power Steering,
Leaky Water Pump Lubricant seal,
DME problem,
DME problem

However, this is only a single anecdotal datapoint.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Swancoat

I speak from more experience. i.e. I currently own a Ferrari, and am currently paying for insurance on it. It is the cheapest car to insure that I own. I assume this is due to the fact that the accident rates are actually quite low.

Insurance quotes of 40% of the car's value sound ridiculous to me unless you're a teenager, have a very unclean driving record or bought the car for $3,000.

Buying a Ferrari, especially an older one is ALL about maintenance costs, not insurance costs.

That may very well be the case, particularly today, this was many years ago (30), I was young (22) and it was going to be my "only" car so the insurance was for 20K miles per year (stupid I know, but refer to age to explain). Good to hear that has changed since then.

Oh, and I was getting it for about half of what the bluebook was at the time for a Daytona. It was a divorce sale, the husband was going to lose it to the wife and he didn't want her to get it. My boss actually ended up buying it.

I agree though, maintenance is the bigger concern on an exotic this age if you can't/aren't working on it yourself.

[Swancoat]

Buying a Daytona 30 years ago (especially at half of bluebook) would have paid off nicely by today!

[sho220]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

if you had $50k and plenty of money for maintenance/gas sitting in a bank account and had the choice to buy a sports car as a toy (not a daily driver), would you consider picking up the quintessential symbol of Ferrari excess, or would you decide to be more reasonable/practical and get the BRZ/FR-S?

Those two give it to the Ferrari...

[Tanuki]

I have driven this car. I am happy I own my toyota when compared.

[Turbowned]

Hehehe, I have not, but it was my first car love, as I had a 1:18 scale Burago model when I was old enough to talk Most kids either had a poster or this or the Lamborghini Countach on their wall as kids, and it seems like now is the best time to pick up one of these "dream cars" (as non-dreamy as their ownership might turn out to be), as their average auction prices are hovering around the $60-70k range for both the Ferrari and the Lambo. Too bad I still don't have the money, but for those who do....

Originally Posted by Swancoat

I speak from more experience. i.e. I currently own a Ferrari, and am currently paying for insurance on it. It is the cheapest car to insure that I own. I assume this is due to the fact that the accident rates are actually quite low.

Insurance quotes of 40% of the car's value sound ridiculous to me unless you're a teenager, have a very unclean driving record or bought the car for $3,000.

Buying a Ferrari, especially an older one is ALL about maintenance costs, not insurance costs.

This was exactly what I was thinking. Especially if you have it insured as an antique/classic through Hagerty or equivalent with limited usage selected.

Maintenance on a Ferrari flat 12 though?

Yeah.... And don't you know I'd be the idiot who would want to buy a Bentley manual (the publisher, not the automaker) and try to do the maintenance myself!

[Tanuki]

Dont get me wrong, it is a sweet car and it blows my mind when I see my friend's, but it is just not for me.

[2forme]

I'd opt for a BRZ with Accelerated turbo kit.