Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can understand why it's a dream car to anyone coming of age in the early '80s, but in every other respect it's a poor choice. You've already mentioned the maint costs, but even if money were no object there are plenty better cars. Every single V12-engined Ferrari before and since is arguably a better car. Among 1980's-era Ferraris it can't hold a candle to the two greats, the 288 GTO and F40. IMO.
You're right about the 288GTO and F40 being nicer cars. That's why they are around 5x-10x the market value now of the Testarossa...
It's hard to explain, it's less of a rational decision for my love of the Testarossa and more of an emotional one. You either hate or love the styling, and I personally love it. The car is just so beautiful to me and the side strakes just look awesome. That said, styling is purely subjective and probably most people would make other choices. Either way, you can't lose
And they're a little cramped in the trunk department.
LOL, I wouldn't be too worried about the trunk space
I sometimes daily drive a Lotus when it's a week of nice weather. While it has a trunk, the space is next to nothing and the Elise's space makes the Testarossa "trunk" (cargo space under the front hood) look like an SUV. I just use the passenger seat when I want to carry more groceries and I'm a happy guy
LOL, I wouldn't be too worried about the trunk space
I sometimes daily drive a Lotus when it's a week of nice weather. While it has a trunk, the space is next to nothing and the Elise's space makes the Testarossa "trunk" look like an SUV. I just use the passenger seat when I want to carry more groceries and I'm a happy guy
Did you ever see the video of Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear trying to get into a Lotus?
I can understand why it's a dream car to anyone coming of age in the early '80s, but in every other respect it's a poor choice. You've already mentioned the maint costs, but even if money were no object there are plenty better cars. Every single V12-engined Ferrari before and since is arguably a better car. Among 1980's-era Ferraris it can't hold a candle to the two greats, the 288 GTO and F40. IMO.
most supercars today can't hold a candle to the f40 let alone the testarossa. as a kid i used to love the testarossa but looking at it now it just looks like an overweight money pit. i don't know if i'd use any italian car as a daily driver as i don't think reliability was much of a priority. if i had my choice of ferrari for a weekend runabout i'd probably go with a 60's model dino 206s, 275 p, 275 p2 etc. loved the bug like appearance
as a daily driver? surely you'd go for something a little more exotic if money was no object and you wanted something as a weekender? i've considered a 912/911 (early 70's) but my budget won't stretch that far. haven't seen anything decent for less than $15k.
if money was no object for me i'd be driving one of these:
Nice choice, robbo. Those Mercedes 540 cabriolets are classics in every sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSX
You're right about the 288GTO and F40 being nicer cars. That's why they are around 5x-10x the market value now of the Testarossa...
It's hard to explain, it's less of a rational decision for my love of the Testarossa and more of an emotional one. You either hate or love the styling, and I personally love it. The car is just so beautiful to me and the side strakes just look awesome. That said, styling is purely subjective and probably most people would make other choices. Either way, you can't lose
Oh, there are instances of old engines lasting 300,000 miles.
At a car show a few years ago, there were two cars in the parking area with over 400,000 miles on the original engines... a '68 Chrysler 300 and a '70 Dodge Charger with a 383 engine.
I have a Popular Mechanics magazine from the '80s which had an article of owners with high-mileage cars. They listed the mileage and whatever work was done to the car. Quite a few were over 200,000 miles. Many needed only minor work done, like a new water pump. Many also never had the engine taken apart for a rebuild.
Sure I have no doubt as to what you write is true. I was more addressing the point of overall, rather than anectedotal examples. I have a 1951 Ford Flathead V-8 I take care of like my baby and it runs better than most engines today. That "swish, swish, swish swish" sound is a beautiful purr.
you gotta be kidding me. that LTD is a beast in anyone's eyes. you could probably fit australia in the trunk and the giant's defensive line in the back seat! lol
well australia wont really fit, but put a 79 fiesta in the trunk as a spare just in case
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well australia wont really fit, but put a 79 fiesta in the trunk as a spare just in case
