Would I be mad to buy a 360CS at current prices?
Discussion
I ask myself a question before I buy any car that has increased in price over a few years. Why didn't I buy it when it was cheaper and why do I want it now its expensive? I didn't buy a 360 a few years ago as I didn't like the look of them, however all of a sudden my mind has changed and they are suddenly more desirable and attractive, why is that?
Why did I sell an immaculate M635CSi 2 years ago for £10k and why did it take me 3 months to sell with hardly any offers? Why have the prices shot up as the car is a dog to drive and own? One sold at auction a few weeks ago for £101,000!
If you buy a low (ish) mileage CS for £200k will you use it or will you be scared to in case you lose money?
So if I really want a car I also say to myself would a buy a scruffy high mileage example, drive it hard and love it? If the answer is yes then I would buy it, if the answer is no but you still want one then it's for investment so as all investments prices can go up as well as down.
Met 2 people recently who both turned down F40's several years ago for under £300k and now know they will never have one. Also have a friend who bought a scruffy Dino 8 years ago for £45k and drove it loads and then sold it 2 years ago for a fortune! Perhaps its these stories that make us want to buy something before we can't.
This is the reason I recently bought an F355, I always fancied one and thought I must get one before they are un-affordable, however I didn't get 'investment quality' as I wanted to drive it.
If you really want a CS or any car apply the 'why not a few years ago' and 'would a buy a scruffy LHD high miles one to drive' If you answer yes to both then buy it.
Why did I sell an immaculate M635CSi 2 years ago for £10k and why did it take me 3 months to sell with hardly any offers? Why have the prices shot up as the car is a dog to drive and own? One sold at auction a few weeks ago for £101,000!
If you buy a low (ish) mileage CS for £200k will you use it or will you be scared to in case you lose money?
So if I really want a car I also say to myself would a buy a scruffy high mileage example, drive it hard and love it? If the answer is yes then I would buy it, if the answer is no but you still want one then it's for investment so as all investments prices can go up as well as down.
Met 2 people recently who both turned down F40's several years ago for under £300k and now know they will never have one. Also have a friend who bought a scruffy Dino 8 years ago for £45k and drove it loads and then sold it 2 years ago for a fortune! Perhaps its these stories that make us want to buy something before we can't.
This is the reason I recently bought an F355, I always fancied one and thought I must get one before they are un-affordable, however I didn't get 'investment quality' as I wanted to drive it.
If you really want a CS or any car apply the 'why not a few years ago' and 'would a buy a scruffy LHD high miles one to drive' If you answer yes to both then buy it.
Just to highlight the CS differences vs the Modena I found this very informative piece from www.clubstradale.com
_
All 360's have a blue printed engine, they where all hand built too with a very high specific output per litre. Both the 360 and CS engines utilize impressive rotating weight reduction measures to allow high revs such as use of titanium connecting rods and high compression lightweight forged aluminium pistons. All engines where engine cell tested by Ferrari at 10,000rpm for 1 hour.
On the CS the new specification very marginally higher compression ratio pistons and (existing) ti connecting rods where selected with even more balance and precision (right down to sub gram level) than on the higher volume Modena. Doing the same fine balancing on every Modena engine would have added more delays to the production volumes which obviously they didn't see as worthwhile for a +/- 2% (worst case of -8bhp) difference which isn't really noticeable on the open road. The only really matters for the Challenge & GT cars.
The CS used same processes as what where already being used on 360 Challenge cars. I.e. more careful tolerances to the blue print specifications. All this does is ensure its built exactly per the computer CAD drawing, i.e. to exacting specs. The actual main differences in power output where due to mapping for lower back pressure, higher resolution air flow meters and increased variable valve opening timings.
On the more aggressive mapping. Specific improvements where made at the high rpm range where on the Modena the power tails off dramatically, this was possible due to even smoother airflow from the carbon airboxes. (The manufacturing processes used to make the Aluminium air box covers meant it wasn't possible to shape them to their optimum airflow vs the carbon covers) and specific mapping for the lower back pressure exhaust system. While the Modena was optionable with the racing exhaust and when you did this you also got improved engine maps very similar to the cs ones (except the cs ones took advantage of the higher reading air flow meters at high revs - the air flow meters where basically larger so didn't digitally and physically strangle the car at the highest peak outputs).
The engine powering both the CS and Modena is a 90-degree 3586cc V8, the bore is 85mm and a stroke of 79 mm. Due to different pistons compression ratio is slightly raised on the CS, (11.0:1 for the Modena vs 11.3:1 for CS). Delivering peak power at 8,500rpm, it produces 112bhp per litre on Modena and 118bhp per litre on the CS. Both deliver the same peak torque figure of 38kgm @ 4,750rpm, and the torque curves even all the way up to 8,000rpm.
The Combustion chamber design differs from the F355 on which it was derived and in this guise utilize 3 intake valves and 2 exhaust valves (5 valves per cylinder). These are driven by four camshafts (two per bank) with hydraulic tappets. Lubrication is of the dry sump type which prevents oil surge or starvation problems during high G cornering.
The main engine castings are in light alloy (sand cast at Ferrari's own foundry) with wet steel cylinders liners, titanium connecting rods and forged aluminium pistons. There is a particularly innovative inlet system feeding fuel separately to each cylinder bank. The Bosch Motronic ME7.3 dual engine management system, with two control units and two throttle valves that communicate through a Controlled Area Network (CAN).
The ignition computers use a Drive by Wire throttle, using the position of the accelerator pedal and taking into consideration the vehicle speed, the ASR system and the F1 gearbox, the control units determine the actual throttle opening, the geometry of the variable inlet manifold, the exhaust timing and the engine control parameters. At high rpm the CS engine mapping achieves extra power over the Modena by controlled overlapping of both the exhaust and intake cycle to increase gas velocity over the Modena's more conservative mapping.
There are two manifolds above the engine, which are connected to the underlying row of cylinders through short vertical ducts and the opposite bank of cylinders through longer ducts. Intake geometry is adjusted by two rows of throttle valves activated by the engine management control units. Air to the manifolds is supplied by the air intake in the left rear quarter panel, which was designed to feed air in under pressure and thus produce a slight increase in power output - an extra 10 bhp at top speed.
Engine noise is controlled by an acoustic baffle on the manifold. The exhaust system features variable back pressure with two valves on the silencer outlets.
At low engine speeds the valves are closed, enhancing low end torque delivery while reducing noise to meet drive by noise emissions standards. At high engine speeds the valves open giving greater power and also increasing noise, the optional Racing exhaust first introduced on the Modena becomes standard on the CS and utilises a more aggressive bypass tubing layout allowing even freer flowing output. A specially tuned air box restonator was designed (a black plastic box) for the CS to remove some of the unwanted resonance and has a specific CS part number.
_
All 360's have a blue printed engine, they where all hand built too with a very high specific output per litre. Both the 360 and CS engines utilize impressive rotating weight reduction measures to allow high revs such as use of titanium connecting rods and high compression lightweight forged aluminium pistons. All engines where engine cell tested by Ferrari at 10,000rpm for 1 hour.
On the CS the new specification very marginally higher compression ratio pistons and (existing) ti connecting rods where selected with even more balance and precision (right down to sub gram level) than on the higher volume Modena. Doing the same fine balancing on every Modena engine would have added more delays to the production volumes which obviously they didn't see as worthwhile for a +/- 2% (worst case of -8bhp) difference which isn't really noticeable on the open road. The only really matters for the Challenge & GT cars.
The CS used same processes as what where already being used on 360 Challenge cars. I.e. more careful tolerances to the blue print specifications. All this does is ensure its built exactly per the computer CAD drawing, i.e. to exacting specs. The actual main differences in power output where due to mapping for lower back pressure, higher resolution air flow meters and increased variable valve opening timings.
On the more aggressive mapping. Specific improvements where made at the high rpm range where on the Modena the power tails off dramatically, this was possible due to even smoother airflow from the carbon airboxes. (The manufacturing processes used to make the Aluminium air box covers meant it wasn't possible to shape them to their optimum airflow vs the carbon covers) and specific mapping for the lower back pressure exhaust system. While the Modena was optionable with the racing exhaust and when you did this you also got improved engine maps very similar to the cs ones (except the cs ones took advantage of the higher reading air flow meters at high revs - the air flow meters where basically larger so didn't digitally and physically strangle the car at the highest peak outputs).
The engine powering both the CS and Modena is a 90-degree 3586cc V8, the bore is 85mm and a stroke of 79 mm. Due to different pistons compression ratio is slightly raised on the CS, (11.0:1 for the Modena vs 11.3:1 for CS). Delivering peak power at 8,500rpm, it produces 112bhp per litre on Modena and 118bhp per litre on the CS. Both deliver the same peak torque figure of 38kgm @ 4,750rpm, and the torque curves even all the way up to 8,000rpm.
The Combustion chamber design differs from the F355 on which it was derived and in this guise utilize 3 intake valves and 2 exhaust valves (5 valves per cylinder). These are driven by four camshafts (two per bank) with hydraulic tappets. Lubrication is of the dry sump type which prevents oil surge or starvation problems during high G cornering.
The main engine castings are in light alloy (sand cast at Ferrari's own foundry) with wet steel cylinders liners, titanium connecting rods and forged aluminium pistons. There is a particularly innovative inlet system feeding fuel separately to each cylinder bank. The Bosch Motronic ME7.3 dual engine management system, with two control units and two throttle valves that communicate through a Controlled Area Network (CAN).
The ignition computers use a Drive by Wire throttle, using the position of the accelerator pedal and taking into consideration the vehicle speed, the ASR system and the F1 gearbox, the control units determine the actual throttle opening, the geometry of the variable inlet manifold, the exhaust timing and the engine control parameters. At high rpm the CS engine mapping achieves extra power over the Modena by controlled overlapping of both the exhaust and intake cycle to increase gas velocity over the Modena's more conservative mapping.
There are two manifolds above the engine, which are connected to the underlying row of cylinders through short vertical ducts and the opposite bank of cylinders through longer ducts. Intake geometry is adjusted by two rows of throttle valves activated by the engine management control units. Air to the manifolds is supplied by the air intake in the left rear quarter panel, which was designed to feed air in under pressure and thus produce a slight increase in power output - an extra 10 bhp at top speed.
Engine noise is controlled by an acoustic baffle on the manifold. The exhaust system features variable back pressure with two valves on the silencer outlets.
At low engine speeds the valves are closed, enhancing low end torque delivery while reducing noise to meet drive by noise emissions standards. At high engine speeds the valves open giving greater power and also increasing noise, the optional Racing exhaust first introduced on the Modena becomes standard on the CS and utilises a more aggressive bypass tubing layout allowing even freer flowing output. A specially tuned air box restonator was designed (a black plastic box) for the CS to remove some of the unwanted resonance and has a specific CS part number.
355fiorano said:
Just to highlight the CS differences vs the Modena I found this very informative piece from www.clubstradale.com
_
<snip>
To summarise: CS has exactly the same engine as the 360 with a bit more time inspecting the tolerance of the parts used, a slight increase in compression and more aggressive mapping. It has the optional 360 sports exhaust fitted as standard and the air box is different to reduce resonance with these changes._
<snip>
In other words, the CS has a mildly tuned 360 engine.
rubystone said:
355fiorano said:
Funny how each one reconfirms their own biases when reading the exact same text....
I'm not biased and read it the same. Doesn't stop me thinking the CS is a very nice car indeed. Lets not also forget that increased power was only a part of the difference. The CS is significantly lighter by about 90KG
baypond said:
I read somewhere that the CS churns out the BHP advertised and the modena tends to undershoot by up to 20bhp meaning the power difference tends to be greater than it looks on paper.
Lets not also forget that increased power was only a part of the difference. The CS is significantly lighter by about 90KG
Yes,quite. Imagine my surprise then when I lined up against Rviant's stock 360 spider at VMax to find that we were absolutely neck and neck until we got to the braking area into the hairpin. While I edged ahead on the brakes, this was probably later on the pedal than an effect of the CCBs. There was nothing in it over the rest of the runs. Lets not also forget that increased power was only a part of the difference. The CS is significantly lighter by about 90KG
While I didn't think much on it at the time, this is one of many little things that lead me to my conclusions above.
355fiorano said:
A specially tuned air box restonator was designed (a black plastic box) for the CS to remove some of the unwanted resonance and has a specific CS part number.
They make that sound something special whereas in reality its a cheap heavy plastic unnecessary box which I ditched in favour of the challenge part. The reality is, that in my opinion the driving experience is very different and if the only yardstick was speed then for me it misses the point about what the CS is about. I have owned both and although I actually really enjoyed the 360 Spider, the CS is simply a better driving experience.
For me I see the value by appreciating what has been done. Of course one can gloss over anything to say "this is a bit better here and a bit better there, but it's all marginal" and it's just a reflection of their own priorities on value.
What I read from that piece is that the engine parts selected are the most perfect possible, they have been put together to the tightest of tolerances and in a similar way to the race cars vs the road cars, there are some internal changes to compression and airflow and the whole package has been maximised by the mapping used. All these have also been tested to 10k RPM for an hour (which is std procedure) to make sure of the expected performance.
Sure you can replicate this but the cost benefit analysis would not work as the gains would be minimal to modest depending on the original engine you start with and how far off optimal it is. And I'm sure most would not then do similar tests and discard parts of the results were not as expected.
When I buy the CS engine however I know this has all been done and it is a precision job by the factory. When you then put all the components together it feels quite special.
Can someone replicate that? Yes
Can you take a 360 and make it quicker than a CS? Yes
Can you make a CS quicker? Yes
Would you do any of the above in the same way Ferrari did it? Not on the cost benefit analysis as well as testing infrastructure required.
I for one and it seems the market, values that with a premium (which as per my previous posts I hope will not increase for a while).
What I read from that piece is that the engine parts selected are the most perfect possible, they have been put together to the tightest of tolerances and in a similar way to the race cars vs the road cars, there are some internal changes to compression and airflow and the whole package has been maximised by the mapping used. All these have also been tested to 10k RPM for an hour (which is std procedure) to make sure of the expected performance.
Sure you can replicate this but the cost benefit analysis would not work as the gains would be minimal to modest depending on the original engine you start with and how far off optimal it is. And I'm sure most would not then do similar tests and discard parts of the results were not as expected.
When I buy the CS engine however I know this has all been done and it is a precision job by the factory. When you then put all the components together it feels quite special.
Can someone replicate that? Yes
Can you take a 360 and make it quicker than a CS? Yes
Can you make a CS quicker? Yes
Would you do any of the above in the same way Ferrari did it? Not on the cost benefit analysis as well as testing infrastructure required.
I for one and it seems the market, values that with a premium (which as per my previous posts I hope will not increase for a while).
baypond said:
The reality is, that in my opinion the driving experience is very different and if the only yardstick was speed then for me it misses the point about what the CS is about. I have owned both and although I actually really enjoyed the 360 Spider, the CS is simply a better driving experience.
I have a CS but have not driven a 360. But I had a 430.I also had a 993RS which had similar CS style changes to the standard 993. Although nothing in it acceleration wise, they were like chalk and cheese in every other department.
And, for me, that is the whole point. The CS/RS are all about handling and sensitivity to driver inputs. The standard models simply don't deliver this in the same way.
If you want 0-100 buy an AMG Merc.
355fiorano said:
What I read from that piece is that the engine parts selected are the most perfect possible, they have been put together to the tightest of tolerances and in a similar way to the race cars vs the road cars, there are some internal changes to compression and airflow and the whole package has been maximised by the mapping used. All these have also been tested to 10k RPM for an hour (which is std procedure) to make sure of the expected performance.
Sure you can replicate this but the cost benefit analysis would not work as the gains would be minimal to modest depending on the original engine you start with and how far off optimal it is.
When I buy the CS engine however I know this has all been done and it is a precision job by the factory.
I used to think like that but it simply isn't true. Some bits that are put together are just laughable. The precision you describe sounds as if you're talking about a Mclaren. Sure you can replicate this but the cost benefit analysis would not work as the gains would be minimal to modest depending on the original engine you start with and how far off optimal it is.
When I buy the CS engine however I know this has all been done and it is a precision job by the factory.
The knocking suspension fault on a stradale is a prime example. It's a myth to think these cars are put together to laboratory esque tolerances.
What attracts me to the brand and the product is the art I see, hear and feel in the car but I won't fool myself into thinking it's a well engineered product because it isn't.
15HN said:
The knocking suspension fault on a stradale is a prime example.
Interesting subject. My CS was in at Colchester Ferrari recently for service. I literally begged them to replace drop-links etc as I assumed the knocking was a symptom of a problem in that area.
The wouldn't as they insisted it was to do with the brakes (I can't remember what they said precisely but it could have been pads rattling?) and definitely nothing to do with the suspension. I really pushed them on it and they really could have just taken my money..but they wouldn't!
355fiorano said:
For me I see the value by appreciating what has been done. Of course one can gloss over anything to say "this is a bit better here and a bit better there, but it's all marginal" and it's just a reflection of their own priorities on value.
What I read from that piece is that the engine parts selected are the most perfect possible, they have been put together to the tightest of tolerances and in a similar way to the race cars vs the road cars, there are some internal changes to compression and airflow and the whole package has been maximised by the mapping used. All these have also been tested to 10k RPM for an hour (which is std procedure) to make sure of the expected performance.
Sure you can replicate this but the cost benefit analysis would not work as the gains would be minimal to modest depending on the original engine you start with and how far off optimal it is. And I'm sure most would not then do similar tests and discard parts of the results were not as expected.
When I buy the CS engine however I know this has all been done and it is a precision job by the factory. When you then put all the components together it feels quite special.
Can someone replicate that? Yes
Can you take a 360 and make it quicker than a CS? Yes
Can you make a CS quicker? Yes
Would you do any of the above in the same way Ferrari did it? Not on the cost benefit analysis as well as testing infrastructure required.
I for one and it seems the market, values that with a premium (which as per my previous posts I hope will not increase for a while).
I think it is completely different to look at if one can modify a 360 to make it better (and esp more capable on track) than a CS - I would say that is without a doubt possible What I read from that piece is that the engine parts selected are the most perfect possible, they have been put together to the tightest of tolerances and in a similar way to the race cars vs the road cars, there are some internal changes to compression and airflow and the whole package has been maximised by the mapping used. All these have also been tested to 10k RPM for an hour (which is std procedure) to make sure of the expected performance.
Sure you can replicate this but the cost benefit analysis would not work as the gains would be minimal to modest depending on the original engine you start with and how far off optimal it is. And I'm sure most would not then do similar tests and discard parts of the results were not as expected.
When I buy the CS engine however I know this has all been done and it is a precision job by the factory. When you then put all the components together it feels quite special.
Can someone replicate that? Yes
Can you take a 360 and make it quicker than a CS? Yes
Can you make a CS quicker? Yes
Would you do any of the above in the same way Ferrari did it? Not on the cost benefit analysis as well as testing infrastructure required.
I for one and it seems the market, values that with a premium (which as per my previous posts I hope will not increase for a while).
Looking at values and if they are warranted or not is a completely different topic. I think they are as it is a limited edition Ferrari that was produced in low(ish) numbers (as opposed to Scud, Speciale). But this does not make it a better (or worse) car. And I don't buy that "only because Ferrari didn't do it, it has to be worse" - Ferrari - like all manufacturers - builds to a budget and - to a degree - to the smallest common denominator so that most of its buyers find the car attractive
456mgt said:
No doubt that the whole classic car market has rebased and IMV there's little chance of it returning to prices from 4-5 years ago. The most fundamental shift, again IMV, is that the new car market has also rebased and cars either look 'cheap' or 'expensive' with regard to what else you could buy with that money.
Entry level supercars are now 200-250K from 100-120K several years ago, where you'd also find 40K 355s or 200K F40s. Special edition 911s are in a different league now, and even fast estates (AMG, RS6, Panamera sport tourismo) are stroking 100K or more. I know that there are many factors driving the market, but this seems to me to be one of the key ones- what else does that quantum of cash get you, and then does a classic look good value or expensive versus that benchmark.
Based on what else you could buy, the CS is 'worth' about 150K. I had one for 3 years, and while it's good, it isn't great. For example, it's contemporary, the 996 GT3RS, is a much better car and looks to me to be 'worth it'.
The thing is how much of that new car price movement would continue in a crash when one happens? A lot of the price rises will be funded by cheap borrowing and look more due to QE. Also for supercars how much of the price rises are related to the old cars gaining value, so that the car companies will charge more for new ones instead of leaving very big profits for the flippers? Entry level supercars are now 200-250K from 100-120K several years ago, where you'd also find 40K 355s or 200K F40s. Special edition 911s are in a different league now, and even fast estates (AMG, RS6, Panamera sport tourismo) are stroking 100K or more. I know that there are many factors driving the market, but this seems to me to be one of the key ones- what else does that quantum of cash get you, and then does a classic look good value or expensive versus that benchmark.
Based on what else you could buy, the CS is 'worth' about 150K. I had one for 3 years, and while it's good, it isn't great. For example, it's contemporary, the 996 GT3RS, is a much better car and looks to me to be 'worth it'.
I don't think we'd get to the old prices again, but it is likely there will be a crash at some point, and even without that if interest rates go up lead by the US then a significant amount of investor money is likely to leave the car market and push prices down.
Countering that is new money from China etc.
I remember when they were going up £5k, sometimes £10k if not £20k a week.
Now they're going down £5k every few days...
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
Now they're going down £5k every few days...
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff