The TC by Maserati was a late 80’s early 90’s car. It didn’t compete with anything Ferrari was making at the time. The TC was a glorified K car, Front wheel drive with a either a turbo 4 (with a head by Cosworth) or the exact same Mitsubishi engine Chrysler used in their minivans. It also looks alot like the much cheaper Lebaron (which could be had with the V6 engine). I don’t know what Iacocca was smoking when he decided that selling the TC for $35k+ was a good idea.
The entry level Ferraris at the time would’ve been the Mondial T, which at the time had 300 HP V8, mid-engine,RWD, and although it’s not considered one of Ferrari’s all time greats, compared to the TC, it’s exquisite. The 348 follow it as the entry-level Ferrari and again, it’s not mentioned in the same breath as the Testarossa, F40 or, Daytona, but when you’re comparing to a warmed over K car, it’s becomes much more attractive.
Once the public became wise to the reliability problems of the turbo 4 engine, and that it was essentially an overpriced version of the Lebaron, the already-weak TC sales cratered. I remember a local dealer who was so desperate to get one off of his lot that he priced it at ~$20k, but it still took him quite a while to move that iron.
The only significant difference with the TC was its upscale leather upholstery.
Why not get a cheaper, and easier-to-maintain sports car, such as a Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Toyota Celica, Honda Prelude, etc? Any of these models will offer excellent performance, far lower ownership costs, and the ability to carry additional passengers (there’s a back seat).
Well, while I am not a Chevy guy, I would not mind being given a ‘70 Monte Carlo 454 SS. Though if going in that direction a Boat tail Riviera would be preferred.
But neither are sports cars.
Everyone who has ever seen one knows. A Monte Carlo was even used in NASCAR for a number of years. It is most certainly a real sports car. And the styling of the final generation has aged quite well.
The vehicles used in NASCAR outwardly resemble the car that they purport to be. Underneath that “skin”, they are completely different from a car that came from the factory in terms of suspension, brakes, engine and transmission, and they even have a unique high-strength tubular steel frame. The frame is standardized across all NASCAR models, and the frames come from only one manufacturer.
In other words, the bodywork that an observer sees is essentially the only thing that a NASCAR Monte Carlo–or any other NASCAR model–has in common with a car that you or I could buy.
Similarly, the “Camrys” used in NASCAR racing had essentially no similarity to production Camrys, except for their outward appearance.
" For the Cup and Busch Series, though, Toyota opted to race a variation of its Camry family sedan. Admittedly, the similarities between the production Camry and its NASCAR kin were—and still are—limited to little more than a shared likeness, the former of which was—and still is—printed on the bodywork that drapes the latter Camry’s rear-wheel-drive chassis and V-8 engine (good luck finding a rear-drive, V-8 Camry at your local Toyota dealership)."
The Monte Carlo was not a sports car. The Prelude was nicknamed the Quaalude because it was so boring (and slow). The Celica was a sporty car althought not a sports car.
OP, are you seriously contemplating a Ferrari purchase ? I don’t want to be a hypocrite as I contemplate such a dream, too, the Lamborghini Huracan, and I always go look at them at wal*mart
There were “Monte Carlos” participating, back in the '80s & '90s, but just as with all other modern NASCAR competitors, its only similarity to a Monte Carlo that came from a GM factory was in its outward appearance.
