WI: Ferrari's Dino Marque Survives

Delta Force

Banned
The Dino marque was established to market a mid-engined V-6 powered car with price and performance more on par with the Porsche 911. At the time Ferrari vehicles were rear wheel drive V-12 powered designs with price and performance far higher than Porsches. The new marque was created to avoid diluting the Ferrari brand with lower tier vehicles, and also because Enzo Ferrari was concerned that the average driver wouldn't be able to safely drive a mid-engine vehicle. Also, Ferrari had to sell 500 vehicles powered by its Formula 2 racing engine to meet homologation requirements, so Fiat was contracted to build the Dino engines and a line of Fiat Dino sports cars to get volume up. The Dino marque only lasted from 1968 to 1976, with the Dino itself continuing in production until 1980, but as an official Ferrari.

Of course, while the Porsche 911 and similar vehicles (Jaguar, Aston-Martin, etc.) are still rather expensive and high prestige relative to typical offerings, Ferrari and Lamborghini are in a class of their own for that. It's possible the brands might lose some of their prestige by providing more affordable offerings. Of course, it's also possible that they might be viewed as baby Ferrari and Lamborghini cars and benefit from the prestige of the higher tier vehicles.

So, what would the survival of the Dino marque have meant for Ferrari and its competitors? Could something like it have been done without harming the reputation of the flagship brands? As an even more interesting option, could they have joined with one of the smaller performance automobile companies of the time (such as Bandini, which I made a thread about here) to create independent companies built entirely around selling performance and racing vehicles?
 

Delta Force

Banned
Could that strategy have worked? What about Ferrari and Fiat partnering to do something with Lancia? Lancia was already well known for its V-6 engines (it first developed them for automobiles), and it had a different image, being more rallying focused.
 
It might have worked, with the Dinos (badged Ferrari) selling very well. It might also have had the effect the Packard 120 had: wiping out the sense of exclusivity...:eek: A "cheap Ferrari" is still a Ferrari, which undercuts the value of the brand.

Could the Dino marque have carried on? IDK. How good were the sales? Not bad, I'd guess.

On a personal note, I especially liked the 246, one of the prettiest things Ferrari ever built.
 

Delta Force

Banned
It might have worked, with the Dinos (badged Ferrari) selling very well. It might also have had the effect the Packard 120 had: wiping out the sense of exclusivity...:eek: A "cheap Ferrari" is still a Ferrari, which undercuts the value of the brand.

Apparently the Dino marque was phased out because people who went to Ferrari dealerships were unfamiliar with the Dino brand. It either drove them to purchase one of the more familiar offerings in that price range, such as a Porsche, Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, etc., or it led them to look at more expensive Ferrari offerings.

Could the Dino marque have carried on? IDK. How good were the sales? Not bad, I'd guess.
They would make up a large amount of Ferrari production numbers for the era if included. This list omits the Dino marque. From 1968 to 1974 a total of 3,721 Dino 206 GT, 246 GT and 246 GTS vehicles were produced, compared to 8,574 Ferrari automobiles. Production of the Dino 308 GT4 and 208 GT4 (rebadged as the Ferrari 308 GT4 and 208 GT4 in 1976) overlaps with the earlier models, as it started in 1973, so Dino production represented probably almost a third of the company's total output.

It's large for Ferrari, but still a limited series compared to offerings from other companies. For example, there were 18,809 Series 2 Jaguar E-Type cars produced between 1968 and 1971, 17,000 Lotus Elan cars produced between 1967 and 1975. Porsche cites a production run of 81,100 for the Porsche 911 between 1963 and 1973.

On a personal note, I especially liked the 246, one of the prettiest things Ferrari ever built.
Indeed. It's interesting how obscure the Dino cars are given how many were made during that era for Ferrari, and also seeing as the Dino V-6 powered the Lancia Stratos.
 
Last edited:
Delta Force said:
Apparently the Dino marque was phased out because people who went to Ferrari dealerships were unfamiliar with the Dino brand. It either drove them to purchase one of the more familiar offerings in that price range, such as a Porsche, Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, etc., or it led them to look at more expensive Ferrari offerings.
So a Ferrari-badged variant could have drawn them in but not "pushed them away". That's a good sign.
Delta Force said:
1968 to 1974 a total of 3,721 Dino 206 GT, 246 GT and 246 GTS vehicles were produced, compared to 8,574 Ferrari automobiles. ...Dino production represented probably almost a third of the company's total output.
:eek: That would have helped Ferrari enormously, I'd think, given the company could have added a premium for having their badge on it. (Yes, that would cut sales somewhat, but...)
Delta Force said:
large for Ferrari, but still a limited series compared to offerings from other companies.
True. OTOH, Enzo claimed to build "1 fewer" as were wanted. (How Enzo would have dealt with a "mass market" model with his name on it, IDK...)

It does make me wonder if a Dino, badged Ferrari, could have averted, or at least pushed back, the FIAT takeover.
 

Delta Force

Banned
So a Ferrari-badged variant could have drawn them in but not "pushed them away". That's a good sign.

The price and performance niche for the base Dino/Ferrari model would probably be somewhere above that occupied by higher performance Porsche 911 variants (Porsche 911 Turbo, etc.). A Dino/Ferrari would have a unique look and get good performance and handling out of a naturally aspirated engine, while a high performance Porsche 911 would still look pretty much like a lower tier model and still have the rear engine design that was so difficult to drive until the development of computerized systems to ensure stability, traction, etc.

As for going lower market by offering something like that, well, the gambit might have worked. Ferrari has a strong brand premium due to its racing heritage. If the Dino models are also racers and also do well on the track, the position of the higher market models shouldn't be too damaged. Another way to go would be to build up Dino as a separate brand with its own unique identity. Perhaps it could be the Formula version of the models that American car companies produced for homologation. If people can see a direct connection between the street model and the racing model that could really help create a brand image. The homologation models for other companies are always limited production models that are highly modified from more mass market offerings, but every Dino/Ferrari could be built as close as possible to the racing model while remaining street legal. Every car could be a street legal racer, rather than just a handful.

:eek: That would have helped Ferrari enormously, I'd think, given the company could have added a premium for having their badge on it. (Yes, that would cut sales somewhat, but...)

True. OTOH, Enzo claimed to build "1 fewer" as were wanted. (How Enzo would have dealt with a "mass market" model with his name on it, IDK...)

It does make me wonder if a Dino, badged Ferrari, could have averted, or at least pushed back, the FIAT takeover.
Fiat actually produced the Dino engines. It was part of the arrangement for homologation, as Fiat didn't think Ferrari could produce enough engines to meet demand. Because Fiat hadn't acquired Lancia yet, they were used for the Fiat Dino. Despite Enzo's claims otherwise, there was no difference between the Dino and Fiat engines, as they were mechanically identical and produced on the same line.

I wonder if Ferrari could have dealt directly with Lancia to get volume up?
 
Delta Force said:
The price and performance niche for the base Dino/Ferrari model would probably be somewhere above that occupied by higher performance Porsche 911 variants (Porsche 911 Turbo, etc.). A Dino/Ferrari would have a unique look and get good performance and handling out of a naturally aspirated engine, while a high performance Porsche 911 would still look pretty much like a lower tier model and still have the rear engine design that was so difficult to drive until the development of computerized systems to ensure stability, traction, etc.
:cool: So at a minimum easier to drive & better performing, too... Better & better.
Delta Force said:
Ferrari has a strong brand premium due to its racing heritage.
Compromising that would concern me, were I Ferrari mgt.
Delta Force said:
If the Dino models are also racers and also do well on the track, the position of the higher market models shouldn't be too damaged. Another way to go would be to build up Dino as a separate brand with its own unique identity. Perhaps it could be the Formula version of the models that American car companies produced for homologation. If people can see a direct connection between the street model and the racing model that could really help create a brand image. The homologation models for other companies are always limited production models that are highly modified from more mass market offerings, but every Dino/Ferrari could be built as close as possible to the racing model while remaining street legal. Every car could be a street legal racer, rather than just a handful.
So, a *246GTO, race ready (or almost) off the dealer's lot?:cool::cool: And, unlike the NASCAR "homologation specials", one anybody can get anywhere (provided they can afford it...;)).:cool::cool::cool: I'm wishing this was a TL I lived in.;) (Not that I can afford one...:mad::p)

The only thing it's missing is the V12.:( (I recall a custom 308 with the 365 stuffed in it.:eek: It fit nicely, & made me wish Ferrari had built them. Tho TBH I was never thrilled with the 308's styling--& I doubt it would've fit in a 246.:()
Delta Force said:
Fiat actually produced the Dino engines. It was part of the arrangement for homologation, as Fiat didn't think Ferrari could produce enough engines to meet demand. Because Fiat hadn't acquired Lancia yet, they were used for the Fiat Dino. Despite Enzo's claims otherwise, there was no difference between the Dino and Fiat engines, as they were mechanically identical and produced on the same line.

I wonder if Ferrari could have dealt directly with Lancia to get volume up?
FIAT's probably right, given all. If we're giving Ferrari a boost, why not have them spend it "bribing" Lancia?:p

While we're at it, maybe we can persuade Enzo to offer a "cut price" V12 *246?:p (Dino 250GTO? Dino 200GT? Or even, to get the under-2l tax break, a 160GTO?)
 

Delta Force

Banned
:cool: So at a minimum easier to drive & better performing, too... Better & better.

The irony is that Enzo was worried that a midengine design would be too difficult for the average driver to handle. The engineers tried to convince him otherwise, and so the Dino became something of a proof of concept for the configuration, with Enzo figuring people would have less trouble with a V-6 than a V-12.

I'm not sure what the hesitation was regarding the midengine approach. Enzo must have been thinking about something like the Silver Arrow race cars from the 1930s, which did have design issues.

Compromising that would concern me, were I Ferrari mgt.

It might be possible to maintain some separation. When Dino was introduced Ferrari only sold V-12 cars, which means Dino would be selling V-6 and V-8 cars. The V-10 wasn't viable yet for gasoline engines, as it would have required multiple carburetors which would have been a nightmare to calibrate. An inline five needs one per cylinder, so a V-10 would need at least as many.

That's internal differentiation. In the marketplace Ferrari could make a name for itself by having purpose designed engines. Most companies produce their V-6 engines by omitting the last two cylinders of their V-8. A purpose designed V-6 can be optimized to be quite narrow, in addition to the other advantages of a purpose built design.

Boxer engines could be another interesting design to experiment with, especially for six and eight cylinder designs that lack balance in a V configuration. That would involve abandoning the V-6 design developed by Dino and Lancia (if they are a partner) though.
 
So, what would the survival of the Dino marque have meant for Ferrari and its competitors? Could something like it have been done without harming the reputation of the flagship brands?
To find success they'd need to address reliability issues because in the key American market such cars would be used by executives and the upper middle class as their daily drivers, much like the Porsche Boxster and 911 are today.

The Alfa Romeo 4C is the current, "affordable" mid-engined Italian sportscar, though its FIAT (fix it again Tony) ownership may challenge reliability.

141006102517-alfa-romeo-4c-1024x576.jpg
 
Delta Force said:
The irony is that Enzo was worried that a midengine design would be too difficult for the average driver to handle. The engineers tried to convince him otherwise, and so the Dino became something of a proof of concept for the configuration, with Enzo figuring people would have less trouble with a V-6 than a V-12.

I'm not sure what the hesitation was regarding the midengine approach. Enzo must have been thinking about something like the Silver Arrow race cars from the 1930s, which did have design issues.
:confused: AIUI, midengined cars are the best from a handling standpoint. The '30s Auto Unions were massively overpowered for their skinny rubber...:eek: And IIRC also handicapped by poor (swing axle) suspensions.

Delta Force said:
It might be possible to maintain some separation. When Dino was introduced Ferrari only sold V-12 cars, which means Dino would be selling V-6 and V-8 cars.
In theory. In practice, as Packard found out the hard way, maybe not...:eek:

If, however, *Ferrari accepted your GTO-standard proposal from the outset, I could believe the impact would be minimal. Especially since so many of the V12 GTs were (in theory, anyhow) race-ready.
Delta Force said:
Most companies produce their V-6 engines by omitting the last two cylinders of their V-8. A purpose designed V-6 can be optimized to be quite narrow, in addition to the other advantages of a purpose built design.
True. IIRC, the 246 had a 65 degree V6 (which was similar to the V12).

My thinking is, have Ferrari treat the Dino as entry-level but with comparable quality to what a buyer should expect from a (say) 365 & the highest possible performance from the smaller car.

In that vein, I'd market the *308 as a *Dino, too. (IIRC, it was the best-selling Ferrari ever.) Tho instead of the OTL 308's styling, I'd lean toward tweaking the 246 & stuffing the 3l V8 in it...:cool::cool:

There are reliability issues to be dealt with, too. I've read a story about an American owner complaining about the problems being told by the dealer there's a simple solution: move to Italy...:eek::p
 

Delta Force

Banned
What if Ferrari had decided to give the Dino marque a rallying heritage? Something akin to the Lancia Stratos could be developed for it. This could help Dino to establish a niche less defined by its relationship with Ferrari, being its own marque instead of downmarket Ferrari.
 
Delta Force said:
What if Ferrari had decided to give the Dino marque a rallying heritage? Something akin to the Lancia Stratos could be developed for it. This could help Dino to establish a niche less defined by its relationship with Ferrari, being its own marque instead of downmarket Ferrari.
That could be very, very interesting.:cool::cool: IMO, it would offer more immediate spinoffs for road cars than Ferrari's F1 program. And it would make WRC better, I think. Could Ferrari prestige help save Group C? Or would another marque with deep pockets only drive the costs insane even sooner?:eek: (Or does Dino's lower prestige & comparatively less money, presuming the $$ isn't all coming from Ferrari, fail to save Group C but keep the costs from going nuts?)
 
Could work as a Ferrari sub-marque of sorts as the Ferrari Dino denoting the entry-level model.

An interesting pre-Dino project was dubbed the "Ferrarina" and later became the ASA 1000 GT, which Enzo Ferrari favored featured an four-cylinder engine design that was basically derived from a slice of a Colombo V12.

Doubt though that a successful ATL 4-cylinder ASA 1000 GT / Ferrarina could ever be sold as a Ferrari let alone a Dino, maybe an Abarth perhaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASA_(automobile)

http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1961_asa_1000_gt/

1961_Bertone_ASA_1000_Ferrarina_05.jpg
 
Masked Grizzly said:
Could work as a Ferrari sub-marque of sorts as the Ferrari Dino denoting the entry-level model.

An interesting pre-Dino project was dubbed the "Ferrarina" and later became the ASA 1000 GT, which Enzo Ferrari favored featured an four-cylinder engine design that was basically derived from a slice of a Colombo V12.

Doubt though that a successful ATL 4-cylinder ASA 1000 GT / Ferrarina could ever be sold as a Ferrari let alone a Dino, maybe an Abarth perhaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASA_(automobile)

http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1961_asa_1000_gt/

1961_Bertone_ASA_1000_Ferrarina_05.jpg
Handsome machine. Somehow, tho, I'm seeing Dinos more like Triumph Spitfires or Boxsters or the OTL 246: classy, but very sporting. The ASA, here, reminds me much more of the 250GTO, which is a different direction.
 
Top