Do we think they’ll pull a U-turn if Ferrari’s launches well?
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
48 points (98.0% liked)
World News
54071 readers
2029 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Lamborghini simply don't have the funds.
They had to scale back and eventually cancel their LMDh program last year.
Lamborghini is owned by the VW AUDI group. The self centered douches who buy these cars have no interest in EVs.
sports car lovers who ‘miss the noise’
These are the scumbags profiting off of why everything is so expensive.
I drive cars like these. I just code.
Lambos, Porsches, Ferrari's all have most of their line up attractively priced for upper middle class people. Especially when you consider cost per mile vs the price tag.
My 911 GTS, with a price tag of 160k will have cost me maybe 7 or 8k to own for 3 year, mostly in insurance, assuming no huge price changes.
If you buy the right cars and can afford the payment, these cars are not incredibly expensive to own. You're thinking of hypercars.
Idiots pay $160,000 for a car and call them not expensive. Don't forget das devaluation.
You just admitted the fucking thing cost $160K. There is zero chance you'd ever convince me that's not expensive. $30K is what most people would call expensive. Jesus Christ how's it possible to be so out of touch?
Are you upper middle class? Then maybe that's why you lack the ability to see how it's affordable for the top 5% 🤷♂️
You skipped immediately into an emotional argument and skipped by the actual cost to own 🤷♂️.
It doesn't matter if it literally makes you money to own, when it costs that much and you cannot see it, it's probably because you and your friends are rich and shallow. Now, how's that for actually getting emotional?
I'm shallow for pointing out the ownership costs and liking cars? Yes, the cars with their resale values can sometimes even be free. That's exactly my point. That's how upper middle class people buy these. You have this weird fixation on attacking me for making a top 5% salary and explaining who actually owns these.
I write open source code for a living. I can afford an expensive MSRP car because of these economics. What exactly has triggered you into hating me me so much?
I don't think anyone else remotely gives a shit how you explain the cost breakdown. The comments you made here come off extremely out of touch. That's why you're getting loads of downvotes on every single one.
Reason: the driver wants to be heard while driving around, or "for the emotional connection" as they put it nicely in the article. Seems like prosthetic lion's roar to me.
God, that's so pathetic on both parties tbh... Instead of focusing on the long term goals for the company and planet, they rather appeal to the short term goals for their brand and keep making combustion motors just so some vain lame can "sound cool." Although all new vehicles imo should be hybrid by now, including diesel hybrids those would get crazy range from what I've heard.
You can sit on your high horse and make EV sportscars, but no one will buy one.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE someones driving 300 miles per year on gas 🤣
If they'd use synfuel it wouldn't be that bad. It's way more expensive that regular fuel but the rich fucks can pay that for the bragging rights. But every synfuel proposal gets swarmed by lobbyist trying to water it down to normal fuel with homeopathic amount of synfuel added
They already replaced the Huracan with a hybrid
Depends on the way they go, Hydrogen can be used in ICE and it's still clean.
It's wildly inefficient, but what Lambo is efficient? If they can have the best of both worlds, good luck too them.
If they mean lets keep with Fossil fuels, they can go fuck themselves.
I don't think there is a more pathetic display of money. Rolex were on the top of my list with their expensive ugly watches.
vroom_vroom.mp3
I got into a discussion some weeks ago about extremely expensive watches. I think they are stupid and just a "look at me, I'm rich" item. But, apparenty, I know jackshit about it because it's all about the quality of the materials used and "the feel". Seems a 10k watch is extremely better than a normal watch and I'm just too dumb to understand it because I don't know how better it is when a watch uses precious metals in its gears instead of less-precious metals. This, said by a wage slave, by the way.
Suffice to say I realized it was pointless to go on with the discussion and I let it die after their "explanation" on why I was being dumb.
A friend of mine has a few Rolex. Those watches are way less precise than a $5 quartz watch, it's all about showing that you have money. The quality of the materials gives no advantage. They are objectively ugly too with the big round circles, and look like watches for kids who learn how read the time.
I've been told by rich guys that you must wear the strap a bit loose so that it the watch will rotate a bit around your wrist, which forces you to "put it back" while showing to others that you have a Rolex.
I don't remember the specific name but it is a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption
Exactly my thoughts on it. There are things that are expensive just because they are made so rich people can show off. Is there a point on having diamonds on a watch? No, it doesn't make it better, just more expensive so you can show others how much money you have.
Same thing witd loud cars, they are made just so the owner can be the center of attention for a split second. I kinda feel bad for those idiots thinking they need to show off the money they have. It has to be one hell of an inferiority complex if you need to tell everybody how rich you are every moment of your life.
rolexes are actually extremely well made, though. that's why they became so well-valued.
They were the watches people used because they were reliable and bomb-proof. (sometimes literally.)
Rolexes fail at being watches compared to other products that cost $5. A "bomb-proof piece of jewelry" is not a convincing argument. The whole point is showing that you have money.
/sigh
Because things have always been the way they are today.
The point I'm making that you're either ignoring or that you're not understanding is that Rolex's weren't always so expensive, especially when you consider they're mechanical and not digital, extract power from your wrist's motion and have been known to run decades without any maintenance all in extreme conditions... and all that at a time when your cheap five dollar watch didn't even fucking exist, and has never been able to replicate it's endurance. Rolexes started as the affordable-but-reliable option and became the highly-valued, expensive pieces they are today because of their utility.
Completely unlike lambo supercars, which have always been temu ferrari, and catered to a very select group of stupid people.
that you think rolexes fail just demonstrates you don't actually know what a rolex is, or who used them. and that's okay. but don't sit there and pretend like your $5 cheap piece of crap whose band will break inside a month is comparable. It's laughably not.
Your reply to the above comment is a bit caustic. Here's my take on your argument that explains your position in a rational way:
The bomb-proof and repair free nature of the Rolex comes into play in situations where replacement parts are not readily available. Consider an astronaut on a trip to Mars: they are out in space for months, in a ship where both space and weight are at a premium. A disposable time piece may be cheap on Earth, but without the means to replace it, it becomes a liability.
Similarly, someone on an exploration to a remote region - let's say a member of the yearly British Antarctic Survey expedition - will not be able to replace a broken timepiece until they return at the end of the season. Not everyone needs a reliable time piece, but those who do - such as medics measuring a patient's heart rate with a stethoscope - might go for something that has a lower failure rate.
Sure, a $5 timepiece is probably enough for most people, and wearing a Rolex as a status symbol is dumb, but that's not the only use case for them.
Some Casio "black" watches have been recovered in some gardens after being buried for years and were still working 🤷♂️
be fair to Lambo- they're not making cars for people who care about any of that. They'e making cars for people who are stupid and modestly rich.
actual rich people drive cars that serve their needs. a very comfortable, maybe sporty, car or SUV or cross over for daily driving, maybe a sports car for fun driving and a real supercar if they want to go to a track day. lambos are for the tacky slobs that wanna be like the Ferrari drivers.
It's about the compensation theory. The bigger/louder the car/bike, the bigger the need to compensate for something small they have.
People needing to be heard when they drive with their car/bike are one of the most pathetic kind of drivers. You have to be a special kind of insecure baby to need others to look at you when you drive by.
It's funny to see how it was always about acceleration and top speed until electric cars quietly zoomed past them. Suddenly it's about the feels.
Completely ignoring the :: checks my notes:: 100% torque at fucking zero rpm.
Lambos have always been a poser car. Even Porsche requires some kinda demonstration of expertise for access to their higher end models.
Pretty sure Lamborghini took one look at BYD's three thousand horsepower supercar eating up the test track at 300 miles an hour and just quietly decided to pivot to "the feel".
Pretty sure you know nothing about the brand nor its drivers.
Lambo has always been about the feel. You wanna flex? Show me an '80's Corolla! (This hate isn't directed at you as much as the car community as a whole)
At least there's a solid experience with an old gallardo/murcie/diablo. Until someone comes up with something miles ahead of ioniq 5 N levels of simulation every ev will feel the same.
Also hard disagree on the Porsche part, they make a shitload of trim levels then try to make every single one feel exclusive as shit. And there are tons of people who buy GT3/RS for appearance reasons and then complain they're not comfortable, like buddy you're doing it backwards.
With Lambos you get the same baseline, and then they add a bit more power or 4 wheel drive on top for higher end models. Aventador J is powered by the same thing as a launch day Aventador for example.