Supporting the money thing, the original version of the 78 Mazda RX-7 generation 1, similar to the 1985 I still have, 75 % restored, placed 3rd overall and 1st in it's class in the 24 hours of Daytona it's first year of introduction, losing only to the Porsche 9**'s series. It crushed Vettes, Jaguars, Ferrari's and many other cars far more exotic and with race bred heritages. The very next year the governing body of racing, sanctioned modifications to those RX-7's that made the races more competitive and over the next decade, the RX-7 made Mazda the winningest manufacturer on the planet.
The car I have pulls .88g on a skidpad(stock). An anti-sway bay is relatively inexpensive and can be put on a Civic just as easily. I could buy an anti-sway bar kit for my car for under $ 1,000 that would make it handle with any VR rated sportscar. Lowering the cars suspension and adding stiffer shocks and coil springs doesn't cost much either in the grand comparison to the cost of a Ferrari. I dare say that I could take equal amounts of money for both vehicles and build a Civic that would beat the Ferrari all day long, anywhere you want to run it and still send a kid thru college and buy a home and garage. Same goes for any Mustang, or Corvette, although I'd probably have to use the savings differential to choose between sending the kid to college or a downpayment on the house and garage.. Another thing to consider is the front-wheel drive of the Civic vs the rear wheel driven Ferrari. FWD's have better traction.
As for better built quality between Jap cars and American cars, the gap is narrower, but the Japanese cars still have an edge. I've owned both and I have yet to find an American car that holds up for mechanical durability based upon replacement of components that are supposed to last the life of the vehicle or for what I would consider to be at least a 100,000 mile part. My RX-7 has 235,000 miles on it and burns less oil than the Ranger I have. This is significant since the RX-7 actually uses the oil to be injected with the fuel mixture and aids in lubricating and cooling the tiny 1146 cc Rotary Engine. BTW, this tiny engine achieves 100 hp per litre by normal aspiration(no turbo or supercharger-stock). By the same token, the 385 hp Mustang quoted earlier uses at least the 4.6 L V-8, which litre for litre is not as potent. By the same token, I can get a stock twin turbo 1.3 L 1996 RX-7 R2 @ 255 hp and beat that Mustang all day long in 0-60, and quarter mile runs. Pick a road course and your 2001 Ford Mustang would be absent from the rear view mirror of the Mazda after the first or second turn. About a year ago, I could get a low mileage 96 RX-7 R2 for about $ 12,000 (US).