This is the new California: The California T.

I wouldn't say ugly as hell...just not as pretty as it should be.

More and more competitors are bringing the A game...but let's face it...people who want a "ferrari" will want this car over a Jag or Aston, etc.

 

Whatever.

Give credit where credit is due...this is a great update!

 

Saw the video.better than a cow. Ferrari needs to fire the photographer.

 

You have a point but it's not that stacked exhausts and body colour "reach low".

I think what you actually mean is that people normally subconsciously use exhaust pipes as a reference point for the lower edge of a body panel. Hence some observers are fooled by stacked exhausts to think the rear is HIGH, when it really isn't.

This is probably also why when you actually own the car, see it close up and live with it, you realize it isn't high at the back. If it were any lower, it would look lame. Look at the photos below and see how much higher the 458 Spider's rear is with respect to the cockpit. I know the 458 engine is there (so is the Cali's roof) but I'm comparing it purely from an aesthetics point of view.

Now look at the 2 Californias - IMO the new one droops down at the back and until I see it in person, that may or may not be a good thing. I have said this before - I actually like the haunches on the current California as it gives the car a muscular look.

A small rear also makes the car look like a roadster… not a good thing if you want to stay away from looking like SLKs and F-Types.

The new car will definitely be "faster" but for real-world "faster", it's not just maximum torque but where the max torque is achieved. So, I 'd like to see the torque curve for the new engine.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Wow I think it's a HUUUUUGE improvement and goes from a decent looking car at some angles to a true stunner. Personally I was starting to lose faith in some of their designs lately but this one shows they still know understated beauty. The photos with the top down are the best by far and make it look like a stretched F12 (always felt the F12 rear was way too short) and reminds me of a 550/575 in profile. Really impressed!

 

nicely cleaned up the original design. turbo motor will suit this car very well also as a gt. I predict this will be best selling Ferrari of all time by large margin. aston martin should be very afraid.

 

It is the same engine with some changes to the configuration. I wish there were pics of the Maserati unit without the hideous plastic cover.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yv_zKsu4vY[/ame]

 

Count me in as loving this change. The old California didn't pass the visual test for me, this one definitely does. More importantly, I want to own this one.

 

It's just ugly. I don't know if I'm alone in that opinion.

 

What are the actual specs of the car - Hp and 0-60 or 62 - sorry to see natural aspirated a thing of the past but I know that is the way all cars are goinging

 

All depends. I really like the Cali 30 - it suits how I like to drive the car. It is beautiful, elegant, more than fast enough for public roads, and I really love the hard top convertible. The 458 is a great car and beautiful for sure, but not what I would want to drive a lot. It would spend too much time in the garage if I owned one.

Of course, there are some who claim it is "feminine" or a "chick car", or other such drivel, but I find those comments to largely come from people who are insecure, silly, or just immature. Drive one and see if it suits you. I did and was surprised to find it suited my purposes perfectly!

 

Well done Ferrari. Not a fan of those wheels though.

 

Like the changes however I am nervous about the reliability of the turbo/torque/DCT. Will likely wait for a year or two before swapping the current one. I am looking forward to seeing it in person.

 

Clearly Ferrari decided not to tinker too much with a successful formula. In this case they decided not to take risks. I agree that it is improved in detail over the original, with the side sculpturing being better integrated into body length flowing lines, and the somewhat lower rear deck. The sill of the greenhouse remains somewhat high but this is necessary to accommodate the still-elevated rear deck. The effect of the sill is to distract from the attractive and traditional pinched "coke bottle" effect of the sculpturing, raising the visual center of gravity of the entire form. The roofline still looks too small for the mass of the car, but that is the nature of hard top convertible designs. The slightly squared off "smiley" egg crate grill is interesting, and its larger size gives a more aggressive appearance.

 

I really like the changes. Much better side profile. And the rear is finally cleaned up.

Two things:

1. Both sets of wheels do nothing to help the appearance of the car. I'd love to see someone photoshop something better. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

2. Am I crazy or would the car actually look better with the grey side sport skirts that are available on the 458 and f12?

 

Ferrari California T - Official Website

 

Engine looks like it is still wet sump.

 

+1 I was never a fan of the first version, because it ended up looking lumpy and tall in person, with tacked-on details like the shallow lines, side grilles and unattached tailpipes. But this one with deeper curves, more flowing lines and a better nose makes a huge improvement visually.

 

Looks more like a facelift, but very well done. Definate improvement over the so-so looking first version. I still dont get why this car needs to a have hardtop though....after all f car owners usually own garages too, softops have come a long way, they are cheaper to produce and most of all it allows for a much better looking design if it doesnt have to accomodate that bulky steel roof.

 

I like the hard-top. Even though various manufacturers have posted only minimal dB differences between coupes and soft-tops I have definitely noted more transmitted road/traffic sounds in a previous Carrera 4 cab and my current Bentley Conti GT convertible. I was seriously considering trading in the 2013 Bentley on a Cali but decided to keep the B once I heard about a new Cali version. Now the plot thickens! I will have to give serious consideration on a deposit for a Cali T. Curious what the lead times will be for the new car: the salesman at F of Houston mentioned (this past weekend) that it was about 8 months but no mention was made of a new version on the horizon. I can't assume that he was referrring to the new car since he did not seem aware of its presence. However, he was trying to get me interested in a 2010 on the showroom floor....quite a beautiful Blu Pozzi.

 

Yeah, but...what will potential buyers *really* know after a year or two about the reliability of the power train?

Keep in mind the average usage of a modern Ferrari is likely to be less than 5000 miles per year. Sure there will be a very, very small number of people that put 20,000 a year...but we have no idea how the DCT will hold up after 40k, 50k, 100k miles (well, actually we do have some data points and they haven't been good).

 

Of course this is the "facelift" and not a whole new car. Ferrari will continue to try to get ~10 years out of a chassis.

I have a fair bit of "want" for this new version. That said, it still is a bit broad in the hips and bubble butted to my eye. (I know, the hard top drives this).

Is this the the first flat plane turbo v8 on the market? (Meaning are the maser and macca flat plane?)

Anyone know what rpm redline is?

 

I agree re hard top...the car would be much prettier with a soft top requiring a lot less bulk in the hips and rear. The astons and jag and maser don't suffer from this.

 

Much improved.

-F

 

That's too bad (and a bit scary). The first Cali was way, way, way too soft and rolly and bouncy to drive even slightly hard, this car seems to be set up to actually handle...so no oil scavenge from dry sump is a big miss for me...I hope that doesn't bite any owners...