This is the new California: The California T.

Wow...that is much lower than I expected...isn't the macca in the 8-9k range?

(Edit: I see 7500 is the peak horsepower rpm...likely redline is higher?)

 

Fair enough if your opinion is just subjective. I was wondering if it were based on some non-subjective merit.

For me, I appreciate them in the same way I appreciate the double Enzo tail lights on the F430 and Enzo. They're exciting to look at. Stacked pipes were one of the things that sold the car to me. Like the Enzo lights, they stand out and give the rear end an exciting aggressive look. Side-by-side double pipes below the rear skirt often look like after-thoughts or cheesy aftermarket upgrades. The stacked units have their own body pockets and cover panels.

Exhaust pipes look much better when they protrude from obviously designed cut-outs in the rear body panel. I will need to check out the car in person to be sure but the area below the rear body panel does look a bit busy to me. At least they fixed the silly brake/reverse lights.

 

I think the problem with these discussion threads is that there are too many people who don't actually have proper access to or own the car being discussed. The result is that very often the comments are way off reality.

I think you miss the whole point of the car, missing the forest for the trees.

A hardtop convertible is far superior to cheaper soft-tops from a daily-driver all-weather perspective. Those are key reasons for the California category.

And the California looks way better than either the AM or GranCabriolet with top-up. It becomes a full-fledged coupe.

 

Looks much better but i expected more than a light restyling.

 

7500 is the maximum power, so I think you're right. I guess the redline is at 8k or something.

 

I've had two of each, hard-top vs soft top. I prefer soft top, no matter what car it is. Where I live the top is almost always down anyway.

 

FWIW the engine RPM peak power and peak torque numbers appear to be just slightly reduced from the N/A engine:

Original N/A: HP peak @ 7750 RPM Torque peak @ 5000 RPM
New Turbo: HP peak @ 7500 RPM Torque peak @ 4750 RPM

This suggests that Ferrari tried to maintain high rev performance in the new turbo. This will be much more challenging in the 458 successor.

 

Interesting that they moved the cam drives to the rear of the engine. Oil filter location is an interesting choice as well for a front-engined car...

 

It is an improvement, but is not a new car, which is strange considering the engineering work that has gone on for the drivetrain. The name stays the same, so that sort of confirms it, it is still recognisable as a California. The rear quarter is not quite right for me, the wing crease not flowing. But it looks fresher and it is sure to pack a serious punch. It will be a huge success , just as the previous model was, even if we can expect a hefty price rise. It is a tough call for Ferrari, if they go too sporty they will hurt 458 sales. They look to have got a lot of things right. Be interesting to see it in the metal.

 

I don't think that there is any doubt that the retractable hard top forces compromises in the design (if you still want to have trunk space). But clearly Ferrari did not want to mess with a successful formula, so they stuck with the hard top configuration.

BTW a soft top also forces design compromises in some cars. Take for example the 911 Cabrio.

 

Whatever, thanks for insulting the opinions you don't care for or agree with. I don't know what you imply by "proper access", but I've driven the original cali for a day and seen them many, many times and have shopped them and considered buying one (but decided against it). My opinion is that I don't think the hardtop is a meaningful trade of "extra DD utility" for "impact on proportion and looks". My DD is a spider (soft top) and I've never found myself wanting for a hard top. Heck, my DD has been a spider for half of my life and I've never felt that it needed a hard top. And, the majority of Cali owners have other cars at their disposal (usually several I'd wager) and thus the increased DD utility that you imply likely isn't a huge factor for most. These $250,000+ GT/Sports cars are about many factors other than marginal DD utility imho.

Edit: My intention in the first post that you read wasn't to argue hard top vs. soft top, rather to say I like this new cali, but sadly (for me obviously) its still a bit broad hipped and bubble butted. I am not alone in that conclusion re the rear of the car. I simply added that I "get" why its that way - because its a hard top.

 

They don't need to. The current car is already popular enough. Why would they make it radically different?

Put yourself in Ferari's position. They already very publicly stated that they want to maintain the values of their current cars, they want to make fewer cars and they already have more than they need in terms of demand. Logic dictates that they should tread forward conservatively.

The difference is in the guts of the car - the performance numbers and that's because the competition is playing the numbers game and govt regulations.

Anyway, if they did a radical remake they wouldn't be able to call it a California. I suspect this Ferarri category is likely to remain evolutionary and not revolutionary in looks. But as for technology, that's a different story. The category caters to a different, more conservative clientele, different from the hardcore Fcar owner.

 

I think that we all agree that Ferrari decided not to tinker too much with a successful formula. The California is a very important car for the marque, having attracted many new customers. So why take risks. More power and a refreshed design are called for, and that is what they are offering. .

I agree that the styling is improved in detail over the original. Perhaps the most successful design feature is the side sculpturing, which is better integrated into body length flowing lines. The somewhat lower rear deck and the rear sculpture treatment also improve by evoking a more racy look. 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 very 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.

 

oooo Am in Looove

 

The Cali looks WAY BETTER than the AM or the GranCabrio????
Fortunately, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

With 557 lb-ft of torque, this thing will have power available instantly throughout the rev range. That is way more torque than an F12 or an FF.

 

This looks really good to me and much improved over the previous design - as much as I wanted to, I was never excited about the small front grill, the tall back end, and especially the twisted appearance of the side sculpting.

This has smoothed out all that and I think it looks great. Would be better still if a couple more inches could be shaved off the rear deck, but still, I'm very pleased with the changes

edit - forgot to mention the hood - the new recessed scoops look much cleaner than than previous single raised scoop. Also, for those who love the current design, I think that's great - this one will just bring more into the California fold

 

+1

 

You seem to be sizing the California as a replacement for your Maserati Spider and you want to buy a California to replace your Maserati Spider. That much is clear.

First of all, your Spider is a roadster, the Cali is a 2+2. So the Cali has to be longer, and bigger. The California is also a GT designed to perform close to but less aggressively than the 458 so they are similar in body and chassis dimensions with the Cali a bit longer for more comfort and the 458 a bit shorter in wheelbase and wider for a more lively car.

..........length.........wheelbase........width
458.... 178.2" ...... 104.3" ........... 76.3"
Cali.... 179.6"........105.1"............. 74.9"
Spider..169"........... 96"................ 72"

Your Spider needs OEM rear tires of 265/30-19 = 10.43" tire width, 79.3" circumference. The Cali rears are 285/35-20 = 11.22" tire width, 87.5" circumference. The California's rear wheel body need to accommodate 1.6" more tire width and 8.2" taller tires.

So why would you expect the California to be smaller?

My problem with your comparison is that you are comparing the wrong cars built for very different purposes. The California is built for a much broader market than your Spider or the AM/GranCabriolet markets.

On of the other reasons why I was sold on the California is because it is essentially a coupe + a full convertible. The California is a completely different category and if you insist on comparing it with other cars, it is apples-vs-oranges.

At any rate, the California still beats the pants off of the Spider, AM and the GranCabriolet in terms of performance.

My suggestion: just buy the California.

 

So in others words "if you aren't an owner you aren't untitled to an opinion?'

C'mon, that can't possibly be a healthy attitude can it?

 

they are entitled to an opinion, just that most of the time, these opinions do not reflect a much different reality, known only to those who own or have experienced the car in a greater capacity than what reading or even a test drive can offer.

 

Can I get it with a stick shift?

If so, I'm in!

 

I agree, that cannot be a healthy attitude. I for one do not own a Ferrari (one on order) have had 2 Maseratis, but the Ferrari is a different animal. I usually will sit back and learn, rather than mouth off. I have been on these boards since October and have learned quite a bit. Mostly that it sucks not having a Ferrari, I did not sell my Maserati yet, as i must wait until at least it is in build mode. I cannot go a year without the sound of my Italian woman screaming when i play with her.

 

I also put the top down whenever I go for my drives.

But when you drive other people around, it's a completely different story. Many people have "hair salon issues" with convertibles. We also have much colder climates here in Ontario - you live in Houston. And what happens when it rains? So when you need to have a coupe as well as a convertible, a hardtop works and looks much better than a softtop.

Why else do you think the Mercedes SL is a perennial favourite over the CL? Why do you think BMW switched to hardtop convertibles?

 

Michael- Your math is off quite a bit. 8" of additional circumference does not equal 8" taller.

265/30 19 tires are 25.26 inches in diameter, 285/35 20 tires are 27.85" in diameter, so divide your original number by 3.1416 to get 2.59", still quite a bit taller.