California engine, dissapointed?

The results are wath matters....M3 0-62 in 4.8? California less than 4 sec.Ferrari 450hp BMW 420


Why is more advanced?We know just a few numbers....Power....and 0-62 time...In both cases the Ferrari is superior.

 

are you serious Nikolai? ....

 

Might as well compare it to the Corvette LS motor, Nissan VR motor.... Besides, I doubt people who buy a hardtop convertible care all that much about raw speed.

 

---California could be lighter.430 reach 62 in 4 sec..California in less...

-This is not the proof that M3 will be better to drive. The same things you could say refered to 430's V8.

I think California engine will do 3 main things-be a Ferrai engine, wich bmw's engine is not-will make California faster than M3(for sure in max speed and acc. to 62)...and last...perform better than 430 in everyday life. If you will buy M3 you will never have all 3 points.

-For 55k you will have a BMW that for half of people will be just a 3-series coupe.
For 200k you will have not only a Ferrari coupe but also a Ferrari cabrio.

 

I dunno, it sounds pretty good to me!


http://www.ferraricalifornia.com/webapp/hear.htm?locale=en_GB

 

everyday, there's a new thread...complaining about this and that... if it's not whining about how Ferrari is now producing waaay too many cars, that the marque is not as special as was yesteryears, etc, it's something else... gee whiz!

 

Well, the BMW has around... 105 bhp per liter, while the Ferrari has 107 or something like that, so I think that they are quite similar in terms of perfomance.

Said that, I expected a bit more power in the Ferrari, around 500, but I agree with SS2012: that´s not the most important thing in this car.

 

There will be those who like and those who dislike. I too think that for the price, it is an over rated Corvette.

 

Numbers could be the quickness of teh paddle shifting gearbox, not necessarily the engine.

Ferrari should be further ahead of BMW

 

Ferrari stated the 0-60 time was under 4 sec. So in a race from standstill at 60 mph, the BMW would be trailing the Ferrari by at least .9 sec! That is a pretty big gap- several car lengths.

But the California is meant to be a gentleman's sports car for the street. Ferrari offers the Scuderia for clients who want a more serious racer. It costs more too!!!

Iin a Scuderia-California match-up, the Scud is 0.6 seconds faster (assuming a 0-60 time of 3.3 sec) which is a smaller gap than in a California -BMW match-up.

I'm not saying that BMW isn't an advanced car.

Ferrari understands that its products are under the automotive looking glass, so the performance numbers have to make sense relative to their competitors and their own line-up.

 

RE The California, I would have expected a lot more for the money they are asking. Or, said another way, I expected the price to be much less for this so called entry level Ferrari. Detune the engine, toss the exotic materials, make it a coupe and charge just over $100K, in line with an Aston V-8 Vantage.

 

What makes you say it is entry-level. DiMontezemolo has been very clear on the subject: an entry-level Ferrari is a used Ferrari.

 

Why? because the California is way bigger/heavier than the BMW? I think the performance of the California is pretty amazing for tis weight.

 

Ferrari is behind the times compared to most major car builders. It took Ferrari until the 360 to final build a car with an aluminum frame and body. Honda had one way back in 1992 with the NSX. This new car is no step forward compared to any number of current and past production cars. Its built on an older chassis design but obviously some updates. The SLK Benz comes to mind. The hardtop convert is so old news now, that its nothing special anymore..heck Ford had that with their Fairlane back in the 50's.

Really, is this car anything that special? It looks really nice but for 200k? What does it really have over most other high end sport coupes?? Nothing but a name as far as I can see.

 

Ferrari has traditionally not been on the cutting edge of innovation. They adopted fuel injection about a decade after the Germans did, four valves per cylinder a decade after the British, and rarely featured any form of engineering that hadn't been tried and true already.

And when Ferrari DO adopt a new or current technology, the fanboys all complain:
- wahhh, the fuel injected cars don't sound as good as the carbureted cars (their opinion, not mine)
- wahhh, the stick shift is more fun to drive than the paddles
- wahhh, Ferrari is building a unibody car (360)
- wahhh, Ferrari is making [insert feature or practice found on other cars here]

But on the other hand, while Ferrari are generally slow to adopt new techologies, they traditionally build everything sturdy and well, their engines are for the most part tough, and the cars get the job done.

 

Aye, that it does. I think the gearshift lacks personality, but whatever.

Why does it matter if the engine is as advanced as the BMW's?? That's apples to oranges. The Bimmer's doesn't send tingles down my spine like the Cali's does.

It's like listening to a Hemi 'Cuda take off from a light and then naysaying it because a jet engine is more sophisicated and makes an airplane fly.

 

I can remember when BMWs were very rare in the US. My first car as a 20something was a 3 year old 1970 1600 I bought for $1600: great car [except only Hans could fix it for no less than $500 a pop....made me aware Ferraris were affordable ] . Now, dime a dozen. Porsches, dime a dozen

not saying they are bad cars.. excellent in many ways, but they too over sold their marquee and, well, who wants a dime-a-dozen car?

BUT, having said that: $200k!!!! way too much for that look.

 

M3.... I've NEVER been impressed by Sedans. Not my cup of tea.

 

I really don't see how you can compare the M3 to this car. However, once Dinan gets thru with a modded M3, there won't be much that can run with it for the money. Dinan already has a BMW 335 S1-S3 package that threatens the viability of the M3 and it comes with the warranty and a cost below the M car. That car has a better torque curve out of the 6 pot engine than the V-8 M3.

On the other hand, the thread is labeled CA engine, so I guess all cars are candidates for discussion.

As for the CA's more modest market segment, it has always been discussed as a lower level car to be priced below the 430. I cannot think of a single manufacturer that sells 10,000 units annually with an MSRP of well over $200K and I am sceptical of Ferrari pulling it off. The car made sense in their line up as the entry car, especially since it is a smaller front engined V-8 car. Comparing to Aston, their entry model is the V8 Vantage while everything else is V-12 powered. Taking this car up to 430 pricing is confusing. The 612 is the family boat, the 599 is the GT supercar and the 430 is the sportscar of the line-up. The CA is what, a replacement for the 575? As for the comment about entry level Ferrari's being used Ferrari's I am pretty sure Luca did not say that. He is far more tactful and refined to blurt out something so pompous.

 

LOL at you guys complaining/arguing/stating opinions without any real test info or official production pictures

 

Ferrari is selling 6,500 cars a year right now. There is a waiting list for the F430 variants and 599 at most dealerships and in quite a few regions these models are sold out. So there is demand for more cars as long as clients find the car desirable.
By introducing a new car, Ferrari can sell more cars, attract new customers, while avoiding overproduction of the other models. Selling 10,000 cars annually is not unrealistic, when you consider the fact that new sales markets have come on line as well.

And if Ferrari finds the demand soft they are better able to adapt than most other marques.

 

Going into a world wide recession, they had better be. We shall see how our beloved marque fares. I am worried about Porsche and BMW as the world economy softens and gas prices increase. What a time to promote expensive, oversized, low mileage, high performance, low practicality cars. Yep Ferrari sells 6500 units per year or so and they want to do 10000. Good for them. I still think that having all their products priced over $200K is an imbalanced economic model. Makes about as much sense as a $250K Alfa Romeo. I still haven't accepted that yet. Brain is frozen shut.

 

430 has been an entry level Ferrari IMO. California will be another entry level Ferrari appealing to a different type of buyer. I will buy a California not as an entry level Ferrari but as a supplemental Ferrari to replace an SL or Porsche. California simply allows Ferrari to capture a larger share of my spend. I know many California buyers who think like me on this one