Why so much Cali hate?

I've reached the conclusion that the California is effectively a replacement for the GT4 and Mondial, even though its back seat might be less useful than either of those models.

Consider the representatives of Ferrari's four car lines at the time that my car was built (1986):

8 cylinder GT car: Mondial 3.2
12 cylinder GT car: 412
8 cylinder Sports car: 328
12 cylinder Sports car: Testarossa

Compare that with today's lineup:

8 cylinder GT car: California
12 cylinder GT car: 612 Scaglietti
8 cylinder Sports car: F430
12 cylinder Sports car: 599 Fiorano

(I'm using the definitions of "GT" and "Sports" that Ferrari seems to be using themselves.)

So what's the real difference? Just as in 1986, the 8 cylinder GT, in this case the California is the least expensive car in the lineup, though in this case Ferrari seems to aiming it at a wider audience.

 

Yes, I'm with you. And, as in 1986, it's the 8-cylinder sports car, not the 8-cylinder GT car, that I find the most desirable.

Personally, I can't get behind the California's styling. It has parts that aren't bad, but the rear end is, literally, too much.

I like my cars beautiful and fun to drive. Two-seats-and-an-engine fun. As I said above, I don't want lots of gizmos and geegaws.

But I'm not offended by the California the way some posters here are. Throughout Ferrari's history, there have been some models that did not receive such a warm reception, some with good reason and others - like the "plastic" (fiberglass) 308, and the 206/246 Dinos - which were disdained at their introduction and are now considered quite desirable. I doubt that the California will ever go that way, but for those who want to spend their money for one, I'm not bothered by it.

 

I'm confused as well...?

 

I wasn't talking about the car.

 

I agree, I can do better: The C/4 is to the Cali 2+ as is La Giaconda to Woman In An Armchair.

 

Surely that had to be the Percheron?

 

Best post I've ever seen......

 

Anyone already read the Ferrari yearbook or #3 magazine? That's quite funny; it starts with an article about the California, about all the improvements, new stuff, the ride, etc. The next article is a short view of Michael Schumacher about the California. In both articles they quite often mention it shouldn't be seen as a car for women, but it is a new car for a new market segment. Ofcourse...

But then the funny part kicks in; The next arcticle goes about a women (with all due respect; I do not know who she is and why she's in the magazine) and Ferrari taking her out for a ride in the new California. I believe she says something like "Why do all the men get the fun...." and some pictures of her with the California...

If I had the money, my wife drove a California and I would go for the 599 GTB or Scuderia...

 

Well, the 'Cali Hate' thread is at 158 posts; every article seems to say the car's backside looks smaller in person than in the photos; and there seems to be persistent chorus of claims that the California isn't a car for women.

I think the California is simply Ferrari's SLK -- great car from Mercedes that appealed to female buyers. And it has been a success in its two-seater segment for the last decade.

As much as I love 328s, F40s, Boxers, Lotus Exiges, etc., I recognize that in the real world most people don't enjoy contorting themselves to get into a car, don't want an engine screaming right behind them and expect good climate control, places to stash stuff, cupholders, etc. The California will probably do fine in this regard. I would like to see Ferrari downsize its sports cars, though, and do a compact road car in the tradition of the 360 CS/F430 Scuderia.

 

like alot of Ferraris current offerings...it doesnt look italian..it looks Jap. same for 612 and 599...they all have the same overall profile of a 350Z...I havent seen it in person yet..but when i do im sure i'll like it and all....but it just doesnt scream ferrari like 355's...348's...testarossas..etc.......just my opinion!!!

 

I think my wife is more partial to the Scuderia, but then again, she's not a new customer.

 

i had the same opinion on the 599 too, i thought at that point of time it was the most ugliest Ferrari. Until i saw one in flesh, Argento Nurburgring, at the Sepang Circuit. It's one of the most beautiful Ferrari ever. pure style, and pure sex on wheels.

the 599, IMO, is a car that will look great if the drivers wears an Armani business suit and takes the car for business meetings. In the night for parties and clubs, the same car can be used, and it would ill look great.

 

A very reliable friend told me that there is a video of some high-ranking Ferrari executive who said that the Cali was designed with the female buyer in mind. Kinda like the Porsche Boxter.

Does this video exist?

 

Oh, yes. And the high-ranking executives also agreed that:

1. The Cali had to resemble a Corvette in layout and construction;
2. The Cali had to appeal to Americans;
3. For this reason, the Cali had to reflect this target demographic; i.e., have an enormous rear end;
4. The Cali had to be priced so low that all Ferraris that came before it would be devalued;
5. The Cali had to depart from the pure form of a true enthusiast's car that all preceding Ferraris exhibited;
6. The Cali had to appeal to poseurs, not true Tifosi;
7. The Cali would have to be mass-produced in such huge numbers as to devalue every other car Ferrari ever made;
8. The Cali would have to be practical, in contrast to every other Ferrari model;
9. The Cali would be the test-marketing precursor to the long-awaited luxury SUV;
10. The Cali would represent the irrevocable end of Ferrari as we know it.

There's only one copy of the video in existence. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to locate and destroy this tape before it is made public, confirming the worst nightmares of all TRUE Ferrari fans.

 

By looking at the Califorinia, its tells me "A SOUPED UP MASERATI". $imple as that.

 

"Does this video exist?"


I hope not. The scars on my eyes have not yet healed after the Mosley video.

 

Several years ago FIAT created a car to market against the BMW M3, the Maserati Coupe, it was a bit heavier but fitted with a Ferrari V-8 it had performance to match and similar utility, adding Italian design and dynamic characteristics, and carrying a two-digit-percentage price premium.

In 2009 FIAT will deliver its replacement M3 fighter, the California 2+, several hundred pounds heavier despite being all aluminum, only comparable performance despite being festooned with little black horsies, having greatly impaired utility, Pokemon styling, Toyota dynamic characteristics, and all for a low, low 300% price premium on the M3.

"...And still there are some misfits who insist there is no such thing as progress". - Ransom K. Fern

 

Right on Brother. All true. It cheapens the brand, and disgraces all the wonderful cars built to date. Ferrari will never be the same.

 

I don't believe that any of you have ever even driven a Ferrari V8, much less actually owned one. These cars are not about price/performance; that's silly! They are about the delight in the visceral experience, and I believe that the Cali will be absolutely delightful to drive. If you want price/performance, buy something from Japan. If you want ultimate handling get a Lotus. If you want ultimate styling get whatever sugars your eyeball. That's all swell, but do not doubt that wheel time in "California" will be pure pleasure.

 

With the California 2+ a transition is completed: Enzo's Ferrari, and even later under Enzo and Gianni Agnelli, made and sold road cars to support the Ferrari racing team. Under Montezemolo the Ferrari(FIAT) racing team serves merely to promote the sale of tacky clothing, cheap trinkets, and FIAT road cars, some which are tangentially branded as Ferrari.

 

Just how are your uninformed beliefs relevant?

 

Because people are comparing the performance to a straight 6 beemer. That's silly. The feeling driving a Ferrari flat plane crank V8 is worlds away from beemer's fine engine, fine? Sure. Faster even in some models, but no comparison in feeling.

Because people are complaining about the styling and the weight and the "enthusiast" focus, and that is silly too. That car is the first non-12 cylinder front-engined model from Ferrari in what? 50 years or so, and what I confidently believe is that the car will have balanced predictable handling along with a thrilling engine. Get the model with a clutch pedal and it will be pure pleasure behind the wheel. It's cold and rainy out? Put the top up, and it's as comfortable as any coupe. The sun is out? Put the top down and bask in the glory.

What I'm saying is that the proof will be in the driving: if I'm right all will be forgiven. If I'm wrong, then what difference did it make that the car looked funny: it's no fun to drive, so forget about it.

 

All of the driving reviews of the Cali have been universally excellent. Everyone who has driven it has expressed surprise and delight at just how good it feels to drive.

When you boil the criticisms down to the essentials, the rear end is the big (pardon the pun) problem. There was no way to achieve the folding hard top and the storage space required in a grand tourer without doing that, and just like the "bangle Butt"of the BMW 7 Series, it will not impede sales. Everything else works exactly in the context that this car is made for. It is a new genre for Ferrari - a front engined GT 8 cylinder. I think it will do marvelously well. And once again I believe that 95% of the critics of the California would never be in the league to buy a new one anyway, so in the immortal words of Chris Rock, and other like-mouthed comedians, F$%# 'em!

 

Sort of. Although you lost me on the last bit -- there's still a pretty solid line between Fiat Pandas and Ferrari F430s. I.e., except for the Dino 246, I haven't seen any significant sharing of key components.

Looks are a big part of the Ferrari mystique. Cars like the Daytona actually don't drive all that well by modern standards, but they are widely cherished as legendary motoring icons. Cars like the 308 GT4 actually do drive quite well compared to their sexier descendants, the 308/328, but guess which one has been all but forgotten.

I think this thread is overblown. In a few years, the California will be available for $100K as a used car, and we'll see how it fares in the secondary market. IMO, once the newness wears off, the looks (and complex electronics) will render it obsolete in short order.

Overall I've lost patience with cars with video displays, video game shifters, push button tops and computerized windscreen wipers. I'm now officially a dour curmudgeon looking for something properly vintage.

 

The BMW V-8 in the M3 revs higher than the FIAT V-8 in the "Ferrari".