Why so much Cali hate?

CharlieHorse says Ferrari long ago sold out. My earliest experiences of Ferrari as a child were magazine & film depictions of the 308/328 cars & in 1989 I started to get Classic & Sportscar and began to get a feel for the classic cars, heritage and general mystique. The cars I saw introduced were the F40, 348, 512 TR, 456, 355 and on, but it was these five that made the impact. The only negative associations I picked up were with ref to the 348. But I was left with the impression that it was a handful, slightly dangerous to know, which to a boy is not at all bad. With the 360 & 550 I felt disappointed with the styling, but everything I read suggested they were wonderful machines. It was only with the combined electronic driver aids, increased weight, and styling as graceless caricature of a glorious history (sorry !) of the 430 and 599 that I began to feel uneasy. But the important thing was that the cars still seemed fundamentally right as machine and tool, just corrupted by the failings I described. But the California is a leap in another direction and I don't like it. I know that Enzo Ferrari was often cynical about his customers and some of the road cars produced from the earliest days, but the fundamentals must have been important to him as evidenced in the saving graces of the not so great cars and the magnificence of the great cars. The California is the first completely cynical market mass market (though high end) orientated car I have seen Ferrari produce. The first car I would describe as a sell out.

410SA states that the only opinions that matter are those in the market to buy this car. This is only true if you value Ferrari for its corporate success in the present moment above all. The enthusiast who can't afford a California, and spends his money elsewhere, say an Elise, or if he / she has one car, a family car like an E39 M5, but who expresses an educated and enthusiastic opinion, leaves an impression that creates the long term image of the car, as much as the enthusiast who can buy it. It needs acceptance by enthusiasts for the Ferrari brand to be credible in the future. Leaving aside the current economic trouble, the Ferrari brand is strong enough to sell almost any vehicle. But the dedicated followers of fashion prepared to pay a premium for the badge will be gone if the credibility is weakened or the car becomes associated with them. Fashion is fickle. What does Ferrari do when the flash cash has moved on, production capacity is huge, the product range watered down, and the enthusiast who is ever present thinks the image is naff?

410SA spoke of a smaller car potentially cheapening the brand. I'm younger then most of the people on this site who buy the cars new, and the Italian cars I have bought have been 2nd hand Maseratis which I have loved. I have dreamed of buying a new Ferrari, at just at the stage where I can justify it they start building a range of cars I wouldn't consider. I want a small light car constructed with the single purpose of providing me with an exhilarating driving experience on the country roads I drive for pleasure. I don't care if it can do 200mph or 140 mph, or has 400bhp or 175 bhp, but I do want it to be a car of our times, uncompromising, contemporary, beautifully engineered with styling that is a subtly extravagant depiction of the essence of the machine (as in the Fioravanti designs). I would rather pay for a complex engine than a poseur's folding roof. I would prefer a front engined small quick revving V12, say 2 litres, but I would accept anything if the machine was special as a whole; Ferrari made some great 4 cylinder cars. I wouldn't care if the car had to earn its reputation; these cars shouldn't be bought to impress the neighbours - they should be bought to drive hard, to appreciate the engineering, to celebrate the heritage and to share with like minded individuals. A car like this would not cheapen the brand, but the California does.

I thought modern Ferrari was a figurehead, an ideal for the rest of the Fiat group companies to inspire when designing cars like the 500, not a slave to the market, a supplier of luxurious, fast, driver assisted heavyweights to old men who buy them for what they are rather than to drive hard, symbols to polish and cruise carefully down the road soaking up admiring glances. Some have referred to posts like this as "hater" posts, but I very much hope that the next car, the supercar will be as wonderful a car as the F40, and some indications are that it will. I hope so.

 

Ferrari sold out in 1969; it had to. Is that bad? No.

And the 3x8 series cars are a mark of the end of "purity." As nice as the designs are, those are FIAT sell-out cars with Dino engines. Does it mean it's bad? No. Some of my favorite Ferraris are from the FIAT and Montezemolo eras. Companies, like people, can change with the times.

About the 599 having "graceless characature..." that is quite far-afield to me, but then proves that what you perceive is purely opinion-based. The 599 is one of the best Ferraris made internally and externally. And it's not an Enzo-era Ferrari. The only other modern/Montezemolo era Ferrari on par with the 599 is the 550/575. They carry the ethos of the FR V12 setup that Enzo regarded as the supreme idiom.

 

It isn't a Ferrari....it's a di Montezemolo.

Jack.

 

daviddavid you said a lot, and while I understand your reasoning, I think that you are too quick to presume what everyone who buys a California will do with it. Some, at least a few, will drive the piss out of it! Don't forget, lots of the pre "sell out" cars never leave the garage, except once a year to Pebble or some such outing and then they are driven like Cadillacs. While I would love to have a 250 or some such GT, the maintenance costs are horrendous if you really drive the car. Even the new V12s are prohibitive. But the California can be driven and driven and driven and the costs are predicable and manageable. I give a fig what it looks like. When I finally get one I won't be looking at it from the outside, only from the driver's seat. Where I will be A LOT!

 

Hi randyleepublic,

I read your posts and I know you are a proper car guy, so I respect your positive opionion about the Calif. I read you are going to buy one when they are depreciated somewhat, and I hope you enjoy it.

I accept my views are just that, and I might be completley wrong about it.

At least one Calif will be driven ! (and I don't mean to the shoe shop )

 

Yeah its only my opinion and it might be wrong.

I see the 599 body as caricature in that it is made up of a collection of cues from the past models in an almost cartoonish way. It is in no way an original design.

I see it as graceless, because up close these characteristics are so overt as to be thrusting; there is no subtlety to it. Also because it is so huge which is clear when it parked next to any object. And also because it is so agressive, but not in the F40 way (which to me successfully conveys everything the machine is about in a perfect blend of form and function), as to seem brash. It is a design of many, many details at the expense of the overall form.

But to give it credit it is expertly blended, and pulls a very clever visual trick. If you ever see one parked by itself in a car park with no object close by, it looks like a much smaller car than it is. But as soon as it is close to another object or car, you immediately see how massive it is. I don't think its a terrible design, and way more successful than the Calif.

Its like a bodybuilder in shorts and T shirt, when I would prefer if it was wearing a Brioni suit. This is possible; just look at a Daytona, a similarly muscular car which has grace. I don't see why a road car should be agressive in this way - what is the purpose if not to say "look at me".

Other than that, it is a great machine with a fabulous engine, and I agree with you on that.

But I still don't like the driver aids, and the weight. I like to drive the car, and if I drive it well I like to take the credit, not give it to the computer. Take the new Nissan 370Z, great car but look at the Synchronised Rev Control. Takes much of your need for skill and balance away. Ferrari is going down this route too, and I wish they would keep the electronics in their proper place.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Because it doesn't look like this..

(NWS)


http://jalopnik.com/5212184/alfa-romeo-super-dance-show?autoplay=true

 

Well that is the beauty of diversity and difference of tastes. If we all liked the same things, it would be a very boring existence.

About the 599, I feel you're looking for things that don't actually exist, resorting to hyperbole. You appear to be of the raw sports car/smaller body/Enzo-Fiat-era/luddite/pre-electronic age of Ferrari. Fair enough, but comparing the 599 to the F40 is like comparing apples to thumb tacks. More than likely you would not want to cruise long distances or to work in an F40. You might as well take a KART. And I feel the 599 is actually the more subtle-styled one. Far more subtle than an F40.

Most of these cars with stability control allow the driver to switch most of the aids off if you want unadulterated driving. Even the GT-R, as electronic as it is, lets you switch off it's traction control system. The 370Z can be optioned with or without the rev matching system, etc

 

I'm with you on everything you said here, David.

The 599, at its core, is just too big. Yeah, I know it's like "comparing apples and thumbtacks," but if we consider pure design, the F40 is dramatic, aggressive, and beautiful, all while being purely functional. The 599 has too much that is reminiscent of better, purer previous designs without needing them.

As for being a "Luddite," I agree here, too - I don't even want power windows (I can crank 'em myself, and much better and faster than the electric system. Plus, hand-crank windows almost never give anyone problems!)

Unfortunately, so many car companies are moving toward electronic control - of everything. I know, you can turn 'em off, but why be there in the first place? I wish Ferrari had held to the "two-seats, an engine, and nothing else" philosophy, but this evidently isn't what market research suggests that consumers want.

 

Why even bother with clothing.

 

Agreed

Is this your favorite word?

I love technology. I like to see it used innovatively in the design, manufacture, and within the car, except where it interacts directly with driver input. I like carbon fibre, KERS, carbon brakes, Aluminium Extrusions and Adhesives, Direct Injection, active suspension etc, and I like the car to be set up how the team that designed it best envisioned it. I don't like settings that turn it from limo to sports car. If its well designed it will be good and have its own individual character. After that let me control the car.

But you would be happy to take the Daytona and then you would look GOOD cruising those long distances. I accept and respect that you think the 599 looks good, but I disagree. I know I'm in the minority on this one.

All True, but jump into an E30 M3 and you will have reached your destination (and had great fun doing it in a car thats right straight out of the box) before an E63 M6 driver has got his suspension, bhp, seats and sat nav ready to start. And then when he sets off the on board health & safety officer will ping, ping, ping until he puts his seatbelt on - just to let him know who is really in charge.

 

Glad somebody agrees with me. I am starting to think that bigger opportunities are being created for the small "cottage" manufacturers to bring us exciting cars.

 

Long term, the car will be the better investment...

 

hahhhahahaaa

no argument there

 

Exactly.

 

Only the people who write on this forum even know what a Dino is, was, or meant to Ferrari. I know for a fact because I used to own one. Most people don't have a clue what it is when they see the Dino badge. Launching a new brand is extremely expensive. Just look at Maserati. How much investment have they made to sell what... 2000 pretty darn good cars a year in the US for 7 years?

To add insult to injury, nearly everyone writing on this forum would be blasted it for not looking like a Dino, not having a V-6 motor, not being mid engine, not being small or light enough, not being cheap enough, being made in too many numbers, and not having "Ferrari" badges and prancing horse logos which so many Dino owners (but not me) seem to love to add to their cars. To most, it would simply be "a sellout".

Ferrari is between a rock and a hard place. It needs to make the F430 replacement better than the F430 at a time when costs to make and develop cars are increasing. That means, it's going to cost more and that may price them out of the market. The California gives Ferrari the ability to add a more flexible model to the line up. By making only one model "retractable hardtop" model with a 2+2 option instead of the normal 2 seat "spider" and "coupe" as the entry level saves them engineering, manufacturing, and marketing costs while making the car attractive to the widest market.

And yes, it is about profit.

For some reason, people don't seem to understand that there's a business going on here. Like it or not, if you don't protect and invest in your market, you are sure to loose it.

 

Thanks!

You know, I have a schizo thing going on with that car. On one hand, I really want one. But on the other what I want even more is to get a wrecked one, extract the drive train, shorten the drive shaft, and install the whole mess in a some sort of lighter frame. Not sure what although I have some ideas. An Alfa Montreal for one. Maybe even an Alfa 2600 Bertone GT for a real sleeper. Or some kind of custom tube frame with a one off body. Not so much because I think that I will really mind how the Cali drives, but more because I do all my own work on my Mondial, and I can't see being able to continue that with a Cali, unless I build the darn thing first, tearing out a lot of the luxo stuff!

 

Well, project threads are the best

 

yes agree

it has been about that for decades..... profit

imagine that

 

interesting take on it; before long someone will do that more than likely.

 

How does rebadging a FIAT-Maserati, with an amortized engine and a BMW transmission, NOT cheapen the brand?

 

Ferraris have always been cobbled together with bits and pieces of other makers' stuff. Since Ferrari has been a FIAT subsidiary it has used FIAT parts extensively. They have even used GM's Hydramatic trannies in the past and they currently use Delphi suspension components and Denso electrical pieces, simply because they are the best components available. The Cali tranny is the best of its type. Why on earth would they not use it? The engine is a Ferrari developed and engineered item. The fact that elements of it have found their way into other family corporate brands like Mas and Alfa does not change the fact that it was developed by Ferrari who are the best placed to make the engine.
I'm afraid your arguments do not hold water. Car making globally uses a broad array of suppliers to get the best components and Ferrari is no different. If they tried to make everything in-house, for a less than 10,000 annual production run they would be out of business in a year.

 

Fixed.

 

Give us a break, friend. Maser, Alfa, Ferrari, Fiat... they've all shared parts and engine variants, as they do now. The California isn't any different in this regard. If anything this is business as usual. The protracted alarmist position of the hater contingent creates blindness to very normal things.