Drove the California ... Big Disappointment

Sounds like you're describing a perfect GT to me. Why is it that everyone wants it to be another F430? If you want an F430, buy one.

I can't argue about the price though. I've always felt is was about 30K overpriced vs the competition. I wish they would remove CCB as standard and cut the price, as well as include more options as standard.

 

It seems to me that you've described a huge success. I see the California as a competitor to the Merc SL and other cars similar to it, did you expect it to be a hardcore sports car with a convertible hard top?

 

Yep! Supercar brand to mainstream, MB SL lookalike in one step! No more exclusivity for Ferrari!

 

I guess my point is... I'm not sure you can put that much passion in and still have it be a great GT. All GT's suffer from this, going all the way back to the Lusso (which I've had the pleasure of driving --- lucky me!).

 

I'm passionate about a car that works. You're a master of reverse psychology. Now I want one more than ever. Don't change your mind, as the factory needs every sale it can get.

 

You know Jeff, I owned a 246 Dino gt. It had gobs of passion. It also shook at idle, smelled of gas, heated the interior constantly, had a balky gearshift, had electric windows that could only raise one at a time or the fuse would blow, leaked oil from the distributor onto the headers, ran hot in stop and go traffic, and had a trunk that you could bake a cake in when driving.

I'm sorry, I actually like cars that work, especially when you pay over 200K for one. If I have to give up a little "passion" for that, I think it's worth it.

Luckily, there are plenty of older cars to still fall in love with thanks to many loving owners of this mark. But, I don't think people today really want a classic feel anymore in today's market. We've all moved on, for better or worse. I don't fault Ferrari. I fault consumers.

 

You drove the car! I can't find fault with your
opinion at all. It's not for you.

The F450 is just around the corner!

 

Thanks for sharing your experience Jeff!

Would you like to see Ferrari make a new Ferrari that has no p/steering, stiff gearbox, stiff pedals, crappy a/c, slow windows, smells of fuel every drive etc...etc...?

Dont worry, so would I!

But i must admit, the Ferrari is a masterpiece of engineering!! The engine/drivetrain is fabulous.

 

The California must forever be compared to cars that it has little in common with like the F430, 360, 355, KART, a mini-bike... I don't understand this continual mode of comparison.

The biggest turn off for me personally is that it apparently is not available with 3-pedal manual shift.

 

I completely agree.....What happen to Ferrari? It's called increasing sales to a wider buyer demographic (Female and Older).

The Cali is the Ferrari Mondial for 2010.

 

Then Ferrari built the perfect GT car. A GT car is built for very different reasons than the 430. If you want absolute fun with noise then get the mid. I agree I like that too for a Ferrari. But sometimes a GT is not a bad thing either.

 

Hey Buddy!

Have you ever driven a Mondial? Don't go comparing the two. The Mondial was not a game changer like the California. Dynamically, the Mondial was simply a longer wheelbased 308/328, with 4 seats. The Mondial had the same drivetrain as the 308/328/348, and was IMHO, the perfect 80's 4 seater GT. It did not get the plush treatment, and has gobs of personality. If you have ever driven one, you would understand that it had infinitely more in common with its V-8 two seat brothers than the California does with the 430. Also, the Mondial was NOT the entry level Ferrari V-8, but the most expensive V-8. It also was made in small numbers by today's standards-- only 810 3.2 cabs for example, and none of the technology included had anything to do with the driving experience (except for the later inclusion of power steering on the T). You may not like the looks, but the only people who really bash Mondials are those that haven't driven one. I had fairly deep pockets when it came to buying my first Ferrari. I wanted a mid-engine 4 seat convertible. Ferrari only made one in their entire history--The Mondial--and it was a damn good car. You may not like the looks of the Mondial, but at least as far as my car is concerned, in person, she is stunning.

Not to slam the California. I had the pleasure of spending some time with one at Reading. It is a beautiful car in person and a nice addition to the Ferrari stable. However, it is definitely taking Ferrari in a different direction.

 

More different than the 400?

The California is just another piece of a product line. It's not a new direction at all because they've already been there before.

What's at question here should be...if Ferrari were to make a great GT daily driver, would this be it? My answer would be certainly more "yes" than "no".

 

I don't think it is considered an "entry" level Ferrari. Much discussion has been had about that by Ferrari owners here and also in the general media and I think that notion has been abandoned. I think that any of us that can afford one of these is very well aware of the differnces of the cars in the Ferrari range. For instance, I am seriously considering the Cali and I would never imagine that I would want to track the car. I know that Ferrari makes other cars for that purpose.

If the Cali is an "entry" level, then let's look at the pre-cali equation. By that logic, the F430 would have been the prior "entry level" car. So then purchasers of the 612 would have owned the F430 first? I know several owners of the 612 that never owned a F430. I think buyers at this level are sophisticated and know what car they want to serve a specific purpose.

 

The predominant criticisms about the Cali, apart from the appearance of the rear especially, appear to be that it lacks passion and is "too perfect".
We are well into the new century and even Korean econoboxes provide a near flawless driving experience. It would be silly if Ferrari produced a car that was grating, difficult to drive and lacking smoothness and amenities.

The good news for all of the naysayers is that there is an abundance of old Ferraris out there afflicted with all of these elements that provide a different "driving experience". Go get yourself an old 308 for around $30k and experience what a Ferrari used to be, but for most of the Cali buyers the car is just fine.

 

In your own words, the Cali is perfect. In that regard, Ferrari then has the competition in the GT market licked, as DB9s, M6s, SL63s, GTCs etc aren't perfect.

By your account, I think Ferrari will have a home run on it's hands. YOU may never consider another Ferrari if the Cali is your first impression, but YOU already know what else Ferrari offers and so does almost anyone else that the Cali won't appeal to. For everyone else that is not interested in the more 'raw' experience of the mid engined V8s, or has the means for the front V12 cars, the Cali is great.

 

I'll tell you what's interesting. This conversation is more intelligent, thought through, and less angry than I've seen in a while when discussing the California. Maybe people are really starting to think more deeply about what it is and what is not than the emotional reaction I've seen in the past.

I'll admit the California has a few things that bugs me also. Yes, I wish it was a bit more aggressively styled. And, I think it's too expensive (especially the options list). But, the car is a worthy successor to the line, helps improve the overall bloodline, and if it succeeds or fails will have zero effect on the overall brand.

 

As I recall, Ferrari has ever made a 8 Cylinder front engine car before, nor have they made any GT car at the lowest end of their price spectrum. More importantly, they have never designed a car designed to appeal to a wider audience including women as far as I know. Finally, they have never designed a car that shares, at least part of its structure with another brand (I believe Maserati if I am not mistaken).

In these regards, it is clearly a new direction. But that does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. In person, I think the car is beautiful and at least from the front and evokes the lines of many classic Ferraris. It is much more sensual than the angular looks of the 430 and Enzo.

 

Well, how much "Maserati" is in the California is debatable. Certainly, the chassis has very little to do with the Quattroporte or Grandturismo, if any. But, the 308 Engine WAS put in a Lancia sedan so that's something I would call cross-platform. Going back even farther, the 246 Dino engine WAS PUT in Fiat sedans. So, we've been there before.

This idea that it's designed to appeal to women is actually rather silly in my opinion. Is the Porsche 911 designed to appeal to women? I see women driving them all the time and I don't see men being turned off. Yes, the Enzo is a burly chested version of uber-macho. So, does every car have to be just as testostorne filled? If not, then something is definately "more girly". Is the 360 more "girly" than the F430? I think a lot of 360 owners would have an issue with that. So, Ferrari wants 10% of the buyers of this car to be owned by women (who, buy the way, are one of the fastest growing groups of professionals) while Porsche sells more than that to women (even more if you include the Cayenne). Is there a problem here? I don't see it. I say... bring 'em on!

Yes, this is the first front engine V-8 they have badged. On that note, and the folding hard top, it is unique. But, its still built, designed, and sold by Ferrari. So was the 400, the Mondial 8, the 308 GT4, and other controversial cars before it. Like I said, we've been there before.

 

I see your point, but I am not talking about the engine. From what I have been told by others on this board, who are in a far better position than I to know, the California and the maserati Gran Turismo platform share to some degree. To me it doesn't matter, but it is a new direction. The idea that the car was built to appeal to a wider audience including woman, should not offend anyone, but it does indicate a difference. Historically, Ferrari built so few cars that they could cater to their core audience and still sell out 2x over. However, their interest in increasing volume production, and capacity through, in part, the creation of a more user friendly Ferrari is a bit of a new direction---wouldn't you agree? AGAIN, I am not saying it is bad. Although, admittedly, I had that opinion until I saw one in person.

Finally, to the extent you seem to be intimating that I believe the California is not a real Ferrari...nothing could be further from the truth. As a former Lancia owner, I am keenly aware of how much of my '86 Mondial came out of the Fiat parts bin...It doesn't make it a Fiat, nor does platform sharing make a Ferrari a Maserati.