This is the new California: The California T.

I had a 2010 Cali and then a Spider (past 18 months)...gotta say this has me thinking about going back. The Spider is great fun, but other than track days I can't even approach the limits without doing something really stupid. Never thought a turbo would appeal to me, but the huge torque should really suit the Cali and make it an excellent casual driver.

 

The problem is, you're too use to FAKE grills that do NOTHING, as demonstrated below.

You think it's easy to cool a 560 HP twin turbo front engine car that needs to operate in the Arizona desert in 120 degrees with a smaller opening?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The 355 grill is real. As best I can tell, there isn't a single non-fuctional bit on the outside of it.

http://www.ricambiamerica.com/images/diagrams/F35527_125.jpg

The grill protects the opening for piece 27 in the picture, of which there are two, one on either side of the car. Go do some research on what they do and then tell me it's non-functional and fake.

 

We all know the main purpose of that "grill" is to give it that look. Let's be honest here. The 348 is the same way, even worse with no purpose at all.

 

I've found all of the images of the new car beautiful, except the one with the top closed, and painted in black (vs. the rest of the car color). So, I decided to edit the photo to make it have a body-colored roof. For me, it makes all the difference in the world! I think it looks WAY BETTER with a matching roof color, and changes the look of the car! Forgive my photo edit! I am no artist, and used PAINT on my computer to do the job (I know...lame)! ;-)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

what about a glass roof?

 

Sure, but it's not fake and it does something, contrary to your post. The grill on the 348 otoh, does nothing.

 

has anyone noticed that in these released photos, the space between the tires and wheel arches appear narrower than in the original California? or is this not representative of how the actual car will look? this was a huge design issue for me but I am too lazy to lower the car.

 

my 2 cts on that is no. a glass roof on a cabrio hard top is just kind of useless. you either want the elements, or you dont want the elements. a glass roof in a fixed head coupe is fine, but not on a cabrio imo.

 

Well, my point is that these tiny little grills that people "miss" have virtually no purpose so when you have go make one that works in the real world, it looks larger.

It looks larger because it is larger because it has some actually work to do, not just look pretty.

 

I'd agree. The black roof looked pretty good on the 599, but I didn't feel it looked as good on the new California. I also enjoy it being a hardtop; soft tops are a necessary evil, but I can't think of one that adds to the aesthetic appeal of its car.

When the California's top is up, people are surprised it is a convertible since the top flows into the body quite well. It looks like a Ferrari GT, which I think was their goal. It also has some of its curves and lines due to it being a car that can be driven at distance in comfort, thus more attention (and space and weight) was given to creature comfort IMHO.

Engineers here can tell me if I'm hallucinating, but with the top up, the car is also more rigid and can be driven at higher speeds without the flex or roll I feel with the top down. That's wouldn't happen with a soft top, I believe. I had two soft tops, and enjoyed the quick up and down, but neither looked that good with the top up. Both looked significantly better topless, as is the case for many things in life...

 

I agree it looks better the same color as the car. And you did a great job of matching.

Best

 

Though I personally think the larger grill does better than the original, its size is very likely dictated by the need to supply air to the intercoolers so as to reduce heat soak, the bane of high psi turbos.

Having said that, there are examples of other large grill front engined cars in Ferrari's history, not all of them successful.... Here is the 340 Mexico of 1952.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Hey, better then I could do with PAINT. I agree, it does look better with the roof the same color as the body. The black roof might be stylish now, but I think the solid color is more classic and will withstand being outdated by the next fads to come.

 

The California T does look better than the Ferrari F12 but the grill is taking over the front end. It is a styling exercise and is not required to cool the intercoolers. The F12 is normally aspirated and it has an even bigger smiley face with big teeth grill. They are over exaggerating the front of the cars with huge over sized grills. It does not look good on an Audi or a Mazda IMO. It also does not look good on a Ferrari. Vignale had a thing for big grills. The 340 Mexico is a strange looking car, but it does have a brute look about it. Super long wheelbase and narrow track, it looks like a handful to drive. I know Phil Hill wrecked one during the 1953 Carrera Pan Am, the race the Mexico was designed for.


I will say the California T is more tasteful than the FF and F12 front ends.

 

The 550 Maranello-- which I think is a very pretty car -- not only has a "smiley face" grill but a lower lip to go with it. Were they trying to get into a Pixar movie?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yes, I noticed that too. It really does appear to have a smaller gap. If so, big improvement! That was one of the first things I did to my Cali 30 this past Spring. I initially had the dealer adjust the factory springs down a full 1 3/8" - 1 1/2" (tough to be very precise apparently), and I had them put 3/8" or so plastic "skids" under the cowl, knowing that there would be some bumps and scrapes. It looked amazing but was too low to navigate even small speed bumps, pot holes, inclines etc. I ended up taking it back and we settled on somewhere around 3/4" - 7/8" lower than stock. Gaining back that 1/2" of clearance made all the difference in drivability but gave the car the appearance I was looking for. It's a labor-intensive process and cost $1500 plus something like $200 for the skids -- absolutely worth ever penny in my book, and certainly did not adversely effect handling or ride quality that I could detect. Of course, try not to do it twice like I did...the first attempt was an expensive experiment. I posted one of these pictures recently, so my appologies to anyone tired of seeing them, but it tells the story on eliminating that wheel gap. Picture with roof up is before lowering; picture with roof down is lowered by 3/4" - 7/8". Someone else suggested 10-15mm spacers too. Something else to also consider!
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Bob, you should never let the facts get in the way of a solid opinion...

 

They were pixar when pixar wasn't cool.

 

Thanks Phil and jkddad! The black roof was bugging me, so I just had to see it colored differently. I did another with the A-Pillar in matching body color, and it looked great, too. Maybe even better. For one thing, I think the matching roof makes the car look lower and longer...and certainly tricks the eye into believing the car is a coupe!

 

First of all, I was kidding about Disney. The 550 grill is about 1/3 the size of the new Cali T grill and 1/5th the size of the F12's grill overall. The 550 does have a smile but that is ok. Maybe Disney can use it in a future cartoon.

This new California T is a good looking car, better than the 2008 version. I am just pointing out a trend that I don't care for, huge grills. I would prefer they start using NACA ducts or some other induction system instead of massive grills. It worked on the F40 and it had huge intercoolers.

 

Hi All,

I have not really posted in the forum much but have lurked for a long time and must say I have enjoyed all the input and passion shown by all you long time members.

I don't own a Ferrari but have patiently been watching and reading all the threads on the California and I have always loved the car, especially the Cali 30. I have been intending to buy a 2013 model year this Spring but now that I have seen the Cali T I am torn. From the images we have seen so far I just love the car, even the black roof really appeals to me, I liked it on the original model to. I would love to place a deposit now for the Cali T but I believe from reading on here you have to of owned a Ferrari previously to be able to do this, shame. Ideally I guess I could buy a 2013 model now and then place an order for the new model, my only concern would be not being able to sell the 2013 when the new car is delivered.

Anyway, a big thumbs up from me to Ferrari for the new California T.

 

It's hard to generalize about a styling feature. I always try to ask myself if a particular feature goes with the rest of the car and does the whole thing look "right." And then what does the feature convey about the whole package. To me the F12 grill exudes ferocity. And the side and rear sculptures support this sense of purpose. But the whole package does not come close to vulgarity, which for Ferrari would be the greatest sin. In the original 250GT California, the large grill (below) is a scowl on an otherwise delicate body. Yet it somehow fits. In the new California I think that Ferrari Stile Centrale has done an excellent job, given the constraints of the retractable hard top, and I have been quite critical of their past efforts.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Between the 250 Calif Spider, the Cali and the T from the front.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login