This is the new California: The California T.

Doubt there was any more leg room worth speaking of, the seat backs are still pretty thick. The racing seats might give some additional room. I just looked at the press photos of the interior (as posted above) and the seats must have been all the way to the front when they took the picture, becuase that is not representative of what it was like in reality. I initially wanted to try if I could at least get my foot into the rear seat well, but I noticed immediately when looking that it would be impossible. The new car definitively doesn't have space for a few more years of age growth if the old car was too tight. I would not place anyone older than those in elementary school age back there (depending on size obviously).

Get a Bentley GTC if you want more room and an open top.

 

I think there is a little more room purely because the front seats are thinner. A little.

 

I think they said it was improved but not by how much. I guess that means they still understand that the seats are for shopping bags and small children only.

 

From the picture of Geneva the windscreen angle and green house seem to be exactly the same as the previous Cali....
I will ask the staff in Geneva on Friday if they know

 

Agree...to my eye the windshield and the roof are straight out of the previous model. It wouldn't be surprising if those points would stay fixed on a re-skin (assuming I'm correct)...not to take a way from the rest of the update.

 

If you have a local dealer nearby, they may have a "regular" California and you can verify your impressions next time you are there.

 

Thanks for sharing your insights MisterM...the windshield angle does seem pretty slanted.

Did you happen to notice the size if the A pillar?

That also seems to be a bit large on the old Cali. I am curious if anything changed

 

From the looks of it, those parts haven't changed. The prior car's A pillar is quite stout/wide. You have to be careful to look around them to see pedestrians.

 

I like this a lot. To my eye by arranging the exhaust tips horizontally instead of vertically it makes the rear look a bit smaller, which I always thought was just a bit big on the first California. And a turbocharged V8, yes please!

 

Thanks Mr. Maranello & Traveller. Guess I'll need to wait until my dealer has a car in stock to definitively determine the fit, at which time my kid may have outgrown it anyway!

 

The interior width of the A pillar was one of the features of my car that I didn't like. Based on my seating position, I always felt like I needed to move my head more than "normal" when making left turns to ensure no obstructions in the 300-330 degree range. I wasn't sure why the leather & padding needed to be so wide.

 

I agree , I don't know why the orig cali went with the stacked pipes makes the back end look real tall. The horizontal look so much better...

 

To be honest I didn't pay all that much attention to the rear seats. For me their only use is easy placement of light luggage such as shopping bags.

The windshield may be the same, perhaphs it's the new seating position that makes the windshield and upper A-pillar strut seem wider and more "in your face" than on the outgoing car.

 

Larry, I suppose we would have to ask the Pininfarina studio that question to get a reliable answer. But for the sake of satisfying the debate I'll try to speculate… I will provide some "visual stuff" and numbers so everyone can base further discussions on credible images - so that we can all be on the same page.

Here's a comparison between the rear-ends of the 360 Spider, F430 Spider, California and California T. This shows the "broad stance" body work (my terminology) that the California shares with the 2 earlier generations of Ferrari's RMR supercars.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

And FYI, their critical dimensions are:

MODEL..........360 Spider.........F430 Spider.........California..........California T
Height...........48"...................48.6"..................51.5"...............52"
Width............76"...................75.7"..................74.9"...............75.2"

The numbers tell us the older Ferrari supercars are lower and wider as to be expected, while the Californias are taller and narrower. It also tells us the California T got taller (0.5") more than it got wider (0.3").

Finally, I morphed the 360's tailpipes onto California's rear-end to show you what it could look like with side-by-side pipes instead of stacked pipes. I made 2 versions of the side-by-side pipes as there are 2 possible locations for the license plate. Such a change will also affect the performance of the rear diffuser.

To me, the side-by-side designs look dated as they truly are. Note that Ferrari did not go with this style of rear bumper in the California T and even the 458 no longer looks this way and only has 2 pipes because… Ferrari has moved on! My preference is for the stacked pipes. They look more exciting and aggressive from side views and present a fresh, unique design when viewed in its entirety. Ferrari needs to move on.

The California T does have side-by-side pipes and I'll have to see the car in person to form a more accurate impression but I think its tailpipes/diffuser layout strikes me as appearing less refined and just a bit awkward but perhaps Ferrari wants it to look more retro and more raw than the original California.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

--Great information and analysis however I think the vertical pipes look better/proper on the original California due to its rear overall tall shape while the side-by-side pipes look better on the California T due to its revised and more horizontal design elements. I realize the T version is technically 0.5" taller however all the new design elements stretch it out much more from side to side to where the side-by-side exhaust pipes are appropriate.

Another funny thing about seeing those pics is I think I like the 360 rear-end better than the 430 after all these years as it just seems so cohesive and like a 'traditional' Ferrari by having those big round lights in the black challenge grill vs the scalloped little lights top-mounted on the 430 rear deck.

In any case, I'm REALLY impressed with the California T overall redesign - the last California looked great when lowered on large wheels but by and large had some unusual design elements while the T just looks like a great and cohesive mesh of new and old without overdoing anything.

 

Thanks for the compliment!

However, I want to point out that none of these comparison photos, with the exception of the "morphed" images I made, have the benefit of being depicted at identical distances, identical angles and with identical focal length/optical distortions. They are compromised images and do not necessarily portray the cars 100% as they would look in real life.

So the F430 tail lights may seem even smaller in the photo because there's some wide-angle distortion. I used this photo because it was the only photo of an F430 Spider that I could locate with its roof up. It's not a very good photo.

I also want to emphasize (again) that it's very important to view (and spend time with) these cars in person. The way they present themselves in real life is very different from how they look in photographs (because cameras do lie). I will wait till I see the California T in person to form a more accurate impression.

FWIW, when viewed in person, I find the F430's rear treatment much more exciting and dynamic than the 360's to behold. Those protruding tail lights, "Enzo tail lights", reflect Ferrari's practice of introducing new design elements in their flagship models, trickling them down to their regular product lines and bestowing them with iconic features. The 360 does have a more classic look (because it features older design elements) but the F430 is much more refreshing and exciting to behold because it echoes the Ferrari Enzo. Both generations of California also have them. One really must view the cars side-by-side, from all angles and on multiple occasions for more accurate impressions to sink in.

 

the new Ferrari Market Letter, just in, shows over thirty Californias offered for sale, ranging in price from $160K to $229,995. Perhaps a stark reminder of the 'pre-owned' Ferrari market once a new model of that line is introduced. What do you believe someone really interested in one of these cars will actually pay? Whatever, a buyer has a barrel of bargaining power.

 

The greenhouse is usually carried over in refreshes like this. It is very expensive to engineer and test new greenhouse so they don't do it more than necessarily.

 

According to just released California T Dealer's Guide there is slightly more room in rear seats. Great document to read. My appreciation for this car keeps increasing more and more!

 

^^
Can you post or pm the relevant excerpt of that doc?

 

CA's held their values really well. Depending on year I bet most had an MSRP of 230K -240K on average. A 2008 F430 spider that probably had an MSRP of 265K can be had now for about $170K.

 

Would you please post or email or send me a pm with the guide ?

 

safety/protection/pillar strength

 

^^
Understood on the objective, but my other convertibles' A-pillars aren't as wide. I guess its a function of the car's weight, thickness of the frame and windscreen angle to ensure there is sufficient rollover protection.

 

I traded in my 458 Spyder and put my name on the list to order one. I just wasn't driving the spyder.