Why so much Cali hate?

in the time it took to read this thread, your California has lost $500 in value...

 

Compared to the drop of your 401K and your home value, the California looks like a bargin!

 

Here's some depreciation for all you 430 fans - I've got a '07 430 F1 Spider on my floor - $263,789 MSRP(!!!) with carbon brakes, carbon driving zone, leather bench, park sensors, shields, HiFi, yellow calipers/tach, power warranty, etc - red/black/red inserts, & 151 miles that I'll cheerfully sell for $220K & none of you seem to want to step up for it! Now let's do the math: $43,789/151 (assuming it was delivered with 0 miles - unlikely...) miles = $290/mile depreciation!!! You think the Cal will do worse than that? I guess you don't want to drive one over 775 miles or it won't have any value at all ($290 X 775.87 = $225,000)! It seems that ALL modern Ferraris drop in value pretty dramatically & among the current crop of dealers advertising these cars I seem to be the only one willing to admit it! Look at what everybody is trying to get for 430's in light of this & you'll see why F-cars aren't moving... Boys, we're back to the old days where you pay to play, if ya ain't got the juice to step up & understand that this game takes a big buy-in - step aside! Talk to the guy who paid "up money" to get his hot little hands on a new 550 about depreciation! Now, we all know that 599's, 612's will do nothing but go up in value, huh? I can only imagine that you aesthetes who have littered this thread with your educated insights regarding the Cal think THOSE bloated, over-engineered, future service nightmares are the epitome of classic design... Get real, 99% of us on this forum don't buy new Ferraris & we should say a little prayer for those who do - because they take the hit so we can (sort of) afford to enjoy our passion! Maybe the Cal ain't your cup of tea - but I'd bet good money at big odds that they're faster, prettier, & better in every way than what we poor 99 percenters drove to work today!
Jim (Napolis) excepted! Yr fthfl svt, Jim

 

Oh Jim, you shouldn't hit people with the truth like a bucket of cold water. They might do the wicked witch bit.

OK stand back now. You don't want to get any on you... (any melting witch )

Anyway everything you said is pure music to my ears. I will never be able to afford a new Cali, but as long as they follow suit, 5 years from now I'll have a huge smile on my face! What do you thing about this rumor that there won't really be any manual models available?

 

Wow such excellent points! I've found through my life that people just in general like to complain about anything... even someone else's loss!

That's a great point about new buyers though. If it weren't for the new buyers buying cars, 90% of the people who own them now would have no car to buy!

I've been asked many, many times what car someone should buy as an inventment. My response: By a 150 thousand mile Taurus for $800, drive it for a year, and sell it for $500. It's the best chance you'll have to make money on any car.

 

It's ugly and weighs 3600 lbs. It's an exercise in brand leverage, at best.

 

My god-- is this thread back? I thought everything that could be said has already... jeesh!

 

Great avatar of the real Dino.

 

Being expensive doesn't make a car fast, pretty or better. Otherwise we'd all be on MaybachChat.

 

News at 11!

 

In case anyone is wondering why I just said, "News at 11!", that is a cliche from my friends at slashdot. It means "yes, that is so fricken obvious, why did you say it?"

In other words, nobody claimed that the Cali's price made it faster, prettier, or better. Some people have claimed that the fact that it is faster, prettier, and better makes it, wait for it,

Faster

Prettier

and

Better.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

Thanks Bullfighter! I thought you would appreciate it.

Vegas, baby, vegas.

 

Posts about the "poor 99 percenters" and to the effect that "those who can't write the check shouldn't comment" suggest that the California's price point should put it beyond criticism.

I disagree.

 

Huh? How do you get "shouldn't comment" out of "but I'd bet good money at big odds that they're faster, prettier, & better in every way than what we poor 99 percenters drove to work today!"? Where does that comment in any way imply that people shouldn't comment? I interpret what he is saying as this: that it's all very well to kvetch about the Cali, but what are you driving that you would hold up as an example of something better? In other words it's easy to throw around the digs when you know that you will never in a million years own one, so you won't have to eat your words. To sum up: he is not saying that "99 percenters shouldn't comment, but why should anyone take what they say seriously?

I don't.

But for another reason. I read the gibes, and I don't see much that impresses me as thoughtful or insightful. I can tell you why I want a Cali: I have a Mondial t cab. I love it to pieces. Until the Cali came out, there was not other car I wanted more. But the Cali is front engine which gives it more predictable handling, plus with the top up, drives like a coupe, and with the top down, it drives like a convertible. That answers my one other complaint about my cab: often, when the road or the weather are not ideal, I wish I had a coupe. Problem solved!

Do I wish the styling was more conservative like my Mondial? Yes, but I'll get over it somehow...

 

"AMEN"

 

See quotes above.

After the initial owners take the depreciation punch, the 99 percenters pretty much determine resale values and the strength of the brand. Ask Ferrari if they take that seriously.

That said, enough with this thread.

 

In sum:

The Cali 2+ is a badge-engineered FIAT aimed by marketeers squarely at middle-aged, penis envy-stultified, legally-blind trustafarians.

...Apparently a larger cohort than one might imagine.

 

I don't like the California; I think it was conceived with cynicism rather than passion, and I have made some pretty barbed comments about the car, and how Ferrari is trading on its past with a ill conceived populist product of the moment without care for the future of the brand, without producing the car I and some other enthusiasts would like to see for at least the life cycle of this car.

But there are enthusiasts, some on this site who disagree and some are putting their money where their mouth is.

There are also a larger group of people who are not true enthusisasts and are attracted by the brand. It is generally accepted that the car is a good car, even if you disagree with the ethos behind the design, so who can fault wealthy people for buying it. I think you could suggest they are willing to put brand before beauty, but that is about it.

To speak of the people who purchase this car in the manner you did is out of line. From this single post you strike me as an internet warrior and a big mouth. I'd be willing to bet that if you were in a face to face meeting with a customer for this car, whether they were enthusiast or follower of fashion, you would express your opinion in a slightly more civilised way.

 

I don't understand why this car seems to get so many people's panties in a wad. It's just a car folks. Ferrari made the 330 and 365GT's which were nicknamed "queen mothers". Yet they sold a lot of them and they are sought after today. They made the Mondial 8 which many consider ugly but sold quite a few even though they were more than 308's at the time and they were SLOW. The 456 was decried for not being in tune with Ferrari's sporting nature and the 612 might as well have been the second coming of "queen mothers". Yet Ferrari has survived and prospered despite these models.

If you don't like Cali's, don't buy one. But insulting would be buyers makes those doing the insulting look bad, not the buyers. The model's success or lack thereof will be determined by how those with big enough wallets vote with them, not internet ranters and ravers. The model is not for me, but I don't need two modern Ferraris and I prefer to keep my 430. Nevertheless, after seeing them at the unveiling and getting to sit in them and examine them closely, I do think it is a good product for the market they are trying to reach. And, after all, Ferrari is a for profit business. Growth into other markets is what grows profits, like it or not.

Dave

 

I agree with you about the California and not wanting to insult people who like it.

I think it is interesting to debate where Ferrari is going. For me a Ferrari doesn't have to be a maker only of "out an out" sports cars (though I do want to see them build these). I love the big V12 GT's too because they are often beautiful, characterful, have a practical purpose, the exquisite engines are like the heart and soul of the machine as whole, they are often subtle and I have bought into the glamorous image of a V12 continent cruiser.

Ferrari is a commercial company, part of a bigger group, but if its reason for being is the bottom line result then it's not a company to be passionate about. The Calif's own sales success may be determined by buyers, but the reasons for purchase will be varied, with an increasing amount of people purchasing because of the prestigious badge combined with a user friendly product. These people will not be necessarily interested whether or not the car is an original idea, an honest interpretation of forward thinking game changing engineering ideals.

If volume sales mean a dilution of ideals, then what is so special about the company from an enthusiast’s point of view? I want to see no compromise cars that are special, beautifully made, engineered and styled, even if they fit into different market niches than the those of the past as long as performance and driver exhilaration remain the dominant characteristics. If volume sales are required, then Ferrari should be innovative enough to generate these from their product range, instead of trying to put a Ferrari spin on an existing market niche, i.e. producing a Ferrari Mercedes SL.

It would be much harder to achieve commercial success in this way and even harder to sustain it. But some special cars would be made. On the other hand, given the power of the brand Ferrari could probably sell a line of high volume general market orientated cars along side their purer cars for a long time. But this would come at the cost of their brand value. It wouldn't take that long for the brand to be repositioned negatively.

It may be that there is a limit to the number of pure cars you can sell, which is lower than that which Ferrari is trying to achieve now.

On a personal basis, I want to see the emphasis on the engines. The V12 heritage is important, and V12's are still among the finest designs, balanced, naturally charismatic. Sure they are more complex to build and maintain - but these are special cars right? I don't see the problems in these environmentally sensitive times of building smaller V12's combined with the new technologies. I would love a 2 litre V12 3-400 bhp, 800 kg car, an exhilarating driving machine in a beautifully engineered and styled minimalist package without all the fripperies of electronic & electric this and that. But I can just see the volume customer saying, "200,000 for a 2 litre, you must be crazy", or "it’s smaller than a mini, you kiddin me?"

The way things are looking I think you a more likely to find new ideas in future coming from the small niche manufacturers. Maybe that’s no bad thing. Who wants to be a slave to Ferrari?

 

True story.

One other anecdote: I have been reading Adler's "Ferrari, The Road From Maranello" lately and was struck by a quote from Enzo he made in the early 50's. "I have three groups of customers: sportsmen, fifty somethings and exhibitionists." As volume increased in the 50's, more and more of his cars came appointed with luxury interiors in order to appeal more to the latter two groups. So I ask: have things really changed all that much?

Dave

 

I don't remember that, I remember reading all the reviews and the car being generally a sensation with journalists, with a lot of emphasis being put on return to beautiful styling which I found amusing as I was and am a fan of the looks of the 412.

It was only here over a decade later that I saw the 456 take a back seat to the 550. But I would bet in time when the performance of both is eclipsed that the 456 comes back in favour even if its a 4 seater because of the looks.

I love them and I would like to get one. The only thing that slightly dissapointed me when I saw one in the flesh was the size. I don't get this preocupation with size, especially these days with ordinary cars being so huge. To my mind it is easier for a car to seem jewel like if it is small.

 

LOL Good Point.

But today it has also become like a religion to follow Ferrari. Power of the brand which was only being built in those days

 

I have a suggestion.

Why don't we start a thread that is called "why all the 348 hate?" or "why all the Testarossa hate?" or "why all the Dino gt4 hate?" or "why all the 400 hate" or "why all the Mondial hate?" or "why all the (take your pick) hate?".

The answer is OBVIOUS.


I second Bullfighter's motion: This thread is FINI.