California early impressions

I took delivery of a 2009 California in December. It replaced a 430 Spider which had Capristo manifolds and pagid grey brake pads (a lot of extra torque and much better braking on the steel discs).

The last few weeks have been cold, icy and snowy so I haven't had a good opportunity to really get under the skin of this car but I have already formed some interesting first impressions and found a few questions that others on this forum might be able to help me with.

Hopefully this might be of some interest to some of you, if not, apologies!

The first thing to note about the California is that it looks stunning in the flesh. It is really a lovely and successful design, especially so given the amazing packaging in quite a small footprint - 2+2, hard top convertible, high performance, not too wide etc. it never seems to photograph well though, which is surprising somehow.

The second point to notice (on the handover) is how much Ferrari exterior and interior detail design has moved on since the 430. The 430 doesn't exactly look old but the much newer body shell design of the Cali gives a very different impression - much less curved, more solid feeling and with more technology. The interior feels very good and the seats (standard with power on mine) are about the best I've sat in, which includes racing seats on my CS and before that on a 360. They are brilliant. The seating position is excellent too. With the 430 I sat far too high and the headrest never really fitted me well, being too far away. Major controls are very well positioned and the advance of design since the previous generation of Ferraris is felt most strongly in the interior - it really is excellent. Even the SatNav, which I've seen criticised elsewhere, seems very good and also looks much better than I had been led to believe.

Rear seats are for occasional use but I have managed to put two of my daughters (14 and 15 years old) in the back for a 40 minute trip. Pretty tight but do-able if you need to (and when you have a Ferrari, sometimes you do just need to!)

The planning in the overall design seems excellent - the location and convenience of the standard fit trickle charger, the way the rear luggage compartment works with the hardtop, the TFT screen which I think works well, the through boot, among other things.

The static elements of the car are great - with superb showroom appeal.

On the road, things are very good but not perfect, with one particular thing I have been trying to work out.

So, the major controls. First the steering - very different to the 430. It seems a little more synthesised and less mechanical than the 430 which, on the whole, has excellent steering. The Cali has a much lighter feel just off centre, stiffening up harder into the turn but still less than the 430. At 5/10ths (ie high speed but not huge G forces) it can feel like the rack is too highly geared early into the turn. I'm not sure if this really is the gearing or the steering's lightness but not having pushed really hard over a 50 mile journey yet, I'm wondering if that might make it harder to get the car to flow, especially when you combine that with by far the worst feature of the car, and one that I have not yet fully understood.

On turning, and particularly if you meet uneven surfaces mid corner (very common in the UK) there is a somewhat unnatural lateral movement, first one way then back again. This happens quickly and would be enough to disturb the balance of the car if it happened on the limit. I don't really like it and I feel as if it shouldn't really be there on a Ferrari. I imagine it must be the result of trying to overcome some kind of compromise the engineers have with the package.

Here's where I need the help. I've been trying to work out whether the front or rear is too hard/soft. My conclusion is that the rear is harder than the front, but the rear anti-roll bar is softer, perhaps even too soft (could be totally wrong). My reason for thinking this is that the lateral movement seems to happen on the rear axle, which in the Cali is very close to where the driver sits - obviously different to the 430. It seems like you enter a bend, the front encounters a bump and by the time the motion finds its way to the rear it has become a noticeable body movement that has disrupted the flow of the car.

Until I can get to really drive the car hard for a long period on warm dry roads I won't know how significant an issue this is. Anyone else had the same experience?

With regards to the gearbox, that is a fabulous piece of kit. I've heard some people talk about it making the 458 too 'playstation', which I probably think is unfair criticism (I also have a CS, which is the antithesis of this and I must say, the rawness is a big part of the appeal, but still I suspect the DCT in a 458 is exactly right). There's no such question in my mind about the Cali, where I think the gearbox is a brilliant piece of thinking and allows the car to really fulfil its design brief - to be 3 cars in one, sports car, convertible and grand tourer. No other car I can think of does a better job of merging these three things and the DCT gearbox is central to this appeal.

The front mounted V8 is quite a thing too. The engine is sonorous, powerful, quite torquey and a great thing to be powered by. Having the more energetic nature of a Ferrari V8 but in the form of a front engined layout gives the California a unique character and also helps to deliver a highly sporting, almost frenetic drive, but still a GT. Others claim that (Maserati Granturismo, Jag XKR, Bentley super sports, even Aston Martin - I've had a DB9 and DBS) but I don't think they really deliver it. The 430 nearly does but it isn't really a GT, at least not a classic one.

The brakes feel ok, but not a big improvement over the carbon stoppers in my older CS, in fact probably not an improvement at all. Sometimes you need to give them a big prod to get the sort of stopping power you need, especially when cold. Not as good as the DBS carbon brakes.

Overall, and with the caveat of not having given the car a truly hard workout, the California, even the original pre '30' car can only be seen as a great success for Ferrari. As a CS owner, I feel qualified to say that categorically the Cali is a proper Ferrari, with its own unique character.

Its best feature is how well it combines various roles so successfully with very few compromises to any of them. It is a great car and for the right people an almost perfect one.

Its weakest point is that out of the three roles, the biggest compromise happens to be with the sporty driving experience. I have yet to fully understand how big an issue this will be but since this is a Ferrari, it might have been better to have compromised the GT bit to eradicate the potential flaw I mentioned earlier.

Overall, a solid 8 out of 10, which may even develop into a 9.

 

Yes, should say spec is magnaride, 20" wheel upgrade, black/bordeaux. Mostly driven in sport mode.

 

Thanks for the comments. It is definitely more than body roll, which is higher than in a mid engined Ferrari and for the record I have no objection to at all - all part of the character of the car and does not detract from the overall experience in my eyes.

From your replies, it sounds like this motion may disappear with the suspension under very heavy load in a corner.

I've found a road test report (EVO magazine - Audi R8 v Jag XKR v 911 Turbo v Cali) that hints at something similar to what I have been feeling and gives an explanation. Their view is that the Cali has fast steering, quick turn in with zero under steer but an under damped tail. (They also say the car can feel as if the front and rear axles are at odds with each other).

This means that over speed bumps the rear will feel fairly solid because the spring rates are ok (check), but that when you are in a corner, the dampers are not strong enough to eradicate secondary movement from the springs (all springs will keep bouncing unless controlled by the damper).

I think an under damped rear axle could lead to what I am feeling when driving quite quickly at 5/10ths but I would expect this effect to be less when cornering more on the limit because the springs are more heavily compressed. This may lead to the car feeling unsettled in spirited cornering but still predictable on the limit, which most people say the California is. The car is also extremely well balanced which helps.

Driving on even half decent roads you may not feel this - but in the UK where motorists are taxed heavily but our roads are very poor with too many holes and ridges on our fast 'B' roads, there is lots of opportunity to expose suspension deficiencies. UK manufacturers are excellent at making cars ride well for this reason (Lotus, Aston - mostly, Jaguar, Land Rover etc.)

It's interesting the same magazine drove the Cali in Italy and gave it a great write up. They did the group test in the UK and the car placed last on the basis of this issue (which I think is harsh - but then I would, having bought the California in preference to the others).

 

To make it easier, here is the relevant bit from the article I found. As I said, I obviously don't agree with this guy's conclusion....


At low speeds the California delivers on Ferrari’s promise of a supple, less demanding open-air GT, and on gently curving sections of the A5 it flows with an easy, relaxed style. There’s not a huge amount of feedback or connection through the steering wheel, but you simply learn to trust in the grip from the P Zeros and soon settle into the Cali’s refreshing take on Ferrari motoring.

There’s a surprising amount of body roll though, and as our speed increases there’s a growing sense that the rear end in particular is under-damped. It squats under the effort of keeping pace with the front end and the weight falls onto the outside rear wheel, as you can clearly see in the cornering shot on page 71. There’s so much grip at the front that understeer is never an issue, which would be great if only the rear was in harmony. Instead what you get is a car that’s oddly disunited front to rear. The result is a curious sensation of turning in, then almost immediately counter- steering to settle the tail. Ferrari will doubtless shudder at the comparison, but it reminds me of an early TVR Tuscan, which also had super-responsive steering, zero understeer and an under-damped tail.

This lack of body control manifests itself in other ways, most obviously through compressions, when assorted bits of underfloor aerodynamic addenda noisily grind themselves into plasticky swarf on the coarse Welsh tarmac. That none of the other cars skimmed the road shows the softness of the Cali’s chassis set-up.

It’s an unfathomable situation given that Italy, and Modena in particular, is home to some of Europe’s gnarlier and more challenging roads. It’s also hugely frustrating, for the vocal, rev-hungry, front-mid-mounted V8, super-snappy transmission and carbon brakes are a compelling and memorable combination.

When the roads suit it, the California’s potential is abundantly clear, but I simply can’t believe that you buy a Ferrari – even a softcore Ferrari such as the California – just to use it on ordinary roads. Yet when you inevitably stray from its comfort zone and drive it quickly, it feels all at sea.

That the California finishes last in this test is as disappointing as it will doubtless be controversial. Ferraris are built to be adored, and in my experience are almost impossible to resist. But after 500 miles in the company of the Audi, Jaguar and Porsche, on roads topped by the wide open space of Denbighshire and tailed with the city streets of Liverpool, it’s clear that this particular Ferrari can finish no higher.

 

That's a good way to describe it. I did wonder about the 458 since a friend has one and I know it is fabulous. In the end, keeping the CS and adding the California, which are both together about the same value as a good 458, seemed to cover most bases better.

My wife loves the California which helps too! (She didn't like the 360 Spider, 430 Spider and really doesn't like the CS)

It would be very hard to sell the CS which is an unbelievable thing but there are times when a non-red, non-wide and more subtle Ferrari is exactly in order.

A California is a car, the mid engined Ferraris are a bit more toy-like.

 

Replying to hotbmwm3's post, I agree with much of what you say.

However, I also work in the car industry and have been on the other end of the 'treating journalists to get good write-ups' lark and I can categorically tell you from personal experience it doesn't always follow.

I do think readers of motoring magazines need to understand that motoring journalists are only offering an opinion, admittedly based on much better references than most of us, due to the fact they have driven more cars than we have. Nevertheless an opinion it is.

The thing iis that they view life from the perspective of theory, rather than as an owner. That tends to make them over estimate the value of the driving experience compared with the ownership experience (a generalisation, of course).

In the case of EVO magazine in the UK (and others elsewhere focused on the driving enthusiast), they tend to give a view fairly reflective of the petrolhead but they are still susceptible to what affects the rest of us - our tastes change, quite regularly too, and then sometimes they change back again!

The thing that caught my attention about the group test I mentioned is that it did reflect my own experience. As I get more familiar with the California I'm hoping it won't detract from the overall experience because it has much to offer me and seems to have a unique blend of abilities.

Sounds like you gave exactly the right advice to your friend - it seems a mistake to buy a car based on perormance figures that will be mostly irrelevant to the way the car feels and how well you will bond with it.