My guess is an even 3.0 with the turbo...
If I am not mistaken the 0-60 time was already released at around 3.6? I do not see 3.0 feasible in the slightest, the cali is an extremely heavy vehicle.
It will have a power to weight ratio slightly worse than the 458 and about the same as the FF. 0-60 in 3.4
You can subtract 0.1 for the 2.1 mph difference between 100 kph and 60 mph. Then subtract another 0.1 sec for factory conservatism, and you get to 3.4 sec.
I never believe these things anyway. Chevy says the C7 is 3.8 but no one has been able to get one yet. Most are about 4.2
Really does it matter so much? I think a better gauge is 0-100 MPH. Bob, actually a few magazines have got the C7 below 4 seconds, I believe MT and R&T did. Regardless, the new Cali should have some serious Mid Range Torque.
You can roll down your window when you're with your girlfriend and say "It's a Ferrari, pal", then pale with embarrassment when that Supra pulls away from you. Image Unavailable, Please Login
As i tell my son, when he want to run the car next to us, "We drive a Maserati, we have already won the race"
Road & Track got seriously better numbers with the original California compared to what Ferrari said, but that car may have been tweaked too. It does not matter at all what it is, Don Garlits will make one faster, and for you kiddies that don't know who Big Daddy Don is think of John Force. And as said a bit earlier, if you are driving a Ferrari you already won the race. Quite simply nothing is better! Anyone that thinks differently is wrong, not an opinion, just a fact. Faster than my 2012 Cali though ... Hmmmmm ... anyone want a 2012? Rick
Ferrari numbers of 3.9 sec for the original California are for 0-62.14 mph (0-100 kph) vs. 3.5 sec. for the 2010 car R&T tested for 0-60 mph (0-96.56 kph). If you examine the actual graph put up by R&T and trace their graph curve to 62 mph, they got about 3.7 sec for 0-62 mph. So the R&T time is only 0.2 sec faster than posted by Ferrari, which is not surprising based on reasons mentioned earlier. I think Ferrari's point with the 09 California was that it would go sub-4-seconds for 0-100 kph and justify its technology by comparing to older cars like the F430 (4.0 sec for 0-100 kph). Ferrari's message was "it's a real Fcar and not a boulevard cruiser, and provides a boost in performance over the previous generation of our supercar". For the new car, I think the point is that it's faster than the older California and on par with the 599 and FF. The idea is that the new car is well within performance envelope of current Fcars but does not put off owners of the 599 or the FF. OTOH, if the new car beats the 458, it would present a problem as the still-current 458 would appear to have "outdated Ferrari performance". But performance numbers reported by Ferrari are not necessarily what testers achieve so it would be interesting to see how fast R&T can make the new car go when they test it. At any rate, none of these numbers are of much use on public roads. They're mainly for marketing consumption when buyers compare the car against older or competing cars.
Quarter mile is more relevant in these hyper cars. For the CA T I'd guess 11.5 sec in the high 120 mph range.
Motor Trend said they did it in 11.9 at 117.4 mph in a 2009; they also clocked a 0-60 in 3.5 in the same car. I have a friend who owns a GTR; he reminds me his car is faster than mine. Echoing what other have said, when I ask if he would trade, he said he'd do it without hesitation (because he's a really smart guy hahaha).
All of these acceleration numbers are interesting, but that's all. I like torque as much as anyone else, but there is much much more to the driving experience. It is complex, so much so that we can't really put it into words accurately, substituting words like "visceral" or "makes my blood run." But you do know it when you experience it.
The worse was yet to come as the forest green Ford mini van then drafts you and passes you as well. But...I have a Ferrari honey and its not orange .
