RE: Ferrari California T Handling Speciale pack

RE: Ferrari California T Handling Speciale pack

Author
Discussion

haroonok

70 posts

214 months

Saturday 23rd January 2016
quotequote all
have driven the original Cali,then the 30 with the handling pack,then finally the T-all were pleasant but never felt particularly planted for press on driving.

RoverP6B

4,338 posts

129 months

Saturday 23rd January 2016
quotequote all
greggy50 said:
He is an old bloke and drives a 15yr old BMW probably just jealous...
There are some cars I would seriously envy. I'd love to have an Aston Martin DBS or 997 GT3, for example. The California just does absolutely nothing for me - it's not pretty, doesn't sound good, doesn't drive all that well, according to most reports... As for my BMWs, I simply haven't found anything which could replace them. Tried newer stuff and just keep going back to the E39s.

rodericb

6,767 posts

127 months

Sunday 24th January 2016
quotequote all
RoverP6B said:
The California was the answer to the question no-one asked, and as a result falls between all stools. It isn't even remotely pretty.
Quite. Ferrari used to deliver, with a reasonable regularity, ones which are usually not too soft and not too hard. It was a nicely natural process until the doctors in Marketing got involved and started fiddling with that natural process. The media then grabs it, under the supervision of Ferrari, and the old car is painted as a bit of a tinsel-coated old turd.

Schermerhorn said:
Why can't they make them this good from the outset?
+1

Edited by rodericb on Sunday 24th January 04:42

Roger Irrelevant

2,943 posts

114 months

Sunday 24th January 2016
quotequote all
RoverP6B said:
The California was the answer to the question no-one asked, and as a result falls between all stools. It isn't even remotely pretty.
Why is it the best selling Ferrari ever made then?

nickfrog

21,187 posts

218 months

Sunday 24th January 2016
quotequote all
Because most buyers don't have the exacting standards of Mr Rover. They don't realise their car is ste compared to a E39 5-series.

Edited by nickfrog on Sunday 24th January 21:26

dpop

210 posts

133 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
Interesting one, this. For those of us who really want a convertible sports car, I for one am glad that Ferrari have sharpened both the looks and supposed feel of the California.
It is now at the stage where, with some sensible colour and interior choices, this could be the best non-flashy sports car out there to buy.
Ferrari's own alternative, the 458/488, seems to be exclusively driven by teenagers and exclusively in 1st gear at 5000rpm, at least in London where I live. Same goes for the Lambo and Mclaren offerings I see around town.
While I personally would still go for the 355 spyder if I was in the market for a convertible ferrari, I have to admit that this cali T would be my car of choice if I was keen for a new, convertible sports car in this price range.


RoverP6B

4,338 posts

129 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
I'm not trying to compare the California to the E39, don't be daft. The California sells well because it's the entry-level Ferrari - a cheaper way into a new Ferrari than ever before. It's still a car dreamed up by marketing men rather than engineers. It was originally supposed to wear a Maserati badge but they figured they could make more money off it by slapping Ferrari badges on it instead.

By the way, I saw an XKR drophead yesterday... still looks gorgeous and emits a filthy, thunderous bellow that makes the California's flat-plane (and now turbocharged) drone sound utterly anodyne in comparison.

Rawwr

22,722 posts

235 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
RoverP6B said:
it's not pretty, doesn't sound good, doesn't drive all that well
Subject, subjective and then a nice mix of subjective and relative. You've done well.

bertie

8,550 posts

285 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
As a Ferrari owner I was very sceptical about the California myself.

However I recently took the FF in for a service and tried a California T and I really loved it.

Great as a more daily usable thing, the folding roof is great and for daily use the exhaust is nicely judged.

In fact so much so I've ordered one.

nickfrog

21,187 posts

218 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
RoverP6B said:
don't be daft.
laugh

bertie said:
As a Ferrari owner I was very sceptical about the California myself.

However I recently took the FF in for a service and tried a California T and I really loved it.

Great as a more daily usable thing, the folding roof is great and for daily use the exhaust is nicely judged.

In fact so much so I've ordered one.
You bought the wrong car - you're been had by the marketing men - it's rubbish. It's sounds crap (even if you've never heard one). Buy a Jaguar.


Edited by nickfrog on Monday 25th January 13:41

RoverP6B

4,338 posts

129 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
Or a proper Ferrari with a V12 engine...

bertie

8,550 posts

285 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
RoverP6B said:
Or a proper Ferrari with a V12 engine...
Got one, the FF....actualy got two, 575 also.

I drove it, I liked it, I think it'll be great for daily when the weather's nice.

Theophany

1,069 posts

131 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
bertie said:
RoverP6B said:
Or a proper Ferrari with a V12 engine...
Got one, the FF....actualy got two, 575 also.

I drove it, I liked it, I think it'll be great for daily when the weather's nice.
Glorious. biglaugh

nickfrog

21,187 posts

218 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
bertie said:
RoverP6B said:
Or a proper Ferrari with a V12 engine...
Got one, the FF....actualy got two, 575 also.
biggrin

Our own resident Victor Meldrew (a known authority on all things Ferrari, through ownership experience and having driven the entire range since circa 1757) will no doubt tell you that neither the FF nor the 575 qualify as proper Ferrari.

bertie

8,550 posts

285 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
nickfrog said:
bertie said:
RoverP6B said:
Or a proper Ferrari with a V12 engine...
Got one, the FF....actualy got two, 575 also.
biggrin

Our own resident Victor Meldrew (a known authority on all things Ferrari, through ownership experience and having driven the entire range since circa 1757) will no doubt tell you that neither the FF nor the 575 qualify as proper Ferrari.
I would say does the 308 qualify but obviously that's not V12...

So basically it's got to be a V12 on carbs to qualify as a "proper" Ferrari then..biggrin

nickfrog

21,187 posts

218 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
And that also even eliminates the Boxer, 512TR etc...

Not to mention the 388, F40, Stradale, etc... No deffo not proper Ferrari material.

bertie

8,550 posts

285 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
nickfrog said:
And that also even eliminates the Boxer, 512TR etc...

Not to mention the 388, F40, Stradale, etc... No deffo not proper Ferrari material.
So it's 250, 275, 330 and after that it's all st!

jamieduff1981

8,025 posts

141 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
He has a special loathing for flat-plane crank V8s as I recall. I'm surprised he's lowered himself to a cross-plane crank Jag as an acceptable substitute for a Cali. Jaguar engines have been ste since the cylinder block was chopped down from 6 in a line to 4.


FWIW I've never driven the Cali T but have driven the 4.3 NA and thought it was a really sweet handling car and with more than enough power for open-top fun.

J4CKO

41,623 posts

201 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
Looks a nice car but it does seem a bit of a leftfield choice, I bet it is fantastic but I dont think it would be on my lottery list.

D7Cup

123 posts

134 months

Monday 25th January 2016
quotequote all
bertie said:
RoverP6B said:
Or a proper Ferrari with a V12 engine...
Got one, the FF....actualy got two, 575 also.

I drove it, I liked it, I think it'll be great for daily when the weather's nice.
And let's just close this thread then gents laugh