RE: Driven: Ferrari California
Discussion
Hmm, the California is a Ferrari that you can live with day to day, that's what it is designed to be and that is what it delivers. "appalling body control, awful steering and inconsistent handling"?, well, no, one of the best drives I've had for months was an early morning blast across the pennines in a California, it was great, it's a route I've done in all sorts of cars - 430, Gallardo, 599, 997 turbo, 997 GT3, Vantage, DB9 to name a few - and I'd choose it again ahead of any of them.
OK if I was going on a track I'd chose a 430 or 997 instead, but for day to day use it's up there with the 599, whether it is worth the money is a bigger question, but they will sell a lot of these to people who will really love them.
OK if I was going on a track I'd chose a 430 or 997 instead, but for day to day use it's up there with the 599, whether it is worth the money is a bigger question, but they will sell a lot of these to people who will really love them.
JohnGoodridge said:
Viglietti Motors in Cape Town have one of these I keep seeing here near Cape Point - I've found it underwhelming. If you're not autiscenti then IMHO it gots loads less presence than an Vantage or Maser Gransport Cabrio, or even the 430 Scuderia - a different prospect but not that different a price (one also roams around the Cape). I'm sure it drives beautifully, but 150k? Can't help thinking you'd have to really really want a Ferrari open top GT to choose one.
given the import duties on F cars in SA, that will have cost a whole lot more than 150k as well.I was / still am looking at sending a 360CS in that direction and that will end up substantially more than 150k
Seems like a wonderful car - but likely for someone else. I'd prefer the hard-core feel of the Scud or (likely) the forthcoming 458. But there is a broad market out there for high-dollared performance cars. With this, Ferrari aggressively broadens their coverage. Very impressive company and stable. I'd love to own a mid-engine'd one some day.
Agree that it was a well-done article as well.
Agree that it was a well-done article as well.
mikEsprit said:
Even if you think it looks better in white, an F car should not be white.
Not many cars can pull it off outside of motorsport. It's all a little bit 2008 now anyway. Then we had the matt black fad. Surely the footballers have a new colour theme to treat us with this summer...chimpanzee said:
This article has provoked me into joining and airing a view, simply because I think it has fundamentally missed the point of the California and the arguments surrounding it.
Whilst the review toes the line of 'it's a Ferrari so it must be great' the simple fact is the California, from an enthusiasts point of view, is not a good car. I've driven two (not for prospective purchase I might add) and the only reason for driving a second car was because the first was so bad. The second was the same.
The review talks about the appalling body control, awful steering and inconsistent handling as 'old school'. Well if the reviewer removed his rose tinted welding glasses for a second he might have noticed that it just isn't good enough. Not to mention that the exhaust note is boring with the top up (it's only interesting on fast shifts at high revs anyway). Or that it isn't terribly fast. In isolation you could forgive the California, it's a Ferrari after all..., but the fact is most of the competition are better.
But what Ferrari has done is make this car exactly for the type of people who will buy it. Soft, comfortable, flashy, loud, brash and expensive. Most owners wont be able to drive a nail into a piece of wood, and Ferrari has given them what they want. Whether that's right for the brand, whether most of Ferrari's customers fall into the above category anyway, whether they buy a Ferrari because of a promise of performance that they could never exploit, whether it's sensible to have a 458 and California that are so very different...this is the debate that should be being had.
Just read this. Err no. You missed the point, and your post smells of resentment. You seems to have an issue about people who own new Ferrari's perhaps its because you are not one and are suffering from an inferiority complex. Whilst the review toes the line of 'it's a Ferrari so it must be great' the simple fact is the California, from an enthusiasts point of view, is not a good car. I've driven two (not for prospective purchase I might add) and the only reason for driving a second car was because the first was so bad. The second was the same.
The review talks about the appalling body control, awful steering and inconsistent handling as 'old school'. Well if the reviewer removed his rose tinted welding glasses for a second he might have noticed that it just isn't good enough. Not to mention that the exhaust note is boring with the top up (it's only interesting on fast shifts at high revs anyway). Or that it isn't terribly fast. In isolation you could forgive the California, it's a Ferrari after all..., but the fact is most of the competition are better.
But what Ferrari has done is make this car exactly for the type of people who will buy it. Soft, comfortable, flashy, loud, brash and expensive. Most owners wont be able to drive a nail into a piece of wood, and Ferrari has given them what they want. Whether that's right for the brand, whether most of Ferrari's customers fall into the above category anyway, whether they buy a Ferrari because of a promise of performance that they could never exploit, whether it's sensible to have a 458 and California that are so very different...this is the debate that should be being had.
Alternatively, I would suggest that you are judging this car based on your projected lifestyle, which is a subjective assessment at best.
This car appears to have appealed to many objective reviewers (i.e. Those from Autocar, Car,to name but a few) for what it is. When adding your suggestions as to this car's dynamics, I am afraid you are in the minority here. To go as far as to state a 'fact' that it has 'appalling body control, awful steering' suggests an irrational mind when many other reviewers have fully appreciated what this car was built for, and praised its dynamics (for what it is-i.e. an open top sports car).
Alternative you failed to grasp what the intended consumer group was for this car when you drove it, either because you cannot see beyond your own lifestyle (and judge others to be less for not sharing yours) or you cannot help but harbour resentments towards those who might be willing and able to purchase one of these cars. Whatever the reasons may be, your assessment appears to be subjective and hence irrational.
It's characteristics may well appeal to those who seek a more comfort oriented sports car, but which is a Ferrari non the less. So what if it appeals to those who want a Ferrari which is more comfort oriented? There is nothing wrong with Ferrari making a car to suit the tastes of those who have the means to buy a Ferrari and would like to own a Ferrari, but would prefer it to be more flexible, a car for them to enjoy everyday without having to take it to a track.
You suggest that owners of Ferrari's are 'Soft, comfortable, flashy, loud, brash and expensive' and go on to state that 'Most owners wont be able to drive a nail into a piece of wood, and Ferrari has given them what they want'?. This statement clearly stinks of resentment for those who can afford to own one of these cars and enjoy the finer things in life. So what if some of the owners are not track day enthusiasts, i.e. women, who Ferrari did take into account when building this car? This car appears to be a good car in any event, so its not going to damage the Ferrari brand.
If you don't like this car, but still like Ferrari and would like to go to trackdays, then perhaps you might consider getting a 458 instead. Or perhaps you would not for the reasons given above.
I personally would not want to get one of these, simply because its design does not appeal to me.
I admit that this is a subjective assessment but can appreciate why so many might like it, for what it is.
Garlick's list of alternatives for the same budget is fantastic and in my view would provide a more interesting motoring life once the novelty of the new fezza had worn off. I like playing that game for a whole range of budgets e.g £20k, e39 M5, VX220, subaru legacy for winter. At least one of these would always be serviceable !
Having an alternate list is a nice idea, but lets be honest, everyone here would have more than just the Fez anyway. So its a moot point.
The Cali looks great imo, perfect for the market that it is aimed at.
Myself, i'd go for a F430 spider, but wouldn't reject a Cali if the keys were thrown at me!
The Cali looks great imo, perfect for the market that it is aimed at.
Myself, i'd go for a F430 spider, but wouldn't reject a Cali if the keys were thrown at me!
k-ink said:
mikEsprit said:
Even if you think it looks better in white, an F car should not be white.
Not many cars can pull it off outside of motorsport. It's all a little bit 2008 now anyway. Then we had the matt black fad. Surely the footballers have a new colour theme to treat us with this summer...I've seen 4 of these in around west minister already with only a weeks sun, bankers, city traders are the real customer base..the very wannabe snobs who label people and cars "chavvy"...this in white is one of the tartiest ,tackiest cars I've seen.
MogulBoy said:
chimpanzee said:
(in a nutshell) the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
^^^ Monkey? Is that you?Edited by MogulBoy on Tuesday 4th May 11:55
chelme said:
chimpanzee said:
some stuff
some other stuffI would very much like a 458, and a very nice car it is for a number of reasons, but my limited budget means I have stretched myself to an XF as it is, a Ferrari is a step to far. I like Ferrari owners by the way.
I was merely commentating that elsewhere the California is not rated as highly and has started debate. On Autocar's website it reads:
'The reason for the suppleness becomes evident when you turn for your first corner, even before you happen to brake sharply. The California is set up incredibly softly, with noticeable roll on turn-in and dive under braking. Driven at four-tenths, this chassis set-up makes sense, as does the light, direct steering, which helps to make the California seem lighter than its claimed 1735kg. If perhaps not what we expect from Ferrari, this does make for a relaxing car to waft around in, occasionally dipping into the reserves of power.
Up the pace to seven-tenths and the set-up is less successful. If you concentrate sufficiently it is possible to drive the California remarkably quickly (witness our lap times), but the crunch is that it isn’t hugely engaging. Which for a Ferrari doesn’t seem right,...'
And then says:
'On the whole it’s a line Ferrari has trodden well. No, the California is not always as much fun as we would like it to be and, flattering headline acceleration figure apart, we’re unconvinced that it feels entirely fast enough.'
This backs up my own experience. I also stood in WHSmith and read the EVO review today and that kind of says the same thing.
But it seems everyone is in awe of the badge of the front, so I guess that's enough for some. I would say that Pistonheads is growing, and a fantastic acheivemnt that is too, but it needs to keep one eye on credibility as well and ensure cars are reviewed for what they are and not what poeple would love them to be.
Dagnut said:
..this in white is one of the tartiest ,tackiest cars I've seen.
Hence why it would appeal to those with a surplus of funds and very little in the way of taste. Admittedly I could have substituted the word footballer for any of the following: Arab / Surrey housewife / northern drug dealer / Spanish bar owner / Trader. But you get the point.
chimpanzee said:
This article has provoked me into joining and airing a view, simply because I think it has fundamentally missed the point of the California and the arguments surrounding it.
Whilst the review toes the line of 'it's a Ferrari so it must be great' the simple fact is the California, from an enthusiasts point of view, is not a good car. I've driven two (not for prospective purchase I might add) and the only reason for driving a second car was because the first was so bad. The second was the same.
The review talks about the appalling body control, awful steering and inconsistent handling as 'old school'. Well if the reviewer removed his rose tinted welding glasses for a second he might have noticed that it just isn't good enough. Not to mention that the exhaust note is boring with the top up (it's only interesting on fast shifts at high revs anyway). Or that it isn't terribly fast. In isolation you could forgive the California, it's a Ferrari after all..., but the fact is most of the competition are better.
But what Ferrari has done is make this car exactly for the type of people who will buy it. Soft, comfortable, flashy, loud, brash and expensive. Most owners wont be able to drive a nail into a piece of wood, and Ferrari has given them what they want. Whether that's right for the brand, whether most of Ferrari's customers fall into the above category anyway, whether they buy a Ferrari because of a promise of performance that they could never exploit, whether it's sensible to have a 458 and California that are so very different...this is the debate that should be being had.
You maybe right on some aspects, but you are simply wrong when it comes to the speed of the thing. All testers, EVO included, have concluded that it is not short of performance, even if the handling leaves room for improvement.Whilst the review toes the line of 'it's a Ferrari so it must be great' the simple fact is the California, from an enthusiasts point of view, is not a good car. I've driven two (not for prospective purchase I might add) and the only reason for driving a second car was because the first was so bad. The second was the same.
The review talks about the appalling body control, awful steering and inconsistent handling as 'old school'. Well if the reviewer removed his rose tinted welding glasses for a second he might have noticed that it just isn't good enough. Not to mention that the exhaust note is boring with the top up (it's only interesting on fast shifts at high revs anyway). Or that it isn't terribly fast. In isolation you could forgive the California, it's a Ferrari after all..., but the fact is most of the competition are better.
But what Ferrari has done is make this car exactly for the type of people who will buy it. Soft, comfortable, flashy, loud, brash and expensive. Most owners wont be able to drive a nail into a piece of wood, and Ferrari has given them what they want. Whether that's right for the brand, whether most of Ferrari's customers fall into the above category anyway, whether they buy a Ferrari because of a promise of performance that they could never exploit, whether it's sensible to have a 458 and California that are so very different...this is the debate that should be being had.
I think the car needs a Gen 2 version, that should be much better. As a daily driver for those with the required cash, the concept has a lot of merit.
chimpanzee said:
chelme said:
chimpanzee said:
some stuff
some other stuffI would very much like a 458, and a very nice car it is for a number of reasons, but my limited budget means I have stretched myself to an XF as it is, a Ferrari is a step to far. I like Ferrari owners by the way.
I was merely commentating that elsewhere the California is not rated as highly and has started debate. On Autocar's website it reads:
'The reason for the suppleness becomes evident when you turn for your first corner, even before you happen to brake sharply. The California is set up incredibly softly, with noticeable roll on turn-in and dive under braking. Driven at four-tenths, this chassis set-up makes sense, as does the light, direct steering, which helps to make the California seem lighter than its claimed 1735kg. If perhaps not what we expect from Ferrari, this does make for a relaxing car to waft around in, occasionally dipping into the reserves of power.
Up the pace to seven-tenths and the set-up is less successful. If you concentrate sufficiently it is possible to drive the California remarkably quickly (witness our lap times), but the crunch is that it isn’t hugely engaging. Which for a Ferrari doesn’t seem right,...'
And then says:
'On the whole it’s a line Ferrari has trodden well. No, the California is not always as much fun as we would like it to be and, flattering headline acceleration figure apart, we’re unconvinced that it feels entirely fast enough.'
This backs up my own experience. I also stood in WHSmith and read the EVO review today and that kind of says the same thing.
But it seems everyone is in awe of the badge of the front, so I guess that's enough for some. I would say that Pistonheads is growing, and a fantastic acheivemnt that is too, but it needs to keep one eye on credibility as well and ensure cars are reviewed for what they are and not what poeple would love them to be.
Reading your last sentence, I would argue that is exactly what is being done here, Pistonheads have appreciated that this is a soft top, front engined, Ferrari which has a down tuned V8 from the 430, (and perhaps not what people would love a Ferrari to be). One could argue that people always want Ferrari's to be supercars, and when they fall below this expectation, some (if not all) are disappointed. Well, maybe Ferrari have reserved a little place in their factory for softer cars. This is reflected in its history, look at the 275 GTS, Mondial for example. Are they not real Ferrari's? I recall there being this discussion about the Mondial and Dino/Ferrari GT4's when they first came out and similarly they didn't look as good as their brethren i.e. 308GTB and 328GTB/S. However, I think these cars were misunderstood, rather like this one is being today. Come on, let this one in with the crowd, eh, its a good car, for what it is.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff