Post a pic of your V8 Ferrari
Discussion
renmure said:
blueg33 said:
I can associate with that. My manual one did similar a month or so ago.
I'm not techie minded but I think the clutch release bearing(?) did something bad.
Once it was all in bits it seemed as well fitting a new clutch as well.
It's actually the first "big" bill I've had with it in over 10 years.
Ho hum.
swanseaboydan said:
Exactly - for me I just wanted a sense of ‘event ‘ when I started it up - I did get a bit tired of people saying ‘it’s not a real Ferarri ‘ and ‘it’s a bit slow’ when all I care about was ragging it down the dual carriageway whilst listening to some 80s disco . . .
Slightly amazed at the suggestion the California is slow.. is 3.8 secs to 60, and 193 really slow… it’s quicker than a 430, and 360, and near as dam it as fast as the 458.. being only 0.40 secs slower to 60.. and dropping only 9mph top speed. Maybe I’m missing something..
andyman_2006 said:
swanseaboydan said:
Exactly - for me I just wanted a sense of ‘event ‘ when I started it up - I did get a bit tired of people saying ‘it’s not a real Ferarri ‘ and ‘it’s a bit slow’ when all I care about was ragging it down the dual carriageway whilst listening to some 80s disco . . .
Slightly amazed at the suggestion the California is slow.. is 3.8 secs to 60, and 193 really slow… it’s quicker than a 430, and 360, and near as dam it as fast as the 458.. being only 0.40 secs slower to 60.. and dropping only 9mph top speed. Maybe I’m missing something..
swanseaboydan said:
You’re not but the general public knows way way more than the owners do . .
I blame the reviewers, which is where most of the public with any interest gets their opinions. They seem to have decided that “soft and slow” would be the angle from the start, even when it patently isn’t true by any standards.A quick search turns up examples: AutoExpress “designed for boulevard cruising more than the race track”, or Evo “never quite feels as nimble and lithe as an F430 spider”. This is a GT so shouldn’t feel like it was designed for the race track or more lithe than a rear-engined two-seater. If these were true it would be unusable.
End result is a lot of people have no idea how sharp and fast the Cali actually is to drive. Of course, this gives a silver lining for those of us who do know: they are grossly undervalued and so make a great buy.
andyman_2006 said:
swanseaboydan said:
Exactly - for me I just wanted a sense of ‘event ‘ when I started it up - I did get a bit tired of people saying ‘it’s not a real Ferarri ‘ and ‘it’s a bit slow’ when all I care about was ragging it down the dual carriageway whilst listening to some 80s disco . . .
Slightly amazed at the suggestion the California is slow.. is 3.8 secs to 60, and 193 really slow… it’s quicker than a 430, and 360, and near as dam it as fast as the 458.. being only 0.40 secs slower to 60.. and dropping only 9mph top speed. Maybe I’m missing something..
California - 453bhp, 1735kg (0-60- is 3.8 secs)
F430 - 483bhp, 1449kg (tested 0-60 is 3.5 secs)
note - data from Evo
Other sources show the standing quarter in the F430 as being quicker than the California
Edited by blueg33 on Tuesday 22 August 10:44
andyman_2006 said:
Slightly amazed at the suggestion the California is slow.. is 3.8 secs to 60, and 193 really slow… it’s quicker than a 430, and 360, and near as dam it as fast as the 458.. being only 0.40 secs slower to 60.. and dropping only 9mph top speed.
Maybe I’m missing something..
I test drove a Cali T a few months, very quick (esp the steering), comfortable and effortless but not for me. My F430 has much more involvement, noise and sense of occasion so I'll stick with it for a while yet. Absolutely nothing wrong with the California T (it's a Ferrari after all) but not one I would choose as a hoon machine, just a little too subdued for my tastes. Maybe I’m missing something..
Gassing Station | Ferrari V8 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff