Falling for the California, think I'm getting old.....
Discussion
Okay, so I've just been doing some googling and you tubing of the California, and for some reason it's really growing on me - I thought it was an interesting car when it was released but haven't really paid it too much attention. Conceptually, I find it a far more interesting ownership proposition than say a 458 and I thought I'd write why
1) I love how it looks, fat arse and all.
2) I love the fact it's a convertible.
3) I love the fact it's not a "typical" Ferrari.
4) I love that the styling is not nearly as fussy as say a 458.
5) I love that they didn't chase silly lap times with it but that the performance is within a few percent of an F430 (I'm seriously beginning to find the whole supercar horsepower/lap time/technology willy waving between manufacturers incredibly tiresome. Supercars should be simpler, Porsche have had it bang on with the GT3s for 10 years now)
I think the deal was sealed when I saw the steering wheel had only 3 manettino settings (comfort, sport and off) rather than the now standard 58 or whatever. I don't believe you can get a manual gearbox with it which would be ideal, but at least it has the next simplest thing available nowadays.
If I had to spend 150 large on an Fcar to replace my 355, California is where my money would go
Thoughts? Flame away!
1) I love how it looks, fat arse and all.
2) I love the fact it's a convertible.
3) I love the fact it's not a "typical" Ferrari.
4) I love that the styling is not nearly as fussy as say a 458.
5) I love that they didn't chase silly lap times with it but that the performance is within a few percent of an F430 (I'm seriously beginning to find the whole supercar horsepower/lap time/technology willy waving between manufacturers incredibly tiresome. Supercars should be simpler, Porsche have had it bang on with the GT3s for 10 years now)
I think the deal was sealed when I saw the steering wheel had only 3 manettino settings (comfort, sport and off) rather than the now standard 58 or whatever. I don't believe you can get a manual gearbox with it which would be ideal, but at least it has the next simplest thing available nowadays.
If I had to spend 150 large on an Fcar to replace my 355, California is where my money would go
Thoughts? Flame away!
Edited by Mario149 on Sunday 2nd January 10:32
Mario149 said:
Okay, so I've just been doing some googling and you tubing of the California, and for some reason it's really growing on me - I thought it was an interesting car when it was released but haven't really paid it too much attention. Conceptually, I find it a far more interesting ownership proposition than say a 458 and I thought I'd write why
1) I love how it looks, fat arse and all.
2) I love the fact it's a convertible.
3) I love the fact it's not a "typical" Ferrari.
4) I love that the styling is not nearly as fussy as say a 458.
5) I love that they didn't chase silly lap times with it but that the performance is within a few percent of an F430 (I'm seriously beginning to find the whole supercar horsepower/lap time/technology willy waving between manufacturers incredibly tiresome. Supercars should be simpler, Porsche have had it bang on with the GT3s for 10 years now)
I think the deal was sealed when I saw the steering wheel had only 3 manettino settings (comfort, sport and off) rather than the now standard 58 or whatever. I don't believe you can get a manual gearbox with it which would be ideal, but at least it has the next simplest thing available nowadays.
If I had to spend 150 large on an Fcar to replace my 355, California is where my money would go
Thoughts? Flame away!
I have to say i really like the California. In the flesh and in the right colour they are a very striking car. I like the fact thats it more of a focused GT car because around here i find my R8 to be too bumpy. 1) I love how it looks, fat arse and all.
2) I love the fact it's a convertible.
3) I love the fact it's not a "typical" Ferrari.
4) I love that the styling is not nearly as fussy as say a 458.
5) I love that they didn't chase silly lap times with it but that the performance is within a few percent of an F430 (I'm seriously beginning to find the whole supercar horsepower/lap time/technology willy waving between manufacturers incredibly tiresome. Supercars should be simpler, Porsche have had it bang on with the GT3s for 10 years now)
I think the deal was sealed when I saw the steering wheel had only 3 manettino settings (comfort, sport and off) rather than the now standard 58 or whatever. I don't believe you can get a manual gearbox with it which would be ideal, but at least it has the next simplest thing available nowadays.
If I had to spend 150 large on an Fcar to replace my 355, California is where my money would go
Thoughts? Flame away!
Edited by Mario149 on Sunday 2nd January 10:32
There are a couple of things i dont like about it. They sit too high, especially at the front (like most modern Ferraris). The 20" wheels dont perticularly suit it either. I could only spend £160,000 on one if i had another £160,000 to spend on something else too. They just arent special enough to warrant that price and according to EVO dont drive that well either (although all the reviews loved it at the time).
They're selling well enough though and holding their prices so there must be something good about them.
I went from a 430 Spider to a California last summer; its more usable, more comfortable, theres no worrying about the clutch, it seems easier to park and not worry about it; even though it cost 60k more than the 430! The performance seems as good as the 430 and you have all the little extras that you wish the 430 had; the only dissapointment is the £3k hifi (??) upgrade. Go for it!!
You can get a manual eh? Cool. What was the Fcar where they didn't give a manual option but some aftermarket people said they would put one in? Or am I getting confused with the Aston that had that.
Just to clarify, I am in no way in the market for one, I was just idly speculating on the basis it might fall into my price bracket in another 8 years or so
I def do not have £150k burning a hole in my pocket at the mo!
Just to clarify, I am in no way in the market for one, I was just idly speculating on the basis it might fall into my price bracket in another 8 years or so
I def do not have £150k burning a hole in my pocket at the mo!Edited by Mario149 on Sunday 2nd January 15:16
AL001 said:
Sorry but not a fan of the car at all - overweight and styling by three different committees it seems. A wrong step by Ferrari and about double what it should (and would) cost if it had been the Maserati it started off as, imo.
Did it actually start out as a Maserati though? I've never seen any "proof" as it were, just heard rumours 
The California is a great GT car and I love driving mine. Here is the proof that it started out as a Maserati. Having had a couple of GranTurismos I'd doubt if it would have turned out to be anywhere as good to drive though had Maserati brought it to market instead of Ferrari.
Edited by isuk on Sunday 2nd January 17:04
isuk said:
The California is a great GT car and I love driving mine. Here is the proof that it started out as a Maserati. Having had a couple of GranTurismos I'd doubt if it would have turned out to be anywhere as good to drive though had Maserati brought it to market instead of Ferrari.
Wow I never knew that.Edited by isuk on Sunday 2nd January 17:04
Although I do love it, and I certainly don't think you have to be old to like the Cali!!
Jonty355 said:
Surely thats just what they decided to use as a Test mule disguise? Same company so just borrowed some bits from a Gran turismo to cover up the Ferrari panels?
It's not a Ferrari test mule. It had a bespoke version of the GranTurismo dash. The windscreen header rail is also a completely different design to the California and would have been a very expensive part to engineer due to crash test regulation requirements. Ferrari took over the design of this car when FIAT spun Maserati off into a new holding group alongside Alfa Romeo. The GranCabrio is Maserati's somewhat rushed and compromised entry into the soft top market. The GranTurismo was never intended to go topless hence why the GranCabrio has such a pathetically small boot due to the significant cross bracing chassis strengthening they had to engineer into it's body to reduce flexing.
Edited by isuk on Monday 3rd January 13:47
garyhun said:
@Daniel1 do you have MAG on your R8? I only ask as I find the ride with MAG very comfortable when touring.
No i didnt spec it. After a test drive i didnt think it was worth it as the car was for weekend use only. Hindsight eh? In my defense the roads around here are very bumpy.Mario149 said:
Okay, so I've just been doing some googling and you tubing of the California, and for some reason it's really growing on me - I thought it was an interesting car when it was released but haven't really paid it too much attention. Conceptually, I find it a far more interesting ownership proposition than say a 458 and I thought I'd write why
1) I love how it looks, fat arse and all.
2) I love the fact it's a convertible.
3) I love the fact it's not a "typical" Ferrari.
4) I love that the styling is not nearly as fussy as say a 458.
5) I love that they didn't chase silly lap times with it but that the performance is within a few percent of an F430 (I'm seriously beginning to find the whole supercar horsepower/lap time/technology willy waving between manufacturers incredibly tiresome. Supercars should be simpler, Porsche have had it bang on with the GT3s for 10 years now)
I think the deal was sealed when I saw the steering wheel had only 3 manettino settings (comfort, sport and off) rather than the now standard 58 or whatever. I don't believe you can get a manual gearbox with it which would be ideal, but at least it has the next simplest thing available nowadays.
If I had to spend 150 large on an Fcar to replace my 355, California is where my money would go
Thoughts? Flame away!
Well I have to admit I really didn’t like it when it came out and wasn't really very interested in it, until I saw one at my local Ferrari dealer and though "Hhhhmm well that is annoying. It's actually very pretty". Now I've never driven one so can’t comment on drivability, however I do really like them.1) I love how it looks, fat arse and all.
2) I love the fact it's a convertible.
3) I love the fact it's not a "typical" Ferrari.
4) I love that the styling is not nearly as fussy as say a 458.
5) I love that they didn't chase silly lap times with it but that the performance is within a few percent of an F430 (I'm seriously beginning to find the whole supercar horsepower/lap time/technology willy waving between manufacturers incredibly tiresome. Supercars should be simpler, Porsche have had it bang on with the GT3s for 10 years now)
I think the deal was sealed when I saw the steering wheel had only 3 manettino settings (comfort, sport and off) rather than the now standard 58 or whatever. I don't believe you can get a manual gearbox with it which would be ideal, but at least it has the next simplest thing available nowadays.
If I had to spend 150 large on an Fcar to replace my 355, California is where my money would go
Thoughts? Flame away!
Having said that I wouldn’t buy one at £160k, maybe half that but certainly not the price they are today. As someone said earlier I would imagine it would be a better alternative to a 430 for everyday use. I used my 430 spider everyday and although it is a brilliant car I must admit I started to find it a bit of a hassle to use every day. Just little things like not having a trip computer, no Sat Nav (the unit they put in the 430 is pointless anyway) and the fact that to open the boot you had to have the key in the ignition. All little things but become a slight pain when using it every day.
IMO something starting on a Maser design board isnt a bad thing. Development under Ferrari has made the California a great car, but then I am biased I have just ordered one. True its expensive, about £30k too much I feel.
Many cars have humble beginings, DB7 from a a Jag XJS, DBS ( I had one) really a warmed up DB9 both of which have Jag origins in the engine bay.
We buy this type of car to enjoy, rationally they are all too expensive.I do know that I wouldnt swop back to a DBS or DB9 after driving a California. I just hope that supply continues to be restricted for the sake of resale when the 458 spider arrives.
Many cars have humble beginings, DB7 from a a Jag XJS, DBS ( I had one) really a warmed up DB9 both of which have Jag origins in the engine bay.
We buy this type of car to enjoy, rationally they are all too expensive.I do know that I wouldnt swop back to a DBS or DB9 after driving a California. I just hope that supply continues to be restricted for the sake of resale when the 458 spider arrives.
When I attended the Australian 458 launch in Sydney, I was more taken by a silverstone Cali on the showroom floor than the 458! I stayed with my 458 order all the same and I'm very happy with the car but I can definitely understand why someone would buy a Cali.
Disclaimer: I'm getting on in years too.
Disclaimer: I'm getting on in years too.
lambo_xx said:
Having said that I wouldn’t buy one at £160k, maybe half that but certainly not the price they are today. As someone said earlier I would imagine it would be a better alternative to a 430 for everyday use. I used my 430 spider everyday and although it is a brilliant car I must admit I started to find it a bit of a hassle to use every day. Just little things like not having a trip computer, no Sat Nav (the unit they put in the 430 is pointless anyway) and the fact that to open the boot you had to have the key in the ignition. All little things but become a slight pain when using it every day.
Yeah the sav nav is not the best, but the boot will open without the key in the ignition unlike the 360. One less thing to worry about. Good skills for everyday use. Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff