How Not to Screw Up the New Ferrari California

"lorem ipsum" (nothing123456789)
10/14/2013 at 14:26 • Filed to: Jalopnik, Ferrari, California

I recently viewed some new design patents from Ferrari that were on the Autocar website. They speculated that it’s more than likely they’re for the new California. The original California—yeah, that one—in my opinion at least, should accompany the Oxford English definition of elegant. With Eva Green sitting in it. It’s an absolutely phenomenally designed car (especially in darker colors). It’s a classic Ferrari—with that V12 up front, gorgeous Pininfarina styling all around, and made in infinitesimally small numbers, it caused a stir in 1957, and an uproar in 1960, when the SWB variant was unveiled. That’s the version that sold for more than $10 million a few years back.

So, California. It’s a big nameplate to live up to, being one of the most iconic and desirable cars of all time. This latest one, while undoubtedly a great car, hasn’t quite lived up to its name. First and foremost, it’s just not that pretty. While from certain angles, and definitely with the roof up, it can look quite good, its ass is just too big. The designers got more than a bit messy with the rear of the car. Secondly, it’s got a detuned variant of an out of date engine with the wrong number of cylinders. Thirdly, it’s marketed to the wrong people. Instead of being on the low end of the Ferrari lineup, it should be at or near the top. Ferrari should reincarnate the Dino badge if they want to have a cheap (relatively speaking, of course) model (well, they should anyway, just because), but they shouldn't damage a badge that could be great for their brand.

Let me be explicitly clear: I don’t give two shits about the brand of car you drive, the designer who made your clothes, or how much you pay for anything you own, and I do not intend to sound like a brand-obsessed snob. Personally, I think this new California is a brilliant marketing excersise on Ferrari’s part, since they’ve sold tons of them while creating a new customer base. But I do think that this California badge could be hugely valuable to them if they used it in a different way. If they positioned the California below the LaFerrari and above the FF, put a whacking great V12 in it, and styled it with no regard to aerodynamics, just prettiness, they’d be on to something great. Don’t make it look aggressive, don’t give it the smiling shark grill that all their other cars have, and don’t put the pointy steering and stiff suspension on it either. Make it an old-school GT car, charge half a million for it, and put that Dino badge to good use, replacing the spot the California vacated as an overpriced Maserati Granturismo rival. They'd get great publicity, retain the customer base that they gained with the California, and possibly tap into the Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead market.

Here's the link to the autocar.co.uk article on those designs: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

DISCUSSION (60)

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 14:43

How would you feel about a Ferrari retro car? Me, personally? I would love it!

lorem ipsum > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast.
10/14/2013 at 14:49

Honestly, any retro car. A retro Corvette, 911, Jaguar, Lancia, Alfa, etc. Before government regulations came in forcing auto manufacturers to design something safe and environmentally responsible, they could do whatever they wanted. Covered headlights, hoods at any height, non-existant crumple zones, etc. That's why cars of that day looked so damn good.

TheJWT > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 14:50

If they positioned the California below the LaFerrari and above the FF, put a whacking great V12 in it, and styled it with no regard to aerodynamics, just prettiness, they’d be on to something great.

Absolutely this. The people who want a track car will buy a 458 or LaFerrari, so forget the wind tunnel and just make something pretty.

DSG_Sport > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 15:00

I always wished a car maker would go ahead and do something like this. Especially one like Ferrari, disregard all design-by-committee nonsense and just craft an achingly beautiful car. Something that special should be able to sell itself even without great performance numbers and every last creature comfort.

365Daytonafan > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 15:24

The original 250 California was by no means the top of the line model in the Ferrari range ( that would have been the Superamericas). It was actually a basic model aimed at Californian weekend club racers. Basic is relative of course.

lorem ipsum > 365Daytonafan
10/14/2013 at 15:34

Very true, just read into that. Went racing at Le Mans with moderate success as well. I guess how we view it today as being a GT car, rather than the racing car it was originally built as, shaped my conclusion.

angusparvo > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 15:47

Give it a proper canvas top, not a metal folding hardtop. Folding hardtop = Ugly ass.

chuckfoolerie > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 15:51

For starters.... NO stupid double stacked exhaust.

Also, don't make the rear look so bubbly.

The rest was fine.

Maxxuman > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 15:52

Any retro car?

Kinja'd!!!

AdrianTheRed > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 15:53

Kinja'd!!!

The-Ever-Socially-Apathetic TBAL > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 15:55

Asking Ferrari to design a car based on solely looks with a Grand Touring backbone is something they would have done in the 90's.

Ferrari's are no longer about elegance or the connection between car and driver. They are now precision tools, designed solely for speed.

Which is exactly why they would never be able to do another California in the proper sense of the name.

CRX-Wing > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 15:59

I've never seen a real California with the hard top on it before. Blue balls...

lorem ipsum > The-Ever-Socially-Apathetic TBAL
10/14/2013 at 16:04

Never having driven one myself, and with knowledge only from an uncle who has owned dozens of vintages Ferraris and from reading the same stuff everyone else does, I thought Ferraris, both of old and new, are famous for being driver's cars. Reviews of the 599 GTO, 458, and F12 ought to convince. Even this California is supposed to be pretty damn fun to drive. However, they still do GT cars— the FF is supposed to be a phenomenal one.

Manuél Ferrari > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 16:06

I agree that would be kind of appropriate to rebadge the current California as a Dino. The current car's performance isn't really up to Ferrari standards. As you said you can Maserati Granturismo for less money. It would be cool in general to bring back the Dino badge. I would like to see a light mid-engine Dino coupe that is cheaper and less powerful than the 458. Making it a naturally aspirated V6 like the original Dino would be cool.

I don't necessarily agree that a true Ferrari California needs to be priced above the FF. It just needs to be better than the current car. It can be more expensive than the current car but it doesn't have to be crazy expensive. It would attract a different buyer than the FF, F12 and 458. So even if it was priced similarly to an FF it wouldn't necessarily cut into its sales.

The-Ever-Socially-Apathetic TBAL > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 16:11

I myself have driven Ferrari's old and new. Get behind the wheel of an F40 and an 458 back to back (as I have) and feel the disconnect.

Yes, the 458 is thrilling to drive. But it is not working for you, but rather with you, to provide that drama. In an F40, you get the extreme side of it; you work for the car. Being able to tame one and push it to its limits and your limits requires incredible skill.

Even the "GT" cars in the Ferrari range as of now all have Manettino, Paddle Shifters, Sat Nav, Bluetooth, Cruise, etc.

Get behind the wheel of a 550 Maranello - now that my friend, is a true GT Ferrari.

Manuél Ferrari > The-Ever-Socially-Apathetic TBAL
10/14/2013 at 16:14

I haven't driven the FF so I can't attest to their latest GT car. But I disagree that all modern Ferraris are just about speed. I have gotten a chance to drive the 612 a lot, and that car is not just about speed. It's a very comfortable car to cruise in. Yes it's very fast with the big V12. But it's a proper GT.

I've also have a partial ownership stake in an F430 spider and even that car is comfortable to drive. The magnetic suspension makes it very comfortable over bumps. Ferrari does use technology to make their cars more comfortable than you'd expect. The 997 generation Carrera by contrast is a much bumpier car than the F430 due to the shorter wheelbase and traditional fixed dampers or manually-adjustable electronic dampers.

Patrick Frawley > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 16:14

They want a new California, go back and revisit the original intention: a lighter, simpler, somewhat less expensive playboy street racer. Two seats, cloth top, traditional proportions. I'm okay with the paddle shifter, although a traditional manual is still preferable. The current V-8 is perfectly appropriate; the V-12s are more at home in the top-shelf super-GT cars, and this isn't that. Fly in some classic styling cues, keep a lid on the tech excesses. Does calling it a Ferrari Boxster frame this correctly? Would be such the serious dream machine, even at the bottom of the model lineup.

GARedE34 > 365Daytonafan
10/14/2013 at 16:17

I was thinking the same thing about the SuperAmerica being the top of the line tourer from back then. I'd love to see that name reincarnated as a true GT with more regard for being gorgeous than necessarily being the most overengineered, technically advanced, aero-tuned car of all time. While the 458 and, to a lesser degree, the F12 are good looking cars now, the FF is an acquired taste at best and the California is an aesthetic mess. I'd love to see the brand have a classically beautiful, (and yes, still fast,) GT car added to the linup.

Manuél Ferrari > Manuél Ferrari
10/14/2013 at 16:17

Also I know this is probably not going to happen, but I would love for a proper Ferrari California to have a small V12. The current generation of Ferrari V12s are massive and create unworldly power. But a smaller and lighter California would sound and handle great with a smaller displacement V12 that was a throwback to the original Ferrari engines.

Manuél Ferrari > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast.
10/14/2013 at 16:20

I would love it too as long as it was executed properly. I hate poor attempts to create retro cars. Every time I see one of these on the road it makes me cringe. It resembles the original E-Type but it's bloated and weird looking. I liked the car that replaced it better than this one.

Kinja'd!!!

Vin > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 16:26

The next California should not have a throwback V12 in it. Nostalgia is all well and good, but a car company's primary goal should always be about moving forward- especially a marque that has a racing heritage. A V-12 for the sake of making a V-12 will sell, but it just seems irresponsible in this day and age. Besides, great-sounding, beautiful gt cars don't need a V-12, as was proven a long time ago.

That said...

I'd hoped that the inclusion of a folding hardtop was Ferrari's attempt to use the California as a testbed of sorts for exploring new tech and luxury features. I was certain that the California would get a KERS system before any of the other cars, in combination with a lighter, more fuel-efficient V8 (or high-revving V6 a la Dino, upcoming Alfa 4C). If the proposed V-12 had camless/free valve technology , I'd be right on board; I think it'd be the perfect vehicle to launch Ferrari's take on the technology.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > Manuél Ferrari
10/14/2013 at 16:29

That one always struck me as an attempt to make a budget Aston rather than a new E-Type.

6shelBfan6 > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 16:35

How not to screw up the California: Put a frickin manual in it!

Cheesewhiz > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 16:43

Timely: I just saw one of the genuine long wheel base 250 GT California Spiders here in Santa Monica an hour ago! It was a local white-haired gent who is known to drive this early version on the street. It was fleeting but I believe it's black with the covered headlights.

To my eyes, Ferrari should leave these beautiful icons behind and focus on creating history anew. They are not Ford, after all, and these bespoke models are not Mustangs. They have always approached cars and concepts with (mostly) fresh eyes and clean sheets of paper. So, IMHO, there is no point in recycling old names, apart from marketing, which is inherently superficial and silly.

Cheesewhiz > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 16:44

Sttocs > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 16:48

So slap a "California" badge on a Vanquish?

Kinja'd!!!

StoneColdSteveUrkel > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 16:49

Kinja'd!!!

Easily and without question one of the most beautiful vehicles EVER produced.

You can lick the surfaces of this car and it will physically sustain you as food and water would.

And sex with it while not openly recommended has been considered by a great many sane and rational people both male and female.

AlexioFlexio > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 17:10

I agree with author's suggestion for a classic GT, but it won't happen as he and we all know. I think it would be enough if Ferrari just made the california pretty this time around... maybe from a portfolio perspective they NEED the California name and GT convertible format to be on the bottom rung to take away business from people who are buying an SL63-65, or a jag xkr convertible, or a vanquish convertible even. But if they just make it beautiful, we'll all be happy.

You can see just how much design influences demand for a car... never been a wait for the California even for first time Ferrari buyers... and you can negotiate quite well on the used market pricewise (no idea if you can get one for less than MSRP new though)

BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 17:54

Anyone know what car this is?

Kinja'd!!!

EDIT: I know this is probably the wrong place to put this, but I have no idea where else I could post it.

TheLateApx > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 17:55

Nobody, and I mean nobody, designs cars like that anymore. And that coupe [berlinetta?]. Drool…

288GTOhYEAH > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 18:09

You are absofuckalutely correct man!!

GrayHays > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 18:50

My money says those drawings are for a one-off "SP" car based on an FF. Not a new production car.

DavidHH > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast.
10/14/2013 at 18:52

What if they just made a nice convertible, with the engine in front, driving the rear wheels? Imagine if it was actually reliable, and came with either a MT or AT? It would not need to exceed 130 mph, nor win any races, it would only need to be good, fun and easy to live with.Then Ferrari would have to learn how to mass produce a car, and how to live without significant revenue for "service".

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > DavidHH
10/14/2013 at 19:03

Well, it sounds nice, but if they did that, it would make it lose a but of it's exclusivity, (in their minds anyway)

deysg > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 19:08

Kinja'd!!!

Looks a lot like a 56 T-Bird...

DavidHH > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast.
10/14/2013 at 19:11

Exclusivity is import for the 1%, damn I forgot about that. Ferrari should continue to make unreliable cars which are insanely and dangerously fast, so people like Bill Gates can use them to get a lifetime driving ban. Is that better?

Groagun > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 19:37

Well said Henry but I'm afraid too late. I totally agree with your premise and as strange as this may sound, I think Ferrari does as well, kind of.

If you have payed attention to what has been said over the last 12 months by the company, especially Mr di Montezemolo, then you should be right. Ferrari is on the path to producing smaller numbers of cars at higher prices. Your idea of what the California should be is right on target.

The problem is of course, money gets in the way of good ideas. the latest number I have is a valuation of the company at $7.X Billion. They sold just over 7300 cars last year and according to Ferrari's own numbers, 95 Ferrari branded items, shirts, hats , toys and so on, are sold every minuet of every day around the globe.

That's big bank and hard to ignore. I'm sure if they produced 10 000 cars a year they could sell them without and problem what so ever. I'm not sure that cutting production by %4 as they claim will really make any difference: that's approximately 300 cars.

I'm not sure that companies like Ferrari should cut their production to increase long term individual value or artificially make the brand more exclusive. I can see and understand the argument but really, does it matter?

Enzo Ferrari at times seemed to hate to have to produce road cars and their rarity is just a function of that hate: he produced only as many as he had to, to go racing.

As Ferrari embarks on a larger global roll out, i.e. China, Russia and Brazil, does it make sense to artificially cut production. Does an owner in Beijing care who, what or how many are sold in LA? The simple answer is no.

Artificially creating exclusivity just feels wrong to me. I may be completely wrong and truth is I bet both models will work. The reason they both can work is simple: Ferrari produces some of the most exciting and dynamic cars for sale today. There seems to be a very bright future on the horizon and the key is simply that: Produce great cars and people will want them and buy them.

The current California, standard 458 and maybe the FF should be volume cars. The La Ferrari(stupid name) F12 and the "Scuderia" models should be the rare items.

So my line up would be this: on top, the La Ferrari, 250-300 units total only. F12 replacement, I hate the F12, it tries to be too much and do too much and it's ugly. The new California as Henry describes is perfect and limited to 1500-1700 units a year world wide. FF, the 4 seat Ferrari, I love this car but I would produce only 1000-1200 units annually. Standard 458, spectacular car that's the real bread and butter for the company: 2500 units a year on a first come first serve basis. The Dino or entry level Ferrari: experimental and different technologies like hybrid or dare I say it, 4 or 6 cylinders and turbo. starting out at 2000 units a year and varied production from model to model as necessary. Finally, specialty models or 'Scuderia" specials. Limited to 500 units on cars like the 458 and as little as 50-100 units on cars like the FF and F12.

Demands from around the globe may mean these numbers should be increased but it's a good place to start. Let me know what you think and thanks.

moejr > 6shelBfan6
10/14/2013 at 19:38

Why? Nobody reads them anyway

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > DavidHH
10/14/2013 at 19:44

I thought he spent his time tooling around Seattle in a Focus. Besides, if I were the 1% I would do what I could to make my minions carry me everywhere on their shoulders. After all, if you're going to be oppressive, make it count!

ThatbastardKurtis > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 19:58

The F12 is a GT car, and the FF is a four place (2+2?) GT car.
Today's California could be considered a entry level GT car.
If they put the 4.5 V8 and tune it more for the road with more torque, and have that "leaked" design...it would be a beast of a GT car. Almost like a 911 Carrera, BMW M4 competitor...if executed right, this could be a home run—-if it is not a one off.

A Dino would concieveably be a Cayman/Boxster competitor, but I don't think Ferrari would go that down market—-let Alfa do that with the 4C.

DavidHH > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast.
10/14/2013 at 20:24

Gates is not driving anything, legally that is, unless he managed to reverse Washington states ban.

And while you are at it, you could also cause five accidents, each sending people to the hospital, like the rich sociopath that broke my back did, because collecting is impossible.

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > DavidHH
10/14/2013 at 20:32

I honestly didn't know that about him. Do you have a source?

Pdexter > TheJWT
10/14/2013 at 20:47

Though it would be absolutely huge leap for them. There's no denying that since they went all tech, they have done better than ever before.

How would the press and audience actually respond to a Ferrari that wasn't about pure speed? Would that hamper Ferrari's brand as the top dog for general audience?

Don't get me wrong, I would be all over that car. Just not sure would others be and how would it serve the company long term.

Galant Enthusiast > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 21:05

So you mean the F12...

DavidHH > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast.
10/14/2013 at 21:13

When I lived in Washington State there was a radio station that used to cover Mr.Gates, but honestly I don't remember their call letters. But I do remember the following Gates dirt:

He bragged about destroying the most expensive car Mercedes sold in the US because he didn't check or change the oil.

He bragged about crashing the "dune buggy" (Ferrari).

He was seen driving after he was banned.

He had caused injury accidents, but there were non-disclosure agreements.

He liked to use the word "jihad" often in corporate memos.

This radio station had several very expensive call girls, who claimed to have refused Gates for his serious lack of personal hygiene (so Jobs and Gates have that in common).

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 21:31

Give it a 6MT again and it's not screwed up in my book (ugly or not).

Yuri Correa > lorem ipsum
10/14/2013 at 22:39

How to not screw up the new Ferrari California:

Make it look exactly like this:

Kinja'd!!!

BOOM, NAILED IT

ArtPhleming > Groagun
10/15/2013 at 00:51

For their business purposes, they only need to cut production to one less than the market wants.

AFAIK, they've already allowed for the expansion of the BRIC markets in generally increasing their production.

For their purposes, it's handy that they have Maserati as a companion that Ferrari stores can use to sell less special cars in volume and at lower prices without diluting the Ferrari brand.

Alex87f > Manuél Ferrari
10/15/2013 at 02:51

Please don't say this.

I think the XK8 is probably one of the best looking cars of the past 15 years, and it quite probably saved Jaguar, in a much more glorious way than how the Cayenne saved Porsche.

wkile > lorem ipsum
10/15/2013 at 06:12

You say that it should be positioned below the LaFerrari and above the FF, with a V-12 up front? Isn't that exactly where the F12 is at in their lineup? I think the California is positioned correctly within the line up.

TimeTraveler > lorem ipsum
10/15/2013 at 06:17

How to not screw up the new Ferrari California? Make it fireproof?

How about using the Dino brand name. they were beautiful inexpensive cars. Why not make it with a twin turbo 6, old school styling and put a $150,000 price tag on it. The reason for the Dino badge.....Dino's don't catch fire.

Why do you insist on making it a half a million dollar car that only rich douche's can own? You must be one of the 1%. How about making it accessible to the masses so after 6 years it's cost will be under 30 grand and I can enjoy one.

Did I mention building it so it don't catch fire?

Kingen2 > lorem ipsum
10/15/2013 at 06:49

I'll repost this, a guy in Sweden did this out of a 2010 california:

Hand made body etc.

Kinja'd!!!

Mr2LotusWannabe > lorem ipsum
10/15/2013 at 07:30

Can I put my two cents in? I have driven the current California, many of them. I have driven they whole of the Ferrari line up. And I must say, the California is the WORST car, possibly ever. With a base price of $230,000 and most hitting the showroom at close to $300k, you will not find another car with less value, less performance and less satisfaction per dollar. Seriously, if you want a half pretty, half ugly, hard top roadster with a painful ride and so-so handling, buy yourself a Z4 and save $200,000. (and add on 8, V6 Mustangs)

Mash_Tun > lorem ipsum
10/15/2013 at 09:09

It should also be manual trans, carbureted, have an ash tray, and a tiny dash-mounted rear view mirror.

Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius > lorem ipsum
10/15/2013 at 11:11

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Kinja'd!!!

Manuél Ferrari > Alex87f
10/15/2013 at 13:31

I'm sorry, it's just my personal opinion. I haven't driven in one and I'm not saying it's a bad car. I just don't think it looks as good as the original.

But I am glad that it sold well and probably saved Jaguar. Agree that it was better to get big sales numbers with a coupe than an SUV.

Alex87f > Manuél Ferrari
10/15/2013 at 14:11

I can completely understand that. Quite frankly I like the idea of the XK8 but having never driven one I'm afraid of the potential for disappointment.

But it's just got that want factor that makes it desirable even though you know it'll probably make your life miserable.

Manuél Ferrari > Alex87f
10/15/2013 at 14:56

LOL the Jag I want the most is the one that would make me the MOST miserable.

I want it because it reminds me of being a kid in the 80s, and because you can buy them for next to nothing. But I know keeping it on the road would be like an extra mortgage payment.

Kinja'd!!!

Alex87f > Manuél Ferrari
10/15/2013 at 15:09

Ha those ones are fantastic. I looked into them and it's amazing how little they go for, especially in RHD.

The only warning I got from someone who owned luxury British cars from this era was to avoid the V12's because the engine bay is so cramped that any repair costs a kidney and a half. Apparently the I6, and especially the late 4.0L are more recommendable.

Manuél Ferrari > Alex87f
10/15/2013 at 15:19

That makes sense that the V12 is a tight fit. It would be such a novelty to have though. It might make less power than the new V6 Camry but you could still say you had a V12 :)