From £152,116
A brilliant mix of GT, convertible and sports car with true Ferrari pedigree
Andrew Frankel Autocar
16 October 2008

What is it?

A fourth model series for Ferrari - and the first new production Ferrari with no direct antecedent since the Dino 206GT was launched in 1968.

It is, says Ferrari, a convertible, a GT and a sports car all under one retractable hard top roof. It is Ferrari’s first ever front-engined, V8 road car, the first with a directly injected engine, the first with seven gears, and the first with a double clutch transmission. In short and for Ferrari, it is a revolution.

Some things, however, remain the same. Its chassis and body are all aluminium like every other Ferrari in production and, while Ferrari claims the 4.3-litre V8 is all new and cites the fact that even its bore and stroke are different to the 4.3-litre V8 in the F430, it does at least concede the two engines share block castings in common as, indeed, they do with the 4.7-litre engine Ferrari makes for Maserati and Alfa Romeo.

In the California it develops 453bhp at 7750rpm and 357lb ft of torque at 5000rpm. Ferrari claims this latter figure when quoted as a specific output (83lb ft per litre) is a world record for a normally aspirated, petrol-powered car.

The new gearbox is made for Ferrari by Getrag and, following a generation of front-engined Ferrari practice, sits as a transaxle between the rear wheels.

Ferrari does not quote a gearchange time because as the next gear is always pre-engaged, the shift is ‘effectively immediate.’ A manual transmission will be available later next year but Ferrari anticipates a less than 10 per cent take up.

There’s a small philosophical shift in the California’s suspension, which now comes with the double wishbones you expect at the front, but eschews them at the back, preferring a multi-link arrangement. Like all other new Ferraris, carbon ceramic disc brakes are standard.

The hard-top folds fairly conventionally, by stacking the rear windscreen on top of the roof, whereupon both sections disappear under the boot cover; but this being a Ferrari, it has to do it quicker than everyone else. For most convertibles, a time of around 20 seconds to turn into a coupe is the norm. We timed the California at 14sec.


Find an Autocar review

Back to top

What’s it like?

Spend too long in the company of the spec sheet and you’ll start to ponder whether it even deserves to have a prancing horse on its nose.

With 30bhp less than an F430, but a kerbweight higher than a 599GTB, the California could be accused of having not enough power and being asked to do too much.

Even Ferrari concedes that its claimed sub-4sec 0-62mph time has more to do with the efficiency of its launch control, the non-existent gear shift intervals and the closeness of its ratios than the punch from its engine.

Visually the California looks reasonably well proportioned in the metal, but poorly detailed inside and out: the crease going up the door doesn’t work, the back of the car is rather too busy while in the cabin the main analogue instruments are unattractive and not helped by an adjacent screen for relaying less important information.

Not the most prepossessing of starts for such a car, you’ll agree. What is needed is five minutes at the wheel on a decent road. Then all those concerns and fears vanish like a wisp of smoke in a stiff breeze. This car doesn’t just deserve to be thought of as a Ferrari, it is a fine Ferrari at that.

It feels quicker by far than its power and weight figures suggest, and more than capable of matching Ferrari’s lofty performance claims. The engine has a truly split personality, gently stirring at part throttle, riotously enthusiastic when summoned to real work and outrageously, subversively, gloriously rude as you grab another gear at 8000rpm.

And Ferrari is right about the shift: if there is a pause between gears, I could not detect it. But, and for once, the engine of this Ferrari is forced into a supporting role by its chassis.

There are, of course, many cars that will grip harder than this: cars with highly specialised rubber, cars with engines behind their drivers, cars that weigh a whole lot less than this. Indeed at times, on slippery road surfaces, the California can fail quite spectacularly to follow your intended path through a corner.

But where, in a mid-engined car, this might lead to one of those sudden-trip-to-the-dry-cleaners moments, in the California it’s just an excuse for it to show its natural balance and the progressive nature of its breakaway characteristics.

Whatever its other limitations may be - and if you believe only one thing from this review - believe that this is the most forgiving, best balanced car Ferrari makes.

And when you’re done reminding yourself of what it’s like to feel really alive, you can stamp on those carbon brakes, pull over to the side of the road (infuriatingly the California lid won’t work unless the car’s at a standstill), raise the roof and potter on your way in your instant GT car.

Problems? You can’t turn the electronic safety nets off without first turning on the sports suspension, the rear seats are a joke, the satnav is quite unforgivably bad for a car of this price and the A-pillars are too thick. Not a long list, you’ll agree.

Back to top

Should I buy one?

If you are fortunate enough to have the means to do so, it should be right at the top of your list.

When I think of driving the California, and then of driving any of the cars that could possibly stand as a rival to it, I can conclude only that if anything is worth that level of outlay, this is.

The fact I'd even have one over the undoubtedly quicker F430 Spider, because of its better balance and its superior usability, should tell you everything you need to know about whether this is a worthy bearer of Ferrari's prancing horse.

Indeed, it's a stretch to see how the qualities of a convertible, a GT and a sports car could be combined better than this.

Join the debate


16 October 2008

For me the jury is still out on the looks and that colour. But Ferrari have been on a role the past few years, and I am sure that (as always) those lucky enough to afford one will enjoy it.

16 October 2008

Take one over a F430? Not in a million years. You'll look like a provincial hairdresser who has won the lottery...

16 October 2008

Another depressingly ugly Ferrari.....................

16 October 2008

It's very cleverly proportioned for a coupe convertable, but I agree that the detail styling - especially that side scoop - is unworthy. (Thank God that Starsky and Hutch aren't still on TV as some lottery winner would undoubtedly get a red one and pick it out in white!!).

I wonder if they will do a lighter version with a manual box if customer response demands it. It could become their biggest seller if they weren't hamstrung with only having a two pedal model. Or should I have read the article more carefully?

16 October 2008

I just hope it retains some of the character that so many of the double clutch transmissions remove from other cars.

On another thought, have I gone potty or does £143,000 sound like decent value for money?

16 October 2008

"Indeed at times, on slippery road surfaces, the California can fail quite spectacularly to follow your intended path through a corner.

But where, in a mid-engined car, this might lead to one of those sudden-trip-to-the-dry-cleaners moments, in the California it’s just an excuse for it to show its natural balance and the progressive nature of its breakaway characteristics."

What is Frankel talking about? It sounds like pure marketing for the new, for Ferrari. The Porsche Cayman, Lambo Gallardo, Audi R8, Honda NSX- all mid-engined, all handle with progressive breakaway!

The man is simply rewriting the tests his own magazine have written. And he considers himself a journalist?

16 October 2008

Looks "interesting".... Would not call it gorgeous, but its certainly not Scaglieti ugly...

Ferrari's were always stand out cars, so I guess it won't matter to owners... This colour is not making any sports car any favours either... Imagine it in red or black or TDF blue (dark) with beige or black... yum...

ESP I do not agree with your hairdressing views.. I would rather argue that I d rather be in a california than any 430/360 as the crowd that own these in the south east (footballers excluding) are beyond criticism... I 'll take bets that the average owner of all the 430 HR Owen have sold in Brompton rd is a mid-20's "self employed" - read daddys biz spoilt brat who 's upgrading from a brief stint in a Rangey sport with woofers and exhaust pipes and dark glass...

I d rather be called a hairdresser, thank you very much! In fact I ve owned both an Audi tt mk1 (albeit briefly) and a Boxter, so I think I qualify! Z4 here I come, then over to a California!

Your right though, a beauty it is not.... I rather have a used Vantage cabrio at half the money I reckon, then spend another 35 on an RS4 avant for the family and with the balance of 35 take a round the world trip with the family for 6 weeks... ( keep on dreaming Theo)

16 October 2008

I think you have to see this car up close in the metal to know that it actually looks great. Back in July when I saw the red one doing the rounds in the UK there was no doubt it was going to the best compromise of looks/power/features etc Ferrari can achieve.

The fact that you can actually get kids in the back and it will not crow-hop around town (like all the duo-select Maseratis for example) is a bonus!

17 October 2008

"Indeed, it's a stretch to see how the qualities of a convertible, a GT and a sports car could be combined better than this." If you do not have a requirement for rear seats or a 'hard top', then I would think the forthcoming Gallardo LP-whatever Spyder would be a better choice. To my eyes it is far more attractive, plus it is fighteningly fast whilst docile to drive around town (this is based on driving the Coupe). No doubt this Ferrari seems to be a great car looking at the review, but it looks pretty rough to me. Not ugly in comparison to the car market in general, but ugly for a Ferrari.

17 October 2008

Why does Frankel write the way he does. Why did he write this article this way? Can someone please tell me?


Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review