There’ve been endless discussions on the California of the 21st century. Has Ferrari sold out? Are its designers at fault? What about the glitchy Uconnect-based infotainment system and the cheap plastics used for the buttons? The truth of the matter is, it’s no wonder the California is the subject of so much criticism.
When all is said and done, the California was prone to flop from square one. Word has it the California started life as a study for a new Maserati, but the House of the Trident couldn’t put such a vehicle into production due to the resulting expense. So what did Fiat do? Put a Ferrari badge and call it a day.
Other than this, the California is also lacking in terms of being a car. We’re accustomed to Italian thoroughbred cars having a bit more bad points than good ones, but the California? This fellow abuses that ratio like there’s no tomorrow. I mean, even the stacked exhaust outlets are fakes. The name is another sensible topic, with many enthusiasts asking themselves how could the Italian company apply this handle to a car that can’t hold a candle to the Spyder California of the late '50s. Regardless of reason, Ferrari did.
But then the California T came along, and Ferrari addressed a lot of drawbacks, turning the 2+2er into a superior product. Doug DeMuro hits the nail on the head in his review of the hard top convertible, and suffice to say, adding the “T” made the Cali the car it was supposed to be from the start.
Be that as it may, Ferrari could’ve done better. It’s not that I have a thing for hating the California, but not even the Fiat Chrysler head honcho is sure that it’s worthy of its badge. Here’s the tell-tale quote from Sergio Marchionne:
“The car I’ve had the most difficulty [to evaluate] is the California. I bought two of them - I bought the first one and I liked the car very much but it’s the one car that, from an identity standpoint, has the hardest time of seeing itself as a full-blown Ferrari.” Marchionne doesn’t always say the wisest of things, but on this occasion, my opinion is that his appraisal is sound enough.
And so, whose side do you take on this matter: Doug's or Sergio's?
Other than this, the California is also lacking in terms of being a car. We’re accustomed to Italian thoroughbred cars having a bit more bad points than good ones, but the California? This fellow abuses that ratio like there’s no tomorrow. I mean, even the stacked exhaust outlets are fakes. The name is another sensible topic, with many enthusiasts asking themselves how could the Italian company apply this handle to a car that can’t hold a candle to the Spyder California of the late '50s. Regardless of reason, Ferrari did.
But then the California T came along, and Ferrari addressed a lot of drawbacks, turning the 2+2er into a superior product. Doug DeMuro hits the nail on the head in his review of the hard top convertible, and suffice to say, adding the “T” made the Cali the car it was supposed to be from the start.
Be that as it may, Ferrari could’ve done better. It’s not that I have a thing for hating the California, but not even the Fiat Chrysler head honcho is sure that it’s worthy of its badge. Here’s the tell-tale quote from Sergio Marchionne:
“The car I’ve had the most difficulty [to evaluate] is the California. I bought two of them - I bought the first one and I liked the car very much but it’s the one car that, from an identity standpoint, has the hardest time of seeing itself as a full-blown Ferrari.” Marchionne doesn’t always say the wisest of things, but on this occasion, my opinion is that his appraisal is sound enough.
And so, whose side do you take on this matter: Doug's or Sergio's?